Common myths about clean eating, debunked

The “clean eating” movement began online as a reaction to excessive ultra-processed food in modern diets. It brought useful principles, but also oversimplifications and myths worth examining critically.

Myth: everything natural is automatically healthy

Many naturally occurring substances are not healthy in unlimited amounts. Salt, raw cane sugar and honey are all “natural”, but excessive salt still has health consequences, while raw sugar and honey can have metabolic effects similar to refined sugar when consumed excessively. Some naturally occurring toxins in raw or undercooked foods can also be harmful. More useful considerations are the degree of industrial processing, the amount consumed and the context of the overall diet.

Myth: entire food groups must be eliminated to be healthy

Many clean-eating narratives suggest removing gluten, dairy or whole categories of carbohydrates even without a diagnosed intolerance or allergy. For most people without specific medical conditions, strong evidence does not show that removing these groups in itself provides greater health benefits than a varied, balanced diet including suitable whole or minimally processed versions. Unjustified elimination may unnecessarily reduce nutritional variety.

Myth: “detox” foods cleanse the body of toxins

Detox juices, slimming teas and “cleansing” programmes promise to remove accumulated toxins. However, healthy people already have an efficient detoxification system, mainly involving the liver and kidneys, working continuously without special dietary interventions. There is no strong scientific evidence that these products speed up or improve this natural process.

Myth: the more expensive or exotic a food is, the healthier it must be

Superfoods such as goji berries, chia seeds, spirulina and maca are often presented as essential to a healthy diet, at prices significantly above local foods with comparable or sometimes better nutritional profiles. Local berries, flaxseed, ordinary leafy greens and pulses often provide similar nutritional benefits at much lower cost, without imported products or aggressive marketing.

Myth: dietary perfection is necessary and achievable

More extreme forms of clean eating promote a standard of food purity that is almost impossible to maintain in real life, with documented psychological consequences. Research has described orthorexic behaviour, an obsession with eating “pure” food that can itself become problematic through social anxiety and excessive restriction. A balanced approach recognises that a diet based mainly on whole foods, with occasional space for more processed products or shared meals, is more sustainable and psychologically healthy than an unattainable ideal of purity.

What remains useful in the underlying message?

Beyond the oversimplifications, the movement's central idea — prioritising whole foods and reducing ultra-processed products — has substantial support in scientific literature, as discussed in earlier articles in this collection. The problem is the tendency of some versions of clean eating to turn that aim into rigid rules, food moralism and unjustified fear of entire food groups instead of a gradual, flexible, evidence-informed process.