The Complex Reality of ‘Clean’ and Shelf-Stable Foods

Few phrases capture consumer attention like “chemical-free.” But as panelists at IFT FIRST pointed out, the idea is scientifically meaningless.

“Consumers hear the word ‘chemical’ and think unsafe,” said Andrew Lynch, vice president of R&D at Glanbia Performance Nutrition, during the IFT FIRST Hot Topics Studio session “Is It Even Possible to Make a Shelf-Stable Food Without Chemicals?” “That perception ignores that everything we eat and drink is made of chemicals,” continued Lynch.

Defining ‘Clean’

Veronica Vallejo, director of Global Science Platforms at PepsiCo, emphasized that “clean” is a moving target. “The definition of ‘clean’ overall is really largely an evolving concept and largely a social and cultural concept,” she said. “Ultimately, the most important definition comes from the consumer. … For some people it’s very aspirational to be eating ‘clean.’ There is a point of pride associated with that.”

She described a spectrum from ingredients “grounded in natural, ancient ways of doing things” to “deeply crafted, functional ingredients … grounded in scientific substantiation of those health and wellness benefits.”

Consumer Tensions

Vallejo outlined several tensions for developers: “The tension between health and enjoyment … familiarity versus functionality … premium pricing versus accessibility.” Consumers want healthier products but also demand taste, affordability, and recognizable ingredients.

Lynch noted that clean and natural are often conflated: “The Venn diagram of these terms is really highly overlapping,” Vallejo added, though regulatory definitions vary by market.

Science vs. Perception

Removing preservatives is one of the toughest clean-label challenges. “Food safety is number one,” Lynch stressed. “If I don’t use potassium sorbate or sodium benzoate … what else am I going to use?”

Options like citric acid, vinegar, or celery extracts exist, but each has trade-offs in taste, stability, and cost. “Food is chemistry,” Lynch reminded the audience. “People don’t want to see ascorbic acid, but do you want vitamin C?”

Vallejo said the solution also requires clear communication: “Are we really speaking to the problems to solve that [consumers] are looking for in these clean beverages or clean foods?”

Adapting to Change

Asked if perceptions of chemicals might change, Vallejo said, “It’s our responsibility across the industry to … communicate and help people understand technologies in a way that makes sense to them.”

Lynch added: “There is a momentum to move towards natural and clean. … That’s the opportunity. But I also see opportunities for food companies to come in with clinically validated ingredients … and do a very good job at communicating.”

On whether shifting definitions of “clean” threaten brands, Vallejo said, “All brands are looking at … what is the transformation that’s right for each individual brand to deliver that optionality to consumers.”

Lynch stressed adaptability: “Things have never been as fast as they are now and they will never be as slow again. … The future belongs to those who are able to adapt.”

Safety First

Despite evolving expectations, Vallejo underscored the bottom line: “At the end of the day, food safety has to be the top priority. Innovation is important, but nothing is worth compromising that.”

Lynch concluded that success will require long-term investment in science and communication. “Yes, it’s feasible [to make shelf-stable products without chemicals], but there are going to be degrees of trade-offs. … This is about more than ingredients—it’s about trust.”ft