|
|
|
|
Home >
Publications >
| Nutrition Accuracy in Popular Magazines |
| January 2004 – December 2005 |
| By Kathleen Meister, M.S. |
|
|
|
|
|
Introduction
Nutrition articles in magazines can be an asset or a threat to the public’s health. But such articles often sell magazines. Thus it’s no surprise that they publish an abundance of information about nutrition. According to the Magazine Publishers of America, 6.7% of all editorial (nonadvertising) pages in American consumer magazines were devoted to food and nutrition in 2005; that’s more than eleven thousand pages in that year alone! People read and trust what’s written on those pages. National surveys conducted in 2000 and 2002 by the American Dietetic Association and a 2006 Tufts University study of people over the age of 50 all indicated that between 50 and 60% of the survey respondents turn to magazines for information about nutrition. And readers aren’t just skimming magazine articles; many of them are changing their eating habits on the basis of what they read. In a 2006 survey of U.S. consumers conducted by the International Food Information Council, 42% of the respondents reported that they had made diet-related changes in the previous six months on the basis of information they had obtained from health and fitness magazines.
With such a large proportion of the population making changes in their eating habits on the basis of information obtained from magazines, it is crucial to know just how accurate that information is. To evaluate the quality of nutrition information presented in popular magazines, the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) has been tracking nutrition reporting in these publications for more than 20 years. Over that period as a whole, ACSH has found that the quality of the reporting has improved, reflecting most magazines’ growing commitment to educating their readers. In the shorter term, however, the current survey, which included articles published in 2004 and 2005, did not show any improvement over the immediate previous survey, which covered articles published between 2000 and 2002. In fact, the quality of nutrition coverage in popular magazines may have deteriorated slightly since the beginning of the current decade.
In this, the tenth Nutrition Accuracy in Popular Magazines survey, ACSH found that more than three quarters (16 of 21) of the magazines included in the survey were EXCELLENT or GOOD sources of nutrition information; less than one quarter scored in the FAIR or POOR range. Overall, the highest scoring magazines were those in the “Consumer” category, while the “Health” category received the lowest scores; however, there were substantial differences among the scores of magazines within each category. As was also true in ACSH’s most recent previous survey, which included articles published in 2000 through 2002, health magazines aimed at male readers were especially likely to score in the FAIR or POOR range. Only one magazine earned a rating of EXCELLENT. Thus, there is still room for improvement in nutrition coverage, even in some of America’s most respected magazines.
The results of the current survey indicate the following:
- Most of today’s consumer magazines are providing their readers with generally sound information about nutrition, but some errors and misconceptions can nevertheless be found in their articles.
- The quality of reporting on nutrition in popular magazines did not improve between 2000–2002 and 2004–2005 and may even have deteriorated over that time period.
- Health and fitness magazines aimed at male readers continue to have the poorest nutrition coverage.
- Because the nutrition coverage in popular magazines may not always be reliable, readers should be cautious about making changes in their eating habits exclusively on the basis of information they have obtained from magazine articles.
The Survey: Methodology and Rating Criteria
For this survey, as for the previous surveys in this series, ACSH identified top-circulating U.S. magazines that regularly publish articles on nutrition topics. We made an effort to include magazines with different target audiences in order to sample articles aimed at a variety of readers. All 20 of the magazines included in ACSH’s most recent previous survey were evaluated this time as well. In addition, one magazine, Child, was evaluated for the first time.
For each magazine, we identified all nutrition articles of at least one-half page in length published between January 2004 and December 2005, inclusive. If more than 10 appropriate articles were available, we selected 10 of the articles at random, using a random number generator (however, due to an error only 9 articles from Shape magazine were evaluated). To minimize judging bias, we electronically scanned the articles and reformatted them to eliminate identifying features such as magazine titles and author names. This method of masking cannot be counted upon to obscure the origins of all articles, however. For example, the judges might have surmised that articles about children’s nutrition most likely came from Parents or Child, that articles about nutrition for runners most likely came from Runner’s World, and that articles about nutrition for bodybuilders most likely came from Muscle and Fitness. The unique product ratings published by Consumer Reports would probably also be identifiable.
Four experts in nutrition and food science independently judged the quality of each of the 210 magazine articles in the following three areas:
- Factual accuracy (Was the information in the article scientifically sound? Did the article document the sources of the information?)
- Presentation (Was the article objective? Was the headline consistent with the content? Were the conclusions logical?)
- Recommendations (Did the article make practical recommendations? Were the recommendations supported by information in the article? Were they based on accepted nutritional practices?)
For each of eight separate points, the judges were asked to indicate whether they “strongly agreed,” “somewhat agreed,” were “neutral,” “somewhat disagreed,” or “strongly disagreed” with the statement. These responses corresponded to numeric values ranging from a high score of five to a low of one. A composite score was determined for each article based on the judges’ evaluations, and the composite scores for each magazine were determined by averaging the scores for all articles in that magazine. The results were then tabulated to determine each magazine’s ranking. The highest possible score was 100%. Categories were assigned as follows: EXCELLENT (100–90%), GOOD (89–80%), FAIR (79–70%), POOR (below 70%).
The overall results of the survey were not encouraging. As judge Dr. Irene Berman-Levine put it, in comments written before the results had been tabulated, “In reviewing articles this year I do not see the continual improvement that I have witnessed in previous years with the exception of improvement (in some articles) in trying to reference the source of their information. This is disappointing.”
The analysis of the results is consistent with Dr. Berman-Levine’s impression. In ACSH’s most recent previous survey, which covered articles published between 2000 and 2002, the ratings were higher than those in earlier surveys, reflecting a continuing long-term trend toward improvement. The current survey, however, did not show any further increase in the quality of nutrition reporting; in fact, the proportion of magazines scoring at least 80% (the lower limit of the GOOD range) was lower in the current survey than in the previous one (current survey: 15 of 21, or 71%; 2000–2002: 16 of 20, or 80%). There was some good news in the current survey: one magazine scored in the EXCELLENT range this time, while none did in 2000–2002; and only one magazine scored in the POOR range this time, compared to two in 2000–2002. Overall, though, the quality of nutrition reporting in popular magazines seems to have leveled off and may be declining. BELOW IS A TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR THE FULL REPORT, WHICH CAN BE DOWNLOADED FOR FREE — AT THE RIGHT MARGIN.
|
|
|
| Table of Contents |
|
Introduction
The Survey: Methodology and Rating Criteria
Magazine Rated EXCELLENT (90-100%)
Consumer Reports
Magazines Rated GOOD (80-89%)
Glamour
Ladies’ Home Journal
Shape
Child
Parents
Cooking Light
Fitness
Woman’s Day
Good Housekeeping
Redbook
Self
Health
Runner’s World
Better Homes and Gardens
Prevention
Magazines Rated FAIR (70-79%)
Men’s Health
Reader’s Digest
Cosmopolitan
Muscle and Fitness
Magazine Rated POOR (69% and below)
Men’s Fitness
Conclusions — and ACSH’s Recommendations
Tables
Table 1. Ranking of Evaluated Magazines
Table 2. Ranking of Magazines by Overall Mean Ratings and Subcategory Ratings
Table 3. General Comments
|
|
|
| Related Publications |
| Nutrition Accuracy in Popular Magazines (January 2000-December 2002) |
| The American Council on Science and Health's Surveys on Nutrition Accuracy in American Magazines |
|
| Related Links |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
