Nothing, if not polite.
I’m talking about our new friends at the Winston Salem Journal and I’ll let you in a little secret, I know that paper pretty well because I read it and the Greensboro News and Record for five years when I lived in that area.
So yes, I will say they are nothing if not polite… but I’ll have to politely disagree with their apparent conclusion that a three page research editorial by a PhD questioning the methods and conclusions of a Journal article doesn’t “seriously criticizes” the study.
The book is not closed on this one, folks.
Letter from the Winston Salem Journal to NFI :
Mr. Gibbons,
The editorial certainly raises more questions and adds additional perspective. I don't believe it seriously criticizes the WFU study, however. Nor does it attempt to condemn it as "junk science," as you have done.
Here is the editorial's conclusion:
"Weaver and colleagues (4) are right on target in pointingout that some fish are far better sources of n-3 fattyacids than others and, sadly, that it is the cheaper fishthat tend to provide lower amounts. Their call for organizationslike the AHA to be specific in recommendingcertain fish as heart-healthy is well-taken, and the morerecent ADA/DC position paper does just that. To conclude,the n-6 fatty acids, whether linoleic acid or arachidonicacid, are not the enemy—the problem is the Americanproclivity for foods low in n-3 fatty acids (includingtilapia and catfish), and it is one that food and nutritionprofessionals are uniquely positioned to correct."
As I said, it would have been preferable to include this perspective in the story, but the story does not fail without it. I'm told Dr. Chilton is going to write a response to the editorial in the ADA magazine's next edition. If he does, we will review it and consider a follow-up story.
Carl Crothers
