Live data from Hacker News

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

gov.ca.gov

111–120 of 278 posts

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

#111

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?

No, just plain old cholesterol. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Karelia_Project

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

#112
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

thanks for the tip. The text is not on that page, but here's a link to it if anyone else is curious: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...

> 104661. (a) (1) For purposes of this article, except as provided in subdivision (b), “ultraprocessed food” or “UPF” means any food or beverage that contains a substance described in paragraph (2) and either high amounts of saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar, as described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3), or a nonnutritive sweetener or other substance described in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3). > (3) (A)…

so is that

“ultraprocessed food” or “UPF” means (any food or beverage that contains a substance described in paragraph (2) and either high amounts of saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar, as described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3), or a nonnutritive sweetener or other substance described in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3)).

or

“ultraprocessed food” or “UPF” means (any food or beverage that contains a substance described in paragraph (2) and either high amounts of saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar, as described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3)), or a nonnutritive sweetener or other substance described in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3).

or

“ultraprocessed food” or “UPF” means (any food or beverage that contains a substance described in paragraph (2)) and either high amounts of saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar, as described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3), or a nonnutritive sweetener or other substance described in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3).

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

#113
I always thought it was a travesty that the "chefs" at my schools were just heating up junk food. It's the perfect place to achieve the economies of scale to produce whole-foods-based meals. But yet no 'real' food - dishes made from raw meat and raw vegetables that are processed in-house - was ever produced. I honestly don't think this will change in my lifetime. It's too much work and it feels like working hard, especially in a government position, is seen as making you a chump in our culture today.

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

#114

Low income people prefer processed foods over no foods.

Yes, because (ultra) processed food tends to be much more cheaper than un- or minimally altered food. Think of ordinary tomatoes for example. In its raw form a tomato goes bad after a few weeks (depending on how it's stored), as a store you got to discard a bunch of them before that time because the tomato develops blemishes from handling/storage, and the tomatoes have to be handled more sensitively and with more eff…

> Now, take that tomato and can it straight after harvest, together with a bunch of preservatives.

What preservatives are we talking about, citric acid? I checked the ingredient lists of Mutti and Heinz canned tomatoes (EU resident). Mutti contains exactly 2 ingredients: whole tomatoes and tomato juice, Heinz 3: whole tomatoes, tomato juice and citric acid.

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

#115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Xantham gum is used quite often for gluten-free foods I think one could make xantham gum as a processed culinary ingredient (Nova group 2) ingredient, so long as it isn’t packaged with preservatives.

I was more commenting on the uses of xanthum gum to be helpful, but reading through the Nova classifications... They seem problematic in the exact way you're describing here and are at best a proxy for nutrition that can be manipulated, using words like "simple food products" and "rare culinary use" is ripe for interpretation. The bill itself calls out using USDA databases for various ingredients and various sections…

> The bill itself calls out using USDA databases for various ingredients and various sections of federal regulations, so I can't comment too much about how they'd feel about xanthum gum without diving deep.

For reference: xanthan gum specifically would fall afoul of the rules, as... a (ii) stabilizer or thickener, (iv) coloring or coloring adjunct, and (v) emulsifier.

https://www.hfpappexternal.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/index.cfm?se...

It's quite silly that it's classified as a coloring agent and an emulsifier, when it's neither of those things.

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

#116
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sub-division b point 1 excludes: > Commodity food specifically made available by the United States Department of Agriculture. Which I'd guess includes flour.

Unlikely. Commodity food made available by the USDA is directly sold or distributed by the USDA [1]. [1] https://www.fns.usda.gov/csfp/commodity-supplemental-food-pr...

So is the same item counted as UPF when the USDA supplies it but not otherwise, or does it mean the USDA supplying it grant the category of item non-UFP status.

Does this count if they supply it from a vending machine on their premises :-)

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

#117
post #43
post #10

Americans need to get their act together, about food, but not only. 40.3% of American adults are obese (not overweight), against the 17% in the EU. Sport won't fix that, food will.

It’s not an America only problem, we are similarly affected. So is every other country on earth. In Romania, Hungary, Croatia, Malta, Ireland obesity ranges from 38%–31% and it’s rising. On an individual level the solution is food and exercise. On a societal level there is no know solution and it’s rapidly getting worse.

ozempic baby

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

#118

I'd recommend this podcast to anyone interested on what ultra-processed foods actually are (and in general): https://sciencefictionspod.substack.com/p/episode-6-ultra-pr... Spoiler: The science and definitions are... depressingly bad.

The key innovation that the UPF category is bringing to the fight is that it is hard to innovate and lawyer around it with complexity.

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

#119
There’s an excellent discussion of the most recent RCT on UPF foods with its author here (https://sigmanutrition.com/episode577/).

Not only is the study itself very interesting, but it does a great job going over the evidence landscape on UPFs and food at the current point in time.

Dr Dicken is very clear that at the moment, in his view, they have insufficient evidence to make policy decisions like this, a view that has been echoed by pretty much all academic institutions when they’ve helped inform recent dietary guidelines.

Making big sweeping moves based on flimsy evidence is a good way to make people wary of following dietary guidance at all. After all, what’s the point of listening to “the science” if they turn around in 5 years and say “whoops, turns out we were wrong”?

This is a misstep IMO.

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

#120
post #107
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am not sure there is a strong societal pressure to be thin. Last several years, sure. But older generations, nor so much (see deities in any buddist temple). And there was enough time after food became abundant for the older generations health to tank if that diet was very bad for them. My 2c.
Post reply on HN