Exposing lies, pretensions and stupidity in the world of food.

Clean Eating is Dead

Saturday, October 22, 2016

   

Clean Eating is dead.


Yay! Did we kill it?


No, not at all. Although we did try.


Someone should tell ‘Clean Eating Alice’. That way she can change her name before she brings out another book.


Maybe too late for that. Although I am not convinced that ‘Clean’ is her real name.


How do we know it is dead?


Because the Internet said so. In a recent article on her website, the High Priestess of all things clean, a certain Ella Mills (nee Woodward) announced Clean Eating’s sad demise. Like the former friend of a disgraced 1970s DJ, she also thoroughly disassociated herself from it, saying –


‘I want to outline what my philosophy is and what we, as a company, are trying to do. Deliciously Ella stands for natural, honest, real food. It’s not about labels, dieting, restriction or rules, and it’s certainly not about the concept of ‘clean’. Despite being labelled as ‘the queen of clean’, I do not use that term to describe what I do and never will do. I agree with the critics that dividing food into two categories: ‘good’ and ‘bad’, is incredibly negative, and only works to further fuel the idea that food is something that should inflict feelings of guilt, which I fundamentally disagree with.’


Oh. Interesting. Do you think she’s been reading Angry Chef?


I doubt it. Although maybe her team of lawyers have.


Oh good. Hello lawyers. Those shoes look expensive.


Do we have a food philosophy?


Yes we do. Ours is never to disappear so far up our own arse that we feel the need to share a food philosophy with the world.


Why has she killed Clean Eating then? She seemed to be doing quite well out of it.


I imagine this has come about because of a raft of media criticism about the term ‘Clean Eating’, its association with guilt, shame and the needless characterisation of food into good and bad categories. This categorisation tends to be rife with essentialism, with worrying parallels to religious extremism, where followers eating only ‘clean’ foods are seen as pure and good, those not following the path of quinoa and kale are deemed dirty and unclean. It is, as I have discussed a number of times, a dangerous and unpleasant association to make, and for people who are susceptible to harm from rule driven messages around food, it can draw them in and help to drive disordered patterns of eating.


As I have also discussed in the past, ‘Clean Eating’ tends to be a hotbed of strange pseudoscience, used to justify exclusion driven diet regimes, presenting made up woo in order to wrongly classify foods. Often this is laden with equally damaging essentialist terms for forbidden foods like acidic, nasty, chemical, processed, unnatural, Frankenfood, fake food, food like substances, that sort of thing.


Oh. That sounds bad. Any examples?


Loads. Here’s some from the food blogger Ella Mills (nee Woodward), someone who doesn’t identify herself as a ‘Clean Eater’ and agrees that foods should not be classified as ‘good’ or ‘bad’.


Never use things like vegetable oil, vegan butters and sunflower oil – these are nasty and processed.


The main reason that I don’t eat peanuts is that they’re especially susceptible to mould and fungal invasions and are particularly linked to one mould that produced aflatoxin, a known carcinogen (linked especially to liver cancer).


I know that in an ideal world we’d all live off kale and cucumber, but I think it’s probably unlikely that any of us are saintly enough to do that.


To really thrive you should say goodbye to the following as they’re all incredibly acidic and your body works best when it’s alkaline, they’re also really hard to digest which means they suck your energy and slow down your digestion – (She goes on to list all dairy, gluten, refined sugar, meat, fish, eggs and products labelled as healthy in the supermarkets).


A few things to note here. Firstly, her ideal world appears to be one where we live of cucumber and kale, which is a world where we would all die within a few short weeks of watery diarrhoea and crippling nutritional deficiency. This is not my ideal world.


It also seems that she doesn’t like peanuts, which just to be clear have never been linked to any form of cancer. Although Aflatoxins are found on a number of agricultural crops including peanuts, commercially available products are extensively tested and are free from contamination. If this is not spreading unnecessary fear and unpleasant associations to food choices, then I am not sure what is. If someone wants to forward me a study showing that commercially available peanut consumption is linked to liver cancer, please do. If it was true I am fairly sure I would have heard about it, as would the WHO, NHS and similar organisations. Peanuts don’t cause liver cancer, if they did they would be banned.


Lastly, Ella Mills still talks about certain foods being acidic on her website, thus needlessly imbuing perfectly reasonable and healthful food choices like dairy, gluten, meat and fish with unpleasant, corrosive and damaging associations. The Acid/Alkaline Ash diet is a bunch of hokum based on misunderstandings of some hundred-year-old chemistry experiments and is not taken seriously by any real nutritionists or dietitians. It is a convenient narrative for attaching good and bad associations to foods and if I was to explain it in full it would make your eyes bleed with its ridiculousness.


Sounds interesting. Someone should write about it in a book sometime. Maybe a chef with a tendency to get cross.


Maybe that will happen one day. If she wishes to cut these foods out of her diet, then that is fine. But she encourages others to do the same with reference to the pH of calorimeter ash, when there is no evidence of that measure having any impact on health. This is not okay.


Ella Mills is hugely influential and it makes me genuinely happy that she says -


 ‘I agree with the critics that dividing food into two categories: ‘good’ and ‘bad’, is incredibly negative, and only works to further fuel the idea that food is something that should inflict feelings of guilt’


but when she says elsewhere on the same website…


‘Embrace all of mother nature’s goodness, throw away anything with additives’


…I can’t help thinking that there is a direct conflict between that and her new ‘philosophy’. She is either one thing or the other. Just because she has rejected the term ‘clean’ does not make it okay to arbitrarily classify foods and attach morality to anything she deems unsuitable or unnatural. The criticism is not just of the word ‘clean’, it is of the moralising about food choices, it is about the guilt and shame attached to completely sensible and harmless dietary options. It is about the hiding of exclusion diets behind made up science like the alkaline diet and detoxification. Taking out the word clean does not make it okay if you still talk about exclusion. Anyone eating food with ‘additives’ is being made to feel guilty. Anyone eating fish is being told that they are acidifying their body and preventing it from thriving. This is not presented as an opinion; it is presented as fact. This is not okay.


People eat food with ‘additives’ every day. It is a sensible, harmless choice and can be part of a healthy diet. Natural does not equate to healthy, additives are not inherently unhealthy. Cutting out dairy, gluten, fish and meat will not make your body ‘thrive’ and to suggest so is at odds with all sensible nutritional advice. If Ella Mills really thinks that food should not be classified into distinct groups then she needs to stop doing it, stop equating kale consumption with virtue and stop calling harmless and regularly consumed foods ‘nasty’. She also needs to stop spouting the ridiculous acid/alkaline ash nonsense. If she ever wants a two-hour lecture on why The Alkaline Diet is wrong and why the associations it creates are potentially very harmful, I am available at consultancy rates that I am sure she can afford.


Or she could buy the book when it comes out.


Yes indeed. Or borrow a copy from her lawyers.


I am not saying that her change of heart is not positive, and I am glad to declare clean eating as dead, but if progress is going to be made, that change of heart needs to be total. The transgressions of the past need to be admitted and the language of guilt and exclusion needs to be removed from the Deliciously Ella website.


Good. Glad you got that off your chest. Anything else?


Yes. I have been wondering recently what has driven this recent change of heart? After all, although there has been a little negative attention recently, the Deliciously Ella train rolls on, with the organisation now employing 50 people, a new book topping the best seller lists and Ella still commanding the constant, fawning attention the UK’s newspapers and magazines. She is young, glamourous, successful and the owner of a hugely powerful, influential brand, all created from the clean eating trend she now rejects.


Why the sudden mellowing of tone, why the change? What events could drive someone who has been so publically opposed to processed foods to suddenly display a more relaxed attitude to dietary choices in a newly outlined philosophy? Why would someone who might have been considered a negative influence on the acceptance of packaged and manufactured food products suddenly have a change of heart? I did begin to think she might be a secret Angry Chef follower, influenced by the ‘Convenience Truth’ series of posts, perhaps realising that not all manufactured food is inherently bad. I doubt that very much though. I guess that we will never really know the answer.



And Now, a Totally Unrelated Item of Food News.


In completely unrelated news, I noticed that the popular ‘non-clean eating’ food blogger Ella Mills has launched a new range of food products into UK supermarkets and other retail outlets. Sold under the ‘Deliciously Ella’, brand these ‘Energy Balls’ are available in Waitrose, Starbuck’s, Tesco, Ocado and a number of other stores and online outlets. Based on popular recipes from the Deliciously Ella website they are described as vegan friendly, free from gluten, dairy and refined sugar.


In the interests of research, and assuming that most Angry Chef readers won’t be able to order ‘Energy Balls’ in a busy Starbuck’s queue with a straight face, I decided to buy some and conduct my first ever –


Angry Chef Product Review


They are of course a bit embarrassing to order, but fortunately they are available to buy in Waitrose, so it is possible to purchase them in the self-service checkout.


Do you remember that time when Mrs Angry Chef was going to by bird food and asked the man in the shop if he had ‘Fat Balls’? That was funny.


Mmmm. Not sure she’ll thank us for sharing that one.


I would recommend that if you can’t find them in store, simply give up and go home, as it is not worth the lifelong shame you will feel if you ask an in store assistant where they are located. I purchased mine with a Scotch Egg, a Mars Bar and a can of Special Brew just to be sure no one got the wrong idea. I even paid 5p for a bag to disguise my walk of shame to the car.


If you are planning on buying a few of them, I would perhaps recommend speaking to a financial adviser about re-mortgaging your home, because they retail anywhere between £1.43 and £2.00, depending upon where you shop.


What? Fuck me. We paid that much! For a pack of 5?


No, for a pack of one. One 40g energy ball costs up to £2.


THUD


Indeed. The Special Brew was cheaper. One of the key selling points seems to be the simple, natural ingredients list. The Hazelnut and Raisin Energy Ball contains 2½ Dates, 11 Hazelnuts and 23 Raisins, which as a regular Angry Chef contributor mentioned (thank you Carly), does sound like the diet plan of someone with a slight obsessive attitude to about food (with you in a minute – just counting out 23 raisins and cutting a date in half for my morning snack).


One thing is for sure. These energy balls are certainly packed with energy. In fact the ‘Cocao and Almond’ variety, has 433kCal per 100g, almost twice as much as my Scotch Egg (235kCal/100g). One of the main reasons for this is that they are packed full of fat. This particular variety is about 28% fat, again slightly more than my Scotch Egg (24%).


They are also brimming with delicious sugar, containing a remarkable 32%, which is predictably more than the Scotch Egg, but less than my Mars Bar (60%). Mind you, if you wanted a snack with less sugar per 100g than Deliciously Ella Energy Balls, you could perhaps go for a Magnum Ice Cream (27%), which also has less fat. The ‘Hazelnut and Raisin’ Energy Ball is even higher in sugar, around 48%, slightly less than a Snickers or a Cadbury’s Mini Roll. Let’s just say that again. 48% of this snack item is sugar. Nearly half.


But I thought she didn’t use sugar. Is this the ‘hidden sugar’ people are always going on about?


In a way I suppose it is. Although the concept of ‘hidden sugar’ is a slightly strange one as food manufacturers have to clearly indicate how much sugar is contained in any products. This is the total sugar, because as we have discussed at length in the past, sugar is just sugar and if it is not being consumed as a whole food (in fruits and vegetables), our bodies care little of the source. Ella Mills does have a slightly different attitude, preferring to believe that any sugars she deems as being more natural are somehow imbued with a sprinkle of magical health giving properties.


Here is an example of her thinking –


'When it comes to baking, I find maple syrup is the easiest replacement for sugar. It has a wonderful, rich flavour that does so much more than merely sweeten whatever you’re cooking. Honey and date syrup are great to add as a topping to things such as porridge if you feel they need a little sweetening.'


Clearly demonstrating that when it comes to sugar, she likes to replace it with different types of sugar, for reasons that are unclear. Something to do with naturalness or acidity I presume, although sugar is neither unnatural or acidic.


My point is this. Deliciously Ella Energy Balls are an indulgent treat. They are a high sugar, high fat processed food product. If they used the traffic light labelling system favoured by many responsible food manufacturers and retailers, their nutrient levels per 100g would put them in the red category for sugar and fat. I am not saying anyone should avoid them (although having tried them I wouldn’t recommend the experience), but they should not be considered a healthy snack. They have a higher level of sugar than a Snickers Bar and more fat per 100g than a Scotch Egg. No association with a health and wellness brand will take away those facts.


To be fair, the packaging and explicit communication does not mention health (because they really wouldn’t be allowed to in such a high fat, high sugar processed food item), but it is frequently implied, with the website saying about the recipe –


‘Healthy eating needn’t be about deprivation, but exciting, vibrant ingredients, that make people feel good. Deliciously Ella energy balls are made with whole, natural and nourishing ingredients, while still being absolutely delicious.’


If Snickers, Magnums or Scotch Egg manufacturers made similar statement there would be justifiable outrage.


For me, these products are a glaring sign that we have entered a dangerous post-truth era. Healthy eating is no longer about anything as tawdry and outdated as science, evidence and the nutritional content of foods. Healthy eating is about associations of purity, cleanliness and naturalness. It is about advocates with shiny hair and flawless skin. The new gurus of health can say, do and cook what they want. So long as their Instagram following is large enough, they can tell us the we should eat a high fat and sugar processed food snack and consider it a healthy option. They can do this because of how they look, because of how they are perceived, because of the power of their brand.


Clean Eating Lives


In a recent debate at the Cheltenham literature festival, regular Angry Chef Collaborator Renee McGregor was involved in a debate with the food blogger Madeline Shaw. Renee is a hugely experienced sports Dietitian and published author, who has spent fifteen years’ working with elite level athletes. She is also an ambassador for the charity Anorexia Bulimia Care, working in the treatment of eating disorders and campaigning for the improvement of funding and support services. Anyone interested in food and health should have been hanging on her every word, and yet whenever she dared to criticised Madeline, picking her up on gaps in her knowledge or the spreading of misinformation, she was booed and catcalled by an increasingly threatening crowd. Later her and the event host Bee Wilson were shouted at by angry fans and body shamed on Twitter (Bee wrote about it here).


Surely no one can seriously believe that Madeline Shaw is better placed to comment on food and health than a highly qualified, unbelievably knowledgeable dietitian with fifteen years’ experience. Can it be that a large, vociferous social media following makes you impervious to the truth? Has our society become so confused between aesthetic and health that we do not understand that simply because you look healthy and eat food, that does not imply an intricate working knowledge of nutrition. We are in danger of losing touch with the truth, entering an era where media profile and status signalling are king.  Facts be damned, the proof of knowledge is now your ability to look healthy in a carefully crafted, photo-shopped image.

    

MORE POSTS