In a previous article, “Have Nutritionists Become Food Giants’ ‘Stooges’? What Do Registered Dietitians Think?”, Foodthink revealed how North American food companies sponsor influencer nutritionists and industry bodies, relying on plausible-sounding but misleading science communication to try and shape public perception of food. A similar issue plagues the domestic market: advertisements for health supplements and food products are cropping up everywhere. How do nutritionists view commercial partnerships? And in a media environment rife with half-truths and noise, what part ought professionals to play? See the response from author Zheng Luyue following interviews with various nutritionists.As host of the podcast Bajiu Buli Shi, my business inbox regularly fills with sponsorship pitches for health supplements, mostly from local ‘niche’ brands. I’ve even received requests to endorse frozen food lines. While being ‘sought after’ is undoubtedly flattering, taking on health supplement promotions would compromise my independence in sharing nutritional science. On top of that, the hassle of adding brands on WeChat just to verify whether their products are genuinely safe and reliable is simply too much. So I’ve chosen to protect my professional standing and politely decline, often quipping with friends: “I spend my podcast episodes telling listeners not to buy popular health supplements, yet brands still think I’m the right person to promote them?”● A commercial partnership proposal I received from a nutritional supplements brand.
Although I have yet to accept any promotional partnerships for health supplements, in today’s open media landscape, brands can always find collaborators willing to compromise. Indeed, many leading nutritionists in the industry have chosen to actively work with commercial brands.
Should nutritionists take on commercial promotions at all? Where exactly does the line lie between brand endorsement and science communication? And are those who strictly uphold their professional standards merely a minority within the field? With this question in mind, I conducted a brief survey among my nutritionist friends.
● Nearly every nutritional and health supplement brand enlists numerous doctors and nutritionists to lend credibility to their marketing. Even the claim “endorsed by a hundred nutritionists” has become a standard promotional line for certain food manufacturers. Image sourced from the web.
I. Who Regulates Commercial Misconduct?
Before outlining the nutritionists’ perspectives, it is essential to first clarify: who is responsible for overseeing the commercial activities of nutritionists? In the United States, oversight falls to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND). As a federal government agency, the FTC monitors commercial conduct, combats false advertising and misleading marketing, and safeguards consumer rights. The AND, meanwhile, is a national professional body representing practitioners. Akin to the Chinese Medical Doctor Association, it plays a vital role in professional accreditation, continuing education, and establishing industry standards for nutritionists.
Domestic policy has long discouraged qualified medical practitioners from endorsing commercial products. From the 2022 directive to “strictly investigate medical staff exploiting their positions for live-stream sales” to the 2024 mandate to “strengthen oversight of medical-related live-stream commerce, content, and broadcasting order,” fourteen ministries and commissions, including the National Health Commission, have been closely monitoring pseudo-scientific health advice.
While platforms help curb unauthorised traffic diversion and similar violations, content creators have also grown adept at self-censorship, deliberately sidestepping terms prohibited by the Advertising Law, such as “most,” “best,” “cure,” or “safe.” China’s Advertising Law explicitly stipulates:
Advertisements for medical services, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and health supplements must not contain “assertions or guarantees regarding efficacy or safety” or “recommendations and endorsements by spokespeople”; furthermore, radio and television stations, print and audio-visual publishers, and internet information service providers must not disguise medical, pharmaceutical, medical device, or health supplement advertisements as health or wellness knowledge.Despite tightening laws and industry regulation, monetising health-related knowledge still operates in a grey area. Current regulations fail to draw a clear line between ‘commercial promotion’ and ‘advertising’, enabling health supplements to slip through regulatory nets in live-streaming broadcasts under the guise of public education. Meanwhile, the medical profession broadly agrees that using one’s professional title, position, hospital name, or hospital-affiliated platforms to sell products crosses an ethical red line. Yet this boundary presumes practitioners remain within the institutional framework of hospitals. Once health educators step outside institutional oversight, ethical lines blur. For instance, does a doctor merely appearing on camera in a live stream—without explicitly reviewing products—constitute an endorsement? Would a dermatologist promoting health supplements be considered a breach of professional boundaries? There are currently no clear guidelines.
In contrast, the medical community has engaged in more thorough discussions on conflicts of interest and established more mature standards. Meanwhile, China’s registered nutritionist system, which only began in 2017, still lacks ethical guidance regarding commercial partnerships and endorsements. As a result, when nutritionists take on sponsored content, it too easily devolves into a purely financial decision. Without industry-wide dialogue on conflicts of interest or formal constraints, policing misleading ‘educational’ claims rests entirely on individual conscience.
Complicating matters further is the public’s lack of clarity regarding the ‘nutritionist’ title itself. The landscape is crowded with designations ranging from ‘registered nutritionist’ and ‘nutrition technician’ to ‘public nutritionist’ and ‘nutrition advisor’, each carrying vastly different professional requirements. Some so-called international certifications have even been exposed as outright fakes.
● A bewildering array of ‘nutritionist’ professional certificates circulating online. While the ‘registered nutritionist’ credential holds the highest professional standing in China, the general public struggles to distinguish trustworthy experts from the rest.Admittedly, the US Registered Dietitian credential I hold places greater emphasis on applicants’ theoretical knowledge and practical experience (requiring a master’s degree as a baseline, over 1,000 hours of supervised practice, and continuing education credits), and it explicitly mandates “disclosing all potential conflicts of interest” within its code of professional ethics. Yet even so, non-compliant commercial endorsements still occur within this profession. This serves as a stark reminder: without firm legal safeguards, even the most rigorous standards can amount to little more than lip service; and when faced with financial incentives, professional boundaries are often far more fragile than we assume.
II. Pro Side: What’s Wrong with Nutritionists Taking on Ads?
Should nutritionists engage in commercial collaborations? Views within the profession differ sharply. From both an individual practitioner’s standpoint and that of the wider industry, accepting commercial offers has its merits. For one thing, such collaborations can help nutritionists make ends meet; for another, they can use social media platforms to raise public awareness of the profession and strengthen practitioners’ sense of professional value.
Consider the candid remarks of a registered dietitian working in a hospital:
“If I were still a student, I would undoubtedly be appalled by such behaviour (taking on ads and publishing content deliberately designed to influence consumers). But now that I’m in the workplace, nutrition is a profession that offers remarkably poor compensation. Under the pressure of making a living, I may not condone this practice, but I completely understand it. Only by giving this profession more attention and respect, along with better pay, can we expect those with formal training to remain true to their professional ethos.”A different registered dietitian, who once vetted sponsored content for a corporate client, put it this way:“I genuinely believe that (commercial sponsorship) is a positive development, precisely because it operates as a mutual choice. Not every nutritionist is willing to take this on, nor does everyone possess the skill set for it… They (the nutritionists partnering with brands) will review the promotional scripts with us (the content team). If they feel a particular line is something they can’t say, they’ll simply remove it. … Personally, I think it’s brilliant, largely because I don’t think I could earn this kind of money myself [laughs]. It’s not that I believe people are acting against their conscience when delivering these (commercial) pitches… I’m just too sensitive to cut it as an influencer… So I find myself quite envious, or perhaps more accurately, I really admire those who can speak effortlessly, crafting every sentence to be ‘edgy, captivating, yet carefully kept within the rules’. On another level, I feel that partnering with companies, especially major brands, can also serve as a form of promotion for the nutritionist profession.”At the same time, I have found that nutritionists who are active on independent content platforms tend to hold a more favourable view of commercial partnerships. In our discussions, they often emphasise the benefits of such collaborations for the public, such as helping consumers make more informed purchasing decisions.
III. The Opposing View: Beneath Commercial Logic, Professionalism Risks Losing Its Foundation
Whether to support or oppose this is seldom merely a difference in attitude; it is often a reflection of the environment one operates in. Those nutritionists who do not rely on monetising their audience tend to prioritise upholding professional integrity.Speaking from the perspective and experience of a content creator, a registered nutritionist reflected on the challenge of striking a balance between audience reach, sponsorships, and professional integrity:“When I first started out trying to build my following, I set a firm rule for myself: I would not take on any advertising for dietary supplements, nor anything that conflicted with my nutritional philosophy. While I have had some genuinely pleasant collaborations, most of the outreach tends to be for products that tread the line between healthy and unhealthy—such as probiotics or so-called health drinks. These commercial partnerships often involve protracted back-and-forth. The selling points brands are keen to push are frequently the very claims I have reservations about and would rather avoid. Once I transitioned to full-time work and my available time dwindled, I began to reflect on whether these promotional endeavours brought me more fulfilment or simply added to my turmoil and drained my energy. Nowadays, I lean more towards food-related content that does not require me to deliberately lend my nutritional credentials to a product. … Even if there are products or viewpoints that can be backed by so-called studies, if they do not convince me personally, I will not endorse them. Forcing myself to do so feels rather painful.”Overall, in a highly commercialised market, nutritionists who pursue content creation face intensified pressures regarding both their livelihood and professional ethics. Similar to doctors who turn to live-streamed sales, many nutritionists are fully aware of the value of adhering to their principles; rather, they are constrained by limited career trajectories and financial strain. For practitioners based outside tier-one cities, where employment prospects are narrower, turning to commercial collaborations to sustain their income remains a highly tempting option.● A trending topic for nutritionists on social media: “How nutritionists can monetise their content”. Image source: Internet.Capital, by exploiting the vulnerabilities of this professional ecosystem—ambiguous regulatory standards, eroding public trust, and skewed income structures—has steadily expanded its reach.
IV. Within our echo chambers, who should we trust?
Whatever path a nutritionist chooses, there is no doubt that pseudo-scientific content, crafted purely for commercial promotion, is currently rampant online. After reading the piece *Corporations Buying Off Dietitians*, a registered dietitian friend remarked:
“Algorithm-driven feeds routinely trap users in echo chambers, delivering content that is both narrow and heavily skewed. When so-called ‘experts’ repeatedly reinforce this messaging, consumers do not merely face a narrower range of choices; their decisions are effectively manipulated.”I often experience a similar sense of frustration in daily life. Even though my family could simply ask me—a properly qualified registered dietitian—they are frequently captivated by “wellness videos” and “influencer doctor recommendations”. No matter how thoroughly I explain the facts, it is difficult to completely neutralise the pull of pseudo-scientific content. Pu Jingxuan, a US-registered dietitian active on social media, puts it even more bluntly:
“Much of my work as a dietitian amounts to debunking. Patients frequently bring me headlines they have seen online, asking whether they are true. Almost invariably, they are sensationalist, out-of-context pieces designed purely to grab attention.”In the comments section of an article about doctors live-streaming sales, I came across a particularly sharp remark:“Properly qualified doctors should not be doing live streams and should be removed. Instead, we allow charlatans to dress up in medical attire and con the public. Why let quacks dominate these broadcasts?”Though blunt, this sentiment captures the public’s frustration at the commodification of medical professionalism, particularly in the wake of bans on doctors promoting products. Dr Jiang Qianzhi, a US-registered dietitian, echoes this view:
“Aside from qualified dietitians, there are numerous self-styled nutrition ‘experts’, influencers, and celebrities with no scientific training already capitalising on their fame for financial gain. I would far rather see properly registered dietitians handling this space; at the very least, most dietitians will evaluate products and make recommendations grounded in science and professional ethics.”His words struck a deep chord. When I recently heard a cultural podcast I follow read a sponsored segment for a health supplement brand I had previously declined, I felt a whirlwind of emotions. It was as if someone were dismissing my principles: ‘If you won’t take the deal, someone else will.’ Perhaps for many content creators without a clinical background, taking supplement advertisements carries little moral weight. They may not possess the same training to scrutinise academic literature, interpret clinical data, or assess the quality of evidence. Yet precisely because I have undergone rigorous academic and clinical training, and firmly uphold the ethical standards of the profession, I simply cannot compromise or bend the rules to suit commercial interests. When weighing audience reach against professional integrity, I choose to anchor my work in ethically driven, public-service content rather than chase the short-term rewards of monetising traffic.
I am fully aware that one dietitian’s refusal cannot halt the tide of commercial endorsements. Commercialisation is not inherently wicked. In truth, I genuinely enjoy applying my expertise to advocate for books and products of genuine merit. What I desire more is that, when we discuss endorsements, we place greater emphasis on transparency and openly address conflicts of interest. If every recommendation made by a nutritionist were firmly anchored in professional principles, the murky waters of science communication might not be so opaque that the public struggles to distinguish fact from fiction.
For truly public-minded, responsible content to reach a wider audience, we need positive incentives—systems that empower professionals to produce high-quality material without forcing them into a constant tug-of-war between conscience and livelihood. Only by establishing a virtuous cycle, where those who uphold professional standards and ethical practice are not penalised, can public-interest content truly thrive within a commercial landscape. As a long-standing advocate in public policy rightly observes:
“In an environment like this, the voices of professionals, industry bodies, and charities who actively resist corporate inducements are all the more invaluable.”
V. Consumers: How to develop critical judgement?
So how can consumers distinguish between genuine science communication and commercial endorsements? In today’s age of information overload, nutritional knowledge is hardly in short supply; what is lacking are the tools and habits to help us evaluate it. Developing this discernment is the most effective defence against “pseudo-science”.First, consciously cultivate your own “information immunity” and learn to recognise common sales pitches.When encountering topics around nutrition, wellness, and healthcare, stay vigilant. A healthy scepticism towards claims like “miraculous cures”, “instant results”, or “ancestral secret recipes” will steer you clear of most pseudo-scientific nonsense.
Another common form of misdirection is presenting correlation as causation. Take the claim that “people who eat this food tend to live longer”. This might simply reflect that these individuals already exercise regularly, keep consistent hours, and maintain a generally healthy diet. The fact that A and B are related does not mean A causes B. This kind of logical sleight of hand is precisely what tricks people into parting with their money without a second thought.
Secondly, seek out content creators with clear professional backgrounds and transparent sourcing. Individuals with verifiable credentials—such as registered dietitians and licensed medical practitioners—are generally more reliable than self-proclaimed “health experts”. You may also wish to follow official channels operated by public health organisations, hospitals, or professional learned societies.
When claims constantly assert that a product is “data-backed”, ask yourself: what exactly is that data? Which study? Who were the participants? And how does the conclusion justify you purchasing this specific bottle of supplements? Phrases like “Harvard-recommended”, “internationally certified”, or “anti-inflammatory superfood” may sound impressive, but they are no substitute for robust scientific evidence. A genuinely credible recommendation will clearly explain the underlying mechanisms and cite verifiable sources, rather than merely stringing together keywords to manufacture an aura of expertise.
Thirdly, watch out for potential conflicts of interest.When content features specific products, it is worth asking: “Is this creator partnered with the brand?” Even without explicit disclosure, an overly sales-driven tone warrants caution. You might also ask directly in the comments section: Is this a sponsored post? Are there any financial ties to the brand?
Finally, it helps to return to the simplest, most fundamental approach to everyday health: a balanced diet, regular sleep patterns, and moderate exercise.While such advice may sound like a worn-out cliché, it remains the most time-tested nutritional guidance.
Foodthink ContributorZheng LuyueUS-registered dietitian and PhD candidate in Nutritional Science at the University of New Hampshire. Recently researching the livelihoods of smallholder farmers in New England under a sociology supervisor. Prefers dining with company and updates two podcasts on a flexible schedule (@baghubulis, @yueshitan).
▼
Upcoming Event
All uncredited illustrations were created by the author.
