Today’s Dietitian
Vol. 28 No. 5 P. 6
Q: In today’s world, where misinformation may spread quickly, food and nutrition recommendations made by those in the media spotlight may not always adhere to the science. How can dietetic professionals help consumers navigate this information within the scientific scope of practice?
A: Among diverse groups and voices speaking about nutrition, there is a shared goal to help people become as healthy as possible. However, the method used to achieve this goal and the information disseminated may at times cross a line into mis- and disinformation. As dietetic professionals, we have an ethical obligation to provide science-based information and help clear up any confusion. We must also do so with empathy and without judgement. Here, we’ll explore some of the confusing nutrition information circulating today and talk about how RDs can help people meet their health goals within this conflicted setting.
Confusing Nutrition Recommendations
From taking synthetic food dyes out of candy to swapping the sugar source in soda from high fructose corn syrup to cane sugar to consuming raw milk, some of the nutrition ideology pushed by influencers does not necessarily mean people will eat or become healthier; in some cases, the recommendations may even increase health risks. However, other recommendations—such as consuming whole milk—have scientific backing.1 Both epidemiological studies and randomized controlled trials examining full-fat dairy foods suggest they do not translate directly to weight gain and assumed adverse cardiometabolic outcomes, causing researchers (and the public) to better appreciate the potential therapeutic role of other important nutritive and bioactive constituents in dairy foods without focusing on fat content in a vacuum.
Food labeling is another educational tool that RDs spend time explaining. According to Connie Diekman, MEd, RD, LD, FADA, FAND, consultant and author of several published papers on the topic,2,3 “Food labeling can be confusing for consumers who interpret claims in a manner that might not be what they mean.” Diekman provides examples of terms that can mean something different to every consumer, including “natural,” “made with whole grains,” “healthy,” or even the use of “no cholesterol” on a plant-based food. “This confusion can lead to distrust in food companies, and by default, the dietetics professionals who might recommend foods that contain these terms.”
Further confusing consumers, individual states are increasingly implementing their own regulations—specifically, warnings related to food additives. For example, Texas’s SB25 required warnings for certain ingredients on labels by 2027, and Louisiana’s SB14 requires a QR code linking to warnings for similar ingredients starting in 2028. Talk about label confusion—it may be more confusing than ever to be a consumer.
The Origin of Mis- and Disinformation
Misinformation is false or inaccurate information—getting the facts wrong—while disinformation is false information that is deliberately intended to mislead and intentionally misstates the facts. According to Diekman, “Mis- and disinformation often comes from a recognized name or celebrity.” The recommendations often make larger-than-life promises and generally seem to require no effort. In addition, according to research, less than 30% of a group of surveyed Americans understand scientific concepts and lack the ability to decipher study outcomes.4 “This fact leaves people open to believing what sounds good and is in line with their beliefs and values,” Diekman says.
Other sources that contribute to mis- and disinformation include academia, food companies, and media. “The impact of academia on misinformation is diverse, ranging from publishing in predatory journals that do not have good peer review to social media posts that promote an ‘exciting’ aspect of a study that may not reflect the whole study,” Diekman says. In addition, food companies are anxious to market their products and sometimes the messages they share are more “glitz” than science, while the biggest challenge in media is a lack of understanding of science. Those in media without scientific training or understanding will often use press releases or clickbait messaging to create their stories, and rarely will this information point out study limitations or other important considerations.
Recommendation for RDs
Dietetic professionals want to help people meet their health goals. Even if clients come to RDs with misinformation, Diekman says the first step is to listen to them and understand what their beliefs and concerns are. In addition, it is important to share empathy with clients so they understand that RDs are not there to judge them, but rather to help them learn the evidence and then decide what works for their needs. “Working with clients is based on trust. Demonstrating compassion for their confusion and asking permission to share evidence is a path that can help clients decide what will work for them,” says Diekman, echoing a recommendation that comes from her published paper that states, “Not only must [we] be well versed in scientific evidence on a variety of food and nutrition topics, but [we] must also hear, understand and respect the clients’ views, beliefs, and opinions.”2
Diekman also provides recommendations to dietetic professionals to ensure that scientific integrity is translated properly into social and online media communications. Although social media is about catchy and exciting soundbites, for RDs who want to be a social media force, the first step is remembering that science is the foundation of what we do. The next step, according to Diekman, is remembering that when communicating with consumers, RDs need to meet their needs. Dietetic professionals need to assess the merits of studies and then translate the outcome into consumer-friendly, evidence-based information. Assessing studies involves checking for limitations, peer review, disclosure or conflicts of interest, or use of AI in developing the paper. Overall, the best advice is to rely on journals that respect and uphold professional codes of ethics.
Lastly, having conversations with fellow RDs on how they approach clients who come to them with misinformation may help procure new approaches to delivering nutrition education. Finding support in fellow RDs is a way to help dietitians as a whole become a stronger unified source for credible nutrition science.
— Toby Amidor, MS, RD, CDN, FAND, is founder of Toby Amidor Nutrition (tobyamidornutrition.com) and a Wall Street Journal bestselling author. She’s written 12 cookbooks, including Healthy Living High-Protein Cookbook (May 2026), and Health Shots: 50 Simple Tonics to Help Improve Immunity, Ease Anxiety, Boost Energy, and More (November 2024). She’s also an award-winning media dietitian, spokesperson, and nutrition expert for FoodNetwork.com and a contributor to U.S. News and other national outlets.
Send your questions to Ask the Expert at TDeditor@gvpub.com or send a tweet to @tobyamidor.
References
1. Pokala A, Kraft J, Taormina VM, et al. Whole milk dairy foods and cardiometabolic health: dairy fat and beyond. Nutrition Research. 2024;126:99-122.
2. Diekman C, Ryan CD, Oliver TL. Misinformation and disinformation in food science and nutrition: impact on practice. J Nutr. 2023;153(1):3-9.
3. Lila MA, Ryan C, Diekman C. Down the rabbit hole: how digital media shapes public perceptions of food science and technology research (and how we can safeguard science integrity and credibility). Annu Rev Food Sci Technol. 2025;16(1):459-479.
4. Kennedy B, Hefferon M. What Americans know about science. Pew Research Center website. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/03/28/what-americans-know-about-science/. Published Mar 28, 2019. Accessed September 29, 2025.