Women and other consumers obtain information on supplements from a variety of sources, including health professionals, but most frequently the media. Although scientific conclusions are methodically scrutinized, news stories are judged by instant appeal. Dietary supplements add a complicating twist because folkloric use predates scientific research by thousands of years. The incongruity between science and the media perpetuates misinformation and fails to provide the context that gives scientific research meaning. The International Food Information Council (IFIC) and the IFIC Foundation(3) seek to bridge the practice and the communication of science. The IFIC Foundation's biannual analysis of food news revealed that in 1999 and 2001, science experts were the primary source of information for articles but context was often absent or incomplete. The media's major obstacle in communicating science is a lack of understanding of the scientific process. It is imperative that emerging science is meaningfully translated for the public. The Harvard School of Public Health and IFIC Foundation convened an advisory group in 1997 to examine the communications process. The result was a set of questions meant to guide the communications process: Will your communication enhance public understanding of diet and health? Have you put the study findings into context? Have the findings been peer reviewed? Have you disclosed the important facts about the study? Have you disclosed all key information about the study's findings? The advisory group agreed that funding sources should be disclosed but that findings ought to stand on their own merit. In addition, guidelines for various specific communicators were created.