Eating used to be complicated enough on its own terms. Now it arrives pre-loaded with ideology. The question of whether to eat red meat or soy, seed oils or butter, has become weirdly entangled with questions about who you are, what you believe, and which team you're on. A food choice that your grandmother made without a second thought can now signal your politics, your relationship to science, your class, and your values, all before you've taken a single bite.
This didn't happen by accident. A convergence of social media tribalism, institutional credibility collapse, and the sheer volume of competing nutritional claims has turned dietary advice into something that functions less like health guidance and more like a loyalty test. Understanding how we got here requires looking at where the noise is actually coming from, and why it's so hard to tune out.
Scientists Keep Changing the Story, and Trust Broke With It
For most of the late twentieth century, dietary fat was the enemy. The American Heart Association, the USDA, and decades of public health messaging told people to cut fat and replace it with carbohydrates. That advice was based on research, particularly the work of Ancel Keys, whose Seven Countries Study shaped nutritional policy for a generation. Then researchers started picking apart the methodology. Critics pointed out that Keys had data from twenty-two countries and selected seven that fit his hypothesis. The full dataset told a messier story.
What followed was a long, slow, painful reversal. Saturated fat recommendations have been loosened. Dietary cholesterol was quietly removed from the list of nutrients of concern in the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Eggs went from villain to acceptable. Sugar emerged as the new primary suspect, partly because of research funding that later turned out to have been influenced by the sugar industry, as a 2016 investigation published in JAMA Internal Medicine documented. Each correction chipped away at public confidence in nutrition science as a reliable institution.
When official bodies appear to reverse course every decade or so, people stop treating their recommendations as settled science and start treating them as one opinion among many. That cognitive opening is exactly where influencers, wellness brands, and ideologically motivated content creators walk in. A 2023 systematic review in Public Health Nutrition analyzed 34 studies, finding substantial inaccuracy in online nutrition info. High-engagement posts often promoted unproven "miracle diets" (keto extremes, detoxes), filling credibility gaps left by algorithm-favored influencers over experts.
Food Has Become a Vehicle for Identity in a Fragmented Culture
Carnivore diet advocates and vegan activists have more in common than either group would comfortably admit. Both have organized their eating into a worldview, a set of values, and a community with clear in-group and out-group markers. Research on moral foundations theory, developed by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, suggests that people increasingly use consumption choices as expressions of moral identity, particularly as traditional community structures like religion and civic organizations have weakened. Food stepped into that gap.
On the political right, high-meat diets have become loosely associated with masculinity, rejection of elite coastal culture, and skepticism toward environmentalist messaging. Figures like Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson discussing their carnivore diet experiences brought the framing to enormous audiences, where it mixed with broader culture war narratives. On the left, plant-based eating has become tied to climate consciousness, animal welfare, and a critique of industrial agriculture. A 2019 Gallup poll found that Democrats were nearly twice as likely as Republicans to say they were trying to reduce meat consumption.
Neither of these positions is purely about health. They're about belonging and signal. When someone tells you that seed oils are destroying your testosterone, they're also telling you something about media, medicine, and who to distrust. When someone tells you that your burger habit is accelerating climate collapse, they're making a moral claim dressed as a nutritional one. The diet advice is almost secondary to the tribal affiliation it communicates.
Wellness Culture Monetized the Confusion
Uncertainty is an extraordinary business model. When people don't know who to trust, they become susceptible to whoever speaks with the most confidence, and the wellness industry has learned to speak very confidently indeed. The global wellness market was valued at over 5.6 trillion dollars in 2022, according to the Global Wellness Institute. A meaningful portion of that market runs on the premise that official nutrition advice is corrupted, incomplete, or designed to keep you sick, and that the real answers are available through a subscription, a supplement stack, or a premium course.
This creates a structural incentive to keep the confusion alive. Clarity doesn't sell cleanses. Settled science doesn't move adaptogenic mushroom powder. The more destabilized people feel about basic questions around food, the more receptive they become to charismatic online figures offering proprietary frameworks and product lines. A 2022 PMC review found only 20% of influencer food and supplement promotions cited studies, mostly cherry-picked.
What makes this particularly hard to navigate is that the wellness world occasionally lands on something real. Concerns about ultra-processed food, added sugar, and the gut microbiome started in alternative health spaces before migrating into mainstream research. That track record, even a partial one, gives the whole ecosystem unearned credibility. We've ended up in a place where it's genuinely difficult to separate the legitimate heterodox insight from the monetized misinformation, which is precisely where the most effective diet-as-politics messaging thrives.
KEEP ON READING
