This modern definition is why it can be said that the first superfood may actually have been the banana, which at one time was an exotic food that most Americans had never even seen before. The United Fruit Company didn’t use the exact word at the time, but the banana’s status as the original superfood remains because, crucially, it was the first food to star in a very effective marketing campaign based on bad science.In the early 20th century, celiac disease was a rare and mysterious disease without a cure — until one doctor, Sidney Hass, started a small group of children with celiac on a diet of bananas, milk, broth, gelatin, and little meat. Though it was the lack of gluten in their diets that cured them, Dr. Hass attributed the miraculous change in his patients to a bonkers theory about a non-existent magical enzyme found in bananas. “After Haas had developed the banana diet, United Fruit parlayed the fruit’s ability to fight celiac disease into more general claims about its healthfulness,” writes Alan Levinovitz, PhD, in his book The Gluten Lie And Other Myths About What You Eat . “One emeritus Harvard Medical School professor remarked in 1932 that the medical literature concerning the banana diet read less like science and more ‘like advertisements of the United Fruit Company.’”Today, this plays out similarly in the form of industry-funded studies, which seem to be the starting point for making a new superfood happen. It’s not that the food industry buys scientists outright, says John Stanton, PhD, who teaches food marketing at Saint Joseph’s University and has consulted with large food companies. But it does set aside money to fund studies. “Most major food companies have budgets for R&D. Some of that money is given as grants to academic scientists,” he explains. “There is also money in a public relations account which can be used to make a big deal about positive results. Assuming the results are positive, they will publicize it. If results are negative, they just don't take it to the press.”The press is the real key. Every year, for example, media outlets anoint new superfoods (often by creating lists of foods that are trending in grocery stores), and coverage is often influenced by persistent, well-funded public relations teams. “We could take Swedish Fish, and if we had enough money and enough PR, we could get the media saying Swedish Fish are superfoods,” Dr. Stanton adds. “Anything that people have enough money to put behind can be a superfood.”Interestingly, this competition with new superfoods has led the producers of regular fruits and vegetables to do the same thing. “Producers of fruits and vegetables feel that they, too, need to compete. They form trade associations to do this for them and to pay for research they can use to market their products as ‘superfoods,’” writes Marion Nestle, PhD, in a post on her Food Politics blog about a study funded by the Pear Bureau Northwest that found pears may improve blood pressure. Her take on the findings? “If pears are superfoods, all fruits are superfoods. Eat the ones you like.”As Dr. Nestle points out, the problem isn’t that so-called superfoods, such as all manner of berries, pomegranates, pears, bananas and so on are unhealthy. But what is potentially harmful (or at least just extremely annoying) is what so often follows the myth that a certain berry or not-so-exotic fungus is capable of performing miracles: the trove of powders teas , and tablets made with so-called superfood ingredients that promise ways to “detoxify” the body, “energize” you, “quell dessert cravings,” or help “your body burn up fat quicker.” (Ugh.)And while (hopefully) most of us know by now that eating a bunch of mushrooms is not the same thing as sprinkling mushroom dust into our smoothies, many still fall for these problematic claims in the grocery store, Dr. Akabas says. Take POM Wonderful, for example, which sells relatively sane-seeming pomegranate products, including seed packs, juices, and teas: The company reported record sales of $165 million in 2012 before a lawsuit ruling revealed its claims about blood pressure and heart health were unsubstantiated — and even then, the company still saw an increase in sales in 2013 , according to a press release.