Public Eye
January 17, 2007 12:11 PM

The "Evening News" Takes On Supplements

By
Brian Montopoli
Topics
CBS News Issues
(CBS)
On Monday and Tuesday of this week, the "Evening News" ran a two-part story on supplements. Monday's story focused on herbal supplements, while last night's centered on dietary supplements. Both pieces featured science and medical writer Dan Hurley, who has a new book out that is critical of the supplement industry.

Hurley argues that most supplements don't work, and he says that some can even be harmful, an argument the "Evening News" backed up by interviewing a woman whose "nose was burned off" by an herbal supplement. Each piece also included a comment from someone who says Hurley has it wrong: Monday we had Steve Mister, who works for the supplement industry, and who said that Hurley's book should be discounted because of "lack of science, historical inaccuracies and emphasis on anecdotal evidence and opinion." And Tuesday gave us David Seckman, head of the Natural Products Association, who says supplements are safe and effective.

I came away from the pieces skeptical of supplements. When you have someone like Hurley, who bills himself as a dispassionate observer who simply "looked at what evidence I could find" and reported it, you tend to believe him over representatives of the industry that is being criticized. But I also wanted more. The "Evening News" gave us two sides of the argument, but it didn't tell us which one was right. From watching the pieces, I thought Hurley seemed credible, but I didn't know to what extent he had an agenda of his own – scary stories about burning noses tend to sell books, after all. So while I tended to believe him, I wanted more information.

When the press gives its audience two opposing perspectives, they don't really know what to believe. It's a problem you see all the time in political coverage – a Republican asserts one thing, a Democrat another, and you have no way of knowing who is right. Journalists have a responsibility to step in and sort things out – even if that means suggesting that one side or the other has it wrong. But often they choose not to do so. In the "Evening News" supplements pieces, we learned that there have been "hundreds of studies" about supplements. Why, I wondered, couldn't someone from the "Evening News" have look at those studies and given us a sense of the overall thrust of them? Why couldn't we have heard from more voices who could provide a firmer sense of the truth? I asked CBS News correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi, who reported both pieces.

"This is actually one of those stories where even people who are much smarter than me and who have the studies at their disposal don't have a good answer," said Alfonsi. "There are studies that say they don't work and are ineffective and there are studies that say these things absolutely do have benefits."

Alfonsi added that "if we just wanted a sensational story, we could have just put on Dan Hurley. But there are good arguments for both sides. Honestly, after you read all the studies, talk to everyone, you almost leave more confused than you were before."

The irony of trying to nail down the truth, she continued, is that for many people it won't make a difference what you tell them.

"This is a subject that people are really passionate about – almost like politics or religion," said Alfonsi. "People have a set of beliefs. Most people are going to continue to believe what they believe."

It's a fair argument – the truth isn't always as easy to divine and report as we might like. I do think, however, that viewers might have benefited from a few additional voices in the two pieces, if only so they had a little more information at their disposal.

Add a Comment
by synpalmark January 19, 2007 2:37 PM EST
I think Haybanner hit it right on the nose. Why should a journalist or any media company for that matter determine who is correct in a debate on something that can never be proven. Here's a clue... Last time I checked I have a brain, opinion and can make decisions on my own. If this episode on supplements left lingering questions then maybe you should get off your butt an learn something.
Reply to this comment
by abetamm January 18, 2007 9:19 PM EST
When I was thirty yearas old I had a lump in the back of my head the size of a golf ball, chest pain, arthritis pain in my fingers so intense that I couldn't open a car door and various other symptoms. I am now 54 years of age and recently played basketball with kids in their 20's and was able to keep up with most of them.I am not taking any type of medication and feel better than when I was twenty. I do not have any hidden agenda but I have become healthier by taking vitamins and other natural products and therapies. No one is probably interested in my experiences or stories of how my health was improved but I would share them if time allowed. Also I'm not sure how to do that since this is the first time I have ever posted something. For now best wishes for better health.
Reply to this comment
by dheimstead January 18, 2007 2:07 PM EST
You said that 1.5 million people since 1983 have suffered detrimental effects from herbal supplements; what you failed to mention was how many people have suffered detrimental effects from prescription drugs that ARE regulated by the FDA. Dont you think that since you talked about supplements not being regulated by the FDA you should report the track record of those that are?
Reply to this comment
by heybanner January 18, 2007 12:29 PM EST
The "Evening News" gave us two sides of the argument, but it didn't tell us which one was right.

Did you really type those words just now?
Reply to this comment
by sanfelz January 17, 2007 10:44 PM EST
Ms. Alfonsi did mention the DHSEA, and the Mel Gibson ad that helped thwart the FDA attempt to regulate supplements. But she neglected Sen. Hatch's role in writing and enacting a law that protects the herb growers/sellers in Utah. Nor did she note that the potency of most botanicals and supplements is uncertain, as is evidenced repeatedly by independent labs. Most supplements are ineffective though harmless. The only supplements proven to achieve health benefits are calcium, vitamin D, folic acid and niacin. Disgust with the expense and failurs with the U.S. health system is understandable, but that frustation should not lead to a blind acceptance of the claims by the amoral purveyors of pills, potions and panaceas.
Reply to this comment
by mattcat25 January 17, 2007 7:15 PM EST
No matter how well balanced you think your diet may be, there is no possible way to consume all the nutrients needed without supplements.
Reply to this comment
by cktirumalai January 17, 2007 4:31 PM EST
When so many experts or spokesmen have an interest or an agenda (often hidden), the public cannot be blamed for its cynicism or skepticism. We need at least a few people who call them as they see them.
Reply to this comment
.

Follow Public Eye

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook
  • Building You a Better Morning

  • CBS This Morning

    "CBS This Morning," anchored by Charlie Rose, Gayle King and Erica Hill, airs weekdays from 7 to 9 a.m. ET and at the same time in other time zones.
    Learn more...