Cultural and Moral Dimensions of “Clean Food” Labeling

The important review on “clean food” dietary labels by Negowetti and colleagues (Negowetti et al., 2021) describes potential “public health implications” of this labeling trend and sheds light on the “legal and policy landscape” for regulating labels in the United States. Three commentaries (Chua & Berg, 2021; Ghaderi, 2021; Sharp & McLean, 2021) provide further illumination, offering additional considerations informed by experience in East Asia, Europe, and Australia. The review and accompanying commentaries complement one another and provide rich and varied information and viewpoints relevant to “clean food” labeling. Reading them underscores Negowetti and colleagues’ reference to the “cultural moralization of eating behavior,” highlighting the involvement of cultural and moral dimensions alongside scientific considerations.

First, concerning food labeling in general, there is an important cultural dimension that influences both the approach to food labeling and the specific content of food labels, as addressed in the commentary by Chua and Berg. In the United States, a major goal of food labels is to identify accurately the individual ingredients. This atomistic approach is consistent with the emphasis in the United States on specifying the molecular composition of pharmaceuticals. It contrasts with a more holistic approach that characterizes certain forms of traditional medicine, such as Chinese traditional medicine, and is concerned with the correct mixture of ingredients that work together within the bodily system to maintain equilibrium and harmony rather than correcting a specific pathophysiologic abnormality (Kaptchuk, 2000). Consequently, the labeling of traditional medicine (including herbal medicine products) does not necessarily aim for the specificity expected in the United States (Fung & Linn, 2015). Further, as Chua and Berg note, in Malaysia and Singapore there is resistance to strict labeling requirements because “stringent regulations may limit market growth, conflict with consumer demand, and be perceived as challenging deeply held traditions.” Ultimately, the principal value of labeling is to provide information that the consumer wishes to have in order to make informed choices. However, as this example shows, the type of labeling and its details are not simply a matter of scientific judgement, but occur within a social and cultural context that influences what information is deemed important for making informed choices.

Second, concerning the labeling of “clean food,” accurately doing so requires the development of an adequate, consensus definition of “clean food.” However, one problem with attempts to define “clean food” is that this concept brings in a moral dimension that involves emotions over and above those elicited from considerations of general health and well-being. Specifically, as research in moral psychology has shown (Graham et al., 2013; Preston & Ritter, 2012), the word “clean” has resonances with moral concepts, such as “pure,” “virtuous,” and “sacred.” Think of the adage, “cleanliness is next to godliness,” and consider religious practices, such the traditional Jewish requirement for Kosher (which means “clean” in Hebrew) food. Thus, powerful moral feelings are intrinsically involved in any concept of “clean” food, rendering it challenging to fashion a definition based on scientific evidence alone.

The review by Negowetti and colleagues and accompanying commentaries note that there is no generally agreed upon definition of “clean food.” Sharp and McLean point out the ambiguity inherent in the term, as illustrated by their artificial intelligence educational chatbot that humorously refers to “clean food” as akin to “eating a pizza while having a bath.” Ghaderi, as well as Sharp and McLean, go further to suggest that that the validity of the concept of “clean food” itself should be challenged. Ghaderi encourages scientists to “enter the relevant fields (e.g., Internet, TV, and social media) to a higher extent and provide solid, pedagogical and simple facts and guidelines to vaccinate people against current and upcoming misleading dietary trends.” Sharp and McLean also emphasize educational campaigns. Although the commentaries offer a multifaceted challenge to the validity of the concept of “clean food,” a crucial feature of this challenge is the failure to produce an adequate scientific definition – which stems from ambiguity of the term “clean,” with its subjective emotional moral resonances.

Finally, reflecting on the points above, it should hardly be surprising that our views on what is important to know about the content of food for purposes of labeling, and how we should define types of foods for purposes of health and well-being – much like our views on diet and eating more generally – are based not only on science, but are also strongly influenced by cultural and moral dimensions.