Last week, I gave some examples of news vs opinion articles on the topic of food allergies. This week, I’ve chosen another article to take a closer look at: “The U.S. Health-Care System Found a Way to Make Peanuts Cost $4,200” by James Hamblin, MD. This was published by The Atlantic just yesterday. It discusses the use of peanut flour for a treatment called oral immunotherapy, or OIT, which has been touted by some as the saving grace for those with peanut allergies. However, Hamblin has some things to say about that.
In the first 3-5 paragraphs, the article gives what I like to call “backstory”. It discusses basic information about peanuts/peanut allergies, what happens during a reaction, and some of the social ramifications of said events. Additionally, it addresses the rising number of peanut allergies and the reasoning for that (people are feeding their kids fewer peanuts, so more children are developing an allergy). Introducing the topic with backstory ensures that the reader understands the nature of the issue and why it’s so important. Without information about the severity of allergies and why people are so desperate for a “cure”, the entire point of the article might be lost. In writing, context is everything.
After the introduction, Hamblin talks about OIT and how peanut flour is being used to administer the treatment, which turns it into a “drug”. The meat of the article is based in the exploration of taking something that costs almost nothing to produce and turning it into a “drug” that insurance companies must cover. In order to back up his points, Hamblin embeds a total of 13 links to other websites and studies. These include BBC News, The New England Journal of Medicine, and The National Center for Biotechnology Information. Linking information from such reputable sources suggests author transparency., as he encourages you to go directly to the source and find out more about the topic for yourself (essentially fact-checking the author). Additionally, Hamblin interviewed the chief medical adviser for the Food Allergy Research & Education (FARE) and a professional allergist, further supporting the notion that he has nothing to hide. Supporting your position with reliable sources is especially important when writing about such a crucial medical topic.
This article also introduces readers to concepts like OIT in an environment that discusses both the risks and potential rewards, taking most of the bias out of the equation. That being said, the article focuses mainly on the risks, the sketchy nature of charging thousands of dollars for incredibly cheap peanut protein, and the fact that OIT doesn’t really work in the long run. Hamblin also specifically points out where a study neglected to emphasize its own negative findings.
Near the end of the article, Hamblin talks in more negative terms about the drug and concludes with this statement:
“Of course, it would set the field back even more if people are harmed by a hastily approved and urgently adopted drug. Everyone I spoke with stressed the need for peanut-allergy treatment, and the demand. Patient advocates are not patient advocates if they push for approval of a drug that does more harm than good.”
This kind of phrasing/tone does suggest some bias against the drug, which places this article firmly into the category of an opinion piece (though, as I mentioned in my last blog post, this does not mean that it’s bad). The bias the writer has against the drug is clearly well-founded and backed up by multiple sources, but it can be identified as a bias nonetheless. He does include stories of patients who have had success with OIT, but he does not interview any of them and places his focus firmly on the drug industry and the fact that peanut allergy reactions have actually gone up since OIT was implemented. It would be more balanced if he gave more attention to the potential positives as well as the negatives.
Overall, I would give this story a letter grade of A-. It is very well-researched and basically includes both sides of the issue, but it has a slightly negative slant that would have to be righted in order to be called truly unbiased and transparent. If a student came to me with an article like this, I would tell them that they were absolutely on the right track but they would have to be careful to report the facts without sounding too emotionally invested in the issue by the time they get to the conclusion (assuming they are writing a news story and not an opinion piece). This will help their credibility and the overall quality of their work.
Until next time,
Quinlyn
