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

81–90 of 278 posts

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

#81

Post by kome »

donatj wrote: post #63
kome wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Isn't the overwhelmingly obese American population scientific evidence enough?

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

#82

Post by maxerickson »

camel-cdr wrote: post #24
crummy wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

thanks for the tip. The text is not on that page, but here's a link to it if anyone else is curious: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...

> 104661. (a) (1) For purposes of this article, except as provided in subdivision (b), “ultraprocessed food” or “UPF” means any food or beverage that contains a substance described in paragraph (2) and either high amounts of saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar, as described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3), or a nonnutritive sweetener or other substance described in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3). > (3) (A)…

Avocado calories are pretty close to 10% saturated fat, as an example.

Excess sugar and simple starches tend to get absorbed more completely than excess fat, I'm not sure added fat is the biggest issue.

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

#83

Post by forinti »

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?

One rule that's easy to verify is: would you have all the ingredients at home?

UPFs usually have ingredients you've never seen for sale.

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

#84

Post by ReptileMan »

contrarian1234 wrote: post #31
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…

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…

>but "Nonnutritive sweeteners" are not

They fuck up your microbiome and the insulin response. There is absolutely no reason to use them ever. Grow up and embrace the bitterness.

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

#85

Post by jpfromlondon »

contrarian1234 wrote: post #31
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…

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…

It is unscientific nonsense given there is no proven causal link between "pRoCeSsEd FoOdS" whatever they might be and longterm adverse health.

The countries that consume the most processed foods are also the longest lived, obviously such a correlation does not imply processed foods lead to longevity, just that any accusation of cause and effect is more easily explained by abundance and affluenza (sic).

How long before the UPF cult proclaims vaccines are poison, I note than some of their number already do.

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

#86

Post by chithanh »

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?

Bread is a bit of an exception here, as it undergoes extensive mechanical (milling), biochemical (fermentation) and thermal (baking) processing. Yet it does not count as ultra-processed.

Bread is made from dough, which is mainly made from flour (the "minimally processed" food), which is made from grains (the unprocessed food)

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

#87

Post by jpfromlondon »

ReptileMan wrote: post #84
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…

>but "Nonnutritive sweeteners" are not They fuck up your microbiome and the insulin response. There is absolutely no reason to use them ever. Grow up and embrace the bitterness.

They "may" affect your insulin response, some studies have found this plausible, some have found no link.

Subjectively, a few months of wearing a monitor appeared to show no perceptible effect on my own.

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

#88

Post by maxerickson »

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…

The high fructose corn syrup used for most packaged foods is 42% fructose, with the remainder being glucose.

The name comes from the additional step of converting some portion of the glucose to fructose after converting starch to glucose.

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

#89

Post by robertlagrant »

chithanh wrote: post #86
robertlagrant wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Bread is a bit of an exception here, as it undergoes extensive mechanical (milling), biochemical (fermentation) and thermal (baking) processing. Yet it does not count as ultra-processed. Bread is made from dough, which is mainly made from flour (the "minimally processed" food), which is made from grains (the unprocessed food)

It definitely stood out as a bit of a confounding example. That combined with the emotive language used in the classification names makes me a bit wary of this way of classifying food.

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

#90

Post by gusgus01 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #74
gusgus01 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I was more commenting on the uses of xanthum gum to be helpful, but reading through the Nova classifications... They seem problematic in the exact way you're describing here and are at best a proxy for nutrition that can be manipulated, using words like "simple food products" and "rare culinary use" is ripe for interpretation.

The bill itself calls out using USDA databases for various ingredients and various sections of federal regulations, so I can't comment too much about how they'd feel about xanthum gum without diving deep. Not to go off on a tangent, but just from the bill's text, I can say for sure they don't like nonnutritive sweeteners, which I think really hurts diabetics choices at reducing their reliance on insulin while still enjoying nice treats. Although not too important for a school meal, it's definitely part of the ultra processed conversation and why it's not a simple thing to categorize food into groups.

Post reply on HN