THE FIRST 4 ITEMS EXPLORE THE QUALITY OF REPORTING ON HEALTH RISKS:

A Tale of Two Salmonellas As reported in the Monitor last year, a salmonella epidemic rages in the U.S. from contaminated eggs, largely caused by lax government regulation of the poultry industry that began during the Reagan Administration.

In June, the USDA released statistics for the first time: An estimated 661,000 Americans become ill every year from salmonella in eggs, with about 3,300 hospitalized and 390 killed. Your personal risk depends on how many eggs you eat, of course. But going by the national average, probably one egg in every two dozen is contaminated.

News that a potentially lethal bacteria is commonly lurking in every refrigerator seems important -- yet only two U.S. newspapers reported the story, and both in short summaries. Why did the press ignore this?

Part of the reason is likely because there was a different salmonella story widely printed just the week before. A salmonella- contaminated toasted oats cereal repackaged by grocery chains was recalled after 47 people in 12 states were hospitalized.

Tracking the two stories demonstrates why the media favors some health stories and spikes others.

The cereal salmonella quickly made the big nationwide papers -- the Washington Post, New York Times, and Chicago Tribune all published stories within 24 hours of each other. This alerted the regional dailies and chains to the breaking story, and also gave it a legitimacy as "real news." Scores of these papers printed at least one story about cereal salmonella in the following week.

It was also the kind of story that editors love, easy to write by formula. A government press release provided statistics on the disease; the Malt-O-Meal company that made the cereal was eager to supply information about their prompt recall; and because it affected several states, it was easy to find a local angle -- even if there was nothing exceptional to report. ("Marla Augustine of the Nebraska Health and Human Services System said Monday that the [only] Nebraska case involves a child from central Nebraska. 'The child is not seriously ill,' she said." -- Omaha World-Herald)

By contrast, the egg salmonella story had all the traits of a story that editors shun. It had no obvious local angle; the USDA offered no reason for the contamination, nor any solution; and the scope of the problem wasn't explained in easy-to-grasp terms. (Such as explaining that 661,00 cases of salmonella means that your risk is about 1 in 400 every year.) Making matters worse, the USDA issued two press releases, the second indicating that they had goofed -- a calculation error led them to first claim that there were 800,000 cases every year. Any editors still considering using the story probably killed it at that point, not trusting any eggy claims from the USDA whatsoever.

The bottom line: The egg story was magnitudes more important than the cereal recall, but bad timing and bad preparation by the USDA helped spike it. But the final responsibility for the fumble belongs to the press, who wasn't willing to do the journalistic work necessary. (September 8, 1998)

Fake Fat Passes Criticism Balance is always important in news reporting, but are science stories an exception? When the Monitor printed that a study found a bird is crucial to African rainforest survial, for example, were we obligated to find someone to question that research? Probably not -- but it depends on the news value of the story.

When there is clearly a debate about science findings and the press only reports one side of the argument, however, there's a problem. Take as an example the June 17 FDA hearings concerning "Olestra" (AKA "Olean"), the phony fat made by Procter & Gamble and used in snack foods and potato chips like "Wow." More than two dozen newspapers reported that the FDA declared that olestra causes no significant health problems. Less than half of those newspapers mentioned that a health watchdog group testified at the hearings in opposition. And most of the stories mentioning dissent passed off their objections with a single blunt sentence -- a token acknowledgement called "mechanical balance."

Testifying against the fake fat was the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), which has a long-standing consumer awareness campaign against Olestra, claiming at least 8,000 consumers have formally reported diarrhea, severe cramps, and other gastrointestinal problems that they believe were caused by Olean. Because Olestra is indigestible, it has the side effect of blocking absorption of vitamins and nutrients called carotenoids -- a deficiency which could lead to heart disease, cancer, or blindness. Joined by the chair of Harvard's nutrition department and academic heavyweights from 14 other universities, CSPI asked the FDA to yank the stuff off the market, or at least put a more prominent warning label on the packages.

The 17-member FDA panel approved Olestra, saying that it was too early to tell whether carotenoids are essential and that Olestra's blocking of those nutrients does not pose potential for harm. With half the reports ignoring all mention of controversy, the most balanced stories only barely mentioned CSPI's complaints:

Newsday: Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer-advocacy group, repeated his long-held view that olestra should not be on the market. Studies prior to olestra's approval showed cramping to be an issue, he said, and the more recent studies have too few participants to justify changing the cautionary language.

USA TODAY: During the meeting, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a consumer group that opposed olestra's approval, presented several cases of people who had severe cramping, diarrhea and loose stools after eating the chips. "I was disappointed that the committee was so unconcerned about [gastrointestinal] symptoms and loss of nutrients caused by olestra," says executive director Michael Jacobson.

Although not much was heard about opposing views, often repeated was the victory statement by Procter & Gamble: "We're thrilled with the result," executive Christopher Hassal was quoted by Associated Press. "Olestra had its 30-month checkup and it passed with flying colors." A PR wire service later quoted P&G chairman John Pepper: "[Olestra] has now received its 30-month check-up and it has passed with flying colors. After this latest incredibly thorough review, everyone can feel doubly confident about the safety." (Certainly it's a coincidence that CEO Pepper spontaneously chose the exact same cliche as his employee.)

Not one newspaper mentioned that most panelists wanted to continue reviewing Olestra. "This is a dynamic situation that should be revisited as more information is collected," said panel member Owen Fennema / University of Wisconsin.

Two other members of the FDA panel declined to give their opinions on the health risks of Olestra, while another one, Katherine Clancy of the Henry Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture, said outright that she though the product was "unsafe."

Incredibly, a panel member from a company with potential financial interest in Olestra even claimed that the reported side effects of diarrhea and cramping were a benefit. "Softer stools for many people my age is a blessing, not an inconvenience," gushed Susan Harlander, panel representative from Pillsbury. (September 12, 1998)

The Forgotten Gulf War Syndrome Some health stories are mostly ignored, like the egg salmonella report described above. Others, like the Olestra tale, suffer from a lack of balance. Then there are stories that always bob beneath the surface, never escaping the tiny "Science News in Brief" ghetto on newspaper inside pages.

A good example of this type of story concerns Gulf War Illness, which refuses to disappear. As Monitor has reported in numerous stories, there's good evidence that something is wrong. Are the vets suffering from exposure to radiation? Nerve gas? Are they suffering from experimental drugs administrated by the Pentagon? No one knows.

The leading researchers are at the Dallas University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, who in mid-August released another study that shows Gulf War veterans have died or been hospitalized at excessive rates since the war. This report appeared in eight newspapers, always in a tiny summary. Still, this is the widest coverage of this issue in the past few years -- most studies are reported in fewer than a handful of newspapers.

The new findings by Dr. Robert Haley, UT Southwestern's chief of epidemiology, contradict government studies. "In the studies, because of methodological problems, the government researchers came to conclusions at variance with what the data show," Haley said. "By using the researchers' own statistics but compensating for the studies' flaws, it becomes clear Gulf War veterans have significant postwar excess of hospitalization and death." (September 14, 1998)

Good News is No News A final 404 category of neglected health reporting belongs to the stories that never appear at all. Here a watchdog organization, university, or medical journal reports news that's totally ignored. And surprisingly, the majority of these shunned stories are good news, describing ways to avoid heart disease, cancer, or other deadly illness.

A dramatic example appeared last month, when a very large study suggested that whole grain foods, particularly breads and pasta, may protect against a variety of cancers. Not a single news report can be found in an English language search of the immense Lexis-Nexis database.

Studying more than 18,000 patients in northern Italy, investigators wrote in the International Journal of Cancer that high intake of whole grain foods consistently reduced risk of all cancers except thyroid. Specifically, the researchers say a diet with many whole grain foods lowered the risk of various cancers, including those affecting the digestive tract and cancers of the upper respiratory tract: Breast, prostate, ovary, bladder, and kidney.

The researchers speculated that because whole grains have more insoluble and soluble fiber, they spend less time in the digestive tract. Whole grains may also have antioxidant effects, reducing the risk of cancer by "mopping up" cancer-causing free radical molecules formed during some cells processes. "It is also possible that more frequent whole grain consumption simply implies a lower intake of refined grains, which have been associated with elevated risk of colorectal, breast, and perhaps other cancer sites," they wrote. (September 14, 1998)

Every Breath You Take Key to the debate about "the Greenhouse Effect" is the discussion of carbon dioxide, which our civilization spews into the atmosphere at unprecedented rates. All this extra C0₂ is a fine thing, argue "Wise Use" folk; give us more carbon dioxide, they say, and we'll have a bountiful harvest of every flower, every vegetable, every plant everywhere.

From the University of Illinois comes research that seeks to learn how long those plants will be happy drinking in those mega-doses of carbon. According to the study, growth of pine trees in a North Carolina forest increased by 12 percent when the trees were exposed for one growing season to carbon dioxide levels projected for 50 years in the future. But they found that these rates can't be sustained. Within ten years, there's simply not enough nutrients in the soil to feed the plant.

In the new study, U of I biologist Evan DeLucia explained that the growth spurt will also stop once trees adapt to the higher carbon dioxide concentrations. A colleague who delivered the paper at the annual meeting of the Ecological Society of America added that early results from this year appear to indicate the growth increase already may be stabilizing.

That prediction is frighteningly similar to a 1995 Monitor report describing how U.S. forests are currently absorbing about 8 percent of the atmospheric carbon, but that number could shrink to break-even levels by 2020.

Anyone seeking more background should read Richard Hofstetter's extraordinary essay, "The Breathing Earth," which explains limits on Gaia's complex interchange of carbon dioxide and oxygen. (September 16, 1998)

Something smells at the Food Lion supermarket chain, and it's not the spoiled meat and fish they were caught selling in 1992. As you may recall, a pair of reporters for ABC's "Prime Time" filmed gross violations of food safety laws, such masking the smell of rotting fish by dipping them in bleach. The chain sued ABC -- and to the horror of journalists everywhere, won a jury decision. But their suit didn't dispute the accuracy of the report, only that the journalists trespassed and committed fraud by working in their stores undercover. The award to the company of $5.5 million in punitive damages (which is still under appeal) has had a chilling effect in every newsroom.

Not content to stop there, the chain has now sent "slick, professionally produced 'curriculum packages' to more than 200 journalism professors," according to an August story in Editor and Publisher. Food Lion refused to provide E&P with a copy, but the trade journal obtained one from a university teacher.

E&P quoted Manley Witten, a journalism professor at California State University, Northridge, who called the material "highly spun public relations." Jay Brodell, a journalism professor at Metropolitan State College in Denver, told E&P that "The whole thing reeks of Food Lion's desire to make themselves a poster child as a victim of the mass media."

Food Lion spokesman Chris Ahearn insists their motives are noble. "We know it's going to be discussed with or without our input," he told Editor and Publisher. "But we wanted to make certain that professors had access to a broad range of information as they were deciding what to present to their students." Among the materials provided by the grocery chain is a company analysis called, "Food Lion vs. ABC: Fakes, Lies and Videotape." (September 19, 1998)