Social media is flooded with wellness advice, but nutrition content is largely unregulated and can be dangerous. Questioning whether a post is based on evidence, if the creator is using fear to draw you in or stands to profit from what they’re promoting can help you spot nutrition misinformation online.
The changing landscape of nutrition information
Social media has transformed how we learn about food and health. From carnivore diets being promoted on Joe Rogan’s podcast to healthmaxxing on TikTok and an endless number of new electrolyte brands, nutrition claims spread fast. Although this presents an exciting opportunity for nutrition education and more accessible knowledge creation, it also means nutrition misinformation can spread quickly and potentially affect our beliefs and behaviours around food.
The rise of unregulated nutrition advice
Nutritional misinformation spreads quickly in online environments that reward extreme or shocking content. Social media algorithms are much more likely to push bold or extreme claims over accurate nuanced explanations, the same way news outlets and traditional press rely on sensationalist headlines. At the same time, food and wellness brands hop on ‘diet waves’ to launch new products even when the scientific evidence behind them is scarce.
A recent BBC analysis reveals the scale of this problem. The BBC worked with four medical experts to analyse 15 health-related podcast episodes from Stephen Bartlett’s ‘Diary of a CEO’ podcast. They found an average of 14 harmful health claims per episode, including claims that keto diets can treat cancer and autism can be reversed through diet. These claims not only spread dangerous misinformation but can encourage people to turn to extreme alternative options.
Although Stephen Bartlett does not have a background in health, he does have financial investments in health and wellness companies, such as Zoe and Huel, the founders of which Stephen Bartlett has given a platform to on his podcast. Combining his influence, commercial interests and unregulated advice creates a golden opportunity for misinformation.
When advice comes from popular influencers or so-called ‘experts’ it can be hard to separate truth from misinformation. So how can you spot misleading information?
Signs a trend is nutrition misinformation
Fear-mongering or villainising foods
When influencers, content creators or news outlets frame food as ‘toxic’ or ‘poisonous’, they’re using fear not evidence. ‘Ultra processed foods’ are a good example. Whilst research is only just surfacing, claims such as UPFs are ‘poisoning the planet’, causing chronic disease or that cutting them out will be ‘life-changing’ oversimply complex nutritional science and moralise our food choices. Processed foods have many benefits. Processing can make food safer, more accessible and affordable. It also means foods can be fortified with nutrients the population might not otherwise get enough of, such as calcium, iron and vitamin D. The potential dangers of villainising UPFs are discussed in a previous blog post.
Fear-based messaging can also worsen anxiety around food and make us more likely to buy whatever ‘cure’ is being sold to us.
Framing personal experience as a universal truth
Stories can be powerful, but they cannot serve as robust scientific evidence. When influencers claim one food or supplement ‘transformed their skin’ or ‘fixed their hormones’ they’re describing their experience, not scientific evidence.
Even well-known ‘experts’ might use this strategy. In a recent ZOE podcast episode Tim Spector discussed ‘the 7 health habits he’s changed his mind about’. As one of the most widely cited researchers in the world, you might think Tim Spector would know better than to rely on personal opinions over evidence. Key concerns about the ZOE programme are also discussed in a previous post.
And many influencers are sponsored by brands have financial stakes in the products they are promoting, giving them a financial incentive to exaggerate or make false claims about a product.
Exaggerated information
Evidence-based health advice rarely sits in the extremes, yet extreme claims tend to get more traction on social media. Fibre is a good example. Most people in the UK would benefit from a bit more fibre in their diets and eating more beans, pulses, fresh fruit and vegetables seems harmless enough. But in a society pushing for self-optimisation ‘fibremaxxing’ has taken off. Increasing fibre too quickly can cause digestive problems and mean we miss out on other vital food groups. And when we frame fibre and protein as ‘good’ for our health it risks framing fats and carbs as ‘bad’ or ‘less good for us’.
Similarly, ‘magic foods’ or ‘overnight cures’ are almost always a sign of misinformation. Health is built through long term habits and social infrastructure that supports us to get outside, afford nutritious food and live better. It is not achieved by drinking okra water or only eating sardines, as Vogue might suggest.
Natural = Healthy
Detox teas, chemical-free or non-toxic products and raw milk are often sold to us as ‘natural’ products, which must be healthier right? But natural doesn’t equal healthy.
Parasites, arsenic and poisonous mushrooms are natural. Folic acid, antibiotics and suncream are synthetic. Just because something is natural doesn’t mean it is good for our health and just because something is synthetic doesn’t mean it is bad for our health.
Misleading credentials
Whilst we might be more inclined to believe advice from a doctor, professor or an expert, this can also be a way to gain the public’s trust and spread misinformation. Expertise in one field, does not automatically translate to expertise in nutrition.
A vogue article published last year claimed, ‘rethinking your nutrition’ “popping some peanut butter on a rice cake” was one of the five best ways to “flush out cortisol”, citing an orthopaedic surgeon specialising in stem cell research, not a nutrition professional.
Similarly, psychiatrist Dr. Georgia Ede claimed on Diary of a CEO that vegan diets are “incompatible with human life” contradicting decades of evidence that show well-planned plant-based diets are nutritionally adequate and can have numerous benefits for both human and planetary health.
Credentials can give people legitimacy, but they don’t guarantee the accuracy of the nutrition information someone is giving out.
Why nutrition misinformation can be harmful
Nutrition misinformation online can fuel disordered eating, discourage people from seeking medical treatments, fuel stigma and create confusion about what ‘healthy eating’ really means.
The bottom line
‘Wellness’ trends and misinformation will continue to exist online, with social media rewarding extreme claims. But nutrition and health are nuanced and ‘solutions’ can be rarely found in shock content or miracle cures. Approaching online nutrition information with curiosity and critical thinking can help protect us from misinformation and build a more informed and healthier relationship with food.
References
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gpz163vg2o
https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/cortisol-detox
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2405457726000422
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24760975/
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/zoe-science-nutrition/id1611216298?i=1000754843743
https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/okra-water
Blog written by Heather
Heather is a dietetic student passionate about accessible and weight-inclusive dietetic practice. She is currently completing her dissertation on the impact of calorie labelling on menus in the UK. She has a growing interest in how our environments and public health policies shape our relationships with food and health inequities.
Blog reviewed by Sophie Corbett, Specialist Dietitian and Founder of Mental Health Dietitians.
