Fear, Food & False Claims: How Nutrition Myths & Politics Distract from Real Health

Introduction

Nutrition is central to our health, but it’s also one of the most common targets for misinformation. From exaggerated claims about ultra-processed foods and seed oils to political slogans declaring Americans “sicker than ever,” nutrition discourse is often driven more by fear than by evidence. Claims may start with a kernel of truth, but then often become exaggerated and misleading.

This article is Part 1 of a two-part series. Here, I focus on general nutrition misinformation and the politicized “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) movement, which highlights real health concerns but often misframes them in ways that distract from the true drivers of chronic disease. Part 2 will turn toward evidence-based solutions and policies that can actually improve public health.

General Nutrition Misinformation

From ultra-processed foods to artificial sweeteners and food dyes, the nutrition information landscape is rife with misleading, exaggerated claims and outright myths. These claims and myths often start with a grain of truth – a real, minor risk or a study showing some sort of correlation between two variables – but then become sensationalized and get twisted into alarming, black-and-white statements.

For example, let’s begin our discussion with ultra-processed foods (UPFs), a hot topic, yet a nuanced one that is rarely discussed with the nuance and context it requires. A large and growing body of observational data links high consumption of UPFs (which are packaged foods often high in added sugar, sodium, and saturated fat) to increased risks of cardiovascular disease (CVD), obesity, and type 2 diabetes (Vadiveloo et al., 2025).

While it is true that excess UPF intake can negatively impact health in many ways, extreme claims that UPFs are “poison,” or “toxic,” or “linked to more deaths than tobacco” are not supported by scientific evidence and risk confusing the public (Robinson, 2024). Additionally, it is well understood by nutrition professionals that the “UPF” classification can be overly broad, grouping nutrient-poor items like sugary drinks with nutrient-dense options like whole-grain breads, fortified cereals, and canned veggies and beans (Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 2025).

While it is recommended to limit diets high in nutrient-poor UPFs, it is equally important to recognize that some UPFs – such as the ones listed above – are nutrient-dense and can contribute positively to health. And in certain contexts, like food insecurity or natural disasters, packaged UPFs can even be essential. Ultimately, what matters most is the overall pattern of someone’s diet and lifestyle, not simply whether a food has been labeled as “ultra-processed.” Context matters. Fear-driven misinformation strips this nuance and context away, and often erroneously demonizes all UPFs.

Similarly, artificial sweeteners like aspartame are surrounded by fear, especially after a recent classification as “possibly carcinogenic” to humans by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). However, it is important to note that this label reflects limited evidence, as stated by IARC, and is primarily a precautionary measure following standard procedure, not an indication of new data showing increased risk (World Health Organization, 2023).

Additionally, the acceptable daily intake of 40mg/kg of BW/day was reaffirmed by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). They further clarified that a "possibly carcinogenic" classification indicates "limited evidence that the agent could cause cancer in humans." This classification can be made even if the risk is very unlikely at high doses, and even less likely when adhering to recommended safe levels (IARC & JECFA, 2023).

Likewise, synthetic food dyes are often demonized as causing hyperactivity in children. The FDA Food Advisory Committee (FAC) has agreed that there is no proven link between artificial colorings and behavioral problems in most kids, except for a small subset with special sensitivities who may be affected (Food and Drug Administration, 2023). While some concerns exist, all food dyes must be approved by the FDA and are only permitted when shown to be safe. The totality of current scientific evidence does not indicate that food dyes are broadly dangerous or cause certain neurodevelopmental issues (Food and Drug Administration, 2023).

These examples show how partial truths (e.g., a mild effect in rare cases or a small subset of the population, or an extremely high-dose animal study using doses impractical for human consumption) get twisted into misleading narratives.

Beyond the science itself, misinformation spreads in part because of how it is communicated, particularly on social and traditional media. Inaccurate claims are amplified by a growing network of social media influencers who lack formal qualifications in nutrition, medicine, and/or science. Research shows that many of these influencers build trust through personal anecdotes and anti-establishment rhetoric, often while profiting from unregulated supplements or diet plans (Powell & Pring, 2024).

Some present themselves as “rebel” truth-tellers fighting a corrupt system, a tactic that erodes trust in credible institutions (Millbank et al., 2025). Inaccurate information also spreads further, faster, and more broadly than nuanced, evidence-based content on social media (Vosoughi et al., 2018).

Major health organizations, including the WHO and CDC, describe today’s health information environment as an infodemic – an overabundance of information in which misinformation spreads farther and faster than accurate content, creating real challenges for public health and health professionals (Chiolero, 2022; Zarocostas, 2020). Unfortunately, the issue is worsening as unqualified individuals in positions of power and influence amplify and disseminate inaccurate health information (e.g., the recent White House announcement erroneously linking acetaminophen use during pregnancy to autism) (Hamilton et al., 2025).

The narratives, tactics, and rhetoric used by some social media influencers, public figures/celebrities, and politicians creates an environment where personal belief and emotional appeal can override logic and decades of scientific research. Taken together, these examples show why it is essential to focus on the totality of a person’s diet and lifestyle, as well as the broader systemic factors that shape health.

Whether the topic is food, medicine, or public health more generally, single ingredients and single factors rarely determine outcomes on their own; it is the complex interplay of numerous factors over time that matter most.

Politicized Misinformation – Framing US Health and the “MAHA” Narrative

A prominent example of politicized misinformation is the current “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) movement. This narrative leverages a valid public health concern – the high rate of chronic disease in the U.S. – to promote a politicized and fear-based narrative around food and health, often relying on unscientific claims and sensational rhetoric rather than credible evidence and credentialed health professionals.

The reality of American health is complex. On one hand, public health and scientific achievements in sanitation, vaccination, and medicine have led to significant increases in life expectancy over the last century (Rodrigues & Plotkin, 2020). Population-level interventions such as the above and safer food, fluoridation of drinking water, tobacco control, heart disease prevention/treatment, and a focus on maternal-child health are listed as some of the ten greatest public health achievements during the 20th century by the CDC, and have increased Americans’ average lifespan by over 30 years since 1900 (CDC, 1999).

On the other hand, the U.S. faces a severe and costly chronic disease crisis, with six in 10 adults (~194 million adults, as of 2023) having at least one chronic condition like heart disease, diabetes, or cancer (Watson, 2025). However, the “MAHA” movement and its organizers often don’t discuss the nuances, nor the systemic, population-level factors that play a role. Their rhetoric exaggerates the negatives, overlooks historical health improvements, and fixates on relatively minor factors such as food dyes and seed oils, while downplaying the much larger, well-established drivers of poor health.

This sensationalized slogan ignores the long-term process in public health and creates a false sense of unprecedented decline. It is a powerful marketing tool built on a “grain of truth” (the serious problem of chronic disease), using this truth to generate alarm and rally support for its own platform rather than present the full, nuanced, and complicated picture of American health.

Instead of focusing on well-established drivers of poor health – tobacco and alcohol consumption, sedentary lifestyles, unhealthy overall diets, and socioeconomic factors like poverty, and healthcare and healthy food accessibility – the movement often fixates on relatively small or overstated risks.

For example, MAHA proponents frequently scapegoat seed oils or artificial dyes as the “secret” villains behind American health woes. Ironically, there is strong scientific consensus that replacing saturated fats (from sources like butter and red meat) with unsaturated fats (found in oils, such as olive and seed oils) lowers the risk of cardiovascular disease (American Heart Association, 2024; Fornari Laurindo et al., 2025).

These ingredients make for easy targets and often generate a lot of support from the general population due to sensationalized headlines and misleading statements, without actually addressing the real drivers of poor health, which are much more difficult and time-consuming to properly address.

Indeed, public health experts, including nutrition professionals, warn that obsessing over “trivial or neutral risks” can waste energy and distract from far more impactful interventions (Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 2025).

The MAHA movement illustrates a broader, more troubling problem: in today’s health information environment, non-expert voices often drown out credentialed experts, and inaccurate claims travel faster than nuanced, accurate explanations. By leaning on logical fallacies such as emotional appeals and politicized rhetoric, these narratives succeed in rallying public support while undermining well-established public health priorities.

The result is not just confusion, but erosion of trust in science itself and worse health outcomes – undermining the long-term systemic efforts that are actually needed to improve population health. This movement shows what happens when data and expertise are ignored in favor of emotional appeals and sensationalism.

Looking Ahead

Nutrition misinformation is everywhere, fueled both by scientific uncertainty and by political rhetoric that distorts valid concerns into alarmist narratives. In this article, I’ve highlighted how common myths and movements like MAHA gain traction and can do more harm than good.

In Part 2, I’ll turn to evidence-based strategies, at both individual and systemic levels, that can help us move beyond misinformation and political theatre, and toward meaningful solutions.

References

Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. (2025, June). Nutrition Fact Check: Ultra-Processed Foods. Retrieved September 23, 2025, from https://www.eatrightpro.org/news-center/practice-trends/nutrition-fact-check-ultra-processed-foods

Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (2025, September 10). Academy calls for evidence-based solutions in response to MAHA strategy report. Retrieved September 28, 2025, from https://www.eatrightpro.org/about-us/for-media/press-releases/academy-calls-for-evidence-based-solutions-in-response-to-maha-strategy-report

American Heart Association. (2024, August 20). There’s no reason to avoid seed oils and plenty of reasons to eat them. Retrieved September 28, 2025, from https://www.heart.org/en/news/2024/08/20/theres-no-reason-to-avoid-seed-oils-and-plenty-of-reasons-to-eat-them

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1999, April 2). Ten Great Public Health Achievements—United States, 1900-1999. Retrieved September 28, 2025, from https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00056796.htm

Chiolero, A. (2022, February). How infodemic intoxicates public health surveillance: From a big to a slow data culture. J Epidemiol Community Health, 76(6), 623–625. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2021-216584

Food and Drug Administration (2023, July 13). How safe are color additives? U.S. Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/how-safe-are-color-additives

Food and Drug Administration. (2023, December 14). Color additives questions and answers for consumers. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/food/color-additives-information-consumers/color-additives-questions-and-answers-for-consumers

Fornari Laurindo, L., Dogani Rodrigues, V., da Silva Camarinha Oliveira, J., Leme Boaro, B., Cressoni Araújo, A., Landgraf Guiguer, E., Rucco Penteado Detregiachi, C., Maria Cavallari Strozze Catharin, V., Federighi Baisi Chagas, E., Cavallari Strozze Catharin, V., Direito, R., & Barbalho, S. M. (2025, February 6). Evaluating the effects of seed oils on lipid profile, inflammatory and oxidative markers, and glycemic control of diabetic and dyslipidemic patients: A systematic review of clinical studies. Frontiers in Nutrition, 12, 1502815. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2025.1502815

Hamilton, J., Noguchi, Y., & Greenfieldboyce, N. (2025, September 22). Trump blames Tylenol for autism. Science doesn’t back him up. NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/09/22/nx-s1-5550153/trump-rfk-autism-tylenol-leucovorin-pregnancy

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), & Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). (2023). Summary of findings of the evaluation of aspartame at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monographs Programme’s 134th meeting, 6–13 June 2023, and the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) 96th meeting, 27 June–6 July 2023. World Health Organization. https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/nutrition-and-food-safety/jecfa-summary-of-findings-aspartame.pdf?sfvrsn=a531e2c1_22&download=true

Millbank, A., Millbank, L., Malerich, M., Trautmann, L., & Thorton, G. (2025). Nutrition misinformation in the digital age (2024–2025). Rooted Research Collective. https://rootedresearch.co/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Nutrition-misinformation-in-the-digital-age-Report.pdf

Powell, J., & Pring, T. (2024, January). The impact of social media influencers on health outcomes: Systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, 340, 116472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116472

Robinson, E. (2024, January 16). Ultra-processed foods: Here’s what the evidence actually says about them. University of Liverpool News. https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2024/01/16/ultra-processed-foods-heres-what-the-evidence-actually-says-about-them/

Rodrigues, C. M. C., & Plotkin, S. A. (2020, July 13). Impact of vaccines; Health, economic and social perspectives. Frontiers in Microbiology, 11, 1526. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.01526

Vadiveloo, M. K., Gardner, C. D., Bleich, S. N., Khandpur, N., Lichtenstein, A. H., Otten, J. J., Rebholz, C. M., Singleton, C. R., Vos, M. B., Wang, S., & on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Clinical Cardiology; Council on Genomic and Precision Medicine; and Stroke Council. (2025, August 8). Ultraprocessed foods and their association with cardiometabolic health: Evidence, gaps, and opportunities: A science advisory from the American Heart Association. Circulation, 152(12), e245–e263. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001365

Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018, March 9). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146–1151. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559

Watson, K. B. (2025, April 17). Trends in multiple chronic conditions among US adults, by life stage, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2013–2023. Preventing Chronic Disease, 22. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd22.240539

World Health Organization (2023, July 14). Aspartame hazard and risk assessment results released. https://www.who.int/news/item/14-07-2023-aspartame-hazard-and-risk-assessment-results-released

Zarocostas, J. (2020, February 29). How to fight an infodemic. The Lancet, 395(10225), 676. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30461-X