Defining "Junk Food"

[Fat Guy]

Is the term "junk food" meaningful?

Is a hamburger junk food? Always? Never? Some hamburgers only? White Castle? White Manna? McDonald's? My house? Your house? DB Bistro Moderne? Why?

Potato chips? French fries? Coca-Cola? Diet Coke? Hot dogs? Fried chicken? Canard Apicius rôti au miel et aux épices?

[fresco]

Items that are frequently referred to as "junk food" have two things in common: they seem to occasion a great deal of guilt among a lot of people who eat them ("empty calories" is a close synonym) and are mass produced. While celebrated dishes from expensive restaurants may be (and often are) loaded with calories, their celebrity and expense are, it would seem, enough to ward off the "junk food" curse.

[Katherine]

A while back I read an article in a worthless magazine that said, basically, that more Americans were eating healthier food than ever, more fruits and vegetables, less fatty foods, etc. It looked suspiciously like the entire article was based on one of those surveys where people know the "right" answer in advance, and give it back to the pollster so they'll look good.

And then I wander through Walmart, and see endless shelf-space devoted to processed foods, and a pitiful collection of semi-fresh vegetables. People are buying this stuff, it's not there for looks.

I imagine a "junk food" index, where raw ingredients would fall at one end, and totally processed foods (like brightly-colored fried or sweet crunchy things) would fall at the other end.

It seems to me that if foie gras was a poor folk's food, it would be lumped in with burgers as junk food.

[fresco]

"It seems to me that if foie gras was a poor folk's food, it would be lumped in with burgers as junk food."

Yup, exactly. But when prole food or soul food--polenta, ham hocks--become items on expensive restaurant menus, they have somehow acquired the cachet that takes them out of the junk category.

There is a strong class element to the whole fat debate. When only the rich could afford to be fat--say up to a century or more ago--it was fashionable. When even, and especially, the poorest became fat, it became even worse than deeply unfashionable-- a quasi criminal corporate/government conspiracy against our most disenfranchished.

[KateW]

For me it brings to mind cheap, low quality food, mass produced with a lot of "fake" ingredients or chemicals. Then you start getting into "gourmet" junk food and it gets blurry. Empty calories are a must for junk food. No matter how poor quality vegetables and fruit are, they won't be junk food, even when they're deep fried, or rolled in chocolate, because they're still fruit and vegetables underneath French fries are the exception.

[marie-louise]

It's just one more label for Americans to categorize their food into "good" and "bad." From a calorie and nutritional standpoint, your body doesn't know the difference between a lobster roll and a McDonald's fish fillet sandwich. The carbohydrates break down into sugar, the fish is protein, and the mayo, secret sauce and residual deep-frying oil is all fat.

Have you ever noticed how often people use the words good and bad when talking about what they ate? "Oh, I was good, I baked a cake for my husband and didn't eat any" or, "I was really bad, I had butter on my bread today." It's a pet peeve of mine, that people label themselves by what they ate; our fast food favorites are our guilty pleasures, shared as confidences as if we're talking about sex. Collectively, we have become a nation with an eating disorder. And yet, collectively we are fatter than ever. Gee, I wonder if there's a connection?

I've been carefully reading all the articles that have been posted in the past month about weight and junk food. Fat Guy, I particularly liked the one you posted from The New Republic. I'm one of the millions with an overweight but not obese BMI, and I'm active. I decided after reading that article that I was no longer going to worry about what I weighed-the evidence just wasn't there that those 20 or 30 pounds were really harming my health or shortening my life-and instead, I was going to eat what I wanted and try to be a little more consistent about exercising before work. I shoved my scale under my bed. What do you think happened? Did I balloon up and have to buy all new clothes by the end of the month? Have a heart attack because I ate red meat twice in a week? Give up my CSA box and start eating hog dogs every night? Nope, quite the opposite. A few days ago I noticed I was looking thinner so I climbed under the bed and dragged out the scale. I've lost about 5 or 6 pounds this month! There's one more article that someone posted in which there's a quote that said, the moment you go on a diet you stop using your hunger as a signal for when to eat and when to stop eating. I guess that's more or less what happened with me; as soon as I paid less attention to how much and what I was eating, and just ate whatever and whenever I wanted, I started eating less and lost weight. Seems paradoxical, but I think it is all tied into the good vs. bad, junk vs. "good" food.

[Fat Guy]

It seems to me that a meaningful definition of junk food -- in other words one that actually involves the food rather than an external set of prejudices having nothing to do with the food being defined -- definitely is going to have to follow the "highly processed" line of argument. I can't imagine categorizing hamburgers and french fries as junk food under a rational scheme. Indeed, there may be a fundamental unresolvable issue with any attempt to define junk food: when we think junk food we think McDonald's, yet McDonald's doesn't really serve much junk food. There are some junky aspects to the way McDonald's employs its processing methods -- the coatings on fries, the frozen everything -- but in the end it's burgers, fries, and even salads. The exact same food sold at a family-owned diner -- where it is entirely likely that Simplot fries and frozen beef are also being used -- would not be labeled junk food by most people, even though the burger is likely to be 2x the size of a Quarter-Pounder.

In terms of "highly processed," the issue there is defining what we mean by processed. Because, for example, bread is highly processed. Turning wheat from the field (itself the result of much hybridization and human intervention) into a loaf of bread -- even whole wheat sourdough -- involves the application of a ton of processing technology. Cheese, wine, beer, salume -- all highly processed foods. So it really gets more into a question of what type of processing, which may be difficult to differentiate in a reasonable manner, much like the difficulty in distinguishing between "natural" and "artificial."

[Explorer]

If it gives me a heartburn, it's junk food.

I agree with Katherine and would define "processing" a bit further: processing food with un-natural, artificial, chemical ingredients is definitely junk. Too much preservatives is junk food. Most foods that aren't cooked or eaten fresh are junk. Let's face it, most North American fast food is junk food.

If it's bad for your body, and lacks essential nutrients; it's junk- what else would it be?

[mcdowell]

It seems to me that a meaningful definition of junk food -- in other words one that actually involves the food rather than an external set of prejudices having nothing to do with the food being defined -- definitely is going to have to follow the "highly processed" line of argument.

I agree completely.

My own working definition says that if I don't recognize more than 40% of the ingredients listed on the package, or have to break out my old college chemistry text to understand them, then it's "junk food".

[Fat Guy]

Most foods that aren't cooked or eaten fresh are junk. Let's face it, most North American fast food is junk food.

What about a hamburger?

[KateW]

Fast food burgers, the ones that are thin as a dime, are junk food to me. Good burgers, thick, made to order, juicy...aren't.

But I don't know why.

[Elizabeth_11]

What about a hamburger?

In my humble opinion it can be both. If it's of decent quality meat (meaning there is a good percentage of protein as opposed to fat), add some fresh tomato, lettuce, onion, ketchup and mustard---I think it's not that bad for you. Again, it all depends on who's making it. I highly doubt McDonald's or White castle is using lean beef. Once you start piling on the bacon, mayo, special sauce, etc. is where you're getting into empty calorie category. Just my $.02!

Edited July 26, 2003 by Fat Guy (log)

[Fat Guy]

Elizabeth: U.S. beef too fatty for McDonald's chain. Actually the article title is somewhat misleading. McDonald's uses lean beef plus extra beef fat, resulting in what I believe is roughly the same fat content as typical burger meat that a home cook would buy from the supermarket or butcher. (Butchers, chefs, and serious home burger cooks also combine lean meat with extra fat to create the best burger meat blend, by the way -- I recall Julia Child recommending this for home-grinding.) I'm not sure about the exact numbers, but just from tasting it's pretty obvious that a McDonald's hamburger has less fat in it after cooking than a really good homemade burger.

Kate: Where do you live? In California, the standard for hamburgers even at the small mom-and-pop places is thin, like a McDonald's burger.

Does anybody remember way back when a bunch of articles appeared saying that Chinese restaurant food has more fat, salt, and calories than McDonald's food? I'd love to find a link, but first round of Googling didn't turn anything up.

[fresco]

Is this what you meant?

http://chinesefood.about.com/gi/dynamic/of...r%2CWSIHW000%7C

[Fat Guy]

That's the basic concept, yes, but I recall a study out of Boston that was more rigorous. I could be imagining it, though.

[fresco]

Think it is our old friends the Center for Science in the Public Interest, who recently took on ice cream:

http://www.cspinet.org/nah/chinese.html

[Fat Guy]

CSPI tends to be heavily agenda-driven, and therefore whatever it publishes is suspect, but if the numbers are right the numbers are right. In any event, an interesting conceptual hurdle to get over in the defining-junk-food discussion, similar to your points above about ethnic foods.

[fresco]

Sometimes even zealots can be right.

[KateW]

Kate: Where do you live? In California, the standard for hamburgers even at the small mom-and-pop places is thin, like a McDonald's burger.

I live in Massachusetts. I'm talking about the kind you get at McDonald's for instance. At restaurants that aren't drive through, you can usually get a reasonably thick and juicy burger. When I cook them at home they're about a half to 3/4 inch thick and that's how I like them the best.

[oraklet]

if you eat only at md's, you will suffer from malnutrition. not so if you only eat at, say, chez panisse. what we normally label as junk food is not item for item bad for us. it's a matter of these foodstuffs belonging to a group of food that is consumed in overabundance by more and more people, because it's easy to get hold of, and cheap. and it's cheap for the most part because it's highly processed.

junk food belongs to a bad life style, if you see what i mean?

[mcdowell]

if you eat only at md's, you will suffer from malnutrition.

That's a bold statement.

Which food group do you think is missing there?

[hjshorter]

if you eat only at md's, you will suffer from malnutrition.

That's a bold statement.

Which food group do you think is missing there?

I'm not a big fan of McDonald's but on my last road trip I stopped there for lunch and had a grilled chicken salad and a milk - I would not characterize either of those as nutritionally deficient.

Junk food isn't the same thing as fast food. Junk food is the stuff with no redeeming qualities - potato chips, candy, and soda.

[fifi]

Damn! I've been counting potato chips as a vegetable.

[hamburgerflipper]

food that goes from your mouth right thru to your bodies waste disposal system is considered JUNK.if the human body finds no use for it,then consider that item junk! perhaps we can start off with butter vs margerine,which one is more useful....anyone...!

[fresco]

Butter. Margarine tastes like shit. Let me rephrase that. Margarine tastes like it has already passed through your digestive tract. Why put it through twice?

Edited July 27, 2003 by fresco (log)