As I was searching for new and interesting science news to write about in my Blog Post, I kept asking myself "I wonder how news companies present and report on science". This led me to cnn.com where I clicked on the Health option and scanned the articles for something good. That is when I came across "Controversial sugar industry study on cancer uncovered" and decided that this would be a great way to find out...
A new paper was published on Tuesday in the journal PLOS Biology entitled "Sugar industry sponsorship of germ-free rodent studies linking sucrose to hyperlipidemia and cancer: An historical analysis of internal documents" that looks at a 1960's study that suggests there is a link between a high sugar diet and high cholesterol levels and cancer in rats. It found that the urine of these rats that were fed a diet high in sugar had higher levels of the enzyme beta-glucuronidase which has been associated with an increased risk of bladder cancer. This study though was never published. Scientists are not sure if this is because it failed or because they didn't even bother publishing but find it interesting because of the time that this took place. Around the same time that this study was taking place, a lot of dietary recommendations were being made and sugar was not really being considered but foods high in fat were. There is a possibility that scientific research might have been manipulated in order to protect the sugar industry. According to the Sugar Association, there were specific reasons why this study wasn't published.
I find it interesting that because foods high in fat were considered bad, they were replaced with foods that were high in sugar so that they were more enjoyable. With this increase in high sugar foods, the U.S. saw an increase in obesity and type 2 diabetes. If this study had been published would things be different? All in all, I enjoyed reading a CNN article to understand better how a news organization presents science.
References
Howard, Jacqueline. “Controversial Sugar Industry Study Uncovered.” CNN, Cable News Network, 21 Nov. 2017, www.cnn.com/2017/11/21/health/sugar-industry-cancer-history-study/index.html.
Taylor, you brought up a great point here on how the media portrays science. The media tends to favor sensationalism over accuracy, but so many people rely on sources like CNN instead of PLOS for news. I think the lack of education may have contributed to how we choose our sources. I only had two classes in the past that went in depth about what's considered a credible source. Facebook and other social media also have so many biased news and medical remedies without proper research. This false information is shared so many times, and I know some people who truly believe in them. I also find it interesting that foods high in fats were replaced with foods high in sugar. To me, sugar is worse than fat, considering that different types of fat have different effect in our bodies. It's interesting how fats are being generalized as bad, because monounsaturated fats are actually good for you. Would things be different if the study had been published? I would say yes, because it would educate people on the harmful effects of sugar and prevents them from substituting fats with sugar.
ReplyDeleteI think that a lot of times readers and general public needs to be aware of who is doing the study and whether or not that entity could benefit in some way from the results of the study. Capitalism is definitely present in certain studies and I don't think a lot of people are aware of how strong the influence of companies that are just interesting in making more sales is. I think that its possible that this could also overlap to the media and how science is presented. If there are deals between media and certain research teams, then this would impact the way the general public accepts the news. It is something that needs to be monitored by ethics boards as well.
ReplyDelete