Misrepresentation in Science Reporting: The Case of 'Killer Full English'
Written on
Understanding the Issue
A recent article linking red meat to cancer demonstrates frequent errors in science journalism. Headlines like "X causes cancer" can misrepresent the research.
As a science journalist, encountering subpar science reporting is frustrating, especially when it seems that a publication has sensationalized research to the point where it misrepresents the original findings. This was evident when I saw LBC’s headline, "Killer Full English: Bacon Ups Cancer Risk."
Upon closer inspection, the article is riddled with errors that journalists must avoid when discussing scientific studies. My critique is not directed at the researchers, whose work may be valid or flawed, but rather at how the media conveys these findings.
It’s also important to note that LBC isn’t the only outlet misrepresenting this study; they simply had the most alarming headline.
Misleading Headlines
The headline is a gross exaggeration and fails to accurately represent the study's content. You cannot label a food as "killer" without strong evidence. Furthermore, the headline suggests a direct causal relationship between bacon and cancer, which the study does not substantiate. This is a critical oversight on LBC’s part.
The article also includes misleading claims about how the World Health Organization (WHO) categorizes carcinogens. For instance, LBC states that processed meat is on par with smoking as a cancer risk. While the WHO places processed meats in Group 1—indicating sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity—this does not imply that they pose the same risk as tobacco or asbestos.
According to WHO, the classifications highlight the strength of evidence rather than the level of risk. Misinterpretation of this categorization can lead to significant public misunderstanding.
Understanding the Research
The study at the center of LBC's article, titled 'Diet and colorectal cancer in UK Biobank: a prospective study,' is not referenced in their report. The lack of citation and failure to contact researchers for insights is unacceptable in journalism.
Additionally, it’s crucial to include opinions from other experts in the field to provide context. Without this, readers may struggle to grasp the study’s implications. While finding peer-reviewed studies can be challenging, proper citations could offer transparency.
Limitations of Epidemiological Studies
The discussed study is an epidemiological one, which LBC only mentions in passing. While these studies are fundamental to our understanding of disease, they have limitations. The American Cancer Society emphasizes the challenges in linking specific exposures to cancer due to uncontrolled variables in human environments.
Epidemiological studies cannot definitively assert that "X causes cancer" because they do not isolate individual factors. In this case, variables such as age, smoking habits, and BMI may significantly skew the results, highlighting the importance of cautious interpretation.
Misinterpretation of Data
LBC claims that experts analyzed data from 475,581 individuals aged 40 to 69 over 5.7 years. While this sample size is impressive, it's misleading. The actual dietary data was only collected from about 175,000 participants, leaving a substantial number of subjects unaccounted for.
Moreover, when LBC states that consuming "most processed meat" increases colorectal cancer risk by 17%, it lacks context regarding the initial risk of the disease. The baseline risk for men and women varies, making it crucial to understand these figures in context rather than sensationalizing them.
The Consequences of Misreporting
Articles like LBC’s can skew public perception of science, making people skeptical of valid health advice. This skepticism may stem from the belief that scientists are to blame, when, in reality, it is the media's failure to convey accurate findings.
Sensationalist reporting may attract attention, but it damages public trust in science. In an era where scientific understanding is vital for societal progress, responsible journalism is essential.