Support CleanTechnica’s work through a Substack subscription or on Stripe.
Clean food is a dietary approach that focuses on choosing whole and less processed foods. Think vegetables, fruits, whole grains, the bean family, nuts, seeds, healthy fats, and high-quality proteins. Organic and local foods deepen the ties to the clean food movement, as do items with less sugar and more fiber.
Is a clean food lifestyle all or none? If you embrace this way of eating, does that mean that you can never have added sugar, high-fructose corn syrup, preservatives, artificial colors and flavors, and other additives?
No. What it does mean that you will feel and look better if you avoid chemical-free foods in your daily meal routine. It’s all about balance.
Carbs or Ultraprocessed: Which Should You Delete to Lose Weight?
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr.) says he wants to help people “take responsibility” for their own healthy lifestyles and to eradicate the chronic disease crisis in the US. One area in which RFK Jr. has not made much headway, though, is our toxic food environment. The newest MAHA report points to highly processed foods as a culprit of widespread health malaise but offers few policy suggestions to change eating behaviors.
Researchers Julia Belluz and Kevin Hall point out that people “gain significant amounts of body fat when they live in food environments with an abundance of ultraprocessed foods, which are highly engineered and contain ingredients not used in restaurants or home kitchens. On the flip side, reducing or eliminating ultraprocessed foods results in spontaneous fat loss without effort.”
It makes sense. Diets dense in calories and rich in ultraprocessed foods produce fatter people. In fact, it seems as if our bodies’ internal controls seem to malfunction when we eat too many ultraprocessed foods. They switch and trigger weight gain. When we don’t eat them, we lose weight.
The researchers argue that “healthy and tasty foods have to become a lot more accessible, convenient, and affordable. The only way to get there is through policy and regulation, not handshake deals with the food industry.” They propose that revenues from taxes on unhealthy food “should be directed toward making healthy food more accessible.”
Rather than gifts of food, small businesses, grocery stores, and food companies would be supported to offer healthy, delicious, prepared meals. Such meals would be SNAP-eligible. Schools and hospitals should also be incentivized to serve healthy options, not junk food.
But that’s not what’s going on, is it? Instead, the places where most people could have access to clean food are losing the financial means to make it a norm.
What Institutions Need to Do to Serve Clean Food Menus
Shouldn’t a network that serves 45 million meals a day have the latitude to decide what ingredients are best for its patrons? You’d think the answer “yes” is a no-brainer, but US school cafeteria nutritionists are finding that their vision of healthy and appealing meals for students can’t always be met. Schools are facing labor shortages. School nutrition directors face federal budget cuts, which build uncertainty into planning.
The US federal government limits added sugar and salt. Many easy-to-distribute, pre-packaged breakfast foods are now too high in sugar and salt.
Bread and pasta are required to be at least 50% whole grain.
Every meal must include a carton of milk.
There are restrictions on how much food can be purchased from other countries to 10% of total purchases.
The cost of food is rising faster than the federal school lunch reimbursement rate.
Years of added sugar, even for kid favorites like yogurt, milk, and cereal, is no longer. In fact, by 2027, sugar will only comprise 10% of total calories available on the lunch line. Yes, that is a good thing. But — in another of what now seems thousands of acts of cognitive dissonance from the Trump administration, a $660 million program that allowed schools to buy local was cancelled. How are school nutrition directors supposed to meet these and other federal directives when students pay a bit less than $4.00 per meal maximum? The price alone prohibits many nutritious ingredients from the mix.
Nonetheless, Kim Severson explains in the New York Times that, even with the backdrop of tighter nutritional standards, the number of children eating lunch at school jumped by 5% last school year. More kids YOY qualified for free or reduced-price meals.
And then there’s another important item that has to be considered: What will the kids eat? Individual school districts have started to design meals that appeal on a cultural level. That can include more locally grown food. Plant-based food substitutes are becoming more common, too, as beans, tofu, and other alternative protein sources are appearing on the lunch lines.
Scratch foods had been showing up more in school cafeterias. But an huge obstacle to making foods from scratch is that many districts don’t have ovens or other necessary food service equipment. The Chef Ann Foundation is a $23 million operation that helps districts, trains staff, analyzes school food operations, and provides equipment like salad bars and bulk milk dispensers.
And it’s not just the US, either. A recent survey of German hospitals and nursing homes has found that the very institutions tasked with protecting human health may, in fact, be harming it—alongside the planet’s.
Care institutions in general seem to serve food low on nutritional value and high on environmental impact. Fiber is lacking, and levels of micronutrients such as vitamin C, potassium, and several vitamin Bs are low. Protein levels are largely insufficient. Conversely, sodium and chloride—which should be consumed in limited quantities—exceed the recommended dietary intake, and meals are also noticeably high in saturated fats.
Final Thoughts
Ashish K. Jha, dean of Brown University School of Public Health, argues that, if people in the US want their children to live longer, healthier lives than their parents, “the country needs a strategy that is as bold as it is honest — one that confronts our biggest threats, stands firmly on the evidence, and never compromises on the truth.”
The newest RFK Jr. strategy report isn’t doing its part, Jha says. While the report speaks to the importance of food, fitness, and transparency, “it falls short in its honesty, its innovation, and the evidence. Above all, it fails to mention the biggest health threats facing our nation’s children — gun violence and auto fatalities, to name two — while simultaneously undermining vaccines, which have led to the most significant improvements in children’s health the world has ever seen.”
When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?
Sign up for CleanTechnica’s Weekly Substack for Zach and Scott’s in-depth analyses and high level summaries, sign up for our daily newsletter, and follow us on Google News!
Advertisement
Have a tip for CleanTechnica? Want to advertise? Want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.
Sign up for our daily newsletter for 15 new cleantech stories a day. Or sign up for our weekly one on top stories of the week if daily is too frequent.
CleanTechnica uses affiliate links. See our policy here.