Clean Eating: A Path to Wellness or a Veiled Form of Elitism?

In recent years, the concept of "clean eating" has gained significant traction, promising improved health and wellness through the consumption of whole and minimally processed foods. At its core, the movement advocates for diets rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains and lean proteins, while avoiding processed foods. While the intentions behind clean eating are commendable, its broader implications deserve scrutiny—particularly the health benefits, socioeconomic factors, and potential for elitism.

The appeal of clean eating is grounded in evidence that whole, unprocessed foods contribute to better health. Diets rich in unprocessed foods are consistently linked to reduced risks of chronic diseases such as heart disease, diabetes, and certain cancers. One study highlighted that individuals with a whole-foods-based diet have a 31% lower risk of heart disease than those consuming more processed foods.1 These findings underscore the health benefits of clean eating. However, while these are significant, it is worth exploring other facets of this movement that may complicate its adoption for many.

Consistently access and affordability of whole foods is not universally feasible. Food insecurity - marked by inconsistent or inadequate access to nutritious food - affects many vulnerable groups, including students, low-income families, and individuals living in food deserts. A survey by the Hope Center for College, Community, and Justice revealed that 39% of students at four-year colleges experienced food insecurity in the previous month, reinforcing the difficulty of adhering to a clean diet.2 

The concept of food deserts further compounds this issue. A study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that low-income neighborhoods often have fewer supermarkets and more convenience stores, limiting access to fresh produce.3 For residents in these communities, eating healthy is not a matter of discipline or willpower, but rather of limited availability and affordability. Additionally, the financial implications of clean eating cannot be overlooked; a study in the Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior found that healthier food options were typically more expensive than processed alternatives, putting them out of reach for many.4

The clean eating movement even has the potential to foster social stigmatization. Labeling foods as “clean” or “pure” can create a moral hierarchy around dietary choices, leading to feelings of shame or inadequacy among those unable to adopt the lifestyle. Further, this can exacerbate eating disorders such as orthorexia nervosa - a condition characterized by an unhealthy obsession with healthy eating. The movement can also perpetuate social inequalities. Food deserts and economic constraints disproportionately impact low-income communities, making it harder for them to follow clean eating guidelines.5 In this way, clean eating often prioritizes the interests of affluent individuals over basic accessibility issues faced by marginalized populations.

To address these challenges, the conversation around clean eating needs to evolve. Policymakers should prioritize expanding access to affordable, nutritious food in underserved areas. Initiatives such as urban agriculture and mobile food markets have proven effective in increasing access to fresh produce in food deserts. Additionally, social campaigns should promote balanced and flexible diets, avoiding the rigid terminology associated with clean eating. For instance, the Health at Every Size (HAES) model advocates for health-promoting behaviors irrespective of weight, encouraging an inclusive view of wellness.6 Healthcare professionals can also play a vital role by guiding patients towards practical, achievable habits that fit individual circumstances. Research shows that flexible, sustainable approaches are more effective for long-term health outcomes than rigid adherence to guidelines. Finally, incorporating mental health resources into dietary education could help individuals develop a balanced relationship with food, free from guilt or fixation. 

All in all, while the clean eating movement has raised awareness about the health benefits of whole foods, it is certainly a multifaceted issue with clear limitations. Moving forward, a nuanced approach to nutrition is needed - one that is inclusive, culturally sensitive, and economically realistic. Good nutrition should not be a marker of privilege; it should be an accessible option for everyone, regardless of socioeconomic status. As the advocacy for healthier eating habits continues, tackling the systemic barriers that limit access to nutritious food could drive a positive shift towards an equitable food system that promotes universal health and well-being.

Reviewed by Radhika Subramani

Graphic by Yasmine Kwong

References 

1. Yu E, Malik VS, Hu FB. Cardiovascular Disease Prevention by Diet Modification: JACC Health Promotion Series. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72(8):914. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2018.02.085 

2. McCoy M, Martinelli S, Reddy S, et al. Food Insecurity On College Campuses: The Invisible Epidemic. doi:10.1377/forefront.20220127.264905 

3. Hilmers A, Hilmers DC, Dave J. Neighborhood Disparities in Access to Healthy Foods and Their Effects on Environmental Justice. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(9):1644. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.300865

4. Rao M, Afshin A, Singh G, Mozaffarian D. Do healthier foods and diet patterns cost more than less healthy options? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2013;3(12):e004277. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004277

5. USDA ERS - Access to Affordable, Nutritious Food Is Limited in “Food Deserts.” Accessed November 13, 2024. https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2010/march/access-to-affordable-nutritious-food-is-limited-in-food-deserts/

6. The Health at Every Size® (HAES®) Principles. ASDAH. Accessed November 13, 2024. https://asdah.org/haes/

Impact of the 2024 Election on Access to Nutritional Foods

With the results from the recent presidential election, many are questioning how the country will change in the coming years. As political polarization increases, the potential shifts in policy from education, to economics, to environmental or abortion laws, has increased the contentiousness of politics. Among the most pressing concerns is how a transition from a Democratic to a Republican-led government might affect the nation’s food system, including factors such as the accessibility of nutritious food, the prices of groceries, and overall policy regulation.

Professor Shonil Bhagwat, an expert in environmental and development studies at The Open University, underscores the importance of a strong food system in shaping public health outcomes. A weakened food system, he warns, could contribute to the growing prevalence of non-communicable diseases such as diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and dementia (1). The regulation of the agricultural industry plays a debatably over-intrusive, but existent role in ensuring that food remains safe and nutritious. Industrial farming practices like monocropping rely heavily on chemical interventions, which are regulated to protect both environmental and public health. However, the widespread production of cheap, low-nutrient food from these industrial farming practices has diminished the diversity of the American diet, making it harder for people to access healthy options (2) and increasing the contentiousness over the appropriate level of government involvement in agricultural policies. As policies around agriculture, environmental restrictions, food assistance programs, and tariffs continue to evolve, they will have a direct impact on food accessibility and nutrition across the nation.

Project 2025, a policy blueprint written by many of Trump’s cabinet members, suggests that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) should play a more limited role. This would include defunding critical programs like farmer subsidies, food stamps, and free school meals (1). Professor Bhagwat argues that such policy shifts would severely weaken U.S. food assistance programs, leaving low-income groups with even less access to the nutritious foods they need. Additionally, the deregulation of the food industry could lead to an influx of ultra-processed foods, pushing low-nutrient options to dominate the market and further exacerbating disparities in food access. Project 2025 also proposes eliminating national dietary guidelines, which have long served as a foundation for public health recommendations aimed at disease prevention (5). One of the key proposals under a potential Trump administration is to reduce food prices by curbing inflation and increasing domestic oil and gas production, however most mainstream economists fear Trump’s proposed economic plans will worsen inflation (6), putting already vulnerable communities at risk by increasing prices of healthy food.

Further complicating matters, Trump's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved over 100 toxic pesticides in 2020, many of which are banned in other countries. This includes 69 pesticides with "known" or "likely" carcinogens, which pose additional risks to public health (3). The proposed tariffs on Chinese imports could also lead to higher prices for essential dietary supplements, as the domestic supply of basics like letter vitamins is essentially nonexist, as well as create trade barriers for livestock farmers, who may find it harder to sell meat abroad (4). While these tariffs could boost the domestic supply of medicinal herbs, many ingredients for traditional Chinese medicine are difficult to grow at scale in the U.S., limiting their availability. With mass deportation of undocumented people, farm labor will diminish, as 44% of farm workers are undocumented. This may open jobs to Americans, but is more likely to cause companies to find ways to accommodate for less workers rather than hire more, a situation that could cause the collapse of the agricultural sector (7).

In conclusion, while the 2024 election presents significant challenges for the future of America's food system, it also offers a critical opportunity for positive change. The potential policy shifts, such as the reduction of food assistance programs and deregulation of the food industry, could have serious consequences for public health and access to nutritious food. However, this moment also calls for a renewed commitment to rethinking how we produce, distribute, and consume food in this country. By advocating for sustainable farming practices, stronger food safety regulations, and more robust support for vulnerable communities, there is hope for building a more equitable and health-conscious food system. It is up to all of us to engage in the conversation and work together—across political divides—to ensure that healthy, nutritious food is accessible to every American, regardless of income or background. The future of our food system depends on the choices we make today, and with collective effort, we can create a more resilient and nourishing food landscape for generations to come.

Reviewed By: Jack Ringel

Designed By: Soojin Lee

References:

1. Willmoth, H. (2024). Trump win would stop vulnerable accessing nutritious food, says expert. https://www.newsweek.com/trump-win-stop-vulnerable-accessing-nutritious-food-1979938

2. Foodprint, (2024). How our food system affects public health. https://foodprint.org/issues/how-our-food-system-affects-public-health/

3. Center for Biological Diversity, (2020). Analysis: Trump EPA approved 100-plus products with pesticides banned elsewhere or slated for U.S phaseout. https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/analysis-trump-epa-approved-100-plus-products-pesticides-banned-elsewhere-or-slated-us-phaseout-2020-01-07/

4. Polito, R. (2024). Donald Trump’s election offers peril and promise to dietary supplement industry, insiders say. https://www.newhope.com/industry-news/donald-trump-election-president-offers-peril-promise-supplement-industry-insiders-say

5. Dietary Guidelines. (n.d.). Purpose of dietary guidelines. https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/about-dietary-guidelines/purpose-dietary-guidelines#:~:text=The%20Dietary%20Guidelines%20for%20Americans,promote%20health%2C%20and%20prevent%20disease.

6. Rugaber, C. (2024). Trump’s economic plan would worsen inflation, experts say https://apnews.com/article/trump-inflation-tariffs-taxes-immigration-federal-reserve-a18de763fcc01557258c7f33cab375ed

7. Investigate Midwest. (2024). Four ways Trump could impact the agriculture sector during second term https://investigatemidwest.org/2024/11/06/four-ways-trump-could-impact-the-agriculture-sector-during-second-term/

How Gut Microbes Influence Stress Resilience: A Biological Perspective

Emerging research has highlighted the connection between gut microbiota and stress resilience, unveiling some of the unique ways in which our microbial inhabitants can shape our psychological responses to stress. We’ve known that the gut microbiome is a community of trillions of bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract and that it plays a pivotal role in maintaining mental health by influencing neurobiological mechanisms that regulate stress responses [3].

Stress triggers a cascade of biological reactions, activating the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, which regulates the release of stress hormones like cortisol. Chronic stress can lead to dysregulation of this axis, resulting in mental health disorders such as anxiety and depression [9]. Recent studies suggest that gut microbiota may help modulate this response, promoting stress resilience through various pathways.

One key mechanism by which the gut microbe influences stress resilience is through the production of metabolites that impact brain function. For instance, short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), produced by the fermentation of dietary fibers by gut bacteria, have been shown to exert neuroprotective effects. 

In a study led by Dr. Arpana Church, co-director of UCLA’s Microbiome Center, researchers examined the gut microbiomes of 116 adults to understand how gut health relates to psychological resilience. Participants underwent psychological assessments to evaluate their resilience, defined as their ability to cope with stress [6]. The findings indicated that individuals with higher resilience exhibited specific metabolites and gene activity in their microbiomes that correlated with better emotional regulation and cognitive function.

Moreover, resilient individuals showed reduced inflammation and improved gut barrier integrity, suggesting a healthier microbiome composition. This aligns with previous research emphasizing the bidirectional relationship between the brain and gut, where dysfunction in one can lead to issues in the other. Dr. Church noted, “If you think about stress, it’s almost equal to smoking five cigarettes per day.”

The gut microbiome can also influence the body’s inflammatory response, which is closely linked to stress. Chronic inflammation has been implicated in the pathogenesis of stress-related disorders. One study found that individuals with a more diverse gut microbiome exhibited lower levels of inflammatory markers, suggesting that a healthy microbiota may confer protective effects against stress-induced inflammation [7]. This relationship underscores the importance of maintaining a balanced microbiome for overall mental health and resilience.

The gut-brain axis plays a critical role in this interaction. Gut microbes communicate with the central nervous system through the vagus nerve, a key component of the parasympathetic nervous system. Research indicates that stimulation of the vagus nerve could enhance stress resilience by modulating the gut microbiota composition [8]. This bidirectional communication highlights the potential for dietary and lifestyle interventions aimed at improving gut health to foster resilience to stress.

Furthermore, specific dietary patterns have been linked to gut microbiome diversity and stress resilience. A diet rich in whole foods, fiber, and fermented products has been associated with a more diverse microbiome, which is thought to be beneficial for mental health [5]. Conversely, diets high in processed foods and sugars have been shown to negatively impact gut microbiota diversity, potentially increasing vulnerability to stress and related disorders [1]. Dr. Church emphasizes that individuals can influence their gut health through dietary adjustments, recommending a diverse diet rich in fiber and fermented foods, aiming for at least 30 different fruits and vegetables per week to support microbiome diversity.

In conclusion, the growing body of evidence underscores the critical role of gut microbiota in shaping stress resilience. Through the production of metabolites, modulation of inflammation, and communication with the brain, gut microbes can significantly influence our psychological responses to stress. As research continues to unravel these connections, it becomes increasingly clear that promoting a healthy gut microbiome through diet and lifestyle may be a promising strategy for enhancing mental health and resilience against stress. 

Reviewed By: Emily Walsh

Designed By: Allison Chin

References: 

[1] Aggarwal, N., Kitano, S., Puah, G. R. Y., Kittelmann, S., Hwang, I. Y., & Chang, M. W. (2023). Microbiome and Human Health: Current Understanding, Engineering, and Enabling Technologies. Chemical reviews, 123(1), 31–72. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.2c00431

[2] Bercik, P., Denou, E., Collins, J., Jackson, W., Lu, J., Jury, J., Deng, Y., Blennerhassett, P., Macri, J., McCoy, K. D., Verdu, E. F., & Collins, S. M. (2011). The intestinal microbiota affect central levels of brain-derived neurotropic factor and behavior in mice. Gastroenterology, 141(2), 599–609.e6093. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2011.04.052

[3] Brestoff, J. R., & Artis, D. (2013). Commensal bacteria at the interface of host metabolism and the immune system. Nature immunology, 14(7), 676–684. https://doi.org/10.1038/ni.2640

[4] Cheng, J., Hu, H., Ju, Y., Liu, J., Wang, M., Liu, B., & Zhang, Y. (2024). Gut microbiota-derived short-chain fatty acids and depression: deep insight into biological mechanisms and potential applications. General psychiatry, 37(1), e101374. https://doi.org/10.1136/gpsych-2023-101374

[5] Dahiya, D. K., Renuka, Puniya, M., Shandilya, U. K., Dhewa, T., Kumar, N., Kumar, S., Puniya, A. K., & Shukla, P. (2017a). Gut microbiota modulation and its relationship with obesity using prebiotic fibers and probiotics: A Review. Frontiers in Microbiology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.00563

[6] Davis, K., & Flatow, I. (2024, October 14). How gut microbes are linked to stress resilience. Science Friday. https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/gut-microbiome-stress-resilience/

[7] Gill, P. A., Inniss, S., Kumagai, T., Rahman, F. Z., & Smith, A. M. (2022). The role of diet and gut microbiota in regulating gastrointestinal and inflammatory disease. Frontiers in Immunology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2022.866059

[8] Kraimi, N., Lormant, F., Calandreau, L., Kempf, F., Zemb, O., Lemarchand, J., Constantin, P., Parias, C., Germain, K., Rabot, S., Philippe, C., Foury, A., Moisan, M. P., Carvalho, A. V., Coustham, V., Dardente, H., Velge, P., Chaumeil, T., & Leterrier, C. (2022). Microbiota and stress: a loop that impacts memory. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 136, 105594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2021.105594

[9] Ulrich-Lai, Y. M., & Herman, J. P. (2009). Neural regulation of endocrine and autonomic stress responses. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(6), 397-409.