Up to 24 million people could face serious health consequences from following extreme diet advice on social media, according to new research exposing a wave of influential accounts peddling misinformation for profit.

A joint analysis by the Rooted Research Collective (RRC) and the Freedom Food Alliance (FFA) has identified 53 high-profile “super-spreaders” on Instagram who routinely share what they deem harmful nutrition guidance. Most have no health-related qualifications, yet their posts directly contradict global public health advice. 

“Nutrition is complex, but it doesn’t have to be confusing,” says Alice Millbank, co-founder and chief scientific officer at RRC. “Super-spreaders exploit that confusion by offering dangerously simple answers dressed up as hacks, often driven by profit, not science.”

The report, Nutrition Misinformation in the Digital Age, warns that extreme diet trends — such as carnivore or raw milk regimens — are being popularized by influencers presenting themselves as experts, often without credible credentials. RRC found that 96% of the influencers profiled had a financial interest tied to their content, from selling supplements and courses to hosting diet-based conferences.

Many of these influencers fall into three categories: the “Doc,” who fabricates or exaggerates medical expertise; the “Rebel,” who fuels anti-establishment sentiment; and the “Hustler,” who packages and markets lifestyle changes for sale.

“These influencers are using doctor titles or wellness credentials to boost credibility, regardless of whether those titles reflect formal training in nutrition or non-communicable diseases,” Millbank tells Food Ingredients First.

“Our findings show that 96% of nutrition misinformation super-spreaders profit directly from the content they share, often leveraging unregulated credentials to project authority.”

Global reach

Despite none of the top accounts being UK-based, their global reach poses significant risks to UK public health. The research calls for urgent policy action to strengthen online safeguards and bolster the presence of credible voices.

The most popular “Doc” accounts had the highest follower counts, suggesting that users are especially drawn to perceived authority. This trend, Millbank says, risks undermining trust in public health: “When medical titles are used to promote misleading advice, it not only erodes public confidence but leaves people alienated when promised results don’t materializse.”

Key misinformation narratives spotlighted in the report include aggressive promotion of red and organ meats, denunciation of plant-based diets, and recommendations to consume raw or unpasteurised milk — all of which contradict WHO and national dietary guidelines, which emphasize moderation, dietary diversity, and limits on saturated fats and processed meats.

“My worry is that the animal-based foods these accounts promote can lead to chronic diseases,” says Dr. Faraz Harsini, DipACLM. “It could be a couple of years before symptoms emerge, but by then, the damage is done. Influencers usually work out, which can mask some of the harms, but the average follower isn’t living that lifestyle. Their risk is much higher.”

Misinformation for pay

The influencer economy is also fueling the problem. The top earners in the dataset make more than US$100,000 per month through a mix of sponsored content, direct product sales, and consultations. Some charge US$100 per hour for coaching; others sell packages that run into the tens of thousands.

The RRC report calls for a three-part policy response:

1. Start early: Include practical nutrition and digital literacy in school curricula, teaching students how to cook healthy meals on a budget, and recognize misinformation online.

2. Meet people online: Support UK-based nutrition professionals in building engaging social media presences that counteract misleading content.

3. Raise professional standards: Enforce stricter guidelines for the use of medical titles online and penalize those who misuse them for commercial gain.

“Policymakers could act by supporting qualified, UK-based health professionals to develop a stronger presence online and by reviewing how medical credentials are used in commercial settings,” Millbank says.

“Doing so could help reclaim digital spaces with credible, engaging voices that serve the public interest.”

Limiting monetization

Millbank says broader research suggesting fact-checking, algorithm adjustments, and limiting monetization of flagged content could reduce harm. “Supporting greater transparency around affiliations, qualifications, and commercial interests could go a long way in helping users assess the trustworthiness of the information they encounter.”

Dr. Matthew Nagra underscores the severity of the issue: “The misinformation promoting animal-heavy diets is coming not only from influencers and laypeople, but from medical professionals as well. When those in positions of trust spread inaccurate information, it carries even more weight and the consequences are real.”

RRC now plans to expand its research into how dietary misinformation intersects with wider ideological movements, including “ancestral living” trends and politically charged narratives around masculinity, tradition, and naturalism.

According to the organization, future work will also examine how emotional tone and narrative style evolve online, which are key indicators of when fringe ideas are at risk of going mainstream. 

“This isn’t just about countering bad advice,” says Millbank. “It’s about rebuilding trust and making sure public health has a voice online that people actually listen to.”