We’ve all noticed that mainstream media coverage of dietary supplements is largely negative, misinformed, and slanted.  It was not always like this. As someone handling public relations and publicity in the natural products industry for over 20 years, it’s been interesting (and aggravating) to watch the evolution. While I used to regularly place stories in newspapers and on TV, these days I protect my clients from that gamble. In my experience, the risk of being linked to words like “unregulated” “untested,” and ‘snake oil” is just too great.

Fifteen years ago when a clinical study was published indicating that ginkgo could slow the progression of Alzheimer’s the media coverage was overwhelmingly positive. I was very busy making sure all the major media outlets knew that my client’s product was the one used in the study. The media often positioned supplements as safer alternatives to conventional medical care. Many, many consumers responded by incorporating herbs and vitamins into their lifestyles. 

A decade ago there was a notable shift in the tone of media coverage. The word "unregulated" started creeping into articles about supplements, and the topic of ephedra in particular generated increasingly cautionary articles. It’s been downhill ever since. Briefly, here’s what happened:

Today we can communicate with the public very effectively via the internet, so news coverage is far less important except in one extremely important way: calls for more strict regulation are fueled by negative media coverage. And that’s a problem.