You are what you eat: how dietary misinfo appeals to our emotions

The saying “Eat well, feel well” encapsulates the importance of diet to our health. It sounds simple enough, but when viewed through the lens of social media, those four words can be interpreted in so many different ways. After all, to “eat well” seems to mean different things, depending on who you’re following on social media. Does eating well mean following the keto diet? The carnivore diet? Or does it mean cutting out seed oils or regularly taking supplements?

This sea of nutrition claims is not only confusing to navigate—it’s also heavily populated by harmful misinformation. A systematic review that examined 64 studies concluded that “online nutrition-related information is often inaccurate and of low quality”^[1]. Poor-quality nutrition advice, warned an editorial from Nature Metabolism, puts people’s health at risk, including mismanaged medical conditions leading to unnecessary complications, as well as body image and mental health disorders.

In spite of these risks, many people continue to be drawn to dietary trends that aren’t backed by scientific evidence. Part of the reason is because such trends don’t seek to appeal to logic or rationality. On the contrary, what makes them compelling is their appeal to our innermost desires as well as fears, whether it’s aspiring to belong to the “in” crowd or grappling with the uncertainties of a chronic illness.

Targeting emotions is what advertisers do to effectively market products to consumers. And many social media influencers employ the same tactic to sell us a certain lifestyle, brand, or product that they claim will make us better, faster, stronger. The science, if it is mentioned at all, is little more than an afterthought and rarely evaluated with a critical eye.

Below, we highlight some examples of when and how harmful nutrition misinformation exploits emotional appeal to attract various audiences.

What makes poor-quality nutrition advice attractive on social media

Desire for simple solutions to complex problems

It is human nature to reach for simple solutions, and more so when we are faced with a complex, long-term problem.

Take for example this TikTok video by chiropractor Eric Berg, which advocates consuming eggs, sardines, grass-fed beef liver, and red meat as a way to “reverse diabetes” (there’s currently no known cure for diabetes). Berg claimed that these foods don’t contain sugar and have “maximum nutrient density”, and thus are beneficial for people with diabetes, a condition that leads to high blood sugar.

But it’s not so simple. It’s true that these foods don’t contain meaningful amounts of sugar and are rich in many nutrients, but foods like beef liver and red meat are also high in saturated fat and cholesterol. In the long run, eating too much of these foods is likely to increase the risk of cardiovascular disease.

Furthermore, such a diet lacks fiber, which is mainly found in fruits and vegetables. Fiber offers several health benefits: it helps to eliminate waste from the body, promotes a healthy gut microbiome, and is also associated with lower blood sugar levels and lower risk of type 2 diabetes^[2,3].

In short, when we look at the nutritional profile of these foods in a more comprehensive manner, it becomes evident that Berg’s advice is more likely to place people with diabetes at risk of more diseases.

Another example is when influencers promote alternative medicine as cancer cures—a very dangerous trend. The Internet is awash with false claims that baking soda or certain dietary habits like an “alkaline diet” cures cancer. No credible scientific evidence supports these claims and people who choose to use alternative medicine to treat cancer tend to have poorer survival outcomes^[4,5].

To sum up, claims that propose miraculously simple solutions to complex medical conditions typically lack scientific evidence to support them. Even worse, they can persuade people to delay seeking medical care in favor of following a specific diet, or cease taking prescribed medication under the belief that the diet they follow will treat their illness. In both cases, this results in the medical condition going untreated and raises the risk of avoidable complications.

Appeal to nature

A prominent example of this fallacy in nutrition claims is the raw food movement, which encourages people to consume only uncooked and unprocessed food, that is, food in its most unmodified and thus natural state, whether it’s plant or animal-based. This movement has popularized the consumption of unpasteurized milk (also called raw milk), as well as uncooked eggs and meat.

Some influencers who promote these foods, like chiropractors Daniel Pompa and Gary Brecka, claim that the heat used in pasteurization and cooking destroys the nutrients in food, so avoiding these processes will result in a more nutritious diet.

There’s a grain of truth to this: heat from cooking does reduce the amount of certain nutrients. For example, Vitamin C is destroyed by prolonged exposure to high heat.

However, this downside is easily mitigated by consuming a varied diet that derives nutrients from multiple sources. Furthermore, heat can actually increase the nutritional value of food: certain nutrients in cooked food are more likely to be bioavailable compared to nutrients in uncooked food. For example, the protein in cooked eggs is easier for the human body to absorb than the protein in uncooked eggs.

Last but not least, consuming unpasteurized milk and uncooked food exposes us to unnecessary health risks. Unpasteurized milk comes with the risk of bacterial contamination that can lead to food poisoning. Some of the harmful bacteria that can be found in unpasteurized milk are Salmonella and Escherichia coli. While most people will fully recover from food poisoning after a few days without lasting effects, young children, pregnant women, and the elderly are at a higher risk of complications and death from food poisoning.

A high-profile case of raw milk contamination in 2026 took place at Ballerina Farm, owned by lifestyle influencer Hannah Neeleman. The farm had to stop selling unpasteurized milk after a routine health inspection found unacceptably high levels of coliform bacteria, a marker for the presence of harmful bacteria like E. coli.

The American Academy of Pediatrics clarified:

“Both raw and pasteurized milk contain the same amount of nutrients (as well as the same proteins that can trigger allergic reactions and lactose intolerance in people with lactose sensitivities. Proponents of raw milk falsely claim it contains more nutrients and prevents these kinds of allergic reactions.”

Consuming uncooked eggs and meat also carries the same risk of infectious diseases.

In short, many diets and supplements are promoted for being “natural”, but just because something is natural or unprocessed doesn’t necessarily mean it’s good for you. Although ultra-processed foods like hot dogs and ice cream are typically unhealthy, not all forms of food processing are bad: on the contrary, processes like pasteurization and cooking make food safer to eat, while still preserving most of its nutritional value.

Expression of identity and politics

The carnivore diet, which comprises mainly or only animal-based food products, has been widely promoted by right-wing “manosphere” influencers like Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson. This trend draws upon the stereotype of meat consumption as a sign of manliness. This belief is also shared by many conservatives who champion traditional gender norms, even if they don’t necessarily belong to the “manosphere”. Some research also found an association between meat consumption and right-wing ideology^[6,7]. 

Overall, we can infer that the carnivore diet’s appeal is strongly rooted in its affirmation of beliefs that tend to be predominant among the political right.

We need look no farther than the U.S. to see the real-world effects of identity politics on dietary trends. At the beginning of 2026, U.S. health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. introduced changes to national dietary recommendations, which encourage the consumption of more meat and full-fat dairy. Kennedy is one of the leaders of the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) movement, and has claimed that the carnivore diet improved his health.

There’s no credible evidence supporting the claim that the carnivore diet treats diseases, as some influencers like Mikhaila Peterson have claimed. And experts have cautioned that the diet isn’t sustainable or healthy in the long run. Although some people on the carnivore diet perceive improvements in the short term, the negative effects of the carnivore diet, stemming from the high levels of cholesterol and saturated fat, are likely to manifest years down the road.

Identity politics is inextricably linked to the rise of the carnivore diet, but it doesn’t stop there. It’s also linked to other popular misconceptions about certain foods, like soy and seed oils. Soy and soy-based food products have been vilified by right-wing influencers, who claim that soy is “feminizing” and makes men less masculine. Unsurprisingly, the term “soy boy” is used as an insult within these circles.

Except that these claims about soy aren’t supported by scientific evidence. As Science Feedback explained in a past review, although soy contains compounds similar to estrogen, known as phytoestrogens, these compounds don’t always exhibit the same activity as estrogen. In fact, they can even block the effect of estrogen. Furthermore, the implication of these claims—that estrogen is foreign to men and that men need to avoid it—is incorrect. Estrogen naturally occurs in both men and women, and the same is true for testosterone.

To sum up, certain dietary trends like the carnivore diet are linked to how we see ourselves and which “tribe” we want to belong to. On occasion, a modicum of science is added to such claims to lend a veneer of credibility to these trends. However, these claims typically fall apart under scrutiny.

Distrust of mainstream medicine

Distrust of mainstream medicine is commonly a result of negative lived experiences with healthcare institutions, such as trauma from past medical encounters, as well as discrimination by healthcare providers. Health influencers sometimes seek to take advantage of this distrust to promote advice that contradicts medical consensus.

A popular example is cholesterol denialism, which is the false belief that high cholesterol isn’t dangerous and is in fact good for you, as seen in these TikTok videos featuring naturopath Barbara O’Neill and health influencer Garry Lineham (also known by the name Nathanael Garrard Lineham).

A common basis for this claim is a study by Ravnskov et al. from 2016, which reported that people with more “bad” cholesterol (LDL cholesterol) lived longer than people with less “bad” cholesterol. However, this study contained significant flaws, which an earlier Science Feedback review documented. For example, the study didn’t account for other factors that influence mortality, like lifestyle and statin use. Published studies from different countries have established that having high cholesterol increases the risk of heart disease and stroke^[8-11].

Misconceptions based on cholesterol’s biological role in the human body have also fed similar claims.

Some might argue that contrarianism is the hallmark of a brilliant and original mind, pointing to leaps in scientific progress achieved by those who challenged conventionally held beliefs. Examples are the astronomer Galileo Galilei, who challenged the long-held belief that the Sun revolves around the Earth (geocentrism) and the physician Ignaz Semmelweis, who discovered how to curb mortality from postpartum infection.

But it is a mistake to assume that every contrarian is a Galileo or Semmelweis. After all, expressing contrarian views is easy—in the age of social media, it is even rewarded, since it generates controversy and therefore draws plenty of clicks and eyeballs. But it’s much harder to back up those views with scientific evidence, which requires painstaking years of steady toil by teams of researchers to acquire.

Keep in mind that, in many cases, someone who contradicts the scientific consensus is just plain wrong, especially when they fail to have the evidence to support their views.

Conclusion

Although many nutrition claims found online aren’t scientifically credible, many influencers have been successful in disseminating these claims by targeting our core desires and fears. This tactic of exploiting emotional appeal can also be customized to target different audiences based on their emotional and psychological vulnerabilities.

But emotional appeal does not mitigate the very real dangers of unmanaged medical conditions like high cholesterol and foodborne diseases. Low-quality nutrition information can lead to real-world harm: always remember to evaluate these claims not based on how they make you feel, but on whether they hold scientific merit.

REFERENCES

1. Deniss et al. (2023) Quality and accuracy of online nutrition-related information: a systematic review of content analysis studies. Public Health Nutrition.
2. Cecilie et al. (2018) Higher Whole-Grain Intake Is Associated with Lower Risk of Type 2 Diabetes among Middle-Aged Men and Women: The Danish Diet, Cancer, and Health Cohort. Journal of Nutrition.
3. Hu et al. (2020) Intake of whole grain foods and risk of type 2 diabetes: results from three prospective cohort studies. BMJ.
4. Johnson et al. (2017) Use of Alternative Medicine for Cancer and Its Impact on Survival. Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
5. Johnson et al. (2018) Complementary Medicine, Refusal of Conventional Cancer Therapy, and Survival Among Patients With Curable Cancers. JAMA Oncology.
6. Boterman and Harteveld. (2026) (How) Is Meat Becoming Political? The Changing Ideological Correlates of Meat Consumption in The Netherlands. Political Studies.
7. Choma et al. (2024) The politics of red meat consumption and climate change. Environmental Research Communications.
8. Abdullah et al. (2018) Long-Term Association of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol With Cardiovascular Mortality in Individuals at Low 10-Year Risk of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: Results From the Cooper Center Longitudinal Study. Circulation.
9. Rong et al. (2022) Association of Low‐Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Levels with More than 20‐Year Risk of Cardiovascular and All‐Cause Mortality in the General Population. Journal of American Heart Association.
10. Yi et al. (2019) Total cholesterol and all-cause mortality by sex and age: a prospective cohort study among 12.8 million adults. Scientific Reports.
11. Chen et al. (2024) Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol, Cardiovascular Disease Risk, and Mortality in China. JAMA Network Open.

These materials were developed in 2026 for the Prebunking at Scale project, with support from the European Fact-Checking Standards Network.