How Eva Mendes' Wellness Misinformation Fails Our Latino Communities
Before I address the comments section (ooh), let me explain the danger of this messaging for our Latino subpopulation
For a version of this article in español, click here.
Ugh, the disappointment! Eva Mendes recently reposted food misinformation by the Food Babe twice on her Instagram page, or to say the least, information without context (which, let’s call it what is: disinformation), with a call to action to protest ingredients in Kellogg’s cereal:
“Tomorrow there’s a peaceful march to Kellogg’s HQ to ask them to REMOVE artificial food dyes and BHT in the US. They don’t use these harmful ingredients in other countries - it’s time for them to do the right thing for American children!”
I will address this reductionist rhetoric (alongside comments) in Part 2 of this post (and a few more thereafter - this is a loaded topic), but first, let’s understand why this messaging is so damaging for Latino and LatinX communities.
Despite lacking evidence to support her claims, the Food Babe (also known as Vani Hari) has made a reputation for demonizing ingredients. More recently, she was part of a “health and nutrition” roundtable held by Republican Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis) and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has co-opted the slogan Make America Healthy Again or MAHA, in alliance with Trump’s MAGA, under the premise of wanting to improve the health of Americans.
Except, it doesn’t.
“Make America Healthy Again” often revolves around villainizing our food supply, DIY-anecdote-driven accounts of alternative medicine (and survivorship bias), and anti-vaccine rhetoric, to name a few, with very little to no call to action to address the underlying issues that impact health the most, like healthcare, food poverty and social determinants of health. In fact, Robert F. Kennedy has built much of his platform around anti-science narratives and conspiracy theories, which raises serious concerns about his ability to protect public health effectively.
As a Cuban actress, Eva Mendes has a large appeal to Latinos in the US. As such, I feel a duty to address some of what was said (and the comments) to my audience and translate this to Spanish as well, because the implications of this messaging are extremely problematic for Latinos in our current political ecosystem.
Shortly after Eva’s post (and as I was writing this), Cindy Crawford followed, which was made all the more ironic to me by the fact that her husband, Randy Gerber, quite literally founded and owns a tequila brand. As a reminder, alcohol is a class 1 carcinogen. I am pretty sure that if we called for “banning alcohol” these folks would just exclaim that “one just needs to drink in moderation” implying that they selectively apply the knowledge that the dose makes the poison only when it suits their narrative.
Coming to (North) America
First, I want to take the time to explain the perspective of Latino immigrants and why MAHA and/or MAGA may be appealing to so many….
I vividly recall the 7 o'clock news theme song back home, a sound that often signaled yet another car bomb or terrorist attack. That constant sense of unease made it clear to both myself and my parents that staying in Colombia would mean living under the shadow of continuous violence and instability. Coming to the US was always part of the plan for me, but the other reasons I came here were far more insidious.
Growing up in Colombia in the 80’s and 90’s, I had a passion for mathematics, technology, and engineering, but I also knew that my prospects in the field were limited. Back home, most opportunities for someone with my interests would likely have led to a job at the local electricity company, with little room for growth or innovation. There might have been more opportunities in bigger cities like Bogota, but they were riddled with clandestine acts of terror.
My family, while supportive, wasn’t particularly well-connected, which is often a significant factor for advancement in Colombia. Some of the best-trained professionals leave because they have better chances here working cleaning houses or as a nanny or Uber driver, and some of the best there are only the best because they have the right set of circumstances, the right parents, the right connections and the right access to gain opportunities for education and career advancement.
Even if I had stayed, I realized that my chances of progressing in the field and accessing cutting-edge technology would have been constrained. So, I came to the United States seeking the chance to fully explore and advance in my career—something that just wasn’t possible in my home country.
A scholarship to Cornell paved the way for me to come here, pursue a degree in Electrical & Computer Engineering, and go on to graduate school. I completed my Ph.D in 2014 in the Department of ECE, integrating neurophysiology, and ironically, a concentration in the Department of Food Sciences (food microbiology, to be exact, although, to be completely fair, I have not worked in the industry). That one opportunity afforded me the knowledge and a network that advanced my career in many directions.
The Latino Immigrant
Latinos often immigrate to the U.S. driven by several factors, many of which can align with conservative values such as personal responsibility, economic freedom, and limited government interference (but strong police presence). One major factor is the lack of social mobility in many Latin American countries, where systemic classism and racism can stifle opportunities for personal and professional advancement.
In contrast, the U.S. offers a somewhat more meritocratic environment, where success can be more closely tied to hard work and determination rather than one's social class or background. Even though it has been quite eye-opening, to say the least, to see how disparities and racism are so prevalent here as well. Social determinants of health are hugely implicated in one’s overall story and outcome here, particularly health outcomes. This may not be as obvious to the Latino immigrant, as I will describe below.
For individuals with technical skills and aspirations, the U.S. represents a place where they can pursue careers in fields like engineering, medicine, and IT, which may not be accessible or as advanced in their home countries. Many Latinos like myself also flee extremist political regimes, seeking refuge from governments that often exhibit socialist or communist tendencies. These regimes can restrict personal freedoms, hinder economic growth, and lead to persecution based on political beliefs, pushing individuals to seek the stability and security of a capitalist democracy like the U.S.
Economic opportunity is another critical motivator, as Latinos (across all socioeconomic classes) often seek jobs that pay in U.S. dollars, which can provide better support for their families back home due to favorable exchange rates.
Approximately eight in ten Hispanic immigrants report a better quality of life in the U.S., particularly citing improvements in education (85%), finances (82%), employment (81%), and safety (81%). Central American immigrants are especially likely to feel safer, with nearly nine in ten (88%) noting increased safety after moving to the U.S., reflecting a significant factor in their decision to immigrate.
This all means that the desire to work hard, earn a living, and retain as much of their income as possible aligns with conservative values around economic self-sufficiency and lower taxation.
For many, this pursuit of economic opportunity is about being able to keep and control the money they earn, allowing them to invest in their futures and provide for their families without excessive government intervention.
Furthermore, many retain a lack of trust in institutions (although, many do come here because they trust what institutions here may foster) because some of their experiences back home are tainted with a lack of protection by these, primarily driven, ironically, by the same ideals they inadvertently align themselves with: less government interference, often steered by corruption, bribery and the classist/racist systems that keep people from advancing.
Oh, the irony of it all
While many Latinos in the U.S. pride themselves on their hard work and determination, often seeing these qualities as the primary drivers of their success, they may not fully realize the critical role that regulatory oversight plays in creating a safe and stable environment for them to fulfill their self-interests. Agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Social Security Administration (SSA) are essential in maintaining health and safety standards, ensuring food and medicine are safe, and providing financial protections.
These regulations create a foundation that allows people to focus on their work and ambitions without constantly worrying about hazards, contaminated products, or financial insecurity. In many Latin American countries, similar protections may be inconsistently applied or underfunded, which can lead to greater instability and risk for citizens. In the U.S., these regulatory bodies help level the playing field, making it easier for people to thrive through their efforts and aspirations.
For example, in 2017 3,007 illnesses from Salmonella were reported in the US -representing a rate of 3,000/325,000,000 or roughly 1 per 100,000. Mexico reported 92,102 cases of NTS, 45,280 cases of Salmonella Typhi, and 12,458 cases of Salmonella Paratyphi A. Given their population at the time (about 123 million people ) that rate is over 1 per 1000 (150,000/123,500,000) meaning it was 1000X higher than the US.
Enter MAHA.
MAHA is a movement disguised as health activism, its most notorious attribute being the intersection between the crunchy left and the far right (coined the crunch-ificiation of conservatism) that seeks to de-regulate our institutions (and boy, have the right sadly made progress). They claim to want to improve Americans’ health, but in reality, what they ultimately seem to champion is the narrative of personal responsibility for health, aligning with the American ideal of individualism. For the record, let’s make it clear that they get to do this because larger fundamental threats to their health, like infectious disease, unsafe drinking water, widespread malnutrition have been neutralized by public health interventions.
By undermining public institutions, vilifying food, and dismissing evidence-based practices, it tacitly (albeit, not quietly) advocates for a new approach to health and nutrition that shifts the burden onto individuals to attain ‘wellness’ on their own.
While this perspective may resonate with many, in reality, it obscures the fact that our health is significantly influenced by public systems and collective efforts. The irony lies in the fact that those who push for “transparent food labeling” and “better food options” are aligned with political figures who consistently block efforts to improve these very systems and vote to defund crucial public health and education infrastructure.
In today’s information landscape, binary and reductionist thinking often seeks to simplify complex issues by assigning singular points of failure, which can contradict established consensus and misrepresent them as facts. In the case of MAHA, it distracts from the real problems contributing to health outcomes in the US: access to healthcare, affordable housing, food insecurity, social determinants of health, socioeconomic disparities, among others.
The bigger danger, however, is how figures like Eva Mendes can influence Latinos and more remarkably, Latino Voters who may mistakenly believe that our food supply is “toxic” and that simply banning ingredients will translate into more health and wealth. This approach seeks nothing but to destroy the credibility of our public regulatory institutions, and create the illusion that one can, with enough willpower and hardwork, guarantee health - the true definition of wellness. If anything, it’s quite the opposite.
By focusing on individual solutions, wellness culture perpetuates inequality rather than providing meaningful support for marginalized and minority communities' health and well-being.
The trends promoted by the wellness industry are inaccessible, unaffordable, and out of touch with their unique needs. The products and services frequently target affluent, predominantly white demographics, ignoring cultural differences and the socioeconomic barriers faced by minorities.
This type of wellness advocacy, especially as it intersects the political agendas of MAHA and MAGA, is presented as health activism but ultimately promotes a narrative that undermines public health and further seeks to deregulate institutions that ensure our safety.
For Latino communities, the stakes are particularly high. Figures like Eva Mendes can wield substantial influence, often without fully understanding the broader consequences of their endorsements. When celebrities promote misleading health information, it risks misleading minority communities into supporting deregulation that ultimately harms public health.
Latino immigrants, some who may resonate with certain conservative ideals, often overlook how much they benefit from robust regulatory institutions that allow them to pursue personal goals in a stable, secure environment.
It’s this structure that enables genuine wellness, not the selective, distorted narrative of deregulation.
Health is largely a shared responsibility, deeply tied to collective systems that we must protect. True wellness cannot exist in a vacuum; it requires robust public health infrastructure and a commitment to equity.
The platforming of pseudoscience under the guise of health activism “asking questions” is extremely damaging for our marginalized communities. Health misinformation carries significant opportunity costs, diverting attention and resources from evidence-based solutions. Legitimizing these narratives creates a false balance, equating unverified claims with scientific facts (more on this in Part 2). Without a solid grasp of scientific nuance, or when ideology clouds judgment, it becomes all too easy for people to mistake fiction for truth.
Lastly, if MAHA ultimately cared really cared about health, they would bring in the real experts: food scientist, toxicologist, nutritionists and public health scientists, and not influencers who lack the appropriate training or background to be discussing these topics in the first place, which speaks volumes about the appeal of personal control over health.
Stay tuned for Part 2.
Driven by data, powered by statistics, and fueled by innovation, A frustrated Latina (Nini)
For a version of this article in Spanish, click here.
I'm Nini, a proud Colombian hailing from Barranquilla. My expertise spans from sensor design to neural interfaces, with emphasis on nanofabrication, data science & statistics, process control, and risk analysis. I am also a wife and a mom to one little girl. TECHing it Apart emerged from my drive to share in-depth insights on topics I cover on Instagram (@niniandthebrain), where I dissect misinformation that skews public health policy and misleads consumers through poor methodology and data manipulation, as well as trends in health technology. Content here is free, but as an independent writer I sure could use your support!