Brussels, 18 September 2026 - Scrolling through social media can mean encountering a supplement promising better health, a drink offering quick weight loss or a food promoted as a “superfood”. For people looking for advice on what to eat, distinguishing reliable information from misleading claims can be difficult. On Tuesday, EUFIC and FundaciónMaldita.es organised an Infoodmation stakeholder workshop that offered a closer look at these messages, where they appear and who may be particularly vulnerable to them. Supplements and weight loss were the most prominent among the misinformation topics examined in food-related posts by popular influencers across 16 European countries
The EU-funded project Infoodmation, coordinated by EUFIC, analysed more than 540,000 social media posts, including around 24,000 about food. Researchers also examined a separate collection of 322 potentially misleading examples from 13 European countries, including social media posts, packaging, and advertising.
“A supplement promising better health or a quick weight-loss tip can sound convincing, especially when it comes from someone we trust,” says Betty Chang, Infoodmation project coordinator. “But the evidence behind those promises is not always clear nor properly contextualised. These findings show why we need to make reliable food information easier to find and understand, with particular care for children, young people, and people living with chronic health conditions.”
The claims behind the scroll
Among the misinformation narratives examined in the influencer posts, supplements were the most frequently identified theme, appearing in 474 posts, followed by weight loss in 256, superfoods in 242 and detox in 76. These figures describe posts containing the specific misinformation narratives studied; they do not imply that every discussion of supplements or weight loss is misleading.
The wider collection of food communication examples revealed another recurring pattern: messages suggesting that “natural” means better, that “superfoods” offer exceptional benefits, or that local and traditional foods are inherently superior. Messages about local or traditional foods appeared more frequently on packaging and at physical points of sale.
Across the examples, potentially misleading communication often worked through suggestion, exaggeration or missing context, rather than an outright false statement. Among collected examples containing textual health or sustainability claims, 67% did not provide the nutritional or ingredient information needed to evaluate them. Other techniques included layering logos and labels to suggest credibility, dubious awards or certifications, advertising made to look like editorial content, and sensational or alarmist claims.
Social media was the most common channel in the collected examples, with short videos the leading social media format. Food industry actors were the largest source category, accounting for 52% of the collection. The analysis also distinguished aspirational messages appealing to health and naturalness from alarmist messages portraying common foods as dangerous or toxic, which were more associated with influencers.
Who may be more vulnerable
The findings presented at the workshop highlighted children and young people as particularly vulnerable: their developing ability to assess persuasive messages can make emotional appeals and social belonging especially influential. Colourful packaging, health halos, and alarmist social media content were among the approaches presented.
People living with chronic health conditions may also be more susceptible to unsupported promises of dietary solutions when seeking relief or treatment. The workshop additionally highlighted the vulnerability of people with fewer socioeconomic resources, pointing to the need for accessible, trustworthy advice.
New challenges and shared responsibilities
AI-generated food advice was another concern. The presentation highlighted how AI tools can reinforce mistaken beliefs or give answers that sound convincing but miss important context, including a person’s medical history. It also raised concerns about less accurate answers for vulnerable users. These were risks discussed at the workshop; the analysis carried out did not test AI advice.
“The challenge is not always a claim that is clearly false. A food message can also be misled by leaving out important context or making one product sound like a solution to a much bigger problem,” says Rocío Benavente Pérez, Deputy Director & Sustainability and Development Strategy Coordinator at Fundación Maldita.es. “We need to help people recognise those tactics and make reliable information easier to find where they already look for advice.”
Proposed responses included better enforcement of rules on food marketing to children, closer oversight of influencer content and paid partnerships, and greater responsibility for social media platforms. The workshop also highlighted the need to teach people how to assess food information and encouraged businesses to take responsibility beyond meeting legal requirements.
Reliable advice also needs to hold people’s attention. The workshop highlighted that science communicators can learn from marketing and influencers by using simple language and engaging formats, such as short videos. Participants also called for closer collaboration between scientists and influencers, and for healthcare professionals to receive greater support in helping patients improve their food and health literacy. Their contributions will help shape recommendations for governments, businesses and civil society on how to communicate about healthier and more sustainable diets.
ENDS