Reflection 22 of 52: Do you believe red wine is good for you?

June 02, 2014

I have been following the discussion about red wine attributes since 60 Minutes first aired its French Paradox show in 1991. The French Paradox was the perceived low incidence of heart disease among a nation of people who consumed much cheese, butter and red wine. I often used the data in my media training sessions – sales of red wine increased by 44% after the show ran. It was a great demonstration of the power of “earned” media.

Science journalists are often the first pit stop for stories of this nature. After these more seasoned reporters relay the findings, the mass media start to pick up the bits and tailor them to their audience. At times that can mean regurgitating a study such as the French Paradox by Serge Renaud, a scientist from Bordeaux University in France that contains language such as the following:

In most countries, high intake of saturated fat is positively related to high mortality from coronary heart disease (CHD). However, the situation in France is paradoxical in that there is high intake of saturated fat but low mortality from CHD. This paradox may be attributable in part to high wine consumption. Epidemiological studies indicate that consumption of alcohol at the level of intake in France (20-30 g per day) can reduce risk of CHD by at least 40%. Alcohol is believed to protect from CHD by preventing atherosclerosis through the action of high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol, but serum concentrations of this factor are no higher in France than in other countries. Re-examination of previous results suggests that, in the main, moderate alcohol intake does not prevent CHD through an effect on atherosclerosis, but rather through a haemostatic mechanism. Data from Caerphilly, Wales, show that platelet aggregation, which is related to CHD, is inhibited significantly by alcohol at levels of intake associated with reduced risk of CHD. Inhibition of platelet reactivity by wine (alcohol) may be one explanation for protection from CHD in France, since pilot studies have shown that platelet reactivity is lower in France than in Scotland.

Reporters know that type of verbiage would be hard for most people to swallow so they simplify it to help us understand. Therein lies the rub.

Daily, I see science stories that intrigue me to check out the original sources and, inevitably, I see how mangled the final story becomes.

I study science journalism from a variety of perspectives. I know of great stories that go unnoticed purely because the scientist could not or would not share the information beyond their peer-reviewed journals. Brilliant researchers who were not able to unpack their deep thoughts and language so the story never gets told. On the flip side, I have seen fabulous science get trivialized to fit into sound bytes or provocative headlines. We all know how challenging general communications can be, you can imagine the complexities with science. Don’t get me wrong; there are some fabulous health and science reporters who know how to decipher and get it right.

Back to the red wine business. Check out Virginia Hughes' National Geographic blog, Only Human, and her take on the media and science stories on this subject. Ms. Hughes digs up the range of stories from the NY Times and raises questions about the value of even reporting such info. We have seen many takes on the study of resveratrol, the supposed magic ingredient in the wine. There are claims that the original study made some incorrect statistical assumptions and there continues to be more analysis of the pill made from that ingredient. In a nutshell, red wine is good for you… no its not… yes it is… well maybe, it might be.

Here is my take. Most of us are attracted to information that confirms our own point of view. Even when presented with opposing information, we are selective about what we choose to believe.

This leads me to think, in my totally unscientific opinion, that it is our belief that makes things work for us... or not. Much like the placebo pill that cures what ails us, even if just for a short period of time.

A healthy dose of skepticism is good when it comes to anything we read, scientific or not. It is up to the individual to do more due diligence based on the value they place on that data. I also believe our assumptions and attitude carry much more weight than given credit for. That is what makes communicating science based information about our health and diet intrinsically difficult with some audiences.

So, in the end, if I believe red wine is good for me, I will enjoy my indulgences more. Being happy has to have an impact on our health, don't you agree?