Today there exists a plethora of nutritional information as Americans are increasingly becoming health-conscious consumers seeking to manage their exposure to disease risk-factors through diet and lifestyle changes. The ever-expanding scope of the media and internet, especially through the increased use of popular health blogs and forums has "democratized" nutritional science--making nutritional information more easily accessible. Yet, despite the growing body of research in nutrition made available to the general public, the history of nutritional advice has been notoriously unstable, inconsistent and inaccurate as science, food industries, and various ideologies contend for validation. For example, from the consumption of saturated fats and carbohydrates to raw cow’s milk (which is supposedly "nature's most nearly perfect food" Americans are left confused when making decisions and establishing “truths” regarding the nutritional health benefits of other foods. Because the science of diet and nutrition are highly contested areas of knowledge, the purpose of this study was to delve into the social, cultural, and political aspects of food to better understand how we make sense of nutritional advice. To that end, this research project acquired and synthesized past and current scientific research literature to explore what it means for foods to be "healthy" how one may navigate the massive array of contending knowledge and different dietary models to obtain information on "healthy food" and additionally, how competing corporate interests, scientific findings or interpretations, and anecdotal evidence of the lay consumer may influence nutritional data made available to the public. So far the general trend shows corporate influence supersedes that of medical and scientific advocates; however, more research is required to determine how health consumers navigate the wealth of information. Recommendations for a potential solution at a policy, educational and, or mass media level will also be discussed in further detail.