You would think that there'd be an automatic thrill to see one's name in print. Well, the illusion, and the naivete can fade rather quickly.

Several months ago I had quite a good conversation (or so I thought) with an editor from Consumers Digest, mostly background stuff, including how the industry was regulated, how the good guys operated, how I understood how confusing it could be for consumers, and how certification and trade association membership could be distinguishing. On the subject of claims, I remarked on responsible marketing, noting that if it sounded to good to be true, it likely was. We talked about testing and the challenges of complex products. We talked about spiked products, and the problems with testing for what you don't know might be there. We talked about GMP's and about them being only about as good as enforcement was. And we talked about the fact that some companies would not be able to comply. In that context, I remarked that the industry might get a bit smaller in order to get a lot better. I also noted that if companies would not test their products and comply with the GMPs, then perhaps, they shouldn't be in the marketplace.

Imagine my surprise at the article which appeared on shelves this past week entitled, "Mass Confusion: The Truth About Dietary supplements"

I stand by all the statements and positions above as the responsible, legitimate part of this industry, with commitment, tries to comply with regulations and uses supported facts in what they say about their products.

Unfortunately, I cannot stand behind the context of the article and in a couple cases, the context in which my remarks were used - or should I say abused, with an obvious agenda by the editor.

The big issue I have with the position of the article in general is that much of the conversation I had with editor Korry Keeker had to do with responsible industry. According to this article though, responable industry doesn't really exist. Where I said, "If it sounds too good to be true, it likely is," was in the context of marketing claims and had nothing to do whatesoever with a lack of hard evidence, it had to do with grossly exaggerated claims. The callout quote about testing products used in the article had nothing to do with safety testing (as it was used based on the editor's comment below) and everything to do with testing to assure cGMP compliance.

I know that other industry 'experts' were also quoted out of context or absolutely misquoted in this overt hatchet piece. It is unfortunate that the article "The Truth About Dietary Supplements" is anything but, and is instead a deliberate attempt to ride the bandwagon and sensationalist opportunity to hammer an industry whose responsible majority has an opportunity to actively and successfully contribute to healthcare solutions globally. Unfortunately, misreprentative articles like this not only don't show 'truth', they actually mask the truth the more widely they are propogated.

In the normal course of events, I wouldn't validate this article by even commenting, but felt I had no choice.....