The ‘Clean Eating’ Debate – My Penny’s Worth

Ruby Tandoh doesn’t like clean eating (photo copyright S. Alexander 2016)

I’m writing today’s post at my husband’s request.  He doesn’t normally take an interest in nutrition, but even he hasn’t failed to notice the current debate on ‘clean eating’.  It seems that everyone from the Hemsley sisters to former ‘Bakeoff’ constestant Ruby Tandoh, has an opinion.  My husband reckons it’s time I added my voice to the mix.  The ‘clean eating’ movement isn’t something I’ve been involved with, but then Ruby Tandoh knows far less about nutrition than I, and she has an article in ‘The Guardian’.  She’s vehemently against ‘clean eating’, but then she does write books about baking, so one can understand why she might have an agenda.

What does “clean eating” even mean?

Firstly, the term ‘clean eating’ is a nonsense. It belongs with other wooly and meaningless terms such as ‘cleanse’, ‘detox’ and ‘superfoods’ – in the bin.  What is meant by ‘clean eating’ anyway?  The idea that food can be somehow ‘clean’ or ‘dirty’ is a falacy.  Of course nobody wants to eat food covered in actual dirt if they can help it, but beyond that, classifying food according to cleanliness has little meaning.  Take, for example, the ‘dirty dozen’ fruits and vegetables, so-called because they are the products most contaminated with pesticides.  I’m sure the ‘clean eating’ folks will never tell you to avoid nectarines or celery, both of which appear on the ‘dirty dozen’ list.  The waters quickly get muddy regarding what ‘clean’ really means. Clean eating can, in truth, be a dirty business.

Eating a variety of home-cooked, fresh foods is a great idea, no matter how it’s presented.

Does that mean that the clean eating movement is all bad?  I don’t think so.  There’s no need to throw the baby out with the bath water.  If you take away the daft language, the fudging of certain facts and the airbrushed girls, what is at the heart of the clean eating movement?  It’s the desire to eat fresh food that is not adulterated with unnecessary chemicals, flavours or bulking agents. Not that any of these are necessarily harmful in their own right (although some may be; at a conference at the Royal Society of Medicine last week, two eminent doctors agreed that emulsifiers can disrupt gut bacteria), but cumulatively they may detract from the nutrient density of a person’s diet.  It’s the insistence on knowing, as far as possible, where food comes from and what it contains, and making informed choices.  It’s the re-discovery of how delicious food can be when it is well-prepared from fresh, nutrient-dense ingredients.  For me, these seem to be effective and tasty ways to get a nutritious diet which supports the body in functioning effectively.  That can only be a good thing.

So what of food exclusions?  Many ‘clean eaters’ insist that everyone should remove sugar, gluten and dairy, amongst other things, from their diet.  But critics claim that the clean eating movement demonizes whole food groups, and that this can cause some people to become deficient in key nutrients, or encourages eating disorders.  There’s even a term, ‘orthorexia’, which decribes those obsessed with a particular way of eating.  I run courses for people to give up sugar.  Aren’t I part of the problem?

Negative labelling around food may encourage obsessive eating habits.

For me, there’s a difference between reducing dependence on a particular food group and eliminating it altogether.  Sugar isn’t a food group; carbohydrate is.  Sugar isn’t necessary in the human diet, and for most people I consider that eating it regularly is likely to do more harm than good.  I consider that the science agrees with me, athough I acknowledge that others may disagree.

However, I’m not a fan of very low carbohydrate diets for the general population, nor of a universal ban on, for example, gluten.  Ditching the gluten has made a positive change in my life, but it’s not necessary for everyone.  Such diets can be difficult to follow, particuarly in social situations. They may be low in fibre, which might be a factor in a whole range of problems, and very low carbohydrate diets may contribute to kidney damage.  Reduction, even elimination of certain foods can be helpful in many cases, but not elimination of whole food groups (which isn’t even possible), not without considering how best to replace what has been removed, and never for an entire population. I’ve even met people for whom sugar reduction was completely inappropriate. There’s an exception to every rule.

The essence of nutritional therapy is to view everyone as an individual on a case-by-case basis, and that is what I aim to do.  When I come across dogmatism of the ‘everyone must’ variety, I head for the hills. Next time you hear someone make a blanket claim without sufficient evidence, come and join me.  It’s a lot cleaner up in the mountains!