Weak rules allow ultra-processed foods like Lunchables on school menus (2023)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/interactive/2023/lunchables-school-lunch-ultraprocessed-foods/

by gmays • 2 years ago

63 94 2 years ago

washingtonpost.com

SoftTalker• 2 years ago

Lunchables (if the real brand) seem like they would be pretty expensive.

But ultra-processed food is nothing new for school lunches, this doesn't really seem like news.

colechristensen• 2 years ago

I’m still curious to know what was in the “beef” hamburger patty they served.

dieselgate• 2 years ago

If I were to assume it would be a soy based product - that’s what Taco Bell use/d in their “meat” filling at roughly 50/50 ratios iirc

feverzsj• 2 years ago

So, it's just some sandwich biscuits. And you have to assemble them yourself, which is probably the only good part in it.

48864w6ui• 2 years ago

As we recall, schooling in the US is local, which effectively means (via housing premium) "free to play; buy the buffs".

Phiwise_• 2 years ago

Vouchers when?

matthewbunge• 2 years ago

I went to a fairly well off public high school for my area and our food was horrific. I'd be curious to hear from anyone who went to a public high school in the US in the last 15 years where the food wasn't horrible, nutrition wise or taste wise.

nebula88042• 2 years ago

It does not always play out like that. For example here is a scene from Supersize Me talking about a school for remedial trouble making kids serving nutritional full bodied meals:

[1] https://youtu.be/tyOQTzl2DcU?t=3316

That movie is 20 years old at this point. There have been a lot more efforts to improve things across the country but its been hit and miss. Naturally the blue states tend to care more about this stuff but even they are not having uniform results.

cat_plus_plus• 2 years ago

Yeah, because that's what regular people like to eat. What, never had crackers with ham and cheese? Now, if you are going to serve gourmet meals in schools, go right ahead, I heard it's a thing in France. But don't delude yourself into thinking 8 year olds are going to eat boiled broccoli and whatever unappetizing thing you conjure up for protein. It's not "weak rules", it's no money and cultural attitudes. Either fix these, or let kids at least enjoy their lunch.

Scoundreller• 2 years ago

France has strong rules here: if the kid wants to eat their own lunch, they have to do it offsite. Teens will do that but not imagining many parents picking up their 8 y.o. daily to do so.

They (probably) put more money into it and have the cultural attitudes to do all of the above.

tintor• 2 years ago

Why offsite?

krab• 2 years ago

Huh? I never had crackers with ham and cheese. Certainly not to replace a lunch. And what's bad about broccoli? Our kids like it steamed. It's a handy snack for a family trip - you can prepare it in a microwave in a few minutes when you're packing.

You're right that it essentially boils down to the dietary preferences of the parents. If the parents are ok with such lunch as described in the article, there isn't much a regulation can do.

sgt• 2 years ago

Our 3 year old loves broccoli as well.

stakhanov4• 2 years ago

That reminds me of the episode that Jamie Oliver did, where he tried to prove that he could make healthy and delicious (to him) school meals, while staying inside the budget, at scale, as an alternative to fishsticks with chips (as in french fries) and peas, which he considers unhealthy. He succeeded with his culinary mission. And then, none of the kids actually chose his lunch. They wanted the fishsticks.

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with fishsticks, chips, and peas. (It also doesn't meet the criteria for ultra-processed, if I correctly understand the term, so it's a bit off topic here). The chips are just potatoes and oil. The fishsticks are actual fish (cut into stick form while frozen) with breading. The peas are ...well, peas.

Ekaros• 2 years ago

And having seen some videos... I am not entirely sure Jamie Oliver knows exactly what is delicious...

swatcoder2• 2 years ago

Not that there's anything wrong with fishsticks, chips, and peas. It's actually not ultra-processed, if I correctly understand the term. The chips are just potatoes and oil. The fishsticks are actual fish (cut into stick form while frozen) with breading. The peas are ...well, peas.

Some chips are re-hydrated mechanically digested potato flakes with a dozen different binders, preservatives, and stabilizers, and most budget fish sticks are half miscellaneous whitefish scrap and half breading made from stripped grain and a dozen different binders, preservatives, and stabilizers.

So mileage does vary a little on that.

MomoXenosaga• 2 years ago

Children don't get to decide what they want to eat otherwise it would be pancakes and french fries every day.

anon3738392• 2 years ago

Deep-fried foods are pretty much inherently unhealthy. The oil, often cheap and having a poor fatty acid profile to begin with, is repeatedly heated to high temperatures and reused for up to weeks at a time. It oxidizes, forming free radicals that increase oxidative stress and cellular damage. I'm sure it's fine to indulge now and then, but it's bad, bad stuff to build a diet on.

whatscooking• 2 years ago

The ham is fake

umanwizard• 2 years ago

France serves edible cooked normal food in schools, which means it tastes good and is nutritious. That’s not the same as “gourmet”, and it’s surprising other countries don’t even try to meet this low bar.

diffeomorphism2• 2 years ago

That is so far away from the actual discussion that it is questionable to even call it a straw man.

cpursley• 2 years ago

This belief that eating healthy constitutes boiled broccoli (which nobody likes) is part of the problem…

agos• 2 years ago

what's wrong with boiled broccoli?

swatcoder2• 2 years ago

It might be a good cause to fight over, but not a new one.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketchup_as_a_vegetable

faeriechangling4• 2 years ago

It's truly amazing how this isn't a higher priority issue in America. Americans are all dying prematurely. The food industry is slaughtering them.

mikeodds2• 2 years ago

A McDonald’s in France costs twice as much where a coffee costs less than half as much.

You also don’t need to use a napkin to eat the burger in one of those places.

davidd_10043• 2 years ago

McDonalds burgers are 100% beef in the US

gruez2• 2 years ago

A McDonald’s in France costs twice as much where a coffee costs less than half as much.

Source? According to The Economist's big mac index data[1] the price of a big mac in the euro area and the US is within the same ballpark (~10% difference max) regardless of how you measure it. If anything big macs are cheaper in the euro area than in the US. True, France gets lumped in with "euro area", but even if you compare against neighboring countries (eg. Switzerland or Sweden) the difference is nowhere near 2x.

[1] https://github.com/TheEconomist/big-mac-data/blob/master/out...

brnt3• 2 years ago

Even apart from health concerns, the amount of processed foods that Americans seem to consume is just staggering to me. Branded foods; it'll always seem silly to me.

BrandoElFollito3• 2 years ago

What is a branded food?

red-iron-pine2• 2 years ago

ITT: we learn apparently brands don't exist overseas

which is a boldface lie if you've ever been anywhere.

r0s2• 2 years ago

It's actually the health insurance industry. But thank you for your concern.

faeriechangling4• 2 years ago

I firmly believe the American healthcare system takes a lot of blamed for problems caused elsewhere. American healthcare is inefficient but Americans have lots of money to throw at this inefficient system. The figure that most convinced me of this was healthcare spending ballooning from ~5% of GDP to a sixth and lifespans dropping.

You could fix every problem with healthcare and Americans would still die early. Eat crap from childhood and there’s nothing doctors can do. Preventative care starts in the cafeteria.

Wolfenstein98k3• 2 years ago

Daily reminder that there is no evidence that the processing of food makes it harmful.

It may remove nutrients or make foods less "healthful", but there's no evidence that grinding oats into oat flour makes them suddenly harmful, or that adding that flour to a meat product makes it harmful.

rightbyte• 2 years ago

Some processed food does mess your stomach up. Like, freeze dried eat-in-the-forest bags of food.

There has to be some sort of concern at some point? I mean, the stomach might get a too easy job with the food almost predigested?

But mainly, "processed food" is probably just an indirect measure of a bad diet, lots of sugar etc

Wolfenstein98k3• 2 years ago

It is probably true that eating lots of processed food robs your body of the chance to digest unprocessed foods via displacement.

But again, that doesn't mean processing does harm - it's just your responsibility to include "whole" foods for maximum healthfulness.

BrandoElFollito3• 2 years ago

I think it depends on the definition of "harmful".

Certainly grinding oats into oats flour does not make them dangerous for the body just because of the grinding process.

But it is probably that when they are ground, you use more of X to keep them together, and X is not good for the body. Not a poison but something that makes your body suffer when eaten in too much quantity (say, sugar).

So all in all the processed food brings to your body stuff that it should not in such quantities.

This is like a beer once in a while, which is fine, but two daily will eventually make you sick.

floor2• 2 years ago

Daily reminder that the term "ultraprocessed food" is a label meant to encompass the complex set of unhealthy things in modern, mass produced food products and not literally about "amount of processing".

I can't never tell if comments like this are genuine confusion from overly-literal people with poor language skills, trolls, FUD from manufacturers or what.

Food is complex. A healthy diet is going to be a multi-variable equation including different fats (omega-3, omega-6, omega-9, etc), proteins (9 different essential amino acids needed in varying quantities), carbohydrates (with varying insulin and other metabolic impact by chain length), vitamins, minerals, fiber (soluble & insoluble). As well as uniquely modern things like artificial colors, emulsifiers, anti-caking agents, anti-microbial preservatives, etc. And then overall calories tailored to an individuals size and level of activity.

It's too many variables to include detailed, nuanced descriptions, so we need to use terms like "ultraprocessed" as a shorthand approximation to capture the diverse set of food products which cause obesity, diabetes, GI issues, cognitive issues, etc.

Wolfenstein98k3• 2 years ago

Name a food product that "causes obesity and diabetes", if calorie-matched.

(Eg if you replace 150 calories of the closest unprocessed equivalent with 150 of this ultra-processed version)

ajb• 2 years ago

"ultra processed food" is the perfect grifter slogan:

* There's a grain of truth in it. Chemically designing food gives the opportunity to reduce costs by making it less healthy, and food producers should be held to account. We need better ways to quantify and assure the health value of food products. However-

* The term "UPF" is vague, making it not useful for the individual. This provides great opportunities for grifters to a) publish scary clickbait and b) set themselves up as an authority on what food or is not UPF

* It provides the perfect opportunity for status signalling, as wealthier people can invest money or time in artisanally produced or prepared food.

* It provides an opportunity for low efficiency producers to sell food as "less processed" at a high markup, irrespective of whether it is more healthy

The population is too large to rely on food produced or prepared artisanally, unless possibly they prepare it themselves out of raw ingredients. But giving up on economic specialism in the area of food preparation would be huge cost on society. Do we really believe that our economic system is incapable of enforcing the evaluation and optimization of the health value of food products? That would be a really basic failure.

red-iron-pine2• 2 years ago

a rational and somewhat nuanced opinion. that's not gonna sell on social media, lol.

but I agree. unless you're growing it yourself chances are all food is "processed", and while ultra processed foods is a nebulous title, it is also clear that there is definitely that some foods are debatably "meat" or "grain".

a lot of those Lunchables salamis, for example, have more in common with McDonald's chicken nuggets -- pink goo made from scraps, feet, necks, anuses, etc. -- that's shaped into something that resembles food, and then fried. on the other hand, that is real proteins we're throwing out -- an animal died for this -- and we should use every last scrap, esp. when living in a world where people still starve.

faeriechangling4• 2 years ago

Never got the squeamishness over using meat scraps. The problem with those products isn’t the anuses it’s the nitrates and to a lesser extent the saturated fat content.

em5002• 2 years ago

I grew up in the Netherlands, where primary schools (age 4-12) do not have any lunch facilities at all, i.e. no kitchens, canteens or lunch areas. School lunch works as follows:

- Parents pack lunch in a box for their children, typically 2 to 4 sandwiches with cheese/ham/peanut butter/chocolate paste, a piece of fruit and some water, though occasionally some lucky kid brings some reheated pasta, wraps or sushi.

- Lunch is eaten at the classroom table, with one or two externally hired supervisors (so that teachers get an afternoon break). Parents pay a contribution of €2-€3 per lunch for the supervision (not for food), with subsidies for low income households. Note that the price of the food that the parents are packing (sandwiches and fruit) is often less than the price of supervision.

- The alternative is to go home for lunch. In recent decades this is uncommon for the younger children (not many stay-at-home parents), but starting around age 10 more children can manage this. (Average distance to primary school is less than 1km, so most kids can walk or cycle on their own.)

I only learned much later in life that even in Europe this model is a bit of an outlier, and that most other countries have more extensive lunch facilities in schools. Elsewhere in Europe there is debate to what extent school lunches should be universally subsidized[1]. In the Netherlands there are no school lunches to subsidize in the first place.

[1] https://www.euronews.com/business/2023/09/04/school-meals-in...

qgin• 2 years ago

So primary school in effect costs €3 a day?

em5002• 2 years ago

No, the lunchtime supervision cost €2-€3 a day in schools where school attendance during lunch hour is not compulsory. Parents can make other choices. They can have kids lunch at home or choose a school where attendance during lunch is compulsory (these don't charge the parents, but lunch time is shorter, and the school ends earlier).

globular-toast• 2 years ago

Lunchables were a new thing when I was in school about 25 years a go. A lot of other kids seemed to have them and I was so envious. When I grew up and could buy my own food I just forgot about them. They're kiddie things and I just didn't want them any more.

I guess I always assumed they weren't good for you but didn't think about it much. About a year ago I saw one in a supermarket and curiosity got the better of me. What was I missing out on? I was expecting it to be bad but was still shocked. The crackers are like sweet biscuits. What's with that? It's the same as McDonalds. Sweet everything. The other bits are just coloured protein-style matter.

But yet it appeals to children. A marketing department has sat together and designed something of no value except to be craved by children. And this is still available 25 years later?!

Food addiction is the cause of both obesity and diabetes type 2. Nobody wants to be fat and they know what causes it, but they can't stop eating. It's the textbook definition of addiction. And we're getting kids hooked, in their school lunch, no less. You might as well put some cigarettes in there too then wonder why everyone is addicted to cigarettes. It seems completely insane to me.

It makes me realise cigarettes probably didn't go away due to any kind public health campaign. They just went out of fashion. I can't believe they could make cigarettes go away but can't even get junk food out of schools.

nmeagent• 2 years ago

this is still available 25 years later?!

It's a bit worse than that -- they were introduced in 1988-89, so they're still available 35 years later. I remember them from grade school at the time and they were (tasty) garbage even then.

nebula88042• 2 years ago

Its possibly also the good memories created during the consumption of this stuff.

I grew up on Lunchables and find myself picking it up once in a blue moon. Its not great but its those memories.

denton-scratch4• 2 years ago

What is "ultra-processed"? Last night I cooked Beef Stroganoff from scratch (well, I used supermarket soured cream, so not completely from scratch). I added salt, flavourings (herbs, mustard, brandy), and fat (butter). As far as I can tell, that kind of home cooking matches the definition of "ultra-processed". I believe a slice of bread can count as ultra-processed.

It's really not a useful designation, and I think it's unfortunate that the UN has adopted it as a battle-cry.

MikusR3• 2 years ago

Based on that nova definition, handmade extruded pasta colored with beet juice is an ultra processed food.

snakeyjake4• 2 years ago

It is not.

Both pasta and beet juice are group 1 unprocessed foods. Combining group 1 foods does not create a group 4 food.

WHERE IS ALL OF THIS COMING FROM? Is there some kind of food lobby front organization flooding social media with "your freshly baked bread is ultraprocessed according to GUBMINT NERDS" in order to defang the word?

Here is a good definition of ultra-processed:

Ultra-processed foods are industrial formulations made entirely or mostly from substances extracted from foods (oils, fats, sugar, starch, and proteins), derived from food constituents (hydrogenated fats and modified starch), or synthesized in laboratories from food substrates or other organic sources (flavor enhancers, colors, and several food additives used to make the product hyper-palatable). Manufacturing techniques include extrusion, moulding and preprocessing by frying. Beverages may be ultra-processed. Group 1 foods are a small proportion of, or are even absent from, ultra-processed products.

snakeyjake4• 2 years ago

Ultra-processed is very well defined and easy for even a layperson to understand.

Under the NOVA classification system there are 4 groups of food, from 1 to 4, with 1 being unprocessed and 4 being ultra-processed.

https://ecuphysicians.ecu.edu/wp-content/pv-uploads/sites/78...

As far as I can tell, that kind of home cooking matches the definition of "ultra-processed".

It does not, except for the brandy. Distillation is by definition ultra-processing. However, adding a minute amount of brandy, or even a generous amount, does not instantly turn something into an ultra-processed nightmare especially if the ethanol evaporates and all you're left with are flavorings.

The bread may be ultra-processed if it includes high-fructose corn syrup or other mechanically/chemically-extracted ingredients, otherwise it is simply group 3 processed foods.

denton-scratch4• 2 years ago

other mechanically/chemically-extracted ingredients

Kneading dough to make the gluten elastic looks to me like mechanical processing. And the use of microbes (yeasts and lactobacteria) to transform sugars and starches into simpler chemicals looks like chemical processing.

HFCS is made by what is essentially a single-step process: corn starch is treated with sulphuric acid to produce simple sugars. I don't happen to want to eat HFCS, but the stuff isn't so different from malt.

Part of my objection to this designation is the "ultra-" bit; "ultra-processed" means something like "beyond processed". The term is literally hype; "hyper-processed" would mean the same, but isn't used because it makes it obvious that something is being exaggerated.

Weak rules allow ultra-processed foods like Lunchables on school menus (2023)

Related Stories