Mad science or bad journalism? Who's to blame for the conflicting reports? And just how damaging are they?

Grocer, May 17, 2008 by Chloe Smith, Mark Choueke

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Why pizza could cut risk of skin cancer' screamed a recent headline in The Sun. In tree tabloid fashion, the story reported how the chemical lycopene, found in tomatoes, offers increased protection against the sun' s rays, based on a report by researchers at Manchester University. And because pizza contains tomato paste, the story concluded, "the tomato topping cuts the risk".

Like mozzarella cheese on a pizza slice, stretching scientific evidence to create headline after sensational headline, this story is not untypical of media coverage of food and drink.

Red wine prevents heart attacks. Sausages and bacon cause cancer. Coffee can lead to infertility. Eating bran flakes optimises our chances of giving birth to baby boys.

It's remorseless. And while some advice may engage consumers in healthy eating, as often as not the contradictions encourage shoppers to tune out, argues Rune Gustafson, chief executive of branding consultancy Interbrand. "Consumers think 'there is too much information, I can't pass judgement and don't know if I can act on it'."

This is a shame, because some of the research that underscores these reports is robust, thorough, important.

Who's to blame? Inevitably attention focuses on the role of the media. Andrew Wadge, FSA chief scientist, believes the media frequently takes scientific reports out of context. "One week you will get stories saying butter is good for you, the next week butter is bad for you. You have stories saying dark chocolate is fantastic for your sex life and will stop you getting heart disease. This is unhelpful."

The reality is that research projects are often "merely pieces of a jigsaw," he says. "It is the media's responsibility to portray the science accurately. There is a naive view that scientists suddenly shriek Eureka, whereas most science is a very incremental process, with people spending hours, weeks and years, filling in the pieces of a jigsaw."

Dr Ben Goldacre, The Guardian's junk science columnist, agrees. "Your chances of dying [in middle age] have dropped massively over the past 230 years but that is because of the incremental accumulation of small developments, not any one big breakthrough. But these modest incremental developments are crowbarred into the 'miracle cure/hidden scare' template of journalists, which is where things often go wrong."

Scientists are not blameless, however. A study at the University of Portsmouth, concluded that tomato soup could increase fertility in men. Not just any soup, either. The subjects had eaten a 400g can of Heinz cream of tomato soup every day for two weeks to prove their theory, which like the pizza story above, related simply to the lycopen in tomatoes.

Wadge acknowledges that some scientists chase headlines in the same way as editors, to gain recognition and notoriety. He believes they must exercise more caution, calling to mind the time he had to spend countering concerns after widespread media coverage suggested nobody should eat even one bacon sandwich for fear of contracting cancer, following a World Cancer Research Fund report last year.

"The report contained large quantities of data, mostly sound, careful analysis. Sometimes journalists are not careful, but scientists should be more careful, too," he admits. "It wasn't helpful or realistic. It was poor communication of careful scientific analysis."

Chris Lamb remembers the bacon story only too well. "The message sent out was that bacon kills," the marketing manager of national beef and lamb body Eblex recalls. "And the media quoted it verbatim."

Yet, curiously, bacon sales in fact went up during this period, he reports. And Lamb believes the message was so "over the top" consumers simply ignored the story.

So should we not be worried when a damning report comes out? Are consumers inured by the volume and variety of studies? The easiest way to cause panic is when a finding impacts society's most vulnerable people, says Dr Emyr Williams, a former sales and marketing director of Golden Wonder and chairman of Commercial Advantage.

"Consumers are savvy and ignore many newspaper stories but a story will more likely have an effect on a product's sales if that product is aimed at babies, children or pregnant women."

In one classic example, on April 30 the Daily Mail reported on an Aberdeen University study that claimed unsafe levels of arsenic had been found in more than a third of baby rice. Quite how valid the claims are is hard to say as the report was based on Chinese protocols, but it appeared to catch the FSA off guard as it currently offers no guidance on safe levels of arsenic. It is currently investigating the claims.

In another report in The Observer on April 13, a Trading Standards nursery foods report said toddlers were being fed too much fruit and veg. The report said nurseries were avoiding giving children the high-calorie foods they needed when growing. This was "unsuitable for toddlers and could lead to vitamin deficiencies and even stunted growth".