I applaud the intent but the devil dwells in the details. I keep up with the latest nutritional gurus in the US and UK and even staunch advocates of abstaining from Ultra Processed Food (UPF) self-admit to having a very hard time defining exactly what that means. In addition, there are not a wealth of studies to support the harm of UPF - its mostly, avoid till more is known and educated supposition. This frustrates attempt to be precise about what's in and what's out.
Secondly, why push the deadline out to 2032. Start banning the clear junk next week. Ok, maybe it takes a while to hammer out a definition that works but start with simple rules - ratio of dietary fiber to total carbs <= 5; at least one fresh veggie and one fresh fruit per meal (fresh = not the canned in syrup stuff). CA produces a significant portion of US produce so should be somewhat easy for them. Not so much for Minnesota but baby steps.
When I was in high school ages ago we had burritos that were cooked in an oven in their plastic which would sometimes melt into the food. It’s disgusting.
His crusade against mechanically separated chicken made me lose all respect for him. It's just chicken, you're literally just making better use of the animal. It's not magically less healthy because you used a machine to get at it.
Maybe the most recent "revolution", but like with reading or math the politics of school lunches has a long history, with periodic (decadal?) waves of concern and subsequent systematic changes going back to the 1930s, when national school lunch programs were first instituted.
The underlying point of contention has always been money, not desire. Who doesn't want healthier kids? For the first 50 years or so the hurdle was the price of food, but since the 1990s the hurdle has been labor. California public schools today offer free breakfast and lunch to everybody, independent of ability to pay. The push for that change started circa 2010. But to make it work fiscally that appears to have accelerated the shift to centralized kitchens distributing prepared--and increasingly highly processed--meals to schools.
Before it was closed, my oldest son went to a parochial school that prepared hot lunches out of a tiny kitchen jammed into a corner, pricing them at cost. But it was only possible because of one very dedicated cook (who possibly may not have even been paid staff) assisted by rotating parent volunteers. When that school closed he moved to a new parochial school with a large, well-equipped (albeit old) kitchen. But the kitchen is unused. There's no budget to fund a reliable, affordable cafeteria program even with paid meals, so like most of the parochial schools in the city they contract a private company to deliver prepared "hot" meals, which are no better than the horrible prepared meals the public school district gives kids even though they're sold at "market" price. (The city has their own central kitchens, but the economic pressures result in the same product.)
It's really not that hard. We have to look at the ingredients. If an ingredient has been chemically altered then that is a "processed" food IMO. The easiest thing for consumers is if you can't pronounce the ingredients, or don't know what they are, don't buy it.
[forgive capitals, I'm copying this from their websites]
Amy's Macaroni and Cheese: ORGANIC MACARONI (ORGANIC UNBLEACHED DURUM WHEAT FLOUR, ORGANIC WHOLE DURUM WHEAT FLOUR, FILTERED WATER), ORGANIC LOWFAT MILK, WHITE CHEDDAR CHEESE (PASTEURIZED MILK, CULTURE, SALT, ENZYMES [WITHOUT ANIMAL ENZYMES OR RENNET]), BUTTER (CREAM, SALT), ORGANIC SWEET RICE FLOUR, SEA SALT, ORGANIC ANNATTO (COLOR). CONTAINS WHEAT AND MILK.
Kraft Mac and Cheese: PASTA (ENRICHED WHEAT FLOUR [WHEAT FLOUR, NIACIN, IRON (FERROUS SULFATE), THIAMIN MONONITRATE, RIBOFLAVIN, FOLIC ACID], WHOLE WHEAT FLOUR, GLYCEROL MONOSTEARATE), CHEESE SAUCE MIX (WHEY, CORN SYRUP SOLIDS, MILK, MILKFAT, PALM OIL, MODIFIED FOOD STARCH, SALT, MILK PROTEIN CONCENTRATE, MALTODEXTRIN, CONTAINS LESS THAN 2% OF CALCIUM CARBONATE, SODIUM TRIPHOSPHATE, MEDIUM CHAIN TRIGLYCERIDES, DRIED BUTTERMILK, CITRIC ACID, SODIUM PHOSPHATE, LACTIC ACID, CALCIUM PHOSPHATE, NONFAT DRY MILK, GUAR GUM, CHEESE CULTURE, WITH PAPRIKA, TURMERIC, AND ANNATTO ADDED FOR COLOR, SILICON DIOXIDE, ENZYMES, NATURAL FLAVOR, XANTHAN GUM), MODIFIED FOOD STARCH, MALTODEXTRIN, ACETYLATED MONOGLYCERIDES, SALT, MEDIUM CHAIN TRIGLYCERIDES.
There's a surprising amount of guidance on the UK government's website for school meal standards (follow the "standards for school food in England" link).
The problem with treating food in a reductionist manner is partly the reason why we have so much UPF. Just looking at the ratio between carbs and fibre will just mean that the UPF manufacturers will shove in some more sawdust to increase the fibre content. It's like with the "low-fat" foods that just have more water content to reduce the fat percentage.
Ultimately, looking at isolated parts of food is limited by our knowledge of how those ingredients work together and affect our minds/bodies. It should be a lot simpler than that - limit processing to simple things like removing skin or seeds or cutting into smaller pieces. Pulverising things into a paste might be fine for making houmous, but we shouldn't be doing it so that food companies get a higher profit margin.
Even if there were no reliable studies, the precautionary principle would suggest to limit food that is highly processed and somehow of a novel form, very different from what was consumed in the past.
Anticipating a critical misreading, this does not mean that everything that was consumed in the past is automatically good.
I'm grateful that this bill is taking a much more measured approach than the headline suggests. The bill is targeting specific additives, or "excessive" amounts of added sugar, salt, or fat (exact thresholds unnamed).
"Ultra-processed" gets thrown about as a big food quality bogeyman, but some definitions of the label are as broad as "contains any amount of added sugar". I'm glad California isn't following a standard that extreme.
Date Published: 02/21/2025 09:00 PM
Bill Start
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2025–2026 REGULAR SESSION
Assembly BillNo. 1264
Introduced by Assembly Member Gabriel
February 21, 2025
An act relating to pupil nutrition.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1264, as introduced, Gabriel. Pupil nutrition.
Existing law requires the State Department of Education to develop and maintain nutrition guidelines for school lunches and breakfasts and for all food and beverages sold on public school campuses.
This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact future legislation limiting the sale of ultraprocessed foods in California schools.
Digest Key
Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: NO Local Program: NO
Bill Text
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. It is the intent of the Legislature to enact future legislation limiting the sale of ultraprocessed foods in California schools.
> To identify which ultra-processed foods should be eliminated from school offerings, scientists will consider whether a product includes additives that are banned elsewhere, whether it has been linked to health harms, whether it has been show to contribute to food addiction, and whether it contains excessive fat, sugar or salt, California Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, one of the lawmakers who introduced the bill, said on the call.
>The scientists will be required to publish a first report outlining this subcategory of especially harmful ultra-processed foods by July 1, 2026, said Gabriel, and will be required to update the list every two years as research on these foods evolves.
I guess the text just isn't available yet, but the article describes what is intended.
I’ll add my anecdote: my kids and their friends would have “rather starved than eat the food provided in hot-lunch.” We had a picnic day and the ham sandwich my kid bought was two stale pieces of bread with a single slice of ham. No lettuce, no tomato, no mayo, mustard. Just two pieces of stale bread and a slice of ham. I came home pretty livid that day.
Banning foods that contain any amount of added sugar, except for sweets that are explicitly marketed as such, is very reasonable and would go a long long way in helping manage the obesity crisis.
Would it, though? What matters is glycemic index, and that depends on the overall composition of the food, not just on levels of simple carbohydrates. Focusing purely on one nutrient or on total caloric content is hopelessly reductionist.
For instance white bread has a high glycemic index not because of added sugar, but because all of the fibre and most of the protein have been removed. Proper whole grain, brown bread has a low glycemic index and tons of protein. And that's true even if there's some syrup added for flavour, which is not uncommon.
Couldn't agree more. I see this a lot here in Norway too. So much talk of "ultra-processed" food and its dangers, and recommendations to avoid it but the category is so wide as to include even things like baked beans, because they may have some salt, sugar and modified starch added; or peanut butter because it may have some sugar added to help it stay emulsified and some saturated fat added to make it less runny.
Does that processing suddenly turn the beans from one of the healthiest foods we know of to an unhealthy one? Probably not. Does it make them easier to use in cooking vs dried beans, leading more people to eat beans? Probably yes.
Same thing for the peanut butter. As part of my breakfast, I often have a slice or two of brown, whole grain bread with peanutbutter(the non-disgusting kind with additives mentioned above, about 89% peanuts) and banana. That's a meal rich in protein, various kinds of fiber, polyunsaturated fats, slow carbs, various vitamins and minerals. The fact that the PB has a little sugar and sat fat in it doesn't really matter very much. I've tried PB That's 99% peanuts and frankly it's disgusting. It separates, it's runny and it has an off taste too. If that was the only PB on the market I wouldn't even use it.
The problem is 1. That government recommendations and public discourse place far, far too much emphasis on population studies based on overly vague categories like this and 2. That there's an almost singular focus on things people should avoid rather than things people need more of, especially fibre and protein. Fibre is crucially important, and maybe this is a hot take, but I think lack of fibre is maybe the most important factor when it comes to public health and food.
Fibre increases satiety and bulk, leading you to eat less calories, lowers glycemic index avoiding insulin resistance and diabetes, improves intestinal function(via interaction with gut biome) and therefore micronutrient uptake, and it(specifically beta-glucans found in oats and other grains) even lowers LDL cholesterol. Not to mention it prevents hemorrhoids, which might not affect longevity, but it's certainly nice. And indeed, no surprise, a lot of "ultra-processed" food happens to be devoid of fibre.
I think "fibre-depleted" and "protein-depleted" would be more useful categories to use than the much more vague "ultra-processed".
Modified starch seems like a prime candidate for an ultra-processed ingredient. I don't know which one is used in baked beans, but there's a whole list of enzymes, acids and alkalis used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_starch
I didn't realize we could buy 89% peanut butter in Europe. At my nearest supermarket in Copenhagen I have the choice of 99.5% (Machandel), 99.6% (Urtekram) or 99.3% (Salling). The other 11% of yours is probably palm oil, sugar and salt, so less questionable than the modified starch but it's still additives to increase shelf life and make the boring, natural peanut more appealing.
I grew up in Vietnam, where freshly cooked meals were a daily staple. Getting them was effortless—just a few steps from home.
Coming to the U.S., however, turned this into a major challenge, especially while raising my own kids. Ultra-processed food is everywhere, and preparing fresh meals takes significant time, even though I’ve become quite efficient (a typical meal takes 30–60 minutes).
While this doesn’t fully solve our food challenges for kids, it’s a step in the right direction for the future.
For zoning, there's plenty of places that don't allow commercial operations near residential zones- hence the push for more mixed-use zoning. Unfortunately, urban environments still have very high rents, so to stay cheap enough you'd have to get permission to operate a good truck or sidewalk stand.
For regulations, there's no way to run (or rent) a commercial kitchen and sell low cost freshly made food and make enough money, especially if you aren't operating out of a food truck. There's several other licenses involved depending on the nature of the business.
The US is a rich country (compared to Vietnam), so I'd have thought they'd have the resources to automate much of the process of making healthy meals, and thus cheaply. Yet here we are.
That is such a huge question! I feel like the answers are many and varied.
For one obvious one, US health codes are much stricter, and your average Vietnamese food cart or street vendor would probably be flat-out illegal anywhere in the US, because they probably don't have the equipment to handle safe food holding temperatures. Not to say that the vendors aren't skilled and capable of serving safe food; just that the US health codes don't take that as a given and require you to prove it. It's why the hot dog stand is about the only iconic American food stall these days. Consider also the fairly prolific business of selling home-cooked food on Facebook Marketplace. Totally illegal, but it fills an underserved niche.
A second factor might be the cost of doing business. Ingredients are much more expensive, and so is labor, and that makes cheap food harder to produce cost effectively. The labor is probably the most expensive part of any prepared meal in the US, so you see "fast food" shift towards ultra processed foods that are quick to produce and serve.
Likewise, US real estate is just less conducive to this behavior. In cities, sure, you might see foot traffic that can support a food stall or small restaurant. But even a small location in a busy city area can be very expensive to rent, and the US has less by way of semi-permanent market areas that vendors can leverage to have easy access to customers. There's a Thai Buddhist temple in Dallas that runs a weekend market with food vendors after their Sunday services, and it's always busy. There's almost certainly demand, but reasonable locations are hard to come by.
Lastly, I just want to point out that fresh does not necessarily mean healthy! Consider salt, for example. If your freshly cooked dish is over seasoned, then you might not be getting something as healthy as you wanted, even though you might recognize all the ingredients and their sources. Be careful to avoid biases in labeling certain foods healthy and some foods not based on perception and not actual contents.
This is the bill text: "SECTION 1. It is the intent of the Legislature to enact future legislation limiting the sale of ultraprocessed foods in California schools."
That's it.
It's fairly well understood what makes junk foods tasty without much nutritional value.
Salt and sugar play a big role. Those aren't "ultraprocessed".
Bread is "ultraprocessed". The number of steps from wheat to bread is large, and the output looks nothing like the input. Here's how "artisanal bread" is really made.[1]
Not passed, just introduced. It's a placeholder that can move forward to committee. Then, if it goes anywhere, details will be filled in by amendment. This is the legislative equivalent of a function stubbed out in code.
Once met a guy who set up a whole rooftop garden in LA for a couple of schools so they could teach their students about growing food and as well about the importance of fresh ingredients. Part of the program was that kids would take turns (in groups) preparing (under the supervision of a chef) the lunch the school would eat that day, teachers included.
The results were awesome, and then the program got cut because it was too expensive. The dude is now a management consultant, ironically enough.
I feel for that dude. I worked in public service for a while and eventually burnt out because I felt like I wasn't making much progress. Even as a vegan today I often ask myself if it's worth it when Cletus is proudly eating 5x the beef anyone should just to "stick it to the soy boys".
So yeah not 100% ultra-processed but generally the mains are and a lot is fried. Pizza is at least one a week. They also have a penchant for questionable vegan food like impossible burgers or the fake chicken fingers.
Ours is all school made and still offers pizza. Pizza is both fast and easy to make. It's "funny" because oftentimes our kids won't eat the school's version of things because they're too used to the processed crap version.
I'm not the first person to say this, but the school food should be easily accessible to parents. Maybe have a quarterly parent lunch where the adults try the same meals served to their children. If they are grossed out, that would be a good place to start the discussion on how to improve.
I think this is a great step in the right direction. The first six years of my career were in food safety, specifically public policy, technology, and what to do when an outbreak occurs. The FDA is woefully, exceedingly, ridiculously myopic about these kinds of definitions. [T]he first statutory definition of what qualifies as an ultra-processed food will be the mother of all political fights, just like GMOs, just like artificial dyes, just like high fructose corn syrup. It's almost a losing fight because these are MASSIVE conglomerates that do not want to make anything but super cheap, super profitable, mass produced, ultra processed foods.
IF we can define it, and my experience tells me it's a pipe dream at best, it will be a tremendous step forward for better quality in food. Then we can tackle other labels slapped on EVERYTHING such as "all natural" (when it's not) "healthy" when it's not, and my favorite, "sugar free" when it is absolutely not.
IMHO, and experience, food companies will do anything to stop these kinds of measures.
Readit News
Secondly, why push the deadline out to 2032. Start banning the clear junk next week. Ok, maybe it takes a while to hammer out a definition that works but start with simple rules - ratio of dietary fiber to total carbs <= 5; at least one fresh veggie and one fresh fruit per meal (fresh = not the canned in syrup stuff). CA produces a significant portion of US produce so should be somewhat easy for them. Not so much for Minnesota but baby steps.
You can't just ban things. Think of the plastic manufacturers. And the French toast manufacturers, if they are not different companies.
Dead Comment
https://www.publicschoolreview.com/blog/jamie-oliver-is-his-...
The underlying point of contention has always been money, not desire. Who doesn't want healthier kids? For the first 50 years or so the hurdle was the price of food, but since the 1990s the hurdle has been labor. California public schools today offer free breakfast and lunch to everybody, independent of ability to pay. The push for that change started circa 2010. But to make it work fiscally that appears to have accelerated the shift to centralized kitchens distributing prepared--and increasingly highly processed--meals to schools.
Before it was closed, my oldest son went to a parochial school that prepared hot lunches out of a tiny kitchen jammed into a corner, pricing them at cost. But it was only possible because of one very dedicated cook (who possibly may not have even been paid staff) assisted by rotating parent volunteers. When that school closed he moved to a new parochial school with a large, well-equipped (albeit old) kitchen. But the kitchen is unused. There's no budget to fund a reliable, affordable cafeteria program even with paid meals, so like most of the parochial schools in the city they contract a private company to deliver prepared "hot" meals, which are no better than the horrible prepared meals the public school district gives kids even though they're sold at "market" price. (The city has their own central kitchens, but the economic pressures result in the same product.)
[forgive capitals, I'm copying this from their websites]
Amy's Macaroni and Cheese: ORGANIC MACARONI (ORGANIC UNBLEACHED DURUM WHEAT FLOUR, ORGANIC WHOLE DURUM WHEAT FLOUR, FILTERED WATER), ORGANIC LOWFAT MILK, WHITE CHEDDAR CHEESE (PASTEURIZED MILK, CULTURE, SALT, ENZYMES [WITHOUT ANIMAL ENZYMES OR RENNET]), BUTTER (CREAM, SALT), ORGANIC SWEET RICE FLOUR, SEA SALT, ORGANIC ANNATTO (COLOR). CONTAINS WHEAT AND MILK.
Kraft Mac and Cheese: PASTA (ENRICHED WHEAT FLOUR [WHEAT FLOUR, NIACIN, IRON (FERROUS SULFATE), THIAMIN MONONITRATE, RIBOFLAVIN, FOLIC ACID], WHOLE WHEAT FLOUR, GLYCEROL MONOSTEARATE), CHEESE SAUCE MIX (WHEY, CORN SYRUP SOLIDS, MILK, MILKFAT, PALM OIL, MODIFIED FOOD STARCH, SALT, MILK PROTEIN CONCENTRATE, MALTODEXTRIN, CONTAINS LESS THAN 2% OF CALCIUM CARBONATE, SODIUM TRIPHOSPHATE, MEDIUM CHAIN TRIGLYCERIDES, DRIED BUTTERMILK, CITRIC ACID, SODIUM PHOSPHATE, LACTIC ACID, CALCIUM PHOSPHATE, NONFAT DRY MILK, GUAR GUM, CHEESE CULTURE, WITH PAPRIKA, TURMERIC, AND ANNATTO ADDED FOR COLOR, SILICON DIOXIDE, ENZYMES, NATURAL FLAVOR, XANTHAN GUM), MODIFIED FOOD STARCH, MALTODEXTRIN, ACETYLATED MONOGLYCERIDES, SALT, MEDIUM CHAIN TRIGLYCERIDES.
https://www.gov.uk/school-meals-food-standards
Minnesota might use more green vegetables and root vegetables than California, if they're buying locally.
Ultimately, looking at isolated parts of food is limited by our knowledge of how those ingredients work together and affect our minds/bodies. It should be a lot simpler than that - limit processing to simple things like removing skin or seeds or cutting into smaller pieces. Pulverising things into a paste might be fine for making houmous, but we shouldn't be doing it so that food companies get a higher profit margin.
Anticipating a critical misreading, this does not mean that everything that was consumed in the past is automatically good.
It's politicians trying to signal they "did something" without dealing with the consequences or being measured if it's actually successful or not
Dead Comment
"Ultra-processed" gets thrown about as a big food quality bogeyman, but some definitions of the label are as broad as "contains any amount of added sugar". I'm glad California isn't following a standard that extreme.
When I look at the official page about AB1264 and look at the 'full text', there is virtually nothing there:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
Same if I follow the link to the bill PDF:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billPdf.xhtml?bill_...
This is the complete text I see:
>The scientists will be required to publish a first report outlining this subcategory of especially harmful ultra-processed foods by July 1, 2026, said Gabriel, and will be required to update the list every two years as research on these foods evolves.
I guess the text just isn't available yet, but the article describes what is intended.
For instance white bread has a high glycemic index not because of added sugar, but because all of the fibre and most of the protein have been removed. Proper whole grain, brown bread has a low glycemic index and tons of protein. And that's true even if there's some syrup added for flavour, which is not uncommon.
Does that processing suddenly turn the beans from one of the healthiest foods we know of to an unhealthy one? Probably not. Does it make them easier to use in cooking vs dried beans, leading more people to eat beans? Probably yes.
Same thing for the peanut butter. As part of my breakfast, I often have a slice or two of brown, whole grain bread with peanutbutter(the non-disgusting kind with additives mentioned above, about 89% peanuts) and banana. That's a meal rich in protein, various kinds of fiber, polyunsaturated fats, slow carbs, various vitamins and minerals. The fact that the PB has a little sugar and sat fat in it doesn't really matter very much. I've tried PB That's 99% peanuts and frankly it's disgusting. It separates, it's runny and it has an off taste too. If that was the only PB on the market I wouldn't even use it.
The problem is 1. That government recommendations and public discourse place far, far too much emphasis on population studies based on overly vague categories like this and 2. That there's an almost singular focus on things people should avoid rather than things people need more of, especially fibre and protein. Fibre is crucially important, and maybe this is a hot take, but I think lack of fibre is maybe the most important factor when it comes to public health and food.
Fibre increases satiety and bulk, leading you to eat less calories, lowers glycemic index avoiding insulin resistance and diabetes, improves intestinal function(via interaction with gut biome) and therefore micronutrient uptake, and it(specifically beta-glucans found in oats and other grains) even lowers LDL cholesterol. Not to mention it prevents hemorrhoids, which might not affect longevity, but it's certainly nice. And indeed, no surprise, a lot of "ultra-processed" food happens to be devoid of fibre.
I think "fibre-depleted" and "protein-depleted" would be more useful categories to use than the much more vague "ultra-processed".
I didn't realize we could buy 89% peanut butter in Europe. At my nearest supermarket in Copenhagen I have the choice of 99.5% (Machandel), 99.6% (Urtekram) or 99.3% (Salling). The other 11% of yours is probably palm oil, sugar and salt, so less questionable than the modified starch but it's still additives to increase shelf life and make the boring, natural peanut more appealing.
Coming to the U.S., however, turned this into a major challenge, especially while raising my own kids. Ultra-processed food is everywhere, and preparing fresh meals takes significant time, even though I’ve become quite efficient (a typical meal takes 30–60 minutes).
While this doesn’t fully solve our food challenges for kids, it’s a step in the right direction for the future.
Huh... I wonder what the difference is between the two societies that allows for this
For zoning, there's plenty of places that don't allow commercial operations near residential zones- hence the push for more mixed-use zoning. Unfortunately, urban environments still have very high rents, so to stay cheap enough you'd have to get permission to operate a good truck or sidewalk stand.
For regulations, there's no way to run (or rent) a commercial kitchen and sell low cost freshly made food and make enough money, especially if you aren't operating out of a food truck. There's several other licenses involved depending on the nature of the business.
For one obvious one, US health codes are much stricter, and your average Vietnamese food cart or street vendor would probably be flat-out illegal anywhere in the US, because they probably don't have the equipment to handle safe food holding temperatures. Not to say that the vendors aren't skilled and capable of serving safe food; just that the US health codes don't take that as a given and require you to prove it. It's why the hot dog stand is about the only iconic American food stall these days. Consider also the fairly prolific business of selling home-cooked food on Facebook Marketplace. Totally illegal, but it fills an underserved niche.
A second factor might be the cost of doing business. Ingredients are much more expensive, and so is labor, and that makes cheap food harder to produce cost effectively. The labor is probably the most expensive part of any prepared meal in the US, so you see "fast food" shift towards ultra processed foods that are quick to produce and serve.
Likewise, US real estate is just less conducive to this behavior. In cities, sure, you might see foot traffic that can support a food stall or small restaurant. But even a small location in a busy city area can be very expensive to rent, and the US has less by way of semi-permanent market areas that vendors can leverage to have easy access to customers. There's a Thai Buddhist temple in Dallas that runs a weekend market with food vendors after their Sunday services, and it's always busy. There's almost certainly demand, but reasonable locations are hard to come by.
Lastly, I just want to point out that fresh does not necessarily mean healthy! Consider salt, for example. If your freshly cooked dish is over seasoned, then you might not be getting something as healthy as you wanted, even though you might recognize all the ingredients and their sources. Be careful to avoid biases in labeling certain foods healthy and some foods not based on perception and not actual contents.
That's it.
It's fairly well understood what makes junk foods tasty without much nutritional value. Salt and sugar play a big role. Those aren't "ultraprocessed".
Bread is "ultraprocessed". The number of steps from wheat to bread is large, and the output looks nothing like the input. Here's how "artisanal bread" is really made.[1]
It's the ingredients, not the processing.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-RnRvSGFgY
The results were awesome, and then the program got cut because it was too expensive. The dude is now a management consultant, ironically enough.
Progress is slow. Destruction is quick.
* Beef and cheese taquitos
* Orange Chicken, Broccoli Rice Bowl
* Granola
* Assorted Fresh Fruit/Vegetables
So yeah not 100% ultra-processed but generally the mains are and a lot is fried. Pizza is at least one a week. They also have a penchant for questionable vegan food like impossible burgers or the fake chicken fingers.
IF we can define it, and my experience tells me it's a pipe dream at best, it will be a tremendous step forward for better quality in food. Then we can tackle other labels slapped on EVERYTHING such as "all natural" (when it's not) "healthy" when it's not, and my favorite, "sugar free" when it is absolutely not.
IMHO, and experience, food companies will do anything to stop these kinds of measures.