Nutrition discussions in the digital age: an evolving conversation

Social media has fundamentally changed how we communicate, and how we process information.

Take nutrition research, for example. Social platforms have opened up conversations around studies that, while always public, would once have broadly remained within academic circles. Now, more people than ever are engaging with nutritional science, sharing their experiences and tips about what healthy eating means.

But with this openness has come a new challenge: the rise of anecdotal evidence, often elevated above more robust scientific findings. Nutrition misinformation began to grow, and quickly.

Over time, the term misinformation itself became weaponised, used to defend disputed claims. What we’ve ended up with now looks more like a battle of who's right and who’s wrong than a constructive dialogue.

To be clear: misinformation is a real and urgent problem

Our recent report, written by Rooted Research Collective, highlighted how a small number of “superspreaders” account for a disproportionate share of false or misleading nutrition content,  often with clear financial or ideological incentives.

Research into how information gets shared online has also shown that misinformation spreads faster than facts. Restoring a baseline of factual understanding and calling for accountability when sharing health information online is therefore essential. 

But it's only part of the solution. 

Channelling common ground

What often gets lost in these digital back and forths is how much underlying common ground exists between opposing sides.

Rebecca Gregson’s research on self-identified ‘anti-vegans’ in online communities found that, perhaps surprisingly, they share core beliefs with the vegan communities they oppose. Both groups, for example, agree that “humans have a responsibility to minimise the harmful impacts of their choices on animals and the environment.”

This insight reveals something important: even people with radically different viewpoints often want the same outcomes: better health, better systems, and better choices.

That’s why we are urging people to channel this common ground to start aiming at ‘the real enemy’ of nutrition information in this digital age, that is to say to focus on the issues that affect us all, the barriers that slow down meaningful change, rather than to fixate on distractions.

The false villains of nutrition

The search for a villain is one of the most powerful storytelling strategies on social media. It offers clarity, it’s emotionally charged, and it generates engagement (outrage, fear, righteous anger, agreement), all of which are highly profitable for content creators.

But in the realm of nutrition, this can lead to deeply misleading narratives.

Take the common claim that a particular ingredient “has been linked to cancer.” These claims are often based on studies in which animals were exposed to very high doses, or on mechanisms that don’t even apply to humans. And for someone without a scientific background, that sounds scary, and reasonably so. If there’s any risk at all, why take it? 

That’s where distrust begins.

So why is this harmful?

Let’s use an analogy. Every time you get in a car, you’re taking a risk. You’re also making the decision that this risk is small enough for you to take it. For most people, these decisions are all made unconsciously. That doesn’t mean you’re ignoring the possibility of an accident or undermining its severe reality. It means you’ve assessed that the benefits outweigh the risk. You’re making a decision based on probability and understanding of risks, not fear.

Imagine what would happen if we started to consciously weigh up those risks every time we entered our car. And now imagine what would happen if we started thinking this way about our food. Without an understanding of mechanisms, dosage, or scientific context, we can start treating food like a minefield, as though any bite could trigger disease.

Once fear takes root, it starts to shape the way we make choices. We begin to overly focus on single ingredients, and this distorts our sense of what well-balanced nutrition actually looks like. Real public health issues fade into the background, replaced by distractions: artificial dyes, seed oils, emulsifiers.

Meanwhile, we overlook far more pressing and well-documented concerns:

  • Most people under-consume fibre; yet access to fresh, whole fruits and vegetables is harder than access to junk food for large parts of our population;
  • Marketing heavily favours convenience and profit over nutrition;
  • Many people don’t have the time, resources, or knowledge to cook nutritious food.

These are issues that demand structural change, change that would be facilitated if we all put our energy behind it. They’re not systemic issues we ignore, they’re issues that most of us agree with, regardless of dietary views:

That our food system doesn’t support health.
That we need to refocus on whole foods.
That convenience and profit have overtaken the food landscape.
That we’re now seeing lasting damage.

In other words: there is shared concern beneath the noise. And if we want to move forward, recognising that common ground is essential. Because one of the deepest consequences of this culture of conflict has been a growing distrust in experts.

So who is the real enemy?

It’s not seed oils.
It’s not single additives.
It’s not your doctor, your pharmacist, or nutrition scientists.

The real enemy is:

  • Profit-driven food industries that prioritise profit over health;
  • Confusing marketing that makes unhealthy foods seem like health solutions or hacks;
  • A society that makes healthy choices the harder ones: through time poverty, cost barriers, and systemic inequity;
  • A culture of fear that distorts risk and feeds off outrage.

Let’s refocus

The term misinformation often directs our focus toward factual accuracy. And while accuracy matters, it is only half the story. Just as damaging is miscommunication, the way nutrition science gets packaged, framed, and circulated.

Online platforms don’t simply spread information; they shape how it is received. Algorithms reward sensationalism, simplicity, and fear. What gets lost is balance, nuance, and context, which are all essential to nutrition. Over time, the issue extends beyond inaccurate claims. It changes the way we think about food itself, fostering a culture of hyper-fixation, distrust, and fear.

If we want real change, not just better nutrition information online, but real progress in public health, we need to channel our common ground and start asking better questions:

  • Who benefits from this narrative?
  • What does the evidence actually say?
  • Are we reacting from fear, or responding with context?

One critical step in this direction is to advocate for accountability on social media platforms whenever nutrition or health related claims are made. This would help to minimise the spread and prevalence of misinformation by reducing the appeal of sensational, over-simplified statements. In other words, accountability would support the public to make decisions based not on fear, but on understanding. So let’s stop fighting each other, and instead redirect our energy towards our common goal: improving our food system to make it more sustainable and health-promoting. 

‍