A BBC investigation has accused the Diary of CEO podcast hosted by the Dragon’s Den star Steven Bartlett of “amplifying health misinformation”, leading to calls for a review of health claims regulation.  

The Diary of a CEO podcast takes the form of guest interviews, conducted by Bartlett. The number-one ranked podcast has increasingly focused on health and wellness issues – a content shift that has seen its monthly views soar from nine million to 15 million in just 18 months. 

A BBC World Service team analysed 15 health related episodes of the Diary of a CEO podcast and reports that “each contained 14 harmful claims that went against extensive scientific evidence”. The investigation also noted that the podcast host rarely challenged guests when they made unsubstantiated claims about health conditions or treatments. 

The BBC investigation emphasised that podcasts in the UK are not regulated by the media regulator Ofcom – which sets rules on accuracy and impartiality – so the podcast maker in this case is not breaking any broadcasting rules. 

During its investigation the BBC sought advice from prominent specialists in cancer, diabetes and public health. These specialists said that some episodes of the Diary of a CEO podcast contained harmful or discredited misinformation on Covid 19, vaccines and dietary treatments for cancer. In several podcast episodes, the BBC investigation said, guests “claimed to know a simple solution to health issues which they believed mainstream institutions were hiding from the public”. There was concern too that guests were too freely able to promote their products. 

The specialist advisers were particularly concerned that listeners might be encouraged to abandon medicines they have been prescribed by their doctor for serious conditions after hearing “overstretched” accounts about their toxicity. Professor Heidi Larson, an expert in public confidence in healthcare, told the BBC: “It sends people away from evidence-based medicine. They stop doing things that might have some side effects, even though it could save their life.”

Cancer specialist Dr David Grimes, from Trinity College Dublin, said: “podcasters may claim they are sharing information, but they are actually sharing harmful misinformation. That’s a very different and not empowering thing. It actually imperils all our health.” 

Commercial incentives
Cécile Simmons, from the Institute of Strategic Dialogue, a think tank specialising in disinformation research, has raised questions about potential commercial incentives behind the shift towards more health-focused content on the podcast. “Health-related clickbait content with scary titles does really well online with the algorithm amplifying that,” she said.

Lewis Wallis, a regulatory adviser with a specialism in nutrition policy, said the episode raised wider issues about misinformation from health influencers and a “regulatory gap” around health claims in online spaces, including social media. Since health and nutrition claims regulation applies only to ‘commercial communications’ on a food or food supplement intended to be delivered to the final consumer, podcast guests offering personal opinions on health issues are seen to occupy a “regulatory grey area”. 

Regulatory grey area
Posting on LinkedIn, Wallis wrote this week: “If a food product or ad claims to ‘cure cancer’, that’s a clear breach of advertising codes/food law. But if a podcast guest says the same, that’s fine? For me, this isn’t just a technical issue – it’s a consumer protection problem. The key question is what counts as a commercial communication? If a guest is paid to appear, is the podcast promoting their views/personal brand? If the guest ties a diet – for example keto – to their book sales, products, or services, is it advertising? Is the podcast profiting from increased viewership tied to misleading claims?

Wallis added: “The controversial health claims on (Bartlett’s) platform drove viewership, leading to even more health-related content. Is this engagement at the expense of consumer protection?”

Freedom of expression
A spokesperson for Steven Bartlett’s company Flight Studio accused the BBC investigation of selective reporting and providing only a “partial narrative”. In a statement, the company said: “The Diary Of A CEO (DOAC) is an open-minded, long-form conversation with world leaders, global experts, CEOs, athletes, authors, actors and other individuals identified for their distinguished and eminent career and/or consequential life experience.

“Each guest episode is thoroughly researched prior to commission.  DOAC offers guests freedom of expression and believes that progress, growth and learning comes from hearing a range of voices, not just those Steven and the DOAC team necessarily agree with.

“The BBC claims to have reviewed 15 specific episodes of nearly 400 published to date.  For any reporting of DOAC to focus on less than 4 per cent of episodes with an extremely limited proportion of guests – some of whom have featured on the BBC – to create a broader, and in our opinion, partial narrative is disappointing, misleading and frankly, disingenuous.”

Outdated regulation
TC Callis, a consultant in food standards and nutrition (and the author of Building Blocks of Life: A Nutrition Handbook for Health Professionals), wrote on LinkedIn: “Part of the problem is that society changes constantly. In the early 2000s, when the Nutrition & Health Claims Regulation (NHCR) was being developed, social media and podcasts didn’t exist. Anything drafted now will likely be irrelevant within a decade. And it is impossible to truly regulate the internet.

“From a local (UK) perspective the NHCR definitely needs some serious redrafting. The UK government has the opportunity to do that but all they have done thus far is amend the penalties, changing it from criminal to civil and enabling Trading Standards to implement ineffectual Improvement Notices. 

Massively misleading
“There are so many aspects of the NHCR that need to change. Personally I believe that making claims for benefits based on 15% of nutrient reference value (NRV) is massively misleading. Equally, foods with terrible nutrient profiles should not be permitted to make claims.”