I get things wrong. When I do, the fix goes on the article where the claim was, and the record goes here with the date, so nobody has to trust that it was quietly cleaned up.
How to read this page
- ×The claim as it was published, in this color, followed by what changed.
- FixedThe page now says something different. The entry says what.
- OpenKnown to be wrong. Not rewritten yet.
- Reader nameWhen a reader catches it before I do, the credit goes here.
If you catch something before I do, send it to me. Tell me the page, the sentence, and where I can read the source you are looking at. If it holds up, the fix goes live and your name goes next to it here, if you want it there.
Most of the entries below came from one sweep in August 2026, when the whole Food Literacy Path and every ban claim on the Dirty List were checked against their primary sources. That is why the dates cluster. Formatting fixes and typos are not listed. Everything below changed what the site was telling you.
Corrected
- “One cup delivers 8.1g of protein, 5.2g of fiber and over half a day’s manganese, with all nine essential amino acids present.” True as written, and misleading, which is worse. Naming the nine amino acids implies complete, high quality protein. Measured scores say otherwise: published DIAAS for quinoa flour is about 50, and PDCAAS estimates run from roughly 0.57 to 0.85, none of them exceptional. Quinoa is also not unique in carrying all nine, despite a widely repeated line in a 2011 FAO report; buckwheat, amaranth and hemp do too. The entry now says quinoa carries more lysine than rice or wheat, which is the real and checkable advantage, and states plainly that its measured protein quality is moderate.
Caught by me a few hours after publishing the entry, when international sources came back on a separate question.
A Cabbage Outscored the Blueberry. Here Is What “Super” Actually Measures.
- “Wang and colleagues (Circulation, 2021) followed more than 100,000 US adults for up to 30 years and pooled 26 other long-term studies.” The paper pooled its own two cohorts with 24 others, 26 in all. The page now says so.
- “Spinach, 86.43: Fresh or frozen.” The CDC nutrient density scoreboard scored raw foods only, and frozen spinach would score lower per calorie on the USDA numbers the same article cites. The note now reads “Scored raw, like everything here.”
- “Austria and colleagues gave people whole, milled or oil-form flaxseed for a month.” The trial ran three months, with the rise in blood levels measured in the first month, and the authors noted the whole-seed group struggled to keep eating the seeds. Both facts are now on the page.
- “Cooking inactivates the enzyme involved.” The source says cooking “largely deactivates” it. The hedge is restored.
Caught by me in a same-day audit of the article, about an hour after it went up.
Ginkgo biloba, turmeric and rosemary
- “Some research suggests modest short-term cognitive support in individuals with existing cognitive decline when used alongside conventional care.” A claim about a medical condition, and about using a supplement alongside medical care, carrying no source. The largest trial ever run on the question followed 3,069 adults aged 75 and over for about six years and found no reduction in dementia, with the rate slightly higher in the ginkgo group (DeKosky et al., Journal of the American Medical Association, 2008). The page now leads with that. The same entry described ginkgo’s compounds as having “circulation-supporting properties” in a second field, which is fixed too, because a claim can sit in more than one place on a page.
- “Research suggests it supports joint comfort and mobility” and “studies indicate potential benefits for brain function and memory.” Two condition claims about turmeric, neither naming a study. The page now explains the thing that actually matters: the research is done on concentrated curcumin extracts, and in humans given 2 grams of curcumin alone the blood levels were undetectable or very low (Shoba et al., Planta Medica, 1998).
- “Rosmarinic acid may support cognitive function, focus, and memory retention.” No large human trial supports it, and it is a claim about how a brain works. Gone. Rosemary is a tablespoon of flavor at 2 calories and the page says so.
Caught by me on 3 September 2026 in the first full sweep of the Nutrition Hub. All three pages now say on the page itself what they used to claim, because a site that corrects itself out loud is worth more than one that was never wrong.
Carbs aren’t the enemy (Food Literacy Part 3)
- “This slows digestion and prevents blood sugar spikes.” Prevents was too strong, and it is the absolute shape this site avoids everywhere else. Pairing carbohydrate with protein, fat or fiber lowers the rise and pushes it later. It does not reliably stop one. The page says that now.
Caught by me on 3 September 2026, by a scan run over the article straight after rewriting a different section of it. The same sentence used chicken as its example, which contradicts this site’s own habit of leading with plants, so it now reads rice with lentils.
Carbs aren’t the enemy (Food Literacy Part 3)
- “Your body breaks them all down into glucose.” Not all of it. What you digest becomes glucose, fructose and galactose, and fiber is not broken into glucose by human enzymes at all. The article now explains that split, because it is the whole reason two foods with the same carbohydrate number behave differently.
- Simple carbohydrates break down quickly, complex ones slowly. Too clean to be true. Some starches digest fast, and the real answer depends on processing, particle size, ripeness, cooking, cooling, the fiber and the rest of the meal. That split is gone, replaced with the one that holds up: how much was stripped out before the food reached you.
- “Symptoms anyone who’s tried an extreme low-carb diet has likely felt.” Some people get those symptoms and some do not. The page says that now.
Caught by me in the August accuracy audit. The replacement is built on four foods read from the USDA database that day, per 100 grams: raw spinach carries 3.6 grams of carbohydrate and 2.2 of it is fiber, while regular cola carries 10.4 grams and none of it is. Same line on a label, opposite thing in your body.
What food actually is (Part 1) and Carbs aren’t the enemy (Part 3)
- “Carbs aren’t optional extras” and “the question isn’t whether you need them.” Both said you have to eat carbohydrate. You do not. Your liver makes glucose from protein and from part of the fat molecule, so a person can live without eating any. Both pages say that now, and both carry the other half of it, which is that the Food and Nutrition Board still sets a recommended intake of 130 grams a day.
- “Your brain still needs glucose.” Too flat. When carbohydrate is scarce the liver also makes ketones and the brain burns those. Part 3 now says so and names the study, including the part that matters: it was five to six weeks of starvation, not a diet.
Caught by me in the August accuracy audit, and it was the last item from that audit still open. Checked against the Food and Nutrition Board’s own tables, where a recommended intake of 130 grams a day sits next to a recommendation that 45 to 65 percent of calories come from carbohydrate, which on a 2,000 calorie day is about 225 to 325 grams. Both numbers are on the page now, because printing one of them alone is how this went wrong the first time.
Thin on the Outside, Fat on the Inside
- Waist measurement. The article said to measure level with the navel. The published self-measurement method (NICE guideline NG246) puts the tape midway between the lowest rib and the top of the hip bone, which sits higher on most people. Fixed in both places it appeared, and the article now says a number taken at the navel is not comparable to one taken the right way.
- Vitamin D. It was listed among the blood markers that “see inside” for visceral fat. It is not one. Season, sun, skin tone and supplements all move it. Removed from that list.
- Clearing pollutants. The article told you to support “the routes your body already uses, which run on fiber, water and regular bowel movements.” That mechanism has no human evidence behind it, and it sat one paragraph after the article said there was no evidence for detox programs. Removed, and the article now says why.
- Vitamin D after sun exposure. The study cited measured the increase in blood levels, not the peak. Reworded to match what was measured.
Caught by me in the August accuracy audit.
Your Body Replaces 330 Billion Cells a Day (Food Literacy Part 5)
- “Your body can convert carbs to fat and vice versa.” Half true. Surplus carbohydrate does become fat, but the fatty acids in fat do not become glucose in any meaningful amount. Rewritten. The point that matters is nitrogen: protein carries it, carbohydrate and fat do not, which is why protein cannot be substituted.
Caught by me in the August accuracy audit.
The Nutrition Label Is Talking to You (Food Literacy Part 7)
- “Every claim on a food label is technically true. It has to be. The FDA requires it. The calorie count is accurate.” That was false, and it was the article’s thesis, stated twice. Rounding rules mean under 0.5 g of trans fat prints as 0 g, and a compliance tolerance lets a bar labelled 200 calories hold 240. Rewritten: a label is regulated, not exact.
- “‘Made with whole grains’ can mean 1% whole grain.” Stated with no source. Now says what the rule actually is: no minimum proportion is set, so the phrase does not tell you how much.
Caught by me in the August accuracy audit.
The Dirty List, azodicarbonamide (ADA)
- “Banned in the EU, UK, and Australia.” The EU’s food additive regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008) does not list it, which makes it not authorized, and that is a different thing from banned. The UK and Australia claims could not be traced to a primary source and were removed. They were not disproved, they were unsupported.
- 1 September 2026, follow-up. The summary block at the top of the Dirty List page still said “not authorized in the EU or UK.” The 27 August fix corrected the entry and missed the summary above it. “Or UK” is now removed there too.
Caught by me in a sweep of every ban claim on the Dirty List. 18 entries checked, 2 were wrong.
The Dirty List, BPA
- “The EU adopted rules restricting” BPA, with no citation. Now cites the regulation itself: Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/3190, Article 3(1), which prohibits BPA in food contact materials.
Caught by me in the same ban-claim sweep.
Apeel: What Is Really Coating Your Produce? (Food Literacy Part 6)
- Trace solvents and heavy metals “acknowledged” in the FDA filing. The seven substances came from a table of maximum permitted limits, not from measurements. A limit is not a detection. The claim was repeated in three places and removed from all three, with a note at each.
- The manufacturing process. The ethyl acetate, heptane and palladium process quoted in nearly every online critique was described as how the coating is made. FDA’s May 2024 letter records that process was a proof of concept that was never commercialized. Rewritten.
- “EU/UK: approved only for thick-skinned produce.” The EU authorizes the additive, not the brand, on a named list of fruits. It is a list, not a thickness rule. Kiwi is on it and apples are not. The UK was dropped from the row because its current version of the list could not be verified.
- The coating “bonds to the produce” and survives peeling. Not sourced. Replaced with FDA’s own wording, a thin edible physical barrier. Peeling removes the peel.
Caught by me in the August accuracy audit. The article carries a dated correction notice at the top and a note at each claim.
- All four were re-checked against their sources in the same audit. The one that changed a conclusion: Part 11 quoted a 2021 fiber and fermented food trial as 10 weeks. It ran 17 weeks with 18 people per arm, and its primary outcome was null. The article had quoted only the secondary finding. Both facts are now in the article.
Caught by me in the August accuracy audit.
Known and not yet fixed
The Nutrition Hub, all 50 entries
- Not one Hub entry cites a source. I read all 50 end to end on 3 September 2026. There are 5,437 words of health claims in the Hub and none of them name a study, an author, a year or a body. Everywhere else on this site a claim has to be anchored to something you can go and check. The Hub was never held to that, and it is the largest set of claims here.
- Detox language on three entries, arugula, brussels sprout and red cabbage, which is the exact phrasing this site refuses everywhere else.
Caught by me in a sweep of the whole Hub on 3 September 2026, run because I had said here that the Hub was unchecked. It is checked now. The nutrition numbers are sound throughout; it is the benefit writing that has to change, and it changes entry by entry, so this stays open until it is done.