California passes law to ban ultra-processed foods from school lunches • Hacker News Board

Re: California passes law to ban ultra-processed foods from school lunches

#101

Post by reorder9695 » Thu, Oct 09, 2025, 10:45 AM UTC

forinti wrote: post #83

comrade1234 wrote: post #11

What's ultra-processed vs processed? If I make my own sausage by grinding the meat by hand, mixing it with salt and spices, then filling natural casings, I would consider that processed food. What makes it ultra-processed? When Hormel does it instead?

One rule that's easy to verify is: would you have all the ingredients at home? UPFs usually have ingredients you've never seen for sale.

How do we define what food is ultra processed though? Do we need "cake (commercial)" and "cake (home baked)" as I can bake a cake with all the standard stuff I have at home, but commercial cakes are usually chock full of E numbers. Another example would be like a jar of pasta sauce and a pasta sauce I've made, I don't think it's arguable that a pasta sauce I've made is ultra processed.

Like that definition doesn't seem to work when there's foods where the commercial variant is made differently to the normal version.

Re: California passes law to ban ultra-processed foods from school lunches

#102

Post by chithanh » Thu, Oct 09, 2025, 10:45 AM UTC

LPisGood wrote: post #94

jpfromlondon wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is unscientific nonsense given there is no proven causal link between "pRoCeSsEd FoOdS" whatever they might be and longterm adverse health. The countries that consume the most processed foods are also the longest lived, obviously such a correlation does not imply processed foods lead to longevity, just that any accusation of cause and effect is more easily explained by abundance and affluenza (sic). How long befor…

One thing that is not in doubt is that many UPFs are hyper-palatable. It’s much harder to overeat if the food in question is potatoes, carrots, and fish than if the meal is Pringles, Ice cream, and deep fried fish sticks.

Agreed, I do think that hyper-palatability is the actual problem and not some poorly defined idea of "ultra-processed"

Re: California passes law to ban ultra-processed foods from school lunches

#103

Post by KempyKolibri » Thu, Oct 09, 2025, 10:47 AM UTC

ReptileMan wrote: post #84

contrarian1234 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like a typical blanket baseless unscientific attack of everything deemed "unnatural". Lots of the typical insane stuff, sugar is okay, but "Nonnutritive sweeteners" are not. Spices are okay, but MSG is not. Just a laundrylist of the typical alternative medicine mumbo jumbo. Kind of pathetic, but not unexpected from the state legislature I'm sure they extensively deliberated the health effect of Luo Han Fruit Co…

>but "Nonnutritive sweeteners" are not They fuck up your microbiome and the insulin response. There is absolutely no reason to use them ever. Grow up and embrace the bitterness.

If someone is habitually consuming sugar sweetened beverages, replacing those with ASBs will, the evidence strongly suggests, reduce your risk of obesity and various chronic diseases. We can say "just don't consume either" but we have decades of attempting such policies that shows people don't work that way.

Someone who wants to drink a can of coke will drink a can of coke, why would we ban the healthier option?

Re: California passes law to ban ultra-processed foods from school lunches

#104

Post by KempyKolibri » Thu, Oct 09, 2025, 10:48 AM UTC

chithanh wrote: post #91

contrarian1234 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the scientific community has done just fine. When these individual substances are tested they're by and large not found to have negative health effects. Then the loonies just refuse to believe it and thing the chemicals are making their kids gay. The problem isn't the MSG. It's providing a well balanced diet. We have a relatively clear idea of what constitutes "well balanced". You can quibble about the specif…

> (i) The food or beverage contains 10 percent or greater of total energy from saturated fat. Interestingly, dairy products like butter are explicitly allowed, despite the fact that 50%+ of its fats are saturated > I'm not a nutritionist, but there are some basics that are braindead simple that don't involve banning Sucralose. I'm in favor of banning artificial sweeteners. Just look at why they are used in animal far…

As I wrote elsewhere:

If someone is habitually consuming sugar sweetened beverages, replacing those with ASBs will, the evidence strongly suggests, reduce your risk of obesity and various chronic diseases.

We can say "just don't consume either" but we have decades of attempting such policies that shows people don't work that way. Someone who wants to drink a can of coke will drink a can of coke, why would we ban the healthier option?

Re: California passes law to ban ultra-processed foods from school lunches

#105

Post by gusgus01 » Thu, Oct 09, 2025, 10:48 AM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #73

hshdhdhehd wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So processedness is a proxy for healthiness. But raw sugar and guacamole would both count as processed.

> raw sugar and guacamole would both count as processed No. Processed culinary ingredient (Group 2) and minimally processed (Group 1). (Obviously, both can be turned into a UPF through fuckery.)

Guacamole would count as Group 3 I believe. You use Group 1 and Group 2 ingredients to create it unless you're just grinding up avocados, in which case that's not a guacamole. If you really want to get interesting, you could even say homemade guacamole uses citric acid (from limes) to extend shelf life and enhance the flavor, which is on top of the sodium chloride (salt) that you use to do the same.

Re: California passes law to ban ultra-processed foods from school lunches

#106

Post by KempyKolibri » Thu, Oct 09, 2025, 10:50 AM UTC

contrarian1234 wrote: post #31

frereubu wrote: post #3

I'll be very interested to see the definition of "ultra-processed" in this legislation. I couldn't find one at a first glance - it seems to mandate that someone defines it, but doesn't contain a definition itself from what I could see. Edit: Found it. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml... (thanks to @crummy for the correction). Seems like a reasonable start. Amusing to see that alcoholic dri…

Seems like a typical blanket baseless unscientific attack of everything deemed "unnatural". Lots of the typical insane stuff, sugar is okay, but "Nonnutritive sweeteners" are not. Spices are okay, but MSG is not. Just a laundrylist of the typical alternative medicine mumbo jumbo. Kind of pathetic, but not unexpected from the state legislature I'm sure they extensively deliberated the health effect of Luo Han Fruit Co…

Yep, this seems like quackery.

Wholemeal bread with soya lecithins? Evil UPF, ban it.

Artisinally produced sourdough using refined flour with tons of salt but no lecithins? Delightful, fill your boots.

We've let nutrition policy become controlled by fad diet book authors and the results aren't pretty...

Re: California passes law to ban ultra-processed foods from school lunches

#107

Post by redeux » Thu, Oct 09, 2025, 10:52 AM UTC

jjcob wrote: post #93

contrarian1234 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the scientific community has done just fine. When these individual substances are tested they're by and large not found to have negative health effects. Then the loonies just refuse to believe it and thing the chemicals are making their kids gay. The problem isn't the MSG. It's providing a well balanced diet. We have a relatively clear idea of what constitutes "well balanced". You can quibble about the specif…

I went on a trip to South Korea recently. There are very few overweight people there. But the food that people eat doesn't seem healthy at all. - every meal is served with white rice ("empty calories") - every meal is served with Kimchi (high sodium) - most dishes are flavored with soy sauce, gochutan, rice syrup... they are extremely high in sodium + msg - people love fried chicken with syrupy sauces - korean barbeq…

It’s actually pretty simple. Despite what you’re calling unhealthy foods (I’d argue kimchi has health benefits from the fermentation), they have a lower overall caloric intake and societal pressure to conform to a thin appearance. If you want to be skinny eat less calories. If you want to be healthy, eat highly nutritious foods and the right amount of calories for your lifestyle.

Re: California passes law to ban ultra-processed foods from school lunches

#108

Post by chithanh » Thu, Oct 09, 2025, 10:52 AM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #49

anilakar wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$HERE the anti-processed proponents seem to be mostly pro-butter folks. Getting premature deaths down in the eighties and nineties caused by saturated "natural" fats took a lot of effort and these useful idiots are undoing much of that work. YMMV.

> Getting premature deaths down in the eighties and nineties caused by saturated "natural" fats What? Are you talking about trans fats?

I think the reference was maybe about the butter vs. margarine controversy? That margarine was lauded as more healthy, but turned out to be actually less healthy than butter, due to hydrogenation producing trans fats which elevated cardiovascular risk.

Since mid-1990s, margarine no longer contains appreciable amounts of trans fats.

Butter also contains trans fats but these are ruminant TFAs which I understand are not so bad.

This is why despite butter composition being worse "on paper" there is no empirical observation that it is less healthy than plant margarine.

Re: California passes law to ban ultra-processed foods from school lunches

#109

Post by ptero » Thu, Oct 09, 2025, 10:56 AM UTC

jjcob wrote: post #93

contrarian1234 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the scientific community has done just fine. When these individual substances are tested they're by and large not found to have negative health effects. Then the loonies just refuse to believe it and thing the chemicals are making their kids gay. The problem isn't the MSG. It's providing a well balanced diet. We have a relatively clear idea of what constitutes "well balanced". You can quibble about the specif…

I went on a trip to South Korea recently. There are very few overweight people there. But the food that people eat doesn't seem healthy at all. - every meal is served with white rice ("empty calories") - every meal is served with Kimchi (high sodium) - most dishes are flavored with soy sauce, gochutan, rice syrup... they are extremely high in sodium + msg - people love fried chicken with syrupy sauces - korean barbeq…

I have read somewhere (on HN?) a hypothesis that such traditional diets pretty quickly wipe out genetic lines predisposed to diabetes, etc. And that the effect is not diet, it is genetics+diet.

Not sure if there is any truth in that.

Re: California passes law to ban ultra-processed foods from school lunches

#110

Post by nyrp » Thu, Oct 09, 2025, 10:56 AM UTC

UpsideDownRide wrote: post #80

donatj wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t see why a school kitchen needs to serve anything thickened with it. I would gander you have little to no experience in the kitchen. Literally ANY sauce? Basically any Asian cuisine. Soup? Do you eat soup?

Cooking is vast. Being hung up on a very specific ingredient is really weird if you ask me.

Heaven forbid anyone should be weird...