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

Definition and Classification Debates

• Many comments focus on how “ultra‑processed” is defined. People reference the NOVA system (Groups 1–4) and contrast it with California’s legal definition, which is based on additives plus high saturated fat, sodium, sugar, or nonnutritive sweeteners, with broad exceptions (USDA commodity foods, raw/local products, “minimally processed” items).
• There is confusion and disagreement over edge cases: flour as “food” vs ingredient; bread (especially sourdough vs shelf‑stable loaves); guacamole with vs without salt; canned tomatoes; home vs commercial cakes.
• Some say the category is inherently fuzzy and emotive, inviting loopholes and misclassification (e.g., boutique chocolate, wholemeal bread with lecithin, fried chips in “simple” oil). Others counter that an imperfect umbrella term is still useful to capture industrial formulations that can’t be replicated in a home kitchen.

Evidence and Health Effects

• One camp argues UPFs are clearly harmful: they’re hyper‑palatable, encourage overeating, damage the microbiome, and correlate with obesity and chronic disease. Several personal anecdotes describe dramatic improvements after cutting UPFs.
• Skeptics say “processing” is a poor proxy for health; ingredients and overall diet quality matter more. They note that many “scary” additives (MSG, citric acid, xanthan gum) have long use histories or benign safety profiles.
• Some point to emerging RCTs suggesting UPF diets cause extra weight gain even at matched calories, but others note these often differ in fiber and composition, so may not isolate “processing” as the driver.

Artificial Sweeteners, Sugar, Fat, and Salt

• The law’s targeting of saturated fat and nonnutritive sweeteners is contested. Critics see it as 1980s‑style, fat‑phobic policy that may push schools toward refined oils and carbs.
• Artificial sweeteners are especially divisive: some want them banned (citing animal feed efficiency and palate training in children), others say replacing sugar with sweeteners reduces risk in practice.
• Extended debates cover sodium vs potassium balance, modest blood‑pressure effects of salt reduction, and whether focusing on salt distracts from more important drivers of CVD and obesity.

School Food Logistics and Children’s Behavior

• Multiple commenters stress that school food is dominated by Sysco/Sodexo/Aramark‑style industrial products driven by cost, shelf life, and labor constraints, not by cooks’ choices.
• Examples: kids overwhelmingly choosing low‑quality pizza over better options; fruit ignored unless cut and appealing; canned vs fresh ingredients chosen for cost and waste reasons.
• Some argue the real solution is funding and autonomy for simple, from‑scratch cooking; others doubt school meals are a major share of kids’ total calorie intake compared to home and fast food.

Broader Context and Law Assessment

• Obesity and prediabetes stats (e.g., ~1/3 of US teens prediabetic) are cited as justification for strong action; others note similar trends emerging in Europe and Eastern Europe.
• There’s concern that ill‑defined UPF rules, plus carve‑outs and high thresholds, may do little in practice and can undermine trust if later reversed by new science.
• Supporters see the law as an important first step and political signal against junk food in schools; critics view it as quasi‑quackery that demonizes “chemicals” without a solid mechanistic or evidentiary basis, while leaving broader structural issues (built environment, poverty, food marketing) largely untouched.