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

71–80 of 278 posts

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

#71

Post by submeta »

I can imagine that some „food“ corps going berserk now. And setting up campaigns worth millions against these moves.

I have drastically reduced the amount of ultra processed food in my diet, now eating clean food only, and I cannot describe in words how my energy level climbed to levels I have never seen in the past years. My blood glucose is stable, my mood as well, and I have no cravings. Also my body weight dropped significantly. Although I eat full plates with vegetables, fish, poultry.

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

#72

Post by b00ty4breakfast »

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.

that would preclude basic ingredients like salt with anti-caking agents or spice blends. Seems kinda silly and arbitrary.

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

#73

Post by JumpCrisscross »

hshdhdhehd wrote: post #66
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).

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

> raw sugar and guacamole would both count as processed

No. Processed culinary ingredient (Group 2) and minimally processed (Group 1). (Obviously, both can be turned into a UPF through fuckery.)

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

#74

Post by JumpCrisscross »

gusgus01 wrote: post #64
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.

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.

> Xantham gum is used quite often for gluten-free foods

I think one could make xantham gum as a processed culinary ingredient (Nova group 2) ingredient, so long as it isn’t packaged with preservatives.

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

#75

Post by gusgus01 »

otikik wrote: post #62
woadwarrior01 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Man, you're missing a bunch of ingredients to actually make tasty cookies. Definitely need some salt. She's probably also using vanilla extract or purchased chocolate chips (or chunks) or cinnamon. Plus the leavening agent, so baking powder (or baking soda and another acid). That's all just for the basic cookies, there's so many options out there using stuff like malted chocolate powder, and that's ignoring making palatable gluten-free cookies.

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

#76

Post by donatj »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #67
donatj wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Depending on the consistency you're going for, many are way better with it than other thickers. It's natural, and has a much lower impact on your blood glucose than flour. It's good stuff. Everyone should have it in their kitchen.

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

#77

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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…

> war on monosodium glutamate is based racism and not science. It's as safe as table salt

Depending on production method, I believe MSG can be a Nova Group 2 (processed culinary ingredient) product.

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

#78

Post by JumpCrisscross »

michaelsshaw wrote: post #68
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> kids pay for school lunch in California

Not for a few years now [1].

[1] https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/nu/sn/cauniversalmeals.asp

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

#79

Post by lupusreal »

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.

[dead]

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

#80

Post by UpsideDownRide »

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?

Cooking is vast. Being hung up on a very specific ingredient is really weird if you ask me.
Post reply on HN