Abstract
This article interrogates the controversial field of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), focussing in particular on the implication of the British press in its regulation. It grounds its analysis in a 'decentred' understanding of regulation; a socio-legal approach which moves beyond formal regulation and regulators, and instead foregrounds diverse social actors and their attempts to alter behaviour across a given domain. Focussing on The Times newspaper as a case-study, it identifies five regulatory techniques through which the newspaper drew (and redrew) lines separating the safe from the risky, the efficacious from the sham, and the normal from the deviant. By analytically decentring CAM's formal regulation, this article provides a conceptual contribution. It highlights an everyday form of healthcare regulation directed at prospective users which may be just as significant in potentially guiding users towards or away from particular healthcare practices/practitioners as the more traditional, formal kinds of regulation identified in regulatory literatures.