Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

gov.ca.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 278 posts

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

#21

Post by hellotheretoday »

kome wrote: 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.

Diet is part of the problem but a big part of the issue is the inherent sedentary lifestyle associated with American infrastructure and suburban development. If you design tons of housing in a way that encourages people to utilize cars as much as possible, invest as little as possible into infrastructure like public sidewalks and bike lanes, etc then don’t be shocked when your populace becomes fat and lazy, especially when you combine this with a carbohydrate/sugar rich diet. The EU has a worsening diet. Japan eats more carbs than America. What’s the difference? They naturally walk much more as part of their daily routine because their governments invest in communities rather than stealing tax money to launder to military contractors.

Whenever I travel outside the USA I am always astounded at how little effort I need to put into getting my daily steps vs when I am at home. At home it is a concentrated effort

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

#22

Post by JumpCrisscross »

littlecranky67 wrote: post #5
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…

Pretty sure it is NOT the definition of that law, but my own definition is: You make a meal only of basic ingredients. A basic ingredient is something that does not have an ingredient list on its packaging. I.e. Fruit, vegetables, eggs, meat and fish does not come with an ingredient list. There are some exceptions like dairy products (butter, yoghurt, cheese) which are okay to use.

> basic ingredient is something that does not have an ingredient list on its packaging

These are unprocessed foods [1].

From them you get processed culinary ingredients, like olive oil, vinegar, honey and butter. As long as you’re minimally vigilant with these, you should be fine, though some production methods may still add preservatives or use solvents in their manufacture.

After that one has processed foods, which may still have a good amount of Group 1 and 2 ingredients, before we get to Group 4, UPFs, what California is banning in school lunches.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification

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

#23

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ahoka wrote: post #13
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?

If you add nitrite to make a salami instead.

> If you add nitrite to make a salami instead

This would be a Nova Group 3 food.

Processed. But not ultra-processed.

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

#24

Post by camel-cdr »

crummy wrote: post #8
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…

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) High amounts of saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar, as defined respectively as follows:

> (i) The food or beverage contains 10 percent or greater of total energy from saturated fat

I feel like the saturated fat limit would be the most impactful restrictions.

However right after it's entirely opened up again:

> (b) “Ultraprocessed food” or “UPF” does not include any of the following:

> (1) Commodity food specifically made available by the United States Department of Agriculture.

> (2) A raw agricultural commodity as defined in Section 110020.

> (3) An unprocessed locally grown or locally raised agricultural product as defined in paragraph

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

#25

Post by actionfromafar »

hellotheretoday wrote: post #21
kome wrote: 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.

Diet is part of the problem but a big part of the issue is the inherent sedentary lifestyle associated with American infrastructure and suburban development. If you design tons of housing in a way that encourages people to utilize cars as much as possible, invest as little as possible into infrastructure like public sidewalks and bike lanes, etc then don’t be shocked when your populace becomes fat and lazy, especiall…

Japan eats a lot healthier too. Carbs as a number is not everything.

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

#26

Post by benrutter »

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?

This was my gut response too, I reluctantly read "Ultra-Processed People" after it was mentioned by so many people, expecting to find it annoying for this exact reason.

I was actually massively surprised by how helpful a label ultra-processed can be, even if there are edge cases.

Hormel are probably adding a huge number of lab-based emulsifiers, flavour enhancers and colouring, that you definitely won't have at home. It's a pretty open and shut case about whether or not its ultra-processed.

There's of course edge cases were something we think of as healthy might be ultra-processed, and something obviously unhealthy might not be considered ultra-processed. But it's a really helpful category for identifying a whole bunch of foods that are linked with a range of negative health conditions.

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

#27

Post by OJFord »

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…

Sub-division b point 1 excludes:

> Commodity food specifically made available by the United States Department of Agriculture.

Which I'd guess includes flour.

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

#28

Post by jbstack »

littlecranky67 wrote: post #5
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…

Pretty sure it is NOT the definition of that law, but my own definition is: You make a meal only of basic ingredients. A basic ingredient is something that does not have an ingredient list on its packaging. I.e. Fruit, vegetables, eggs, meat and fish does not come with an ingredient list. There are some exceptions like dairy products (butter, yoghurt, cheese) which are okay to use.

Sounds like you're defining processed food, whereas this is about ultra processed food.

For me, processed food might include something like unsweetened peanut butter where while the only ingredient is peanuts, it's still been through a process of grinding so that it's no longer in its natural form.

At the other end of the spectrum an example of ultra processed food would be a factory packaged item with a long list of ingredients which includes ones you don't recognise e.g. chemical names or E numbers.

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

#30

Post by hgomersall »

frereubu wrote: post #17
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?

You can see the definition here: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...

The specific exclusion is: Minimally processed prepared food as defined in paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 49015 of the Food and Agricultural Code, which may include foods in a variety of forms, including, but not limited to, whole, cut, sliced, diced, canned, pureed, dried, and pasteurized.

and that bit of Section 49015 says:

(4) “Minimally processed prepared food” may include any food prepared using either of the following processes:

(A) Traditional processes used to make food edible or to preserve it or to make it safe for human consumption, for example, smoking, roasting, freezing, drying, and fermenting.

(B) Physical processes that do not fundamentally alter the raw product or that only separate a whole, intact food into component parts, for example, grinding meat, separating eggs into albumen and yolk, and pressing fruits to produce juices.

Post reply on HN