But the other rule is – well, the thing couldn't be fact-checked. Goop wanted Goop magazine to be like the Goop website in another way: to allow the Goop family of doctors and healers to go unchallenged in their recommendations, and that just didn't pass Condé Nast standards. Those standards require traditional backup for scientific claims, like double-blind, peer-reviewed studies.
In 2016, a division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus began an inquiry into Goop for deceptive marketing claims about the life-optimising powers of Moon Juice products, which appeared on the Goop site as a key ingredient in a smoothie that GP drank every morning. (Goop voluntarily stopped making these claims.) And mid last year, the watchdog organisation TruthInAdvertising.org (TINA) sent GP a letter that referred to numerous instances of deceptive marketing claims that the site's products cured, treated or prevented inflammation, autoimmune diseases and more. Goop adjusted some of its claims in the short period the letter allotted, but TINA found its response inadequate and reported Goop to the California district attorney's offices in both Santa Cruz and Santa Clara. (Neither office would comment on the matter.)
A gynaecologist and obstetrician in San Francisco named Jen Gunter, who also writes a column on reproductive health for The New York Times, has criticised Goop in 30 blog posts on her website since 2015. A post she wrote last May – an open letter she signed on behalf of "Science" – generated more than 800,000 page views.
These numbers, though, pale next to Goop's. As of June, there were 2.4 million unique visitors to the site a month, according to Goop. The podcast, mostly hosted by Goop's chief content officer, Elise Loehnen, and featuring interviews with wellness practitioners, receives between 100,000 and 650,000 listens a week.
Back in the days of its partnership with Condé Nast, Goop had wanted to publish articles about autoimmune diseases and infrared saunas and thyroids on its own terms. And by going it alone, it could – sort of. But after a few too many controversies, and with investors to think about, GP made some changes. Goop hired a lawyer to vet all claims on the site. It hired a Condé Nast editor to run the magazine. It hired a man with a PhD in nutritional science, and a director of science and research who is a former Stanford University professor. And in September, Goop will hire a full-time fact-checker. GP chooses to see this as "necessary growing pain".
Source : https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/health-and-wellness/how-haters-made-gwyneth-paltrow-s-goop-worth-us250-million-20180814-p4zxda.html418