Have Dietitians Become Big Food’s “Lackeys”? A Registered Dietitian Weighs In

In May 2023, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued guidance stating: Artificial sweeteners are not beneficial for weight loss and may even pose a cancer risk. Beverage giants, sensing the threat, quietly began pouring money in to sway public opinion. The hashtag “Aspartame Safety” (#safetyofaspartame) flooded health creators’ feeds overnight. And so, Instagram and TikTok were soon filled with content like this:

Steph Grasso, a registered dietitian with 2.2 million followers, told her TikTok audience that the WHO’s warnings about artificial sweeteners were an “attention-grabbing stunt” based on “low-quality science”;

Dietitian Cara Harbstreet reassured her Instagram followers not to worry about “scare headlines” about aspartame, because “the evidence does not suggest any reason for concern”;

Mary Ellen Phipps, a dietitian specialising in diabetes care, sipped a soft drink while telling her Instagram audience that artificial sweeteners can “satisfy the craving for sweetness” without affecting blood glucose or insulin levels.

The investigation found that, including the influencer dietitians above, at least ten dietitians with followings exceeding ten thousand had publicly vouched for aspartame — yet none of them disclosed that they had been paid by the American Beverage Association. This trade association represents Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and other major beverage companies; it is not only the puppeteer behind the scenes but also lobbies on their behalf. One cannot help but question whether the integrity of dietitians as professionals has been eroded by capital.

One dietitian, eating ice cream on camera, declared that “refusing to eat sugary foods will only make your cravings stronger”; another sponsored dietitian held a donut and joked that the “best” way to cut sugar was to “slice it with a knife, tear it with your hands, or even bite into it with your teeth”. Both videos were sponsored by the Canadian Sugar Industry Association, yet neither post carried a disclosure.

II. Dietary Supplements: Native Advertising Violations

This was no surprise, yet it still broke my heart.

I believe a dietitian with genuine scientific literacy should take a conservative stance on dietary supplements, for two reasons. First, there is a glut of journal articles riddled with conflicts of interest, small sample sizes, wide individual variation, and flawed study designs — and some supplements derive their entire scientific rationale from precisely these publications. Second, dietitians know full well that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates dietary supplements in a way that is little more than a formality. Under circumstances where evidence is scarce and product quality is questionable, encouraging consumers to spend money on potentially harmful “placebos” not only violates my professional conscience but tarnishes the integrity and sense of duty I hold as a registered dietitian.

In fact, whether it is science communication or product promotion, failing to disclose the source of sponsorship already constitutes a breach of relevant regulations and professional codes of conduct.

On the regulatory side: under the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) guidelines, these influencer dietitians are required to disclose their financial relationships, including explicitly stating who is paying for their promotional content. Deliberately omitting such disclosure amounts to the wilful concealment of an “undisclosed material connection”.

On the professional ethics side: they have not adhered to the Code of Ethics established by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, which requires registered dietitians to truthfully disclose potential conflicts of interest and prohibits accepting gifts or services that could actually influence, or appear to influence, their professional judgement.