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

41–50 of 278 posts

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

#41

Post by woadwarrior01 »

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.

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

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

#42

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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…

> So ... flour?

If used as a thickener, perhaps.

> Actually healthier things with scarier names like xanthan gum?

This would almost certainly fall afoul of these rules. And with good reason. Xantham gum is fine per se, but it tends to help unhealthy food stay together. I don’t see why a school kitchen needs to serve anything thickened with it.

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

#43

Post by phi0 »

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.

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.

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

#44

Post by JumpCrisscross »

OJFord wrote: post #27
donatj wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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...

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

#45

Post by anilakar »

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…

$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.

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

#46

Post by robertlagrant »

eisen_matrix wrote: post #6
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.

This is based on Nova definition probably. - Unprocessed or minimally processed foods (fresh or frozen products, yoghurts, etc) - Processed culinary ingredients (oil, vinegar) - Processed foods (foods created from combining elements of the first 2 groups using typical cooking processes, like bread, pasta, some meats, canned vegetables) - Ultra-processed foods (foods requiring industrial processing).

What's the minimally processed food that bread is made of?

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

#47

Post by CalRobert »

michaelsshaw wrote: post #7

If you've never worked in food before, you may be unaware that borderline half of the foods you eat, in restaurants, hospitals, prisons, even schools, are just the same frozen foods from Sysco. Their products are sold nationally and are lower quality than the frozen foods you get at the grocery stores, sold at ridiculous markups at restaurants. Sysco UPFs are at best "mid" and usually worse. They also involve a lot o…

Related discussion from earlier today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45522868

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

#48

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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.

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

Depends on if they’re ultra processed or not.

If they won’t stale for weeks, they’re ultra processed with preservatives and/or solvents. If they go stale and have a simple ingredients list, they probably aren’t.

(And kids don’t need to be habituated to having either with every lunch.)

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

#49

Post by JumpCrisscross »

anilakar wrote: post #45
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…

$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?

Post reply on HN