When I was newspaper reporter, an epidemiological study came out of UNC that found a correlation between the consumption of hot dogs and brain tumors in kids. As I recall, this caught the attention of parents in the newsroom, possibly fueled by the number of hot dogs consumed by the children of editors.
These are tough stories because they seem to offer nutrition advice. But it can be hard to explain that:
- Correlation and cause are different.
- Rarely is a single study definitive.
So, now we see the topic debated by two bigs names in science. One made his name doing studies like this and another who has made his name by challenging the validity of out current approaches to scientific research.
From John Ioannidis – respected skeptic, former Tufts researcher
Some nutrition scientists and much of the public often consider epidemiologic associations of nutritional factors to represent causal effects that can inform public health policy and guidelines. However, the emerging picture of nutritional epidemiology is difficult to reconcile with good scientific principles. The field needs radical reform.
Response from respected Harvard nutrition researcher Walter Willett
In a September 14, Medscape article, Willett, professor of epidemiology and nutrition, said the argument in the JAMA commentary is unconvincing and misrepresents existing nutrition literature. He maintained that the author greatly exaggerated the challenges of epidemiological research.
More on Ioannidis: