Prevention Magazine – Bias and Credibility

Factual Reporting: Mixed - Not always Credible or Reliable


Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information; therefore, fact-checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.

  • Overall, we rate Prevention Magazine as a moderate pseudoscience source and Mixed for factual reporting due to not always supporting the consensus of science.

Detailed Report

Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Magazine
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY


Founded in 1950, Prevention Magazine their associated website is an American healthy lifestyle magazine featuring articles about health conditions, wellness, food and nutrition, weight loss, fitness, and beauty. The current editor is Jane Francisco.

Read our profile on the United States government and media.

Funded by / Ownership

Prevention is owned by the Hearst Corporation, an American mass media, and business information conglomerate based in New York City. Hearst owns newspapers, magazines, television channels, and television stations, including the San Francisco Chronicle, the Houston ChronicleCosmopolitan, and Esquire. Prevention generates revenue through magazine sales and subscriptions as well as advertising.

Analysis / Bias

In review, Prevention Magazine produces original content on health and wellness. They provide health advice through short articles and occasionally listicles. Headlines and wording are often low-biased, such as: Does Wearing Gloves Reduce Your COVID-19 Risk? This story is properly sourced to the CDC. While Prevention Magazine will never be accused of being a hard science source, they do support pro-science points of view on vaccinations and climate change.

However, when it comes to GMOs, they frequently publish alarmist articles that do not align with the consensus of science. For example, in this story, “Need Another Reason To Avoid GMOs?” the website promotes the debunked 2012 study by Gilles-Éric Séralini, which was retracted from the Food and Chemical Toxicology Journal the “following year after a detailed review following criticism from scientists and regulatory bodies, which found a pattern of bias and design flaws. The study used cancer-prone rats, shoddy controls, and the data cherry-picked (e.g., data showed some rats fed glyphosate had few tumors, which the authors did not highlight in their commentary).” This story has remained on the website since 2012.

Finally, Prevention Magazine promotes fad diets like this: This Man Ate Only Potatoes for 1 Year and Lost 117 Pounds. While they question the safety of a potato-only diet, the article mainly highlights the benefits of a diet that is not nutritionally balanced.

From an editorial standpoint, Prevention does not cover politics; however, they frequently cover the lifestyles of people associated with the left, such as Michelle Obama and Al Gore.

In general, most information is factual; however, as indicated above, there are instances where they stray from the consensus of science.

Failed Fact Checks

  • None in the Last 5 years

Overall, we rate Prevention Magazine as a moderate pseudoscience source and Mixed for factual reporting due to not always supporting the consensus of science. (D. Van Zandt 3/13/2020) Updated (08/08/2022)


Last Updated on June 30, 2023 by Media Bias Fact Check

Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.

MBFC Ad-Free 


MBFC Donation

Left vs. Right Bias: How we rate the bias of media sources

Found this insightful? Please consider sharing on your Social Media: