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

#141

Post by vjk800 » Thu, Oct 09, 2025, 11:29 AM UTC

kome wrote: post #15

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?

That's an annoying question. When you add industrial chemicals, yes, it's ultra processed. If you buy a fresh hamburger at the butcher, made by him with salt and pepper, it's processed food. But if you add sodium nitrite/nitrate, monosodium glutamate, phosphates, high-fructose corn syrup, artificial flavors, sodium erythorbate, carrageenan, bha/bht, propyl gallate, tbhq, soy protein isolate, modified food starch, dex…

Are all of these ingredients equally harmful? If not, why not just ban or restrict the ones that are harmful and keep using the rest of them? It's sort of weird to bundle a lot of very different types of chemicals under the same term.

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

#142

Post by KempyKolibri » Thu, Oct 09, 2025, 11:29 AM UTC

baq wrote: post #138

KempyKolibri wrote: post #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 tha…

and yet when Americans set foot on European soil the first thought they have is 'everyone is so thin'. if there's any misstep here, it's not focused enough on sugar (which is a hard drug for kids) .

> and yet when Americans set foot on European soil the first thought they have is 'everyone is so thin'.

I’m not sure how this interacts with the point I’m making.

> if there's any misstep here, it's not focused enough on sugar (which is a hard drug for kids) .

Sure, free sugars are associated with risk (which is reflected in dietary guidelines). Plenty of UPFs are not (which is why they generally aren’t flagged as a concern in dietary guidelines).

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

#143

Post by bob1029 » Thu, Oct 09, 2025, 11:29 AM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #59

matt3210 wrote: post #39

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…

Jarred/canned tomatoes might be the worst example. You barely need to try to make the preservation mechanism work. The pH of tomatoes tends to be very low and it's very easy to pull it down with lime juice, etc.

The highest quality marinara almost universally starts with something like an ordinary can of San Marzano tomatoes. This isn't some exotic find at Whole Foods. This will be collecting dust on the shelves at Kroger and Brookshires.

Buying fresh produce 100% of the time is theatrics. There are a lot of things it's a good idea for, but you are genuinely wasting your time in other areas.

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

#144

Post by chithanh » Thu, Oct 09, 2025, 11:31 AM UTC

StackRanker3000 wrote: post #127

chithanh wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some do, some don't. Worse is that artificial sweeteners increase feed conversion efficiency (an effect which has been known since 1960s experiments with rats and Cyclamate), and are for this reason frequently added to animal feed. For humans however this effect is undesirable, as it exacerbates the problem which they are supposed to solve.

This seems like a fancy way of saying “it’s a cheap approach to make animal feed taste better, so the animals eat more and thus gain more weight/produce more milk/etc”. What impact would pouring a bunch of refined sugar on animal feed have on feed conversion efficiency? What do studies on humans say on the actual real-life effects of people using artificial sweeteners instead of sugar? If you permit me to be a bit gl…

> “it’s a cheap approach to make animal feed taste better, so the animals eat more and thus gain more weight/produce more milk/etc”.

No, not at all.

Feed conversion efficiency is the body weight gained per unit of feed consumed. If you add artificial sweeteners to animal feed, they will gain more weight when consuming the same feed, or gain the same weight when consuming less feed. This leads to cost savings for the farmer.

This observation may be a bit surprising as artificial sweeteners have 0 calories. But then again, antibiotics and growth hormones have the same effect.

> What do studies on humans say on the actual real-life effects of people using artificial sweeteners instead of sugar?

When it comes to soft drinks and all-cause mortality, artificially sweetened is not better nor worse than sugar. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.2478

When it comes to weight, results are either neutral or inconclusive.

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

#145

Post by projektfu » Thu, Oct 09, 2025, 11:35 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…

A few things come to mind. First, South Korea has low obesity on the global scale (BMI >= 30 kg/m2) but within the country [1] they use an "Asia-Pacific" scale for the definition which starts at BMI of 25. [2] So, from the Korean perspective, they have substantial obesity.

Second, I do not know whether there are some Korean diets that are more correlated with obesity. In Thailand, people eat much the same, and they are more often obese on the global scale. Less kimchi, though, and probably more coconut milk and sugar.

Simple diet composition is probably not the main factor in obesity. I do notice that "normal" portion sizes are pretty small in Korea, based on what I see in their media. Even feasts are shown to have reasonable portion sizes. In the US, portion sizes tend to maximally fill the stomach, and have grown considerably over the years.

Highly processed foods are generally designed to add addictive properties and cause overconsumption. I am not sure that's the goal of the Korean dishes you have tried. If we understand what the new weight loss drugs are telling us, we can see that increasing satiety faster with fewer calories should be the goal of our foods. (no citation, just my interpretation of what's going on).

1. https://general.kosso.or.kr/html/user/core/view/reaction/mai... 2. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/13/2/373

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

#146

Post by reginamary32 » Thu, Oct 09, 2025, 11:36 AM UTC

projektfu wrote: post #145

jjcob wrote: 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…

A few things come to mind. First, South Korea has low obesity on the global scale (BMI >= 30 kg/m2) but within the country [1] they use an "Asia-Pacific" scale for the definition which starts at BMI of 25. [2] So, from the Korean perspective, they have substantial obesity. Second, I do not know whether there are some Korean diets that are more correlated with obesity. In Thailand, people eat much the same, and they a…

[dead]

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

#147

Post by zjzjzxkx » Thu, Oct 09, 2025, 11:37 AM UTC

KempyKolibri wrote: post #106

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…

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...

> tons of salt

Outside of causing an imbalance (which would require a LOT of salt), there’s nothing bad about a lot of salt. People have been eating tons of salt for centuries.

> refined flower

Not sure what definition you’re using here so this might not be ideal, but probably fine. People have been milling for centuries.

> soya lecithins

Made in a lab about 100 years ago, and its primary use is to increase profits via long shelf life (increasing shelf life could be a noble goal, ie freezers are great). We have billionaires flying private jets around. Redo some resource allocation and we don’t need soya lecithins.

Much modernity has 0 respect for Chestetons fence. On top of that, nutrition science is basically a social science in terms of accuracy (not a dig, it’s very hard). Many “advances” today are purely profit motivated and don’t pay enough respect to the people’s wellbeing. We should be skeptical of changes done to make the rich richer.

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

#148

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Oct 09, 2025, 11:41 AM UTC

kome wrote: post #81

donatj wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yours argument is coming from just a place of science denialism. Industry powers do not negate simple science. Come to me with scientific evidence and not fear mongering, and then we can talk on an equal field.

Isn't the overwhelmingly obese American population scientific evidence enough?

[deleted]

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

#149

Post by dml2135 » Thu, Oct 09, 2025, 11:49 AM UTC

KempyKolibri wrote: post #103

ReptileMan wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

People “just don’t work that way” when they have to exercise will power, because they can obtain what they want.

That’s not really the case when discussing school meals though, when kids will generally be eating what is put in front of them.

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

#150

Post by vitus » Thu, Oct 09, 2025, 11:50 AM UTC

donatj wrote: post #20

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…

> Stabilizers and thickeners, as defined in Section 170.3(o)(28) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations. ... > “Stabilizers and thickeners: Substances used to produce viscous solutions or dispersions, to impart body, improve consistency, or stabilize emulsions, including suspending and bodying agents, setting agents, jellying agents, and bulking agents, etc.” So ... flour? Actually healthier things with scari…

For various reasons, I believe the CFR defines flour as a food, not a food additive, but it may have additives that qualify. (I can't find any text that explicitly states that foods are not food additives, but either way, no form of wheat flour is listed in the Substances Added to Food database.)

Common culprits include chemicals added during the bleaching process and addition of "enzyme" / other ingredients that help improve baking consistency. Some examples:

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