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

61–70 of 278 posts

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

#61

Post by dpassens »

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, presumably.

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

#62

Post by otikik »

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.

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.

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

#63

Post by donatj »

kome wrote: post #54
donatj wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

#64

Post by gusgus01 »

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.

Xantham gum is used quite often for gluten-free foods. It can really help make a usable gluten-free loaf of bread and sauces as well. It's purchaseable at plenty of grocery stores and is sometimes included in flours, it's been a boon for those living gluten free.

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

#65

Post by robertlagrant »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #55
robertlagrant wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is flour considered food at all? It sounds more like an ingredient than a food.

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

#66

Post by hshdhdhehd »

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).

So processedness is a proxy for healthiness. But raw sugar and guacamole would both count as processed.

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

#67

Post by JumpCrisscross »

donatj wrote: post #57
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

> gander you have little to no experience in the kitchen

Keep ganderin’.

> Literally ANY sauce? Basically any Asian cuisine. Soup?

None of these need to be thickened with xantham gum…

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

#68

Post by michaelsshaw »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #50
matt3210 wrote: post #39

Low income people prefer processed foods over no foods.

> Low income people prefer processed foods over no foods Kids don’t pay for school lunch in California.

No kids pay for school lunch in California.

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

#69

Post by lupusreal »

donatj wrote: post #57
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

[dead]

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

#70

Post by JumpCrisscross »

robertlagrant wrote: post #65
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Is flour considered food at all? It sounds more like an ingredient than a food.

> sounds more like an ingredient than a food

Nova doesn’t distinguish between ingredients and food [1]. (It needs to be able to do this. UPFs are defined, in part, by almost lacking low-Nova inputs.)

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

Post reply on HN