The story does not mention the costs of the tea, but we can assume that most people are aware of the range of costs of such products at the grocery store. The story provides quantification of benefits in relative terms only. So when the story says “31% lower risk of dying from cardiovascular disease,” it doesn’t explain “31% of what?” Absolute terms should be given. The story should have provided more context for these numbers. For example, the story does not explain that, in spite of the large number of participants in the study, the actual number of deaths was very small. The death rate among the participants was between 1 and 3% (depending on the subgroup) over the study period. The story does state that tea is generally harmless and has no calories. The story provides an adequate description of the Japanese study as well as the results of other studies that have had conflicting results. The story does not engage in disease mongering. The story quotes multiple indpendent experts. The story does not mention alternatives such as diet and exercise. This would have made the story much stronger. Green tea is clearly available. Green tea is clearly not new. Because the story quotes several independent experts, the reader can assume the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information
Study finds green tea helpful against strokes, not cancer