Understanding Nutritional Propaganda

Unfortunately, most people don’t actually realise that a lot of the information they have been exposed to is actually carefully tailored propaganda. This is especially true in the health and fitness realm, and I am almost certain that most of you have been exposed to nutritional propaganda at some stage in your life. Some of you may currently actually have nutritional beliefs that have been heavily shaped by nutritional propaganda.

So, my goal with this article is to just make you more aware of the techniques that are used in nutritional propaganda, so you can make more informed decisions about what advice you follow. To this, we have to discuss a little bit about what propaganda actually is, the history of propaganda, and of course, the various techniques of propaganda. 

Understanding The Fundamentals of Propaganda

Propaganda is a form of communication designed to influence people’s beliefs, emotions, or actions, often by presenting information in a biased or misleading way. It uses persuasive techniques to shape public perception and push a specific agenda. 

Propaganda can be found in politics, advertising, media, and even nutrition, where it influences how we think about certain foods and diets.

If we are to discuss propaganda, we have to turn our attention to the people who are often most associated with propaganda, and who are seen to have perfected it. The Nazis.

Nazi Propaganda

Nazi propaganda wasn’t just about spreading information, it was about shaping reality itself. From the moment Hitler rose to power, his regime worked tirelessly to control what people saw, heard, and believed. At the heart of this massive operation was Joseph Goebbels, the mastermind behind the Nazi propaganda machine. His goal was simple: to create an unshakable belief in Nazi ideology and eliminate any opposing views.

Using newspapers, radio broadcasts, films, posters, and even school curricula, the Nazi government crafted a world where their version of the truth was the only one that seemed to exist. They played on people’s emotions, fueling fear, anger, and nationalism while portraying their enemies (especially Jews, communists, and other “undesirables”) as the root of all problems. Every piece of media was carefully designed to reinforce loyalty to Hitler, glorify the Nazi state, and dehumanise those who stood in its way.

But this wasn’t random or improvised. Goebbels understood that effective propaganda needed to be systematic and strategic. He believed in the power of repetition, simple messaging, and controlling the flow of information to keep people from questioning what they were told. Though he never wrote down an official rulebook for propaganda, historians have studied his methods and identified key principles he relied on. 

One of the most well-known analyses comes from Leonard W. Doob, who broke down the core techniques used in Nazi propaganda, shedding light on how a nation was manipulated through carefully crafted messages.

These “rules” include:

1. Propaganda must be simple and focus on a few key themes. Repeating a few messages over and over ensures they become ingrained in public consciousness.
2. Appeal to emotions rather than intellect. Fear, hate, and nationalism are more powerful motivators than logic or reason.
3. Repeat the message constantly. A lie or distorted message repeated often enough becomes accepted as truth.
4. Attack opponents relentlessly. Demonising enemies (Jews, Communists, liberals, etc.) helped unite people against a common foe.
5. Use mass media effectively. Newspapers, radio, film, and rallies were all used to reinforce propaganda.
6. Present only one side of the argument. Any opposition should be ignored, silenced, or misrepresented.
7. Make the people feel like part of a movement. National unity and belonging were key to maintaining control.
8. Turn any setback into a victory. If something goes wrong, blame an external enemy and use it to rally support.
9. Label the opposition with strong, negative terms. “Liar,” “traitor,” or “enemy of the people” make opponents seem illegitimate.
10. Use slogans and symbols. Simple, powerful imagery and phrases (like “Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer”) made ideas easy to remember.
11. Appeal to the lowest common denominator. Messages should be simple and easy to understand for the broadest audience.
12. Create a scapegoat. Blaming Jews, Communists, or other “enemies” helped deflect criticism from the Nazi regime.

These principles made Nazi propaganda highly effective in manipulating public opinion and maintaining control over Germany. 

Many of these tactics are also used in nutritional propaganda (and are still used in political propaganda). Now, of course, I am not trying to make an equivalence between what the Nazis did and how some people use propaganda to further their nutritional ideas. But to understand nutritional propaganda, you have to understand propaganda.

As such, it will help if we further flesh out your understanding of common propaganda techniques, as you will be much better inoculated against nutritional propaganda as a result.

Common propaganda techniques include:

1. Bandwagon Effect: Suggesting that everyone is doing or believing something, so you should too.
2. Testimonials: Using endorsements from influential people to gain credibility.
3. Name-Calling: Disparaging opponents or ideas to discredit them.
4. Glittering Generalities: Using vague, positive words or phrases to evoke strong emotions without providing concrete information.
5. Transfer: Associating a product or idea with something people admire or respect.
6. Plain Folks: Portraying a person or idea as down-to-earth and relatable.
7. Card Stacking: Presenting only one side of an argument or selectively using facts to support a particular viewpoint.
8. Stereotyping: Oversimplifying and generalising characteristics of a group to create bias.
9. Loaded Language: Using words with strong emotional connotations to influence perception.
10. Misleading Statistics: Using data out of context or in a misleading way to support a claim.
11. Propaganda by Omission: Leaving out important information that could change the audience’s perception.
12. Euphemisms: Using mild or vague terms to make something unpleasant sound more acceptable. For example, using “enhanced interrogation” instead of “torture.”
13. Diversion: Shifting the audience’s attention away from an important issue by focusing on something else.
14. Flag-Waving: Appeals to patriotism and national pride to garner support for a cause or action.
15. Loaded Questions: Asking questions that presuppose a particular answer, often to lead the audience to a specific conclusion.
16. Fear-Mongering: Exaggerating potential dangers to create fear and anxiety in the audience.
17. The Big Lie: Repeating a false statement or narrative so frequently and confidently that it’s accepted as truth by some.
18. Demonisation: Portraying opponents or groups as evil, dangerous, or subhuman.
19. Selective Editing: Manipulating audio, video, or quotes to misrepresent a person or situation.
20. False Dilemma: Presenting a complex issue as if there are only two possible solutions, when in reality, there are more options.
21. Appeal to Authority: Citing an authority figure or expert to lend credibility to an argument, even if they may not be qualified on the subject.
22. Subliminal Messaging: Inserting hidden or subtle messages or images into content to influence the subconscious mind without the audience’s awareness.
23. Peer Pressure: Encouraging individuals to conform to a certain belief or behaviour by making them feel that everyone else is doing it.
24. False Attribution: Falsely attributing a statement or action to an opponent or a group to discredit them.
25. Cherry-Picking: Selectively presenting only the best examples or evidence that supports a particular argument while ignoring contradictory information.
26. Fake News: Disseminating false or misleading information under the guise of legitimate news reporting.
27. Appeal to Tradition: Arguing that something should be done a certain way because it’s how it has always been done, appealing to a sense of nostalgia.
28. Nostalgia: Using sentimental or historical imagery to evoke feelings of longing for the past.
29. The “Plain Truth” Fallacy: Presenting an argument as simple, straightforward, and common sense, even if it oversimplifies a complex issue.
30. Virtue Labeling: Attaching positive labels or virtues to a person, idea, or product to make them more appealing.
31. Innuendo: Implying something negative or derogatory about a person or idea without explicitly stating it.
32. Appeal to Self-Interest: Persuading individuals by emphasising how a certain action or belief will benefit them personally.
33. Censorship by Noise: Drowning out opposing viewpoints or information by creating a cacophony of distractions or conflicting messages.
34. Exaggeration: Making claims that are overly dramatic or hyperbolic to provoke a reaction.
35. Gaslighting: Manipulating someone into doubting their own perceptions, memory, or sanity to control their beliefs or actions.
36. The “Us vs. Them” Mentality: Dividing people into distinct groups and emphasising differences to create a sense of belonging and loyalty within one’s own group.
37. Disinformation: Spreading intentionally false or misleading information with the aim of deceiving and confusing the audience.
38. False Flags: Manipulating events to make it appear as though they were caused by a particular group or entity, often used to justify actions against that group.
39. Satire and Parody: Creating humorous or exaggerated content to mock or ridicule a person, idea, or group, which can influence public perception.
40. Emotional Blackmail: Using emotional manipulation, guilt, or shame to pressure individuals into conforming to a particular belief or action.
41. Exploiting Cognitive Biases: Taking advantage of common cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias or the availability heuristic, to manipulate perception.
42. Pseudo-Science: Presenting false or unverified scientific claims to support a particular agenda or belief.
43. Whataboutism: Deflecting criticism or challenging an argument by pointing to unrelated issues or the perceived flaws of the opponent.

There is of course a lot of overlap between the different techniques and some are more “powerful” or more commonly used than others. But it is helpful to have a fuller picture of the techniques that are used for propaganda, if we are to understand nutritional propaganda.

Now, you may simply think that propaganda is a thing of the past, or that it isn’t used in the field of nutrition. However, it is important to realise that propaganda is the foundation of marketing. Some of you may have started to realise this as you read through some of the commonly used techniques. Marketing very often uses propaganda techniques to influence us.

You see, it all comes back to a man named Edward Bernays. 

Propaganda and “Public Relations”

If you’ve ever wondered why you crave certain brands, trust specific figures, or feel drawn to particular social movements, you can thank (or blame) Edward Bernays. Often called the “father of public relations,” Bernays revolutionised the way information is presented to the public. But he started his career studying propaganda.

Before World War II, the term propaganda wasn’t inherently negative, it simply referred to the strategic shaping of public perception. In his book Propaganda, Bernays explained that public opinion can be shaped systematically by those who understand mass psychology. He argued that in a democratic society, manipulation of the public was necessary to maintain order and stability.

But after the war, with Nazi propaganda fresh in the world’s memory, the word took on a sinister tone. Bernays, ever the master of messaging, rebranded it as public relations, giving it a more palatable, professional-sounding name. Yet, at its core, his work remained the same: shaping public opinion through psychological influence.

Propaganda: A Neutral Tool

Bernays didn’t see propaganda as inherently good or evil. To him, it was simply a tool. One that could be used to inform and improve society or to deceive and manipulate. Whether it was a government guiding public sentiment, a corporation promoting its products, or the media framing an issue in a certain light, he believed that shaping public perception was not only inevitable but necessary for social order.

The Power of Influence

At the heart of Bernays’ philosophy was the core idea that people are not rational decision-makers. Instead, they are emotional, driven by desires, fears, and subconscious impulses more than logic or facts. If you want to influence the masses, he argued, you must appeal to those deep-seated instincts rather than trying to convince them through reason alone.

Psychological Manipulation and Freud’s Influence

Bernays was deeply inspired by the work of his uncle, Sigmund Freud. While Freud explored the hidden desires and fears that drive human behaviour, Bernays took those insights and applied them to mass communication. 

Instead of simply providing information, he designed campaigns that tapped into people’s subconscious emotions, using imagery, symbolism, and storytelling to shape perceptions without individuals even realising they were being influenced.

Engineering Consent: Shaping Society Without Awareness

One of Bernays’ most famous and controversial ideas was engineering consent. He argued that elites (whether in politics, business, or media) should guide the public’s opinions and choices in ways that serve the broader social order. The key was doing it so subtly that people believed they were making independent decisions. 

Whether it was convincing women to smoke by linking cigarettes to feminism, making bacon and eggs the standard American breakfast, or promoting fluoride in water as a public health necessity, Bernays mastered the art of making people desire what he wanted them to accept.

The Role of Symbols and Authority Figures

Another powerful strategy he championed was the use of trusted figures to validate messages. A statement from a politician might be met with scepticism, but if the same message came from a doctor, scientist, or celebrity, well, people were far more likely to accept it without question. 

Bernays leveraged this concept constantly. Having medical experts endorse certain foods, using famous personalities to promote products, and even orchestrating events that made his clients’ causes seem naturally popular.

Now, you may be thinking that you wouldn’t fall victim to propaganda, but let me just show you some of his most successful campaigns. 

Famous Propaganda Campaigns by Edward Bernays

Edward Bernays didn’t just study propaganda, he actively (and successfully) used it to shape our world. From changing how Americans ate breakfast to influencing international politics, his campaigns were masterclasses in psychological persuasion. Here are some of his most famous efforts, each demonstrating how he used emotions, authority figures, and public perception to steer society in a desired direction.

1. “Torches of Freedom” (1929): Making Smoking a Symbol of Feminism

In the 1920s, smoking in public was considered unladylike, and tobacco companies were desperate to tap into the female market. Enter Edward Bernays. Hired by the American Tobacco Company, he devised a campaign that linked smoking to the women’s liberation movement.

During the 1929 Easter Sunday Parade in New York City, Bernays orchestrated a dramatic event: a group of fashionable, independent women lit up cigarettes (dubbed “Torches of Freedom”) in front of journalists and photographers. The media ran with the story, framing smoking as a bold act of female empowerment. Practically overnight, cigarettes became a symbol of rebellion and equality, and tobacco sales among women skyrocketed.

2. Bacon and Eggs: The “All-American Breakfast”

Ever wonder why a hearty breakfast of bacon and eggs is considered the classic American way to start the day? You can thank Bernays for that.

In the 1920s, Americans typically ate light breakfasts, but the Beech-Nut Packing Company (which sold bacon) wanted to change that. Bernays didn’t just push ads to promote bacon, he went deeper and used his knowledge of propaganda to craft a successful PR campaign. 

He commissioned a survey of doctors and asked if a “hearty breakfast” was better for health than a light one. Unsurprisingly, many doctors agreed. Bernays then publicised these endorsements, leading Americans to believe that a big breakfast was not only ideal but medically recommended.

The result? A surge in bacon sales and the birth of the “traditional” American breakfast, one that still persists today. 

You think you are immune to nutritional propaganda, but you often don’t even realise what is propaganda and what isn’t.

3. The United Fruit Company and the “Banana Republic”

Bernays didn’t just influence what people ate, he also played a role in shaping international politics. In the 1950s, he worked for the United Fruit Company (now Chiquita), which had vast banana plantations in Guatemala. When the democratically elected Guatemalan government under President Jacobo Árbenz threatened United Fruit’s dominance by proposing land reforms, Bernays was called in to shift American public opinion.

His strategy? He framed Guatemala as a growing communist threat during the Cold War. Through strategic media placements, government lobbying, and reports from “independent” journalists (who were often unknowingly guided by Bernays), he fueled fears that the country was a Soviet foothold in the Western Hemisphere.

The propaganda campaign worked. The U.S. government, convinced that Guatemala posed a geopolitical risk, supported a CIA-backed coup in 1954, overthrowing Árbenz and installing a pro-business military regime. The term “banana republic” would later be coined to describe countries dominated by corporate and political corruption, thanks in part to Bernays’ efforts.

Again, you very often don’t even know what is propaganda and what isn’t. Many of “your” thoughts have actually been carefully crafted and delivered to you by someone or some company with ulterior motives.

4. Promoting Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Public Health Victory or Corporate Interest?

Fluoride in drinking water is widely accepted today as a public health measure to prevent tooth decay, but in the 1940s and 50s, it was controversial. Bernays was brought in to help shift public perception in favour of fluoridation.

Rather than directly promoting fluoride himself, he applied one of his classic techniques: getting respected authorities to speak on its behalf. He worked behind the scenes to ensure that medical and dental professionals publicly supported fluoridation, making it appear as though the scientific community overwhelmingly endorsed it.

His approach worked. Over time, public resistance weakened, and fluoride became a standard public health measure across the U.S. Some historians argue that his campaign was purely for public benefit, while others point out that fluoride was also a byproduct of industrial processes, meaning corporate interests may have played a role. 

Either way, his ability to shape perception is undeniable. Propaganda is very effective.

The Legacy of Bernays’ Campaigns

Edward Bernays was a master manipulator of mass psychology. Whether it was selling cigarettes as symbols of freedom, reshaping dietary habits, justifying foreign intervention, or influencing public health policy, his strategies transformed how information is used to guide public opinion. 

Ultimately, Edward Bernays understood something fundamental about human nature: people don’t just respond to facts, they respond to feelings, symbols, and authority. Whether that power is used ethically or manipulatively depends on the hands that wield it. His legacy continues to shape modern marketing, politics, and media, making his influence as relevant today as it was a century ago.

Now, let’s actually see how this applies to nutrition (and health and fitness more broadly). Unfortunately, a lot of these propaganda methods are regularly used in the field of nutrition and health, and this really does make it hard to discern what is actually truthful.

Nutritional Propaganda

Nutritional propaganda employs many of the same techniques historically used in political and ideological campaigns. By utilising these propaganda techniques, influencers, corporations, special interest groups, and even governments shape the public’s understanding of food, health, and diet. 

It’s important to keep in mind that nutritional propaganda is not necessarily bad or evil. It can be used for good, and it can be used for evil, but the techniques themselves don’t generally have an inherent morality (although some of them are definitely more on the evil side of the morality compass). 

Understanding the techniques of nutritional propaganda will allow you to make better decisions about your own nutrition, and avoid many of the common propaganda traps. Unfortunately, social media is a minefield for this stuff, and it is so easy to be led astray by propaganda.

To show you the techniques of nutritional propaganda, I am first going to show you have the Nazi propaganda techniques are used, and then I will quickly go through some examples of how the other techniques are used. 

(As a quick note, I am going to try to use a diverse array of examples from a variety of angles in this discussion. So as not to be called biased, I have used AI to come up with some examples, so don’t blame me if I touch on one of your key beliefs, blame ChatGPT. Some of these I would see as beneficial, and some I would see as negative. Again, I am trying to show you the techniques, not discuss my beliefs here.)

Propaganda Must Be Simple and Focus on a Few Key Themes

Nutrition is complex, but propaganda thrives on simplicity. Instead of diving into the nuances of how different diets or nutrients affect the body, we’re fed catchy, black-and-white slogans:

• “Carbs are bad.”
• “Fat makes you fat.”
• “Meat is murder.”

These messages stick because they’re easy to remember and align with a clear villain-versus-hero narrative. In reality, nutrition is far more complicated than a single rule or belief system. But propaganda doesn’t aim for complexity, it aims for impact.

Appeal to Emotions Rather Than Intellect

Fear, guilt, and moral superiority are powerful tools in nutritional messaging. Think about how many health campaigns use shocking imagery (obese bodies, clogged arteries, or suffering animals) to make their point. Instead of presenting a balanced view of dietary moderation, many nutrition narratives create a sense of panic:

• Sugar is framed as poison, rather than a substance that can be consumed in moderation.
• Processed foods are linked to early death, ignoring that processing can also improve food safety and shelf life.
• Diet choices become a moral issue, where people who eat “clean” feel superior to those who don’t, and those who indulge in “bad” foods experience guilt and shame.

By triggering strong emotions, these messages override logical thinking, making people more susceptible to extreme dietary shifts.

Repeat the Message Constantly

If you hear something often enough, you’ll start to believe it—whether it’s true or not. Nutritional propaganda relies on repetition to ingrain certain beliefs into public consciousness. Consider how often you’ve come across these statements:

• “Organic is always better.”
• “Carnivore is the best diet.”
• “Meat causes cancer.”

These ideas don’t necessarily come from conclusive science, but they gain traction because they’re repeated endlessly. From advertisements to social media influencers, the same narratives are reinforced again and again, creating the illusion of widespread agreement.

Attack Opponents Relentlessly

Propaganda isn’t just about promoting a belief, it’s about discrediting the opposition. In nutrition, this often turns into an “us vs. them” battle:

• Vegan activists paint meat-eaters as cruel and unethical.
• The dairy industry fights back by portraying plant-based alternatives as unnatural or nutritionally inferior.
• Low-carb proponents claim that anyone still eating grains is trapped in outdated thinking.

Instead of encouraging open, nuanced discussions about dietary choices, nutritional propaganda pressures people to pick a side, reinforcing division and hostility.

Use Mass Media Effectively

Media (whether it’s television, newspapers, blogs, or social media) amplifies nutritional propaganda at an enormous scale. Think about how certain media push a one-sided message:

• What the Health and Forks Over Knives aggressively promote plant-based diets while condemning traditional food systems.
• Corporate-funded studies selectively highlight data that supports a product, whether it’s dairy, weight-loss supplements, or alternative sweeteners.
• Social media influencers push diet trends, often based more on personal anecdotes than on scientific research.

With carefully curated content, these messages become impossible to escape. They shape how we think about food, not through objective analysis, but through strategic repetition, emotional appeals, and selective storytelling.

Present Only One Side of the Argument

Nutrition is complex, yet many diet movements promote just one narrative while dismissing conflicting evidence. Take the anti-fat movement of the late 20th century, where governments and health organisations pushed the idea that dietary fat was the enemy, blaming it for heart disease and obesity. Meanwhile, emerging research suggesting that certain fats could be beneficial was ignored or suppressed.

Fast forward to today, and we see a similar pattern in reverse. High-fat diets like Carnivore and Keto claim that carbohydrates are inherently harmful while downplaying the risks of excessive saturated fat intake. 

The reality is that most balanced diets incorporate both fat and carbs in healthy proportions. But propaganda thrives on extremes, not balance.

Make People Feel Like Part of a Movement

Diet trends aren’t just about food, they’re about identity. Whether it’s Paleo, Vegan, Intermittent Fasting, or Carnivore, each movement cultivates a strong sense of community. Hashtags flood social media, fitness influencers become unofficial leaders, and followers feel a sense of belonging to an exclusive club.

This tribalism creates a powerful psychological effect where people feel validated for their choices and develop brand loyalty, making them less likely to question the movement’s claims. 

Anyone who raises doubts is often met with hostility, as skepticism is seen as a threat to the group’s identity rather than an opportunity for discussion.

Turn Any Setback Into a Victory

When a diet doesn’t deliver the promised results, you might expect people to reconsider the approach. But in many cases, the failure is reframed as user error rather than a flaw in the system itself.

• Didn’t lose weight on Keto? You must not have been in “true ketosis.”
• Feeling fatigued on a plant-based diet? You just weren’t doing it “correctly.”
• Struggling with intermittent fasting? You need to “push through” and “train your body.”

By shifting the blame onto individuals rather than the diet itself, these movements insulate themselves from criticism. This makes it harder for people to step back and objectively evaluate whether the approach is truly sustainable or beneficial for their health.

Label the Opposition with Strong, Negative Terms

In an ideal world, nutrition debates would be based on scientific evidence and open discussion. Instead, many diet movements resort to name-calling and discrediting opponents with harsh labels:

• Those who question Carnivore diets are dismissed as “shills for Big Pharma.”
• People skeptical of organic food are called “ignorant” or “brainwashed.”
• Anyone who challenges a popular diet trend is accused of being part of the “mainstream media’s agenda.”

This tactic isn’t about having a genuine debate, it’s about silencing dissent. When opposing voices are painted as untrustworthy, people are less likely to engage with alternative viewpoints, making them more susceptible to one-sided messaging.

Use Slogans and Symbols

Ever heard the phrase “Milk does a body good”? How about “Meat is murder”? These slogans take complex, nuanced debates (about dairy’s role in health or the ethics of eating meat) and reduce them to bite-sized, emotionally charged statements. 

The brilliance of these slogans lies in their simplicity: they’re easy to remember and repeat, making them highly persuasive.

But words aren’t the only powerful tools in food propaganda. Logos and symbols also play a huge role in shaping consumer behavior. Take the Non-GMO Project butterfly or the USDA Organic seal. These visuals immediately signal “this is the better choice” to consumers, even if most people don’t fully understand the science behind what they mean. 

Instead of promoting informed decision-making, these symbols rely on emotional recognition, leading people to trust them without question.

Appeal to the Lowest Common Denominator

Nutrition messaging is very often dumbed down for mass consumption. Nutrition is complicated, but most messaging about food doesn’t reflect that. Instead of empowering people to make informed choices (by teaching them how to read ingredient labels or interpret scientific research) diet propaganda is often reduced to over-simplified rules:

• “Eat this, not that.”
• “Carbs are bad.”
• “Go gluten-free for better health.”

These black-and-white guidelines may be easy to follow, but they discourage critical thinking. Instead of learning how different foods affect the body based on context, individuals are encouraged to follow simplistic rules that often lead to confusion, misinformation, and unnecessary dietary restrictions.

Create a Scapegoat

One of the most effective propaganda tactics is shifting blame away from the real problem and onto an easy target. The food industry has been doing this for decades:

• In the 20th century, the sugar industry funded research that blamed dietary fat for obesity and heart disease, redirecting public scrutiny away from sugar’s own role in these health issues.
• Processed food companies often claim that “sedentary lifestyles” are to blame for obesity, rather than acknowledging how their highly processed, calorie-dense products contribute to the problem.
• Extreme diet movements pin all health woes on single food groups: gluten, dairy, meat, or carbs. Oversimplifying complex metabolic and nutritional issues into one clear villain.

By scapegoating a single nutrient, food group, or lifestyle factor, these narratives distract from broader issues, like the role of ultra-processed foods, environmental factors, and individual genetics in health outcomes.

So, you can see that a lot of what is out there in the nutritional sphere does actually conform quite a lot to Nazi era propaganda techniques. But don’t worry, there’s more…

Bandwagon Effect

Ever noticed how diet trends explode seemingly overnight? One day, no one is talking about intermittent fasting or the carnivore diet, and the next, it’s everywhere. This is the Bandwagon Effect in action. And when something seems popular, people assume it must be worth trying.

Social media plays a huge role in this. Influencers and celebrities showcase their meal plans, transformations, and “what I eat in a day” videos, making their followers feel like they should jump on board. 

The problem with this is that popularity doesn’t equal scientific validity. Many diet fads thrive on hype rather than hard evidence, leading people to follow trends without critically evaluating whether they actually work or suit their individual health needs.

Testimonials

When a celebrity or well-known expert endorses a product, people listen. Nutrition companies take full advantage of this, using testimonials from doctors, athletes, and influencers to lend credibility to their supplements, meal plans, and superfoods.

A fitness guru raving about a fat-burning tea? A celebrity claiming a detox juice changed their life? These endorsements are designed to influence public perception, even if there’s little to no scientific backing for the product itself. Just because someone famous swears by it doesn’t mean it’s effective, but testimonials create an illusion of trust.

Name-Calling

When it comes to diet debates, logical discussions often take a backseat to emotional attacks. Instead of addressing different viewpoints with science and nuance, people resort to name-calling to discredit opposing perspectives.

• Question veganism? You’re a “shill for Big Ag.”
• Skeptical of keto? You’re “ignorant” or “stuck in outdated nutrition thinking.”
• Not convinced that organic is always superior? You’re “brainwashed by corporate food companies.”

By attacking the credibility of critics instead of engaging with their arguments, these tactics shut down discussion and make people feel pressured to conform rather than question.

Glittering Generalities

Some words just sound healthy. Terms like “superfood,” “clean,” and “natural” evoke strong positive feelings, but they often lack precise definitions.

• “Clean eating” implies that anything outside of its scope is dirty, despite no clear scientific criteria for what makes a food “clean.”
• “Superfoods” are marketed as miracle ingredients, even though they aren’t nutritionally superior to many everyday foods.
• “Natural” is slapped onto food labels, even when the product is highly processed.

These buzzwords work because they appeal to emotions rather than facts. They make foods seem inherently superior without providing real scientific backing, leading people to make purchasing decisions based on perception rather than evidence.

Transfer

When a diet or product aligns itself with respected figures, traditions, or movements, it automatically gains credibility in people’s minds. This is known as Transfer. Associating a food choice with something trustworthy or revered to make it seem more legitimate.

• A group claims its diet is based on ancient eating traditions, implying that it must be better because it’s been around for centuries.
• A supplement company highlights its partnership with elite athletes, even if those athletes were paid for the endorsement.
• A new diet trend links itself to respected nutritionists, even if their actual research doesn’t support the claims being made.

By associating a product with something trustworthy, Transfer makes people believe in its credibility without questioning whether the connection is actually valid.

Plain Folks

Have you ever seen a commercial where a loving mom serves a snack that’s “mom-approved” or a group of happy, everyday people rave about a diet? That’s the Plain Folks technique in action. Making a product seem trustworthy by associating it with ordinary people instead of corporate interests.

Food brands and diet promoters know that people are more likely to trust something if it feels familiar and relatable. A meal plan marketed as “designed for busy parents” or a supplement “recommended by real people just like you” creates a sense of authenticity, even if there’s little scientific backing behind the product itself.

Card Stacking

If you’ve ever heard about a food’s incredible health benefits without mention of its downsides, you’ve encountered Card Stacking. This tactic involves selectively presenting information to create a one-sided argument.

For example:

• A study might claim that a food reduces heart disease risk, but if the absolute risk reduction is tiny, the impact is exaggerated.
• A product might boast that it’s “high in protein” while conveniently ignoring its excessive fat content.
• A diet trend might emphasise a handful of success stories while glossing over the many people who didn’t see results.

By stacking the deck in favour of a product or belief, marketers shape public perception in a way that feels evidence-based, even when it’s not.

Stereotyping

Nutritional debates are full of sweeping generalisations that shape public opinion without acknowledging nuance.

• “Vegans are weak.” This stereotype ignores the fact that many plant-based athletes perform at elite levels.
• “Meat-eaters are unethical.” A broad generalisation that unfairly associates dietary choices with morality.
• “Fat-free is always healthy.” Many fat-free products are loaded with sugar and additives, making them far from a guaranteed healthy choice.

Stereotypes simplify complex dietary discussions into soundbites that influence public opinion, often at the expense of real understanding.

Loaded Language

Certain words carry strong emotional weight, and food marketers use them strategically to shape how we think about different foods and diets.

• “Toxic”: Used to describe foods deemed unhealthy, even when the science doesn’t support the idea that they are inherently dangerous.
• “Chemicals”: Everything is made of chemicals, but when you ay a food is loaded with chemicals, you inherently think negatively.
• “Junk food”: Implies moral judgment on processed foods, even though occasional indulgence is not inherently harmful.
• “Clean eating”: Creates the illusion that some foods are “pure” while others are dirty, reinforcing unnecessary food guilt.

By using emotionally charged language, diet promoters steer people’s choices through feeling rather than logic.

Misleading Statistics

Statistics can be twisted to make a food or diet seem more beneficial (or harmful) than it really is.

For example, a study might claim:

• “This diet reduces heart disease risk by 50%!” Which sounds impressive, right? But if the original risk was only 2%, that means the new risk is 1%. A tiny difference that’s framed to seem huge.
• “Eating this superfood increases weight loss by 30%!” But if the average person loses 1 kilo on the standard diet and 1.3 kilos on the promoted diet, the absolute difference is actually minimal.
• “Nine out of ten doctors recommend this supplement!” But how many doctors were surveyed? And were they truly independent or part of the company’s paid endorsements?

Without context, statistics can be used to mislead consumers into believing a product or diet is far more effective than it actually is.

Propaganda by Omission

Have you ever seen a food advertised as “rich in protein” or “a great source of fibre”? While these statements may be true, they often leave out important details.

A protein bar might pack 15 grams of protein, but what the ad doesn’t tell you is that it’s also loaded with 20 grams of sugar and 10 grams of fat. A “heart-healthy” cereal might be high in fibre but also filled with artificial additives and refined carbs.

By emphasising the positive while ignoring the negative, food companies shape consumer perception in a way that encourages purchase without full transparency.

Euphemisms

Words have power, and the food industry knows it. Instead of calling something by its less appealing name, companies rebrand it with softer, more palatable language:

• “Processed meat” becomes “cured meats” to make it sound more artisanal and natural.
• “Artificial sweeteners” are labeled as “alternative sweeteners” to avoid negative connotations.
• “Mechanically separated chicken” is conveniently replaced with “white meat chicken” on ingredient lists.

These linguistic tricks make unhealthy ingredients seem less alarming and more appealing, helping companies sell products that might otherwise face consumer resistance.

Diversion

When scrutiny arises over unhealthy ingredients, companies don’t always defend their choices directly. Instead, they shift the conversation to something else entirely.

For example, when concerns about excessive sugar consumption grow, soda companies don’t discuss reducing sugar levels. Instead, they launch campaigns about the importance of exercise, implying that obesity and health issues stem from lack of physical activity rather than diet.

Similarly, fast food chains facing criticism for unhealthy menu options might highlight their charitable donations or commitment to sustainability, diverting attention from the actual health concerns tied to their products.

Flag-Waving

Sometimes, food marketing doesn’t even need to focus on health, it can simply appeal to national pride. Labels like:

• “Proudly Made in the USA”
• “Farm-raised American beef”
• “Traditional French artisan cheese”

These phrases make products feel trustworthy, authentic, and superior, not because of their nutritional value, but because they’re tied to cultural identity. The same effect happens with traditional foods. Someone from Italy might fiercely defend pasta, or an Argentinian might swear by their beef, simply because these foods are deeply embedded in their national heritage. This emotional connection makes it harder to question the health aspects of certain diets.

Loaded Questions

Health campaigns often pose questions that assume a particular answer, making it difficult for people to disagree without feeling guilty or foolish.

• “Do you want to poison your body with processed foods?” (Assumes that all processed foods are harmful.)
• “Would you rather eat real food or lab-created chemicals?” (Ignores the fact that many safe, beneficial foods are developed through science.)
• “Don’t you want to do what’s best for your children?” (Emotionally pressures parents into specific dietary choices.)

By framing the question in a way that makes only one answer seem acceptable, these tactics discourage critical thinking and push consumers toward a predetermined conclusion.

Fear-Mongering

One of the most effective ways to influence people’s food choices is to make them afraid. Fear-based messaging exaggerates potential risks, turning everyday foods into supposed health hazards.

• GMOs are portrayed as unnatural and dangerous, even though scientific consensus supports their safety.
• Artificial sweeteners are accused of causing cancer, despite decades of research showing no solid evidence for harm at normal consumption levels.
• Gluten is blamed for a variety of health issues, leading many people without gluten sensitivities to avoid it unnecessarily.

By using dramatic language, words like toxic, poison, or deadly, these campaigns trigger anxiety, pushing people to avoid certain foods without fully understanding the science behind them.

The Big Lie

Ever heard that “eating fat makes you fat”? For decades, this idea was treated as fact. People avoided avocados, nuts, and eggs while filling their diets with “fat-free” products, many of which were loaded with sugar.

This is an example of The Big Lie, a false belief that gains traction simply because it is repeated over and over. Even when scientific evidence contradicts it, the idea persists because it has been ingrained in public consciousness.

Other examples include:

• “Carbs are the sole cause of weight gain.” (While excessive calorie intake is the real issue, low-carb diets often oversimplify the problem.)
• “Detox diets cleanse your body.” (Your liver and kidneys already detoxify your body, no expensive juice cleanse required.)
• “High-protein diets destroy your kidneys.” (This only applies to individuals with pre-existing kidney disease, yet the claim is widely spread.)

By repeating oversimplified or misleading claims, food propaganda shapes beliefs that can last for generations.

Demonisation

Nutritional debates are rarely just about food, they often turn personal. Instead of discussing different dietary perspectives objectively, opponents are labeled as reckless, unethical, or even immoral.

• Meat eaters are accused of destroying the planet through deforestation and carbon emissions.
• Plant-based dieters are labeled as extremists or “pushing an agenda.”
• People who question organic food’s superiority are dismissed as ignorant or manipulated by “Big Agriculture”.

This tactic is effective because it turns dietary choices into moral battles rather than personal health decisions. Once a food choice is tied to identity and ethics, rational discussion becomes nearly impossible.

Selective Editing

What we see in the media isn’t always the full story. Selective editing ensures that only certain images, quotes, and statistics are presented, carefully shaping how we perceive different diets.

• A documentary promoting veganism might only show unhealthy, overweight individuals on meat-based diets, ignoring the millions of healthy omnivores.
• A campaign against processed foods might use extreme before-and-after photos, showing only the worst cases while ignoring people who eat processed foods in moderation without issues.
• A low-carb diet advertisement might feature testimonials from people who lost weight but leave out those who struggled or regained the weight later.

By carefully choosing what information is presented (and what is left out) these narratives create a distorted picture of reality.

False Dilemma

Food choices aren’t as simple as “good” vs. “bad”, but that’s exactly how they’re often framed. The false dilemma fallacy forces people to pick one of two extreme positions, leaving no room for balance or nuance.

• “Either you eat organic, or you’re poisoning yourself.” (In reality, conventional produce is perfectly safe.)
• “Either you’re vegan, or you don’t care about animals.” (Most omnivores support ethical farming practices.)
• “Either you cut carbs completely, or you’ll never lose weight.” (Carbs can be part of a healthy diet when consumed in moderation as part of a calorie appropriate diet.)

By presenting nutrition as an all-or-nothing choice, these arguments discourage critical thinking and push people toward extreme dietary decisions.

Appeal to Authority

Just because someone is famous or a doctor doesn’t mean they’re an expert in nutrition. Yet, time and time again, we see celebrities and doctors endorsing diets, supplements, and health trends as if they’ve conducted scientific research on the topic themselves.

• A Hollywood actor promotes a new diet, despite having no background in health or nutrition.
• A fitness influencer recommends a specific diet, but their advice is based on personal anecdotes rather than scientific evidence.
• A wellness guru claims that a certain superfood will cure disease, yet has no medical training.

These endorsements feel convincing because we may look up to these figures, but expertise matters. Without scientific backing, these recommendations are often nothing more than well-marketed opinions.

Subliminal Messaging

Have you ever seen an advertisement for food and suddenly felt hungry, even if you weren’t thinking about eating? That’s because food marketing goes beyond words; it taps into subliminal messaging to influence cravings.

• Colour psychology: Fast-food brands often use red and yellow because they stimulate appetite.
• Background music: Smooth jazz in a fine dining ad makes the meal seem luxurious, while upbeat pop music in a cereal commercial makes breakfast feel fun and energising.
• Imagery: A close-up of a dripping, juicy burger or slow-motion footage of condensation on a can creates an emotional, sensory response.

These subtle cues make us associate certain foods with pleasure, comfort, or indulgence, leading us to crave them without even realising why. 

Peer Pressure

Ever felt judged for not trying the latest diet trend? Peer pressure plays a huge role in nutritional choices.

• A group of friends all go gluten-free, making the one who still eats bread feel out of place.
• A fitness community promotes a specific diet, and those who don’t follow it feel like they’re “doing it wrong.”
• Social media influencers push organic-only eating, subtly shaming those who buy conventional groceries.

The fear of being left out or seen as “unhealthy” can drive people to follow diets not because they believe in them, but because they want to fit in.

False Attribution

Science should guide our food choices, but what happens when studies are misquoted or completely fabricated?

• A company claims their product is “doctor-recommended”, but fails to mention that the doctor is paid by the brand.
• A supplement brand boasts “clinically proven results”, but the study they reference was small, biased, or poorly conducted.
• A blogger cites a research paper that actually contradicts their claim, but assumes no one will check the original source.

By misusing scientific authority, brands and influencers create the illusion of credibility, even when their claims don’t hold up under scrutiny.

Cherry-Picking

Nutrition is rarely black and white, but marketers love to make it seem that way. Cherry-picking occurs when only supportive evidence is highlighted while opposing research is ignored.

• A study showing that coffee has antioxidants is widely publicised, while research on potential downsides (like increased anxiety in some) is buried.
• A food brand highlights research that links dairy to bone health, but ignores studies that suggest it may not be appropriate for some people.
• A diet book claims low-carb eating leads to weight loss, but doesn’t mention that high-protein intake alone can have the same effect.

By only presenting part of the picture, cherry-picking reinforces dietary dogma while leaving out crucial context.

Fake News

In the age of social media, nutritional misinformation spreads like wildfire.

• A viral post claims that GMOs cause cancer, despite overwhelming scientific evidence proving their safety.
• An influencer promotes a miracle diet that “cures” disease, even though there’s no clinical research to back it up.
• A popular health website warns that microwaving food destroys nutrients, a claim that has been repeatedly debunked.

These exaggerated or outright false claims take hold because they spark fear and offer simple, dramatic explanations for complex health issues. Unfortunately, by the time scientists or experts correct the misinformation, millions of people may have already believed and shared it.

Appeal to Tradition

Many diets and food philosophies romanticise the past, assuming that traditional eating habits are inherently healthier than modern nutrition.

• “Our ancestors didn’t eat processed foods, and they were healthier than us!” (While they may have eaten fewer processed foods, they also weren’t inherently healthier.)
• “The Mediterranean diet has been around for centuries, so it must be the healthiest way to eat.” (It is a healthy diet, but its benefits are supported by research, not just longevity.)
• “Ayurvedic and ancient Chinese medicine have guided nutrition for thousands of years.” (These traditions offer wisdom but should still be evaluated with modern science.)

While there is value in traditional diets, the idea that older always means better ignores the fact that modern science has provided critical insights into nutrition, health, and disease prevention.

Nostalgia

Similar to the appeal to tradition, nostalgia-driven food marketing makes it seem like people in the past ate perfectly before fast food, preservatives, and artificial ingredients “ruined” our diets.

• “Our grandparents ate whole foods and didn’t have obesity problems.” (They also had different lifestyles, worked more physical jobs, and had less access to processed food.)
• “People used to eat butter, whole milk, and red meat all the time, and they were fine!” (Modern portion sizes and activity levels are vastly different from past generations.)
• “Food was more ‘real’ back then.” (While food production has changed, nostalgia ignores food scarcity, lack of variety, and nutritional deficiencies that past generations faced.)

This longing for the simpler times of eating ignores how food accessibility, technology, and scientific understanding have improved our diets in many ways.

The “Plain Truth” Fallacy

Many diet trends market themselves as “common sense”, but nutritional science is rarely that simple.

• “Eating fat makes you fat.” (Dietary fat doesn’t directly translate to body fat, calorie balance and metabolism are far more complex.)
• “If you can’t pronounce it, don’t eat it.” (Many beneficial nutrients and ingredients have complex names like dihydrogen monoxide, which is just water.)
• “Carbs are bad for you.” (Carbohydrates are an essential macronutrient; the quality and quantity matter more than their mere presence in a diet.)

What seems like plain truth is often just a misleading oversimplification that ignores the complexity of human metabolism, food chemistry, and individual health needs.

Virtue Labeling

We’ve all seen foods described with words that make them seem morally superior:

• “Clean eating” suggests that anything outside this category is dirty or unhealthy.
• “Pure and natural” implies that processed foods are inherently bad, even though some processing makes food safer and more nutritious.
• “Wholesome” makes a food sound better, even if it’s high in sugar, fat, or calories.

These labels create a false moral hierarchy in food choices, making people feel guilty for eating anything that isn’t labeled as “clean” or “natural.” The truth is that a food’s value should be based on its nutritional content, not clever marketing.

Innuendo

Sometimes, a claim doesn’t have to be explicitly stated to be persuasive. Instead of outright declaring that a food is harmful, marketing and diet influencers use innuendo to create a sense of doubt and fear.

• “Some studies suggest a link between processed foods and cancer.” (But what studies? And do they show causation or just correlation?)
• “Many people experience bloating after eating gluten, could it be harming your digestion?” (This plants suspicion without real scientific backing.)
• “You might want to rethink that dairy consumption…” (Why? No real explanation, just a vague warning.)

These kinds of statements allow misinformation to spread while avoiding direct accountability. By suggesting rather than stating, they create fear without needing to provide solid evidence.

Appeal to Self-Interest

Let’s be honest, people are more likely to change their diet for personal benefits than for vague health statistics. That’s why nutritional propaganda often targets self-interest, emphasising beauty, youth, and personal transformation over real scientific benefits.

• “This diet will make you look younger!” (No evidence given, just an appeal to vanity.)
• “Lose weight effortlessly and feel amazing!” (No mention of the challenges or sustainability.)
• “Boost your metabolism and burn fat faster!” (Sounds scientific, but often lacks real evidence.)

These claims are persuasive because they tap into what people want, not necessarily what they need for long-term health.

Censorship by Noise

Ever feel overwhelmed by conflicting nutrition advice? One day, eggs are a superfood, the next, they’re linked to high cholesterol. Carbs are demonised one moment and essential the next. This phenomenon is called censorship by noise, when so many conflicting messages exist that it becomes impossible to find a clear, scientific consensus.

• Influencers push trendy diets (keto, carnivore, vegan, paleo, etc.) all claiming to be the best way to eat.
• Food industries fund competing research, leading to contradictory findings that confuse consumers.
• Clickbait headlines oversimplify studies, making people question what’s actually true.

The result is that consumers feel lost, frustrated, and often default to whatever diet is marketed most aggressively.

Exaggeration

Marketers love to make foods sound like magic. Whether it’s a superfood or a miracle supplement, many health claims are wildly exaggerated.

• “Turmeric cures inflammation!” (Turmeric has anti-inflammatory properties, but it’s not a cure-all.)
• “This green juice detoxifies your body!” (Your liver and kidneys already do that.)
• “Collagen will erase your wrinkles!” (While collagen plays a role in skin health, no food or supplement can significantly reverse skin ageing.)

While some of these foods do have health benefits, the marketing often promises far more than science supports, leading people to spend money on products that won’t deliver dramatic results.

Gaslighting

One of the most harmful forms of nutritional propaganda is gaslighting. For example, making people feel guilty or mistaken for following their natural hunger cues.

• “You’re not really hungry, you’re just bored.” (Sometimes, you are actually hungry.)
• “If you crave carbs, it means you’re addicted to sugar.” (Craving carbs can be normal, your body needs energy.)
• “You shouldn’t feel hungry if you’re eating ‘right.’” (Hunger is a natural signal, not a sign of failure.)

Many diet trends encourage people to ignore their own biological needs, leading to unhealthy relationships with food, guilt around eating, and, in extreme cases, disordered eating patterns.

The “Us vs. Them” Mentality

One of the most common ways diet movements gain traction is by creating an enemy. Instead of presenting nutrition as a spectrum with room for individual choices, many diet groups frame it as a battle between the enlightened and the ignorant.

• Vegans vs. Meat-Eaters: Vegans may be portrayed as self-righteous extremists, while meat-eaters are labeled as unethical and environmentally destructive.
• Low Carb/Keto vs. High Carb: One side claims carbs are killing us; the other argues that high-fat diets are dangerous.
• Organic vs. Conventional: If you’re not buying organic, are you poisoning your family?

This tribal mindset fosters exclusion, makes people defensive about their food choices, and discourages open conversations about nutrition.

Disinformation

Not all misinformation is accidental. Disinformation is the intentional spread of misleading or false claims, often for financial or ideological gain.

• “Gluten is toxic!” (While some people have celiac disease, for most, gluten is harmless.)
• “Dairy is unnatural and linked to disease!” (While some individuals are lactose intolerant, dairy is a nutritious staple for many cultures.)
• “This supplement is clinically proven to burn fat fast!” (Many supplements cherry-pick studies to exaggerate effects.)

By using scary-sounding science, influencers, brands, and even media outlets push certain diets or products, making them seem necessary while demonising others, all to drive sales.

False Flags

Sometimes, when a health concern gains public attention, industries shift the blame to protect their interests. This is known as a false flag. Misleading consumers into believing the wrong food group or ingredient is responsible for health problems.

• In the 1980s and 90s, the sugar industry funded research that blamed fat for obesity and heart disease, leading to decades of low-fat but high-sugar foods.
• When people criticise processed food, companies highlight the importance of exercise instead of addressing concerns about ingredient quality.
• Some alternative health groups falsely claim that vaccines or fluoride in water cause a huge number of health issues, diverting attention from other proven risks.

False flags create confusion, preventing consumers from focusing on the real health concerns while industries protect their profits.

Satire and Parody

Comedy can be a powerful propaganda tool. Many food-related debates are shaped by satire and parody, using humor to ridicule opposing dietary choices.

• Fast food chains mock plant-based diets, portraying vegans as weak or out of touch.
• Vegan influencers ridicule meat-eaters, comparing them to cave dwellers or villains.
• Documentaries exaggerate diet risks, making one food group seem life-threatening while ignoring scientific nuance.

Humour makes these arguments stick in people’s minds, even if they’re based on exaggeration rather than truth. As a result, people internalise these jokes as actual critiques, further deepening food-based divisions.

Emotional Blackmail

Few tactics are as effective as guilt and shame. Emotional blackmail makes people feel like bad individuals if they don’t conform to a particular dietary ideal.

• “If you feed your child processed food, you don’t care about their health.”
• “Eating meat means you support animal cruelty.”
• “Buying processed food means you’re poisoning your family.”

By making people feel personally responsible for larger systemic issues, these messages drive fear-based decision-making rather than informed choices. Instead of educating people on balance and moderation, they use guilt to push extreme dietary changes.

Exploiting Cognitive Biases

Humans aren’t always rational decision-makers. In fact, our brains have built-in cognitive biases that can influence how we interpret information. Nutritional messaging takes full advantage of these biases to sway opinions.

• Confirmation Bias: We seek out information that confirms what we already believe. If someone thinks gluten is harmful, they will gravitate toward articles that support that idea while ignoring studies that say otherwise.
• Availability Heuristic: People tend to focus on the most dramatic or memorable examples. A single case of a celebrity reversing their illness with a raw food diet seems more compelling than thousands of studies that show no such effect.
• Survivorship Bias: Success stories of people who lost weight on a certain diet are widely shared, but we rarely hear about those who tried the same approach and failed.

By tapping into these biases, diet trends and food marketing make certain ideas feel more convincing, even when the full scientific picture tells a different story.

Pseudo-Science

Not all science-backed claims are actually based on real science. Many diets and food products rely on pseudo-science. Claims that sound scientific but don’t hold up under scrutiny.

• Detox Diets: The body already has detoxification systems (liver, kidneys), yet detox teas and cleanses are marketed as if they provide a unique benefit.
• Alkaline Diets: Some claim that eating alkaline foods alters blood pH, but the body regulates pH tightly, making this claim scientifically baseless.
• Fat-Burning Foods: Some foods are labeled as “fat-burning,” but no food can directly melt fat, only a caloric deficit leads to fat loss.

These science-y sounding claims make products seem more legitimate, even when the actual evidence is weak or non-existent.

Whataboutism

When diet movements or food industries face criticism, they don’t always provide a direct response. Instead, they use whataboutism. A tactic that shifts attention to another issue rather than addressing the original concern.

• Criticism: “Processed foods are a major contributor to obesity.”
  • Deflection: “What about exercise? Sedentary lifestyles are the real problem!”
• Criticism: “This diet lacks essential nutrients.”
  • Deflection: “What about junk food? That’s way worse for your health!”
• Criticism: “Artificial sweeteners may have long-term health risks.”
  • Deflection: “Well, sugar is even worse, so pick your poison!”

This technique creates distractions rather than engaging with real concerns. Instead of providing transparency, industries redirect blame, making it harder for consumers to make informed decisions.

Now, any of these in isolation is not actually an issue. Some of this is just good marketing. But you can hopefully see that it can be used to sway your thoughts and steer you away from making good nutrition choices. 

I understand that this all sounds a bit conspiratorial, but that is not my intention. My intention is to help inoculate you against nutritional propaganda. So, how do you actually distinguish between good nutritional information and nutritional propaganda?

How to Distinguish Valid Nutritional Information from Propaganda

In a world filled with bold health claims, viral diet trends, and emotionally charged food debates, it’s easy to get caught up in persuasive messaging without questioning its validity. But just because something sounds convincing doesn’t mean it’s based on solid science.

So, how do you separate real nutrition facts from nutritional propaganda? It all comes down to critical thinking and asking the right questions.

1. Consider the Source: Who is Making the Claim?

Before accepting a nutrition claim, look at the source:

• Is this coming from a qualified expert? (Registered dietitians, nutrition scientists, or peer-reviewed research are more reliable than influencers or celebrities.)
• Does the person or organisation have an agenda? (Are they selling a product, promoting a diet trend, or pushing a belief system?)
• Is this backed by legitimate science? (Look for peer-reviewed studies, not just anecdotal evidence or cherry-picked data.)

If the claim is coming from a documentary, influencer, or food brand, be cautious, it may be designed to persuade rather than inform.

2. Look for the Full Picture: Is This One-Sided?

Nutrition is complex, and any claim that oversimplifies it should raise a red flag. 

Ask yourself:

• Does this acknowledge opposing views or only present one perspective?
• Are potential risks or downsides mentioned, or is this all positive spin?
• Are extreme words like “always,” “never,” “toxic,” or “miracle” being used? (Nutrition science rarely deals in absolutes.)

Propaganda works by making one side look unquestionably “right” while ignoring nuance. A trustworthy source will explore both benefits and limitations of a food, diet, or nutrient.

3. Follow the Money: Who Benefits from This Claim?

If someone is pushing a product, supplement, book, or diet program, they have a financial incentive to convince you that their solution is the best. 

Ask yourself:

• Is this claim tied to a product or service being sold?
• Is this research funded by an industry that benefits from the results? (For example, a dairy industry-funded study claiming “milk is essential” should be examined more critically.)
• Are alternative perspectives being ignored because they don’t fit the sales pitch?

Science isn’t free from bias, but independent research (not tied to financial gain) is the gold standard for trustworthy nutrition information.

4. Identify Emotional Manipulation: Are You Being Influenced by Fear or Shame?

A good sign of propaganda is when a claim makes you feel guilty, afraid, or pressured into a certain belief. 

Ask yourself:

• Is this argument relying on fear-mongering? (“This food is poison!” or “You’re slowly killing yourself with this diet!”)
• Am I being made to feel guilty for eating a certain way? (Emotional blackmail is a common persuasion tactic.)
• Does this create an “us vs. them” mentality? (If the message portrays one group as wrong or immoral, it’s likely propaganda, not science.)

Valid nutritional guidance empowers rather than shames. Helping people make informed choices rather than scaring them into submission.

5. Check the Science: Is This Based on Real Evidence?

Nutrition science evolves, but valid claims should be backed by strong, peer-reviewed research. 

Ask yourself:

• Are there multiple studies supporting this, or just one isolated finding?
• Does this claim align with well-established scientific consensus? (Or is it a fringe idea being pushed as the real truth?)
• Is the study observational or controlled? (Observational studies can show patterns, but they don’t prove cause and effect.)
• Has this claim been repeated in multiple experiments, or is it based on a single, unverified study?

If a claim relies on cherry-picked data, lacks peer-reviewed research, or comes from a single dramatic study, it’s probably more marketing than science.

6. Watch Out for Anecdotes: Is This Claim Based on Personal Experience Rather Than Science?

Anecdotes can be persuasive, but they don’t replace solid scientific research. Ask:

• Is this based on one person’s experience or on controlled studies? (Just because something worked for an influencer doesn’t mean it will work for everyone.)
• Are testimonials being used instead of data? (Personal success stories can be cherry-picked and don’t prove effectiveness.)
• Is this claim repeated across diverse populations and scientific studies? (Or is it a single outlier case?)

Anecdotes should never be the foundation of nutrition science. Instead, look for research-backed evidence instead.

7. Beware of the Appeal to Nature: Is “Natural” Always Better?

A common propaganda trick is the “natural is always better” argument. While natural foods can be beneficial, the idea that anything artificial is harmful is misleading. 

Ask yourself:

• Does this claim assume that “natural” equals “healthy”? (Many natural substances, like arsenic or cyanide, are toxic, while many synthetic ingredients are harmless or beneficial.)
• Is this claim dismissing modern science in favor of tradition? (Modern advancements in food safety, preservation, and nutrition have improved human health.)
• Does it demonise all food processing? (Not all processed foods are bad, and some make nutrients more bioavailable, reduce food waste, or enhance food safety.)

This black-and-white thinking can lead to unnecessary food fears rather than balanced nutrition.

8. Does the Claim Make Sense? Apply Basic Logic.

Some nutrition claims sound scientific but fall apart under simple scrutiny. Before believing a claim, ask:

• Does this contradict established biology or metabolism? (For example, claims that drinking cold water “shocks” your organs aren’t based on science.)
• Is this claim logical, or does it rely on conspiracy theories? (If someone says “doctors are hiding the truth about “X”,” they are likely selling something.)
• Does this argument use scientific buzzwords but lack real substance? (Phrases like “biohacking your metabolism” often sound impressive but mean little without evidence.)

If a claim defies common sense or requires you to believe in a widespread conspiracy, it’s probably not credible.

9. Are There Real-World Results? Look at Population-Level Data.

If a diet, food trend, or product truly worked, we would see its effects at a global level. 

Ask yourself:

• Do people in cultures that follow this diet actually have better health outcomes? (For example, the Mediterranean diet has been studied across entire populations and is linked to longevity.)
• Are large-scale health improvements occurring because of this trend, or is it just hype? (If a supplement were truly a miracle cure, we would see major public health changes, not just influencers promoting it.)
• Does this contradict well-documented long-term health data? (For example, extreme low-carb advocates claim fibre is unnecessary, despite decades of research showing its benefits.)

A real dietary pattern’s impact will be visible across entire cultures and populations, not just in personal testimonials.

10. Take Your Time: Don’t Be Pressured into Immediate Action

Nutritional propaganda often creates urgency, making you feel like you must act immediately to avoid harm or miss out on a trend. But real science is slow, evolving, and based on long-term evidence. If you feel pressured to change your diet instantly, take a step back and ask:

• Is this claim using urgency or FOMO (fear of missing out) to manipulate me?
• Would I make this same decision after researching for a few days?
• Does this claim hold up when I compare it to established dietary guidelines?

Good nutrition isn’t about quick fixes or panic-based decisions, it’s about long-term, well-researched habits.

Final Thoughts: Think Critically Before You Believe Nutritional Propaganda

The next time you hear a bold nutrition claim, pause and ask:

• Who is making this claim, and what are their credentials?
• Is this presenting both sides, or just pushing one narrative?
• Is there a financial incentive behind this?
• Does this rely on fear, shame, or guilt to convince me?
• Does the science actually support this, or is it being misrepresented?

When evaluating any nutrition claim, remember:

• Trust good science over trends.
• Be skeptical of black-and-white thinking.
• Look for peer-reviewed research, not just testimonials.
• Don’t let fear, guilt, or urgency drive your choices.
• Take time to research before changing your diet.

By staying curious, sceptical, and informed, you can navigate the overwhelming world of nutrition propaganda with confidence.

If you need more help with your own nutrition, you can always reach out to us and get online coaching, or alternatively, you can interact with our free content, especially our free nutrition content.

If you want more free information on nutrition or training, you can follow us on Instagram, YouTube or listen to the podcast, where we discuss all the little intricacies of exercise and nutrition. You can always stay up to date with our latest content by subscribing to our newsletter.

Finally, if you want to learn how to coach nutrition, then consider our Nutrition Coach Certification course, and if you want to learn to get better at exercise program design, then consider our course on exercise program design. We do have other courses available too. If you don’t understand something, or you just need clarification, you can always reach out to us on Instagram or via email.