Are Nutritionists Food Giants’ Lapdogs? Registered Dietitians Weigh In

In May 2023, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued guidance stating that: artificial sweeteners are not conducive to weight loss and may even carry a cancer risk. Beverage giants, upon hearing this, secretly poured money into shaping public opinion. Overnight, the hashtag #safetyofaspartame flooded the feeds of health influencers. This led to the following content appearing on Instagram and TikTok:

Registered dietitian Steph Grasso, who boasts 2.2 million followers, told her TikTok audience that the WHO’s warning on artificial sweeteners was a “sensationalist gimmick” based on “low-quality science”;

Another dietitian, Cara Harbstreet, reassured her Instagram followers not to worry about the “fear-mongering headlines” regarding aspartame, noting that “the evidence does not indicate any cause for concern”;

Mary Ellen Phipps, a dietitian specialising in diabetes care, sipped a glass of soft drink on her Instagram feed and told her audience that artificial sweeteners can “satisfy cravings for sweetness” without affecting blood sugar or insulin levels.

The article found that at least ten dietitian influencers with over 10,000 followers each, including the aforementioned figures, have endorsed aspartame without mentioning a single word about the funding they received from the American Beverage Association. This trade association, which represents major beverage companies such as Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, was not only the force behind the scenes but also specifically lobbied on their behalf. The financial dealings behind the scenes inevitably raise questions: has the professionalism of dietitians already been eroded by corporate capital?

One dietitian, eating ice cream on camera, claimed that “refusing to eat sugary foods will only intensify your cravings”; another collaborating dietitian, holding a donut, joked that the “best” way to reduce sugar is to “cut it with a knife, break it with your hands, or even bite it”. Both videos were sponsored by the Canadian Sugar Association, yet the original posts carried no disclosure.

II. Dietary Supplements: Breach of Ethics in Sponsored Content

This is hardly surprising, yet it still fills me with dismay.

In my view, a scientifically literate dietitian should approach dietary supplements with caution. There are two reasons. First, there is an abundance of journal papers riddled with conflicts of interest, small sample sizes, high individual variability, and flawed experimental designs, some of which serve as the purported scientific basis for certain supplements. Second, dietitians are well aware that oversight of dietary supplements by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is virtually non-existent. Given the scarcity of scientific evidence and questionable product quality, urging consumers to spend money on potentially harmful “placebos” not only violates my professional conscience but also tarnishes the integrity and sense of responsibility expected of a registered dietitian.

In fact, whether sharing educational content or promoting products, failing to disclose sponsorship already breaches relevant regulations and professional ethical codes.

Let’s address the legal aspect first. Under US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) guidelines, these influencer dietitians are required to disclose their financial relationships, including explicitly stating who pays for their promotional content. Deliberately omitting this constitutes intentional concealment of an “undeclared material connection” (unexpected material connection).

Then there is the matter of professional ethics. They have failed to adhere to a code of conduct established by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, which mandates that registered dietitians must truthfully disclose potential conflicts of interest and prohibits accepting gifts or services that could actually, or appear to, influence their professional judgement.