By Erin MacGregor
Infodemic (noun): The avalanche of information, both accurate and inaccurate, that must be navigated on a daily basis, usually online. The large volume of which can make it difficult to extract what is true and relevant.
There is no doubt we’re living through a nutrition infodemic.
Whether it’s a headline from a traditional media outlet about a new study, a TikTok creator posting videos about their diet, or an activist group tweeting about the dangers of GMOs, when it comes to nutrition, separating fact from fiction can feel like an impossible task.

The first step in stopping the spread of misinformation online, is being able to spot it. Here are three way to help you identify and navigate nutrition misinformation online:
1. Watch out for claims not backed by sources
Science communicators and subject matter experts will provide evidence for the claims they are making. If a journalist, writer, or creator is making a claim about nutrition and health, they should be able to support their claims with evidence too.
Most online platforms make it simple to share sourcing information. Look for hot links within or at the end of articles, or for information posted in the caption of social media content that can link you directly to scientific papers, or well-known trusted websites.
Adequate evidence is especially important with content that presents new evidence or makes claims that go against current consensus.
For example, if a creator makes a claim that a strictly carnivore diet is healthful, they are refuting decades of scientific consensus about the benefits of a high-fibre, plant-forward diet. Since it is rare that one study reverses a long-held scientific consensus, this type of claim should present evidence from multiple high-quality sources.
When someone makes a claim using a story about a personal observation, whether it is based on their own experience or the experience of a small number of people, this should not be considered a legitimate source.
For example: “This supplement has given me more energy than I’ve ever dreamed of! My clients say so, too!”
This is called anecdotal evidence, and it is no substitute for gathering and evaluating data in a systematic way. Testimonials or anecdotal evidence should accompany legitimate sources, but they should never stand alone.
Don’t see any sources? Don’t be afraid to ask! In the meantime, avoid sharing it.
2. Be skeptical of content that appeals to you on an emotional level
If a post makes you feel angry or scared, be wary.
We know that strong emotions can impair our ability to think critically and process information. If you react emotionally to something you see online, pause for a moment to reflect on the content itself.
Nutrition research is notoriously oversimplified in news headlines, which are often written to instill fear as a form of clickbait. A headline that reads “Just one serving of insert any food here can increase cancer risk” is almost certainly misleading when compared to the research it’s referring to.
Approach nutrition research headlines with skepticism. Understand that nutrition science is complex, and in reality, it will almost never unilaterally glorify or vilify any one food or nutrient.
Fear-based messaging is also a common tactic among social media content creators. Claims about food products or ingredients being “toxic” or “dangerous” have become very popular. Creators making these types of claims may benefit in a number of ways. Not only does fear-based messaging draw followers, it may also work in helping to market a creator’s products or services.
When faced with fear-based messaging, ask yourself: “How does this claim benefit the creator?”

3. Beware of common nutrition misinformation tactics
The following tactics are examples of logical fallacies. These are deceptive or false arguments that may seem stronger than they actually are because they are psychologically persuasive.
Appeal to nature
This is an argument that assumes something is ‘good’ as long as it occurs or exists naturally. This is a common tactic used in spreading misinformation about food and nutrition. It’s important to remember that many synthetic ingredients have made our food supply safer (preservatives) and more nutritious (vitamin fortification), while naturally occurring elements like bacteria such as listeria, can be deadly. The bottom line is just because something is natural, that doesn’t make it safer or more nutritious.
False dichotomy
This tactic presents an argument as black or white, when in reality most nutrition science has many shades of gray. Be wary of claims that a single food or nutrient is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Unless it’s in reference to a food allergy, food should not be categorized in this polarizing way.
Correlation does not equal causation
This is a tactic which mistakenly argues that when observations are correlated, or observed together, that one causes the other.
For example, if the rise of gluten-free food sales is observed at the same rate and time as a rise in shark attacks, it would not be logical to conclude that gluten-free foods cause shark attacks.
When claims are made about an increased intake of specific food or nutrients “causing” a health problem, it is important to be skeptical of this relationship. Causal relationships between nutrition and health are difficult to prove, and require a significant amount of data and statistical analysis to make a strong argument.
Bottom line
Misinformation is ubiquitous. Whether it’s about nutrition, food safety, or general health information, it’s important to stop the spread. Pausing to consider these misinformation red flags before forwarding content along to friends, family or through social media, is a step in the right direction in helping to manage today’s infodemic.
Sources:
How to Spot Fake News | FactCheck.org | Posted on November 18, 2016
How to Spot Fake News | International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions
Misinformer Tactic: Make you angry | ScienceUpFirst
Misinformer Tactic: False Dichotomy | ScienceUpFirst | Posted December 21, 2021
Can You Trust That Study? – One Study Rarely Flips the Script | ScienceUpFirst