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

221–230 of 278 posts

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

#221

Post by UncleMeat »

lithocarpus wrote: post #220
UncleMeat wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah the whole "ultra processed food" angle is meaningless. Just call it junk food. If the thing that is bad for us is the processing and preservatives then we can pursue that... but if you want to count things like potato chips then we need to be honest about what the label actually means. The UPF label adds a veneer of scientific precision that isn't actually present in any guidelines surrounding it.

The problem with potato chips is not potatoes and may not even be the fact that the potatoes are fried. It's that they are fried in toxic ultra processed industrial oil which makes up 50-60% of the calories (more than the actual potato).

"If only we fried potatoes in olive oil or beef tallow they'd be healthy" is not something I would expect most nutritionists would say is supported by the research.

The seed oil panic is even more ridiculous than the UPF panic.

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

#222

Post by lithocarpus »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #22
littlecranky67 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Much "olive oil" out there is actually ultra processed. Not real extra virgin olive oil, but the cheaper more common olive oil including fake evoo can be either cut with soybean oil or is refined processed olive oil following the same process used in making refined soybean oil.

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

#223

Post by lithocarpus »

jbstack wrote: post #28
littlecranky67 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Look into the process involved in making soybean or canola or sunflower oil. One named ingredient that sounds natural but is itself ultra processed and not real food.

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

#224

Post by lithocarpus »

woadwarrior01 wrote: post #41
littlecranky67 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Biscuits and crisps are generally considered to be ultra processed foods, despite containing only basic ingredients.

Soybean or canola oil is not a basic ingredient.

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

#225

Post by lithocarpus »

bevesce- wrote: post #193
otikik wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that is because there's two very different things, both called "cookies". When a grandma bakes some cookies for their grandchildren she uses only some basic ingredients - eggs, flour, butter, sugar. For the product that food industries calls as cookies however, the list of ingredients looks like a git SHA.

Is there any evidence that those are any healthier? If I'm going to overeat the same amount of calories eating store-bought cookies or grandma-made cookies - is my health outcome any different?

Yes.

Look into the process used to make soybean oil vs the process used to make butter.

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

#226

Post by lithocarpus »

KempyKolibri wrote: post #160
zjzjzxkx wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 v…

Let’s do this one at a time, starting with salt. What’s your goalpost for evidence here, I.e. what would it take to convince you that salt consumption above the levels indicated in dietary guidelines is harmful?

Actual studies that isolate salt consumption as a variable and show worse outcomes from more salt would be a start.

Every study I've looked into that purported to show salt was a problem did not isolate salt, and the most likely reason IMHO that the "less salt" group did better was because they ate less ultra processed food and more natural food.

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

#227

Post by rrrrrrrrrrrryan »

cfmcdonald wrote: post #181
chneu wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're fixating on a singular definition. A homemade cake is minimally processed. The flour and sugar are processed but nothing that heavily alters it. A commercial cake on the other hand has stabilizers, ph balancers, etc. You're over thinking it. Almost nothing made at home is ultra processed unless you're doing some weird sausage making. If you can name the ingredients easily, it probably isn't ultra processed.

I think the GP's point is there is no meaningful nutritional difference between a from-scratch cake and a box cake. Both are pretty unhealthy and should be eaten only as special treats. "Ultra-processed" is not a useful way of separating healthy from unhealthy foods.

They may not differ much in terms of calories or nutrients, but there absolutely is a difference - the ultra processed cake has preservatives and additives that are way harder on your gut microbiome, which affects your body's ability to process other food.

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

#228

Post by lithocarpus »

UncleMeat wrote: post #208
LPisGood wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fritos are highly refined, industrially manufactured, and have plenty of processed additives. I think they are plainly ultra processed

Huh? The ingredients in Fritos are corn, oil, and salt. What processed additives? Is extruding cornmeal mixed with water through a die ultra processing?

The oil used is itself ultra processed and is not a natural food or whole food. It's a lipid isolated from the original food by a series of industrial processes.

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

#229

Post by DrewADesign »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #60
DrewADesign wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine it’s got more to do with ingredients than processing. Local restaurants might make fresh bread with a bleached flour product that has various dough conditioning agents added to it, while puffed rice absolutely requires an industrial process to create and has one ingredient.

> puffed rice absolutely requires an industrial process “Traditional methods to puff or pop rice include frying in oil or salt. Commercial puffed rice is usually made by heating rice kernels under high pressure in the presence of steam, though the method of manufacture varies widely” [1]. If I had to guess, the commercial stuff is more thoroughly and homogeneously gelatinized. That, in turn, probably raises its glyce…

The texture is completely different. The industrial method involves heating it under very high pressure with steam and releasing the pressure extremely quickly. The closest non-industrial analog is a Chinese popcorn cannon… but it’s much more controlled. It incorporates much more air into the final product without imparting any flavor from the heat source.

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

#230

Post by lithocarpus »

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?

Industrial processes involving chemicals that humans weren't capable of until very recently is one way to start looking at it.

It's not to say one couldn't use large scale machinery to make real healthy food in my general though.

Post reply on HN