The Food-News Media Frenzy

Readers remain confused by the seemingly contradictory health and diet information reported by the media, as explored in our March 13 cover story. One researcher explained the rush to report medical findings this way: "Scientific research lets the chips fall where they may," he said. "Yet pressures and expectations [come] from a diet-obsessed public starving for a quick fix and [a] media hungry for a quick sound bite." An instructor at Harvard's School of Public Health wrote, "Reporters fail to report each study as just one brick in the wall of evidence, that most science isn't breakthrough." Yet one reader said people have to use common sense. "For healthy eating," he wrote, "no special degree is necessary to practice these ancient thoughts: eat more local (possibly organic) produce [and] more whole foods." A doctor said: "Eat less and move more; common sense and moderation solve the problem most of the time."

What's Nutritious Now?

Thank you for partially deflating the media-hype bubbles that appear with each new major research finding related to health ("Food News Blues," March 13). The article discusses taking into account a study's research design and the inevitable confusion inherent in all studies. However, it fails to point out that for a finding to be considered reliable, it should be replicated. Given the right set of conditions--which includes bias produced by scientists' agendas--virtually any hypothesis can be supported in a single study. Ideally, researchers should not report findings that can influence the lives of millions of people before their findings have been replicated. However, the practical and political constraints of conducting large-scale health research and the length of prospective studies may preclude following such a conservative path. And the media are not likely to restrain themselves from reporting any finding that will intrigue their readers and viewers. Partial solutions to this dilemma are to present scientists' commentaries on the headline findings and to educate nonscientists so that they can ask critical questions as they evaluate today's health "prescription" before tomorrow's is published. "Food News Blues" was a step in that direction.

Michael D. Spiegler Dept. of Psychology, Providence College Providence, R.I.

NEWSWEEK correctly reported on the longstanding problem with the use of breaking-news headlines when nutrition findings are about to be published. Conflicting research results show us this is not a subject that can be boiled down into a list of good and bad foods. Your article, however, though accurately describing the problem, fails to offer a solution to readers on how to proceed. An attempt at clarification was made using coffee, red wine, milk, nuts, eggs, tuna and olive oil as examples of confusion, but what about other controversial foods? How does answering your question "Why all the mixed messages?" help readers move forward? For practical, timely and scientifically accurate information about food and nutrition, readers should have been advised to consult the food and nutrition experts, registered dietitians. Progressive medical practices have recognized the need for nutrition counseling in an effort to improve patient care. They accomplish this by hiring experts who can reliably interpret the diet hype created by the media.

Jennifer F. Greenly, M.S., R.D., L.D.N. Winston-Salem WomanCare, PA Winston-Salem, N.C.

Thanks to Barbara Kantrowitz and Claudia Kalb for a clear explanation of the madness in health reporting that has many of my college students just opting out of a healthy lifestyle altogether: "It's too confusing. How does anyone really know what to do?" It is interesting to me that when studies don't reflect what they're supposed to, they might be considered invalid rather than the premise's being re-evaluated, which is what scientists are supposed to do. When the study of women who failed to lose very much weight on diets of 1,400 versus 1,700 calories a day produced undesired results, it didn't seem to occur to one of the study's reviewers that there might be something we don't know about women's bodies. As usual, the women's self-reporting was blamed. After all, it's probably all in their heads.

Shirley A. Fessel, CounselorOptions/Fresh Start Kansas City, Mo.

While medical research and science have, over the past century, given us tremendous benefits (insulin for diabetics, antibiotics, transplant surgery and more) that have greatly extended the lives of people with life-threatening diseases, fad diets have never been and will never be the answer. For most of us, the essential truths about being and staying healthy are things we should have learned at our mother's knee: don't smoke, eat your vegetables, watch your weight and get some regular fresh air and exercise. A healthy lifestyle is something you live all the time, not something you try for a couple of months.

Francisco J. Prieto M.D., PresidentAmerican Diabetes AssociationSacramento Sierra Chapter Elk Grove, Calif.

Your front cover asks how the media collides with science. It is not the media that collides, but a medium. As long as we insist on using terminology derived from Latin, we should follow the standard of that language for plurals: one medium, two media. Your headline should have read, confused? From fat to calcium, how the media collide with science.

Emmett Hoops Saranac Lake, N.Y.

Editor's Note : While "media" is generally used with a singular verb, the Third Edition of The American Heritage Dictionary states that "media" can be used with a singular or plural verb when defining a group of journalists or others in the communications industry.

Out Ahead of Katrina

While NEWSWEEK continues to cover who knew what and when with regard to Hurricane Katrina, I'm disappointed that in all this ongoing coverage, proper respect isn't paid to those who knew exactly what was coming and when ("Katrina's Latest Damage," March 13). Before Katrina fatigue truly sets in, I hope you pay homage to the men and women of the National Hurricane Center in Miami. With their data, insight and forecasting brilliance, they really nailed the forecast track of Katrina days before the gulf catastrophe. Their excellent guidance helped me (and the rest of the broadcast community) inform our audiences days before landfall of what exactly was going to happen. I'm in shock that other layers of the government didn't know what was about to come and am in awe that the National Hurricane Center isn't recognized for its exceptional accuracy and remarkable guidance. While it may be newsworthy that the president was captured on tape getting a hurricane briefing prior to its landfall, isn't it more newsworthy that anyone watching The Weather Channel on TV or reading weatheronline.com knew exactly what was what more than two full days beforehand?

Michael J. Konowicz Hainesport, N.J.

Your cover this week mentions "Bush's Katrina Woes": Despite Katrina, Bush still has a job, a place to live and a reasonably clear picture of his future. A million Gulf Coast residents have Katrina woes; Bush has poll woes. There's a world of difference.

Siobhan Ruck San Francisco, Calif.

9/11's Next of Kin

Nikki Stern's essay on the question of "moral authority" and its implications for the family members of those who died on 9/11 is a breath of fresh air ("Our Grief Doesn't Make Us Experts," my turn, March 13). She has enriched us all by sharing her thoughts through grief, vulnerability, responsibility and advocacy. Having reached a period of reflection, stability and "moral humility," Stern shows us how, against all odds, one becomes a wise woman.

Catherine E. Lovely Summerfield, Fla.

I would like to thank Nikki Stern for her insistence on being an average person whose life has been shaken by something terrible. Those of us who have gone through life thus far without such experiences do tend to live outside the world of political concern. It is sad that so many survivors of 9/11 victims have been used like poster children to promote the beliefs of others not affected. While nobody questions the rights of survivors' kin like Stern to use their undesired notoriety as an implement of power, some of us are tired of hearing politicians use them as a tool to emotionalize questionable policies. It is refreshing to hear the personal feelings of a survivor of a 9/11 victim. Too much has been said on their behalf and in their name by political deities and policy pushers.

Robert Hoefs Port Washington, Wis.

Medical Causes of Infertility Raising the issue that infertility among younger women is on the rise and highlighting the lifestyle and environmental factors that may be contributing to this troubling trend are important services to your readers ("Ask the Pro/Infertility," TIP SHEET, March 13). If young women better understand these risk factors to their fertility, they can then take action to--it's hoped--reduce threats to their childbearing ability. However, in focusing on the impact of such things as age, weight, exposure to contaminants and smoking, your article excludes mention of the medical causes of the disease of infertility in women, including ovarian dysfunction, endometriosis, blocked tubes and other structural malformations and hormonal disorders. For many women, infertility is caused by underlying clinical problems which often can be successfully addressed with drug therapy, medical procedures and/or surgery.

Joseph C. Isaacs, CAE, President and CEORESOLVE: The National Infertility Association Bethesda, Md.

Correction

On our March 20 cover, we referred to Dr. Richard Jadick, the brave military physician who saved dozens of lives during the battle for Fallujah, as "Hero M.D." Dr. Jadick is in fact a D.O., or Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. Osteopathic medicine takes a holistic approach to medical care, emphasizing prevention and focusing on the body's musculoskeletal system. Like M.D.s, D.O.s are fully qualified physicians licensed to work in every aspect of medicine, and the U.S. military makes no distinction between the two medical degrees when hiring. There are currently about 56,000 osteopathic physicians working in the United States, many of them as primary-care physicians. You can read more about osteopathic doctors at www.osteopathic.org/index.cfm?PageID=ado_whatis. NEWSWEEK regrets the error.