Breaking down online food misinformation.

Everywhere you look online, everyone has something to say about food. Maybe someone is telling you that all our food is being poisoned by the government, or you’re scrolling on TikTok and seeing yet another video about how aspartame is giving you cancer. Perhaps an article you read on Google is telling you about the benefits of raw milk. The reality is that most of these claims are misrepresentations of scientific data, fear-mongering using small bits of truth, or outright myths. Generally speaking, these claims are rarely supported by scientific evidence. 

Food misinformation and disinformation are prevalent across many social media platforms, and it’s dangerously easy to fall subject to. When discussing the subject with Melanie Rozwadowski, M.Sc., P.Dt., B.Ed., a nutrition professor and professional dietician at USask, she stressed the difference between misinformation and disinformation. “Misinformation is just the blind leading the blind. Disinformation is more insidious; there’s usually motives like profit or selling a product,” she explained.

These claims are not easy to avoid but it’s important to think twice about each one you see. Most importantly, it’s imperative to research the statements and compare them to reputable and reliable scientific data from high-quality, peer-reviewed journals. However, there are often dead giveaways when it comes to food misinformation such as the overemphasis on a single ingredient, dramatic statements such as “cancer-causing” or “toxic”, and the vilification of entire food groups such as carbohydrates. 

Human health and nutrition are all about balance—you don’t want to be cutting out anything completely. Generally, it’s best to avoid extreme advice. Rozwadowski commented on the common red flags when it comes to food misinformation saying  “Extremes. The carnivore diet, the raw food diet. Anything trying to promote advice that is outside of public health recommendations and common sense.” 

The source of claims should always be considered. For example,  you want to avoid claims coming from nutritionists, which is not a regulated term); chiropractors (who generally have no training or education in food or medicine), and individuals attempting to sell you a product, as they might have a motive to spread misinformation. Reliable sources include government agencies such as Health Canada, the Food and Drug Administration, most educational institutions such as universities, and dietetics associations such as Dieticians of Canada. 

Additionally, it’s important to consider the motives for spreading information. It’s always best practice to ask yourself: are they benefiting in any way by spreading this information? “No source should make money from the information they’re spreading. The litmus test is if they are selling something,” Rozwadowski says. It’s one of the most common signs that one is spreading misinformation. She emphasized that when you search for a nutrition topic online or on social media, the top results are likely paid placements. 

Food misinformation is constantly evolving, and it seems as though every month there’s a new trend popping up. First, it was keto and carbs, then it was aspartame, and more recently, seed oils. When asked about current fads driven by food misinformation that are of concern, Rozwadowski stated,  “Overall, I would say the trend of obtaining and sharing information online. Subscribing to feeds from influencers rather than reliable sources.” Another driving force of food misinformation, she emphasized, is the distrust of medical institutions and doctors. This is part of a larger trend that has worsened greatly since the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The most fundamental concept to keep in mind when examining food claims is that the dose makes the poison. For example, water is needed every day to survive. But if we drink too much water over a short time, it becomes toxic to the body and one can die from water poisoning. Granted this is extremely rare, but it goes to prove the point that anything is toxic in a large enough dose. 

Another important concept to keep in mind when examining food claims is hazard versus risk. A hazard is something that has the potential to cause harm, whereas risk is the likelihood of a hazard causing harm to you. According to the European Food Safety Authority, risk takes into account dosage whereas hazard does not. 

One of the most common food myths on the internet today is surrounding aspartame. Aspartame is a peptide that’s often used as an artificial sweetener in products such as zero-sugar sodas and gum. On July 14, 2023, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)  and the World Health Organization classified aspartame as potentially carcinogenic to humans based on limited evidence, placing aspartame in Group 2B.

There are many food and non-food items in the same category. For instance,  IARC includes aloe vera, pickled vegetables, and the electromagnetic fields surrounding our phones in Group 2B as well. The reality is that IARC and their classifications assess hazard, not risk. The Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives, which considers both account risk and dose, has reviewed aspartame for the third time and stated it is safe for human consumption between 0 to 40 mg/kg of body weight per day. Put in simpler terms, you would have to consume between 9 to 14 cans of Diet Coke a day to reach this limit. Understanding the difference between risk and hazard is important in identifying potential misinformation. After all, many food myths begin by ignoring dosage and risk. 

Another common way in which food myths are born is by misrepresenting realities. One of the greatest examples of this is the “Banned in Europe” myth. You’ve probably seen videos online claiming that Canada and America allow much more additives in our foods that are banned in Europe. When examining these ingredients, the most important thing to understand is that the European Union (EU) and the United States of America (USA) use different metrics and regulatory frameworks for ingredient safety and toxicity. Both metrics are based on science and neither one is superior. Another important aspect to understand is food labelling. Many ingredients have different names in Europe. For example, Red 40 goes under the name Allura Red in Europe and Canada. So, Red 40 is not banned in Europe. In fact, according to a comparison of food colour regulations in the USA and the EU by Sari Lehto, there are four color additives approved in the US that are not permitted in the EU, and there are 16 colour additives approved in the EU that are not permitted in the US. Like many other food myths, the “Banned in Europe” myth began due to the oversimplification and misrepresentation of an incredibly nuanced and complex issue. 

One of the most challenging issues surrounding online food misinformation is that fear spreads faster than facts. This is especially true online with social media. According to a University of Southern California study, this is due to the reward-based structure of social media sites themselves. Food misinformation is generally more engaging and exciting to social media users while the truth when it comes to food and healthy eating— balanced meals, fruits and veggies, and have everything in moderation— tends to be less exciting. Due to the nature of online misinformation and its tendency to spread so fast and reach so far, the solution isn’t as simple as combating misinformation with scientific facts. Many try to do so online, and their work is admirable. Unfortunately, food misinformation continues to spread at alarming rates and tends to have an incredibly far reach.

We all must take steps where we can to avoid falling prey to online food misinformation. Among her insights about strategies and recommendations to avoid food misinformation,  Rozwadowski recommends that one should “First make sure [to]  seek [information], [and] do not respond to anything that comes to you. When something comes to you, be suspicious. I want to see people learning to get information from government and educational institutions.” 

There are real consequences to the spread of online food misinformation and disinformation. Rozwadowski  explained that, in her opinion, one of the most damaging implications of online food misinformation is ‘clean food’ and the obsession over it, stating “That’s nonsense!” In fact, according to Eating Disorders Victoria, an over-obsession with clean eating is an eating disorder known as orthorexia. Another dangerous implication, according to Rozwadowski, is  “Body image issues, definitely. With girls, it’s social comparisons [and] eating disorders, and with men, it’s dysmorphia and muscles. Also worrying about macros, calories, etc. These words should not be in the average lingo of a normal person.” 

Rozwadowski finished off by saying “Enjoy nourishing yourself. Forget the food rules.” This really stuck with me. These days, there are a million things you’re told to worry about when it comes to your food. People lose sight of the purpose of food, which is of course to nourish ourselves. 

Online food misinformation is a concerning threat to public health. It’s currently being called an “infodemic” by many researchers and public health officials, and there is no clear solution. 

Luckily,  there are strategies and initiatives that could be helpful such as improving scientific literacy in the classroom, learning to recognize misinformation, and communicating the importance of fact-checking with the general public. According to a report from the Conference Board of Canada and the University of Guelph’s Food Institute, Canada has one of the safest food systems in the world. There is no reason you should have to fear the foods on your grocery store shelf.