Tweets from the gaily be-haired @KrystalSim a few weeks back reminded me of some twaddle I penned many moons ago about the unexpected existence of the Tea Advisory Panel and the UK Tea Council. For some reason it got lost in my labyrinthine files, so below is an updated and edited version…
Back at the end of 2009 I noted the Mail, Express and Telegraph had once again fired up their “[Random Item] {Helps/Hinders/Cures/Causes} [Aspect of Health]” automatic headline generators. The journalists had turned their mighty intellect to that most beloved of tonics, tea, claiming that a report showed eight cups a day could help fight heart disease, reduce the risk of stroke, positively impact mental functioning and increase life span. The author of the report, dietitian Dr Carrie Ruxton, was quoted as saying “People who cut out caffeinated drinks may miss out on the potential health benefits of the compounds they contain”.
Being the media-cynical human being that I am I immediately assumed the journalists had misinterpreted and massively over-blown the whole report. Nothing makes for an easy page filler like the generic “Something we like is actually good for us LOL!!” article. So I went looking for the research, only to find myself stumbling down the rabbit hole of the dark and bizarre world of the Tea Pushers.
Behold, humble reader, the Tea Advisory Panel. TAP’s three-fold aims are to “provide independent and objective information about the latest health benefits regarding black tea, answer all of your nutrition and hydration questions about black tea and to set the record straight on ‘science’ myths associated with black tea”. Ok…
Even better, TAP is supported by the UK Tea Council, who manage to turn the simple act of afternoon tea into an erotically tension-filled adventure on the front page of their website. The Tea Council is “dedicated to promoting tea & its unique story for the benefit of those who produce, sell & enjoy tea”.
Possibly I’m missing something here, and I know the UK is devoted to its tea, but is there really a need for an advisory panel and a council supporting it? It’s not like tea is some magical cure-all that has just been a bit misunderstood. Dr Ruxton’s own review (pdf) from 2009 concluded that “the evidence indicates a positive role for tea in human health, although the final proof from intervention studies remains elusive”. Quite how this translated into the near panacea like qualities of tea outlined in the Mail, Express and Telegraph is unclear.
I was delighted to see Dr Ruxton popping up again recently, heralding the wonderful hydrating properties of tea compared to the unflavoured, opaque muck we call “water” (pdf of study). It was particularly interesting that the trial was described as “high-quality” in a large number of reports (e.g. The Mail, The Times of India), yet the press release from the TAP doesn’t make any mention of this (see this google search for just how many different media sources described it as such). One wonders where this description came from. Further, it’s rather telling just how much of the press-release text shows up in the various articles online; 70% of the text in the Mail article is pasted straight from the press-release, for example. Nice work there Jenny Hope, churnalism at its very best.
Surely the estimated £647 million pound annual UK tea market couldn’t have anything to do with these stories appearing again and again? Perchance Dr Ruxton’s consultancy company could offer us some insight. Nutrition Communications is involved in helping companies to “develop healthy, innovative food and beverage products”. They especially offer advise on product development “using functional ingredients”.
Apparently Nutrition Communcation’s communiqués include bigging-up (pdf) the consumption of soft drinks for Coca-Cola and producing a frankly awful “study” (pdf) investigating the weight loss benefits of herbal supplement Zotrim, funded by Natures Remedy Ltd.
So using my Columbo-like skills to jump to conclusions, could it be that the good doctor is, in fact, in the pocket of Big Tea?
Well, yes, she’s a member of the TAP, something she (rightly) makes no secret of.
Obviously there’s nothing wrong, per se, with the existence of these promotional groups, even if they are driven more by profit than any particular belief in the product they are hawking. However it serves as a timely reminder, as if any was needed, of the ongoing advertisation of our media, with articles on even the most benign of topics being driven by press-releases rather than any public interest or real story. It also demonstrates the never ending high-jacking of science in the name of pushing an agenda. Politicalisation of science, or, perhaps more correctly, the politicalisation of the interpretation of science, is as old as science itself and is happily supported by a media that revels in partisan black and white, rather than the subtler and much more complex shades of grey that tend to make up reality.
Possibly one can seek some comfort from the fact that the public perception of science is such that obviously there is still some power to be found in a Milgram-esque concept of The Scientist (or The Boffin if you’re a Sun reader). The idea of something been “proven scientifically” holds such sway over the general public that advertisers still see worth in having their products apparently being endorsed by science. If it didn’t work, and hence didn’t make them money, they simply wouldn’t do it.
“Here comes the science”? Possibly, but the more advertisers try to wring from that particular approach the more diluted becomes the public perception of what science actually is and does. And the media helps no-one but themselves and their sponsors with the mindless regurgitation of press releases which serve no other purpose than to garner a bit of free advertising.
Brother Nex 