News

Has ‘clean’ had its day?

Wielding clean-label positioning and fortification as marketing levers is a dangerous strategy, and brands would be better off explaining the hows and whys of the ingredients in their products, say experts.

The publication of the book E for Additives in 1984 started a consumer preoccupation with label-checking that continues into the present day, with so-called “clean eating” the current iteration of this trend.

It sounds safe and wholesome, but there is growing disquiet about how this movement, based on unverified health advice, is driving consumer food choices and being exploited by marketeers.

In an article published by Forbes in July, psychologist Mark Travers put forward his case for why the clean eating trend “has to die”.

Meanwhile, at Fi Europe 2025, held in Paris in December, the consensus of a panel discussion about clean label and nutrient fortification was that the industry needs to move on.

‘Stop screaming about clean’

Addressing an audience in the Innovation Hub, Laura Shulman, founder of food marketing consultancy Future Food Strategies, said: “I would advocate that we stop screaming about clean label because it isn’t anything.

“I think it is up to marketeers to be more focused on the role that their particular product plays in culture and lifestyle, and if they are making changes, why they are better. Explain the meaning and purpose of innovation and fortification rather than just applying terminologies that do more harm than good.”

She even suggested that marketing these values is a turn-off for consumers, saying: “As a storyteller, once you start talking about attributes like ‘clean label’ and ‘fortified’, you have lost your audience – most people don’t really know what they mean, so when your brand becomes ‘clean’ or ‘fortified’, it has lost its story and why it exists, and has just become a list of attributes.”

No agreed definition of clean

Her argument touched on one of the biggest problems with the concept of clean label – that there is no agreed definition of “clean”.

Shulman said: “It’s kind of made up. There is no regulated version of it; it is subjective… What is clean to you may not be clean to me.”

Another flaw with clean labelling is that it does not necessarily mean a product is nutritionally better even though the halo of clean makes it seem like a better choice, she added.

“I think it is really important not to mistake clean for nutritionally sound – a lot of plant-based milks are clean but have no nutritional value, which is where I would argue for fortification,” she said.

However, fortification can also miss the mark if the product is an unsuitable candidate, Shulman warned.

“In the UPF space, protein fortification in particular comes into play as a marketing tool,” she said, emphasising that this is not a strategy she advocates.

“I think we risk consumer confusion and trust when we fortify something or use clean label terminology for the purposes of marketing. If we are doing it for the right reasons, with transparency and good rationale, it is an opportunity for consumers to learn and eat better,” she added.

A rigid ideology

Ruud van Burgsteden, founder of Mutrition, a consultancy that straddles both marketing and nutrition science, said he believes that clean label has become too rigid in the minds of consumers.

He told delegates: “From a consumer point of view, the shorter the ingredient list, and the simpler the names, the better it is. Only it isn’t. The challenge for industry is to bring clean label back from being a rigid ideology to a guiding principle.”

He suggested the industry reframes the concept as “cleaner label” to achieve this.

“It is a game of perception. I think as an industry we have to deal with how the consumer is looking at it and try to steer it in the right direction,” he said.

Steve Osborn, founder of innovation consultancy The Aurora Ceres Partnership, agreed that the overly simplistic rationale behind clean labelling rules is a difficulty.

“[The industry is] following these rules that have been set by consumers who don’t really understand the reasons why we use certain ingredients,” he said.

However, he is not convinced that using different terminology would bring about the desired shift in mindset.

“Whether we use the term ‘clean’, ‘clear’, or ‘cleaner’, we still have to have a rational audience,” he added.

Consumer perceptions of clean labels vs chemicals

To illustrate that consumers are far from rational when it comes to clean label, he referenced some of his past research that found there was a pushback about ingredients such as xylose and xantham gum, because the consumer’s perception is that if something has an ‘x’ or ‘y’ in it, it must be a chemical.

“If it has got an ‘x’ in it it can’t be good, regardless of why it is there,” he said, with more than a hint of irony.

Osborn expressed some serious concerns about allowing future product development to be shaped by this ideology.

“If we continue to follow this set ideology, we are at risk of making food poorer quality, less safe, more expensive, and less nutritious, as companies avoid including key ingredients because of how they sound rather than what they actually do,” he said.

“[The industry is] trying to make things better for society and if we have to avoid putting something in because of some set of arbitrary rules, I think that is a dangerous place to be.

“Maybe we should be retiring these terms and saying… it is an idealised movement that has no structure or definition, and we need to move on from it.”