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

51–60 of 278 posts

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

#51

Post by danielheath »

robertlagrant wrote: post #46
eisen_matrix wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Flour is processed from grains

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

#52

Post by OJFord »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #44
OJFord wrote: 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...

Oh, ok, that doesn't mean at all what I thought it meant, sorry! (British, I just assumed 'commodity food supplied by agriculture' would be all cereals etc., possibly nationally grown only, but you know, commodities.)

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

#53

Post by DrewADesign »

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).

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.

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

#54

Post by kome »

donatj wrote: post #32
kome wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So things with scientific names are "ultra processed", and things with common names are not? That's just childish fear mongering. Everything is a chemical. Salt is sodium chloride. Ingredients should be assessed individually and scientifically for their safety. Not just scary name equals unsafe. That's childish. The war on monosodium glutamate is based racism and not science. It's as safe as table salt. There is no r…

sure, it's all nature. and then wonder why you get 50% of the population morbidly obese...

you are being skeptical in a very silly way, sorry to say. if you don't see the industry incentives to use trash in your food instead of normal ingredients, you are missing the point in a very unproductive way.

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

#55

Post by JumpCrisscross »

robertlagrant wrote: post #46
eisen_matrix wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

Flour is minimally processed, Nova Group 1, if it’s simply milled and separated. If it’s prepared with industrial solvents, or bleached, it goes straight to Group 4.

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

#56

Post by eisen_matrix »

robertlagrant wrote: post #46
eisen_matrix wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

AFAIK, whole-wheat flour is considered minimally processed. Of course bread is not equal, so it was more about home-made/sourdough types, not high-processed, shelf-stable ones.

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

#57

Post by donatj »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #42
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…

> 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.

> I don’t see why a school kitchen needs to serve anything thickened with it.

I would gander you have little to no experience in the kitchen. Literally ANY sauce? Basically any Asian cuisine. Soup? Do you eat soup?

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

#58

Post by contrarian1234 »

londons_explore wrote: post #40
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…

I think it points to a failure of the scientific community to identify better criteria. There is plenty of data showing diet has a big impact on health and other outcomes, yet far less data on specifics. Since science doesn't give specific things to ban, legislation is pretty much headed towards "let's have everyone eat what they eat in the south of France where people are really healthy".

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 specifics but this bill is fundamentally off on a crazy unscientific tangents.

There are just three lines that actually address nutrition:

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

(ii) The food or beverage contains a ratio of milligrams of sodium to calories that is equal to or greater than 1:1.

(iii) The food or beverage contains 10 percent or greater of total energy from added sugars.

Instead of paragraphs of banning the "scary chemicals", why not work on making sure kids get the vitamins, vegetables and fiber they need in each meal. I'm not a nutritionist, but there are some basics that are braindead simple that don't involve banning Sucralose.

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

#59

Post by mschuster91 »

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 effort.

Now, take that tomato and can it straight after harvest, together with a bunch of preservatives. It now has a far longer expiration time in the order of years, it doesn't need cooling, and tomatoes that come from the field with blemishes can now be used as well, just cut them up, remove the unsightly pieces and sell it as cut-up canned tomatoes.

From here on, the calculation is the same for both kitchens and low income populations... both need tomatoes to cook a meal. So what do they prefer? Fresh tomatoes where one now also needs to take care of leftover tomatoes and do another meal before they expire, or canned tomatoes that are cheaper to source and easier to match with actual demand?

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

#60

Post by JumpCrisscross »

DrewADesign wrote: post #53
eisen_matrix wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

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 glycemic index.

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

Post reply on HN