NUTRITION 2026, the American Society for Nutrition‘s annual meeting, was more than a showcase of new research. It was a revealing look at a professional field asking a harder and more urgent question: What happens when nutrition science keeps advancing but public trust, practical guidance and shared understanding retreat?
Across sessions on topics like dietary guidance, ultra-processed foods, GLP-1 medications, protein, Food as Medicine, artificial intelligence, mis- and disinformation and social media, a common tension emerged. Nutrition science is no longer just about what the evidence says. It is about whether nutrition science can still earn trust, shape behavior and remain useful in a world where evidence is constantly contested.
It’s a watershed moment. The public is hungry for nutrition information, but often unsure what to do with it or who to trust to give it to them. Scientists are hungry for the skills, knowledge and training to communicate more effectively, but are operating in a fragmented media environment where influencers, AI-generated content and identity-driven narratives can travel faster than evidence.
NUTRITION 2026 underscored that the next era of nutrition science will be shaped by those who can communicate complexity with humility, relevance and trust.
Here are five key takeaways from NUTRITION 2026 for food, agriculture and nutrition communications leaders to consider.
1. Nutrition Guidance Is at a Crossroads
One of the strongest themes at NUTRITION 2026 was the growing pressure on the role of dietary guidance. Discussions focused not only on what the science says, but also on how recommendations are developed, communicated and trusted in a climate where science, policy and public opinion increasingly intersect.
A recurring challenge was how to create guidance that people can understand and use when nutrition advice is often perceived as conflicting or influenced by politics. Researchers emphasized that public trust depends not only on the recommendations themselves, but also on confidence in the process behind them.
Many sessions highlighted the importance of stronger evidence reviews, greater transparency around conflicts of interest, clearer communication of risk and a more open acknowledgment of uncertainty. Yet these scientific concepts can be difficult to explain outside expert circles. What scientists view as nuance can sound like inconsistency to the public.
Key Takeaway: Audiences need more than recommendations. They need context about how evidence is evaluated, where consensus exists, what uncertainties remain and why guidance can still be trusted even when it evolves over time.
2. Scientists Are Learning to Communicate in a Post-Trust Era
Scientists increasingly recognize communication as a professional skill, not an afterthought. Across sessions on trust, social media, influencers, AI and public engagement, there was a visible hunger for training on how to communicate more effectively in today’s information environment. Researchers and nutrition professionals are seeing food and nutrition conversations play out online in ways that feel distorted, oversimplified or detached from evidence, and they want to be better prepared to engage.
Part of the challenge is that it can also feel like science is battling science. Different study designs, evolving evidence, expert disagreement, competing interpretations and legitimate uncertainty can all be flattened into public confusion. What researchers understand as nuance can look to consumers like contradiction.
That is significant because misinformation often fills the space where science feels inaccessible, elitist, impractical or unresolved. When guidance changes, experts disagree, or a topic like food safety becomes culturally charged, audiences do not wait patiently for consensus. They look for the clearest voice. Too often, that voice may not be the most evidence-based one.
The most resonant communication principles from the meeting were strikingly human: listening first, engaging with empathy and focusing on dialogue rather than correction.
For food, agriculture and nutrition communicators, this represents both an opportunity and a responsibility. Beyond key messages, nutrition scientists need support building the skills to communicate uncertainty, respond to emotionally charged claims, explain how evidence evolves, engage respectfully online and translate technical findings into practical meaning.
Key Takeaway: In a post-trust environment, the most effective organizations will be those that help experts become trusted communicators.
3. Implementation Is Becoming as Important as the Evidence Guiding It
The gap between guidance and lived reality is a real concern. Again and again, sessions returned to the same question: If the science points toward better ways to eat, why is it still so hard to improve health at scale?
Sessions on Food as Medicine made this especially visible. Presentations covered medically tailored meals, medically tailored groceries, produce prescriptions, federal nutrition programs like WIC and SNAP, nutrition education, healthcare integration, community health centers, patient engagement and barriers across care settings. The conversation is increasingly focused on how to deliver food-based interventions through real systems.
That shift is important because nutrition recommendations do not implement themselves. They need referral pathways, reimbursement models, trained clinicians, culturally relevant education, supply chains, retail or community partners, patient follow-up and measures of success that matter to both health systems and people receiving care.
This is also where behavioral economics becomes essential. Health is rarely the only driver of food choice. People make decisions based on cost, convenience, taste, culture, family preferences, time, access, habits, stress and trust. A recommendation that ignores those realities may be scientifically sound and practically ineffective.
Key Takeaway: The communications opportunity is to make guidance actionable, practical, relevant and realistic in the settings where food decisions happen in real life.
4. Registered Dietitians Were Positioned as Essential Translators of Nutrition Science
RDs were not only attendees at NUTRITION 2026. They were also recognized during talks, invited to raise their hands and elevated as critical partners in translating nutrition science into practice.
That is a big deal. Nutrition does not live only in journals, guidelines or policy documents. It lives in counseling sessions, grocery aisles, clinical care, school meals, social feeds, family kitchens and product choices. PhD-level evidence generation and RD-level practical translation are not competing forms of expertise. They are complementary.
For communicators, RD partnership should not be treated as a credential added at the end of a campaign. RDs should be involved earlier in message development, claim pressure-testing, consumer education, stakeholder engagement and content strategy. In a trust-challenged environment, the combination of scientific rigor and practical empathy may be one of the most valuable assets food and nutrition organizations have.
Key Takeaway: RDs are essential translators, not just credible messengers, who can help turn nutrition science into guidance people understand, trust and use.
5. New Research on Ultra-Processed Foods Is Forcing a More Nuanced Conversation
Ultra-processed foods were one of the clearest examples of the gap between scientific complexity and the public’s and policymakers’ desire for simple answers.
The public conversation often treats “processed” as synonymous with unhealthy, artificial or untrustworthy. But the research conversation appears to be moving in a more nuanced direction. Rather than using processing level alone, researchers are increasingly asking which characteristics of highly processed foods or diets may influence health outcomes: nutrient profile, energy density, hyperpalatability, eating rate, food matrix, additives, portion size, dietary pattern or some combination of these factors.
The emerging science presented at NUTRITION 2026 suggested that “ultra-processed” is not a reliable indicator of nutritional quality or health impact. One session pointed to the “nutritional challenges of avoiding ultra-processed foods,” underscoring that avoidance alone may not be simple, practical or nutritionally neutral.
This does not mean processing is irrelevant. It means the research questions and conversations are becoming more precise.
Key Takeaway: For communicators, the opportunity is to move beyond “processed or not” and explain processing, nutritional quality and dietary role with clarity.
Three Key Actions for Food, Agriculture and Nutrition Communicators Inspired by NUTRITION 2026
1. Move from myth-busting to trust-building.
Correcting misinformation is not enough. Listen underneath the concern, use plain language, and approach skepticism with respect.
2. Translate science into real-world use.
Make healthier choices more understandable, practical and achievable. Connect science to behavior, culture, affordability, access, taste, and preparation.
3. Communicate early, often, and consistently.
Audiences need to know what is established, what is emerging, what is contested and what practical action makes sense amid both certainty and uncertainty.
If this has you thinking about how to build trust in a highly complex and challenging environment, let’s talk. Golin Ketchum’s Food, Agriculture & Nutrition Practice helps organizations shape the future of food, from farm to fork. With deep expertise across food, agriculture and nutrition, we challenge the status quo with breakthrough communication that deepens understanding and strengthens trust.
About the Author: Dylan Bailey, MS, RD, FAND, FASN, is a Vice President of Nutrition Affairs with Golin Ketchum, where he provides strategic reputation management and regulatory affairs counsel to food, agriculture and nutrition clients. He has been named to the Today’s Dietitian Magazine TD10 list—one of 10 dietitians who are making a difference in the nutrition and dietetics profession. He was also named to the 5th cohort of the 2026 ASPEN Food & Society Food Leaders Fellowship.
