"As the products used in the study are not commercially available, there was no mention of their presumptive costs. (It might have been interesting to explore how fortified margarines compare in cost to those which are not.) The story indicate that there did not appear to be any advantage from the use of the fortified margarines. However – the study actually found a suggestion of a statistical benefit in the sub-population of individuals who had had a prior heart attack and who also had diabetes. This is a correction of our originally-posted score on this criterion. The story did, indeed, report that ""there were no harmful side effects."" Adequate description of the study and of its possible limitations. No overt disease mongering. The story included quotes from sources not involved in the study. The story mentioned the increasing number of foods on the shelves that are fortified with omega-3 fatty acids and perhaps the results of this study will make readers question whether such fortification is actually value added. While indicating that the people in the study were receiving optimal medical therapy, the story did not mention other possible means by which individuals who have had a heart attack can lower their chance of having another one. Even one line of such context would have been appreciated and helpful. While indicating that Unilever makes an omega-3 fortified margarine, the story didn’t mention that the margarines used in the study were specifically formulated for the study and are not commercially available. However – there are commercially available margarines that are fortified with omega-3 fatty acids. Although the story was not clear that the margarines used in the study were prepared exclusively for use in the study, it did indicate that similarly fortified products are commercially available. It’s clear that the story did not rely solely or largely on a news release."
Study: More omega-3 fats didn’t aid heart patients