It’s a New Year’s tradition that online food writers like to perpetuate – if only to remind us that what we thought we knew was wrong. But it’s also a public service! Herewith, then, one food influencer’s top three food myths debunked by science in 2025…
We’re visiting again with our new food maven bestie Merlyn Miller. This time, she’s sharing the fruit of her searches through food news over the past 12 months for food myths that have been proven false by science.
A diverse harvest
Miller presents quite a diverse selection of myths she felt were most import to spotlight in her year-end post.
“Organic produce means that no pesticide or fungicide sprays were used”
We’ve gone over this one before, but I agree with Miller that it merits another swing at the gong…
Food scientist and educator Dr.Abbey Thiel told miller that, “This is a very common misunderstand-ing, and it is not accurate. Organic farming does allow the use of pesticides and fungicides. The difference is not whether sprays are used, but which ones are allowed and how they are regulated. Organic systems restrict farmers to a specific list of approved substances, many of which are derived from natural sources.”
“The use of substances like these in agriculture ul-timately benefits us,” Miller reminds us. “They’re used to manage insects, fungi, and plant diseases that would otherwise destroy crops, and Thiel emphasizes that, ‘Without some form of pest management, organic yields would be extremely low and food prices would be much higher.'”
“You shouldn’t eat anything you can’t pronounce“
This one has telltale signs of ‘myth’ written all over it. Miller says social media has to take some of the blame for perpetuating it…
‘Scroll through health-focused content, and you’re likely to encounter videos of people reading in-gredient lists aloud, implying that unfamiliar or complicated-sounding words automatically signal a UPF,” Miller notes.
Thiel explains, “It is a terrible way to judge whether food is safe or healthy to eat. The ability to pronounce a word has nothing to do with whether a substance is dangerous or artificial. Usually, it comes down to whether the name comes from chemistry, biology, or marketing. Scientists name molecules precisely so we know exactly what they are. That precision often makes the words longer”
“Margarine is one molecule away from being plastic “
I love this one. It’s been circulating for decades – since margarine became the go-to substitute for butter. It’s interesting to note that butter is now considered healthier than margarine. Margarine has had a sort of invisible ‘caution’ label on it since we learned that transfats are as bad as, or worse for us than saturated fats.
Margarine, we’ve been told has an eerily similar molecular structure to some plastics. That’s true. But floor wax (and this is certified true!) is just a few atoms away from being TNT!
Miller observers that the margarine falsehood has been sustained over the decades by forces includ-ing dairy industry lobbying against margarine. And, today, the myth’s promoters play on public fears of UPFs, of which margarine is a prime example.
Thiel remarks that the margarine myth relys on the fact that the vast majority of average folks don’t know anything about chemistry: “This idea has circulated online for years because it sounds scien-tific and alarming, but it falls apart once you look at how molecules actually work. Saying margarine is ‘one molecule away from plastic’ is like saying water is one molecule away from hydrogen peroxide or that table salt is one element away from chlorine gas.”
My take
There. That should make facing the New Year a little more tolerable. Knowing that at least three of the food myths which have been eating away at the back of your mind are complete and utter ‘hooey’…
Glad to be of service!
~ Maggie J.