Defining "Junk Food"

[enthusiast]

what is junk food? perhaps its like asking when night becomes day: we know the difference between night and day but we can't say when one becomes the other.

from the McDonalds lawsuit judgement:

"For instance, Chicken McNuggets, rather than being merely

chicken fried in a pan, are a McFrankenstein creation of various

elements not utilized by the home cook.

A Chicken McNugget is comprised of, in addition to chicken:

water, salt, modified corn starch, sodium phosphates,

chicken broth powder (chicken broth, salt and natural

flavoring (chicken source)), seasoning (vegetable oil,

extracts of rosemary, mono, di- and triglycerides,

lecithin). Battered and breaded with water, enriched

bleached wheat flour (niacin, iron, thiamine,

mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid), yellow corn flour,

bleached wheat flour, modified corn starch, salt,

leavening (baking soda, sodium acid pyrophosphate, sodium

aluminum phosphate, monocalcium phosphate, calcium

lactate), spices, wheat starch, dried whey, corn starch.

Batter set in vegetable shortening. Cooked in partially

hydrogenated vegetable oils, (may contain partially

hydrogenated soybean oil and/or partially hydrogenated

corn oil and/or partially hydrogenated canola oil and/or

cottonseed oil and/or corn oil). TBHQ and citric acid

added to help preserve freshness. Dimethylpolysiloxane

added as an anti-foaming agent.

In addition, Chicken McNuggets, while seemingly a healthier option than

McDonalds hamburgers because they have “chicken” in their names,

actually contain twice the fat per ounce as a hamburger.

Schlosser, supra, at 140. It is at least a question of fact as to

whether a reasonable consumer would know -- without recourse to the

McDonalds' website -- that a Chicken McNugget contained so many

ingredients other than chicken and provided twice the fat of a

hamburger."

it sort of shows what night is - dontcha think?

[Dave the Cook]

from the McDonalds lawsuit judgement:

"For instance, Chicken McNuggets, rather than being merely

chicken fried in a pan, are a McFrankenstein creation of various

elements not utilized by the home cook.

A Chicken McNugget is comprised of, in addition to chicken:

water, salt, modified corn starch, sodium phosphates,

chicken broth powder (chicken broth, salt and natural

flavoring (chicken source)), seasoning (vegetable oil,

extracts of rosemary, mono, di- and triglycerides,

lecithin). Battered and breaded with water, enriched

bleached wheat flour (niacin, iron, thiamine,

mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid), yellow corn flour,

bleached wheat flour, modified corn starch, salt,

leavening (baking soda, sodium acid pyrophosphate, sodium

aluminum phosphate, monocalcium phosphate, calcium

lactate), spices, wheat starch, dried whey, corn starch.

Batter set in vegetable shortening. Cooked in partially

hydrogenated vegetable oils, (may contain partially

hydrogenated soybean oil and/or partially hydrogenated

corn oil and/or partially hydrogenated canola oil and/or

cottonseed oil and/or corn oil). TBHQ and citric acid

added to help preserve freshness. Dimethylpolysiloxane

added as an anti-foaming agent.

I have to dispute the contention that this list includes an overwhelming number of ingredients not found in the typical American kitchen. when you compile it all, here's what you get:

water

salt

corn starch, combined with water, then dried and ground

chicken broth

rosemary oil

mono- and diglycerides: common emulsifiers also used in cake mixes, aerosol dairy products and pasteurized cream

triglycerides: the most common form of animal fat. In other words, if you're in the kitchen, so are triglycerides.

non-fat dried milk

bleached wheat flour

corn flour

baking powder

Crisco, Wesson Oil, or a combination of the two

citric acid

The only things on this list that appear to be uncommon items are TBHQ and dimethylpolysiloxane.

The first is an antioxidant added to frying oil to retard its breakdown. Antioxidants (which prevent the formation of free radicals) are generally considered a good thing. And if you're sure it's not in your house, think again. It's used to prevent spoilage of animal feed, so it's quite likely you're already exposed. It's also used in lipstick. Anyway, if I fried as much as McDonalds, I might be interested in it. It's often introduced with citric acid, which acts as a synergist with TBHQ.

The second, as it says, is an antifoaming agent. It is also used as a filler for pesticides. It is considered low-risk by the EPA, since its molecular weight is so high that it is unlikely to be absorbed either through the skin or through the intestinal tract.

If you were to make breaded chicken pieces at home, you'd end up with an ingredient list that wasn't much different. The fats and emulsifiers simply allow McDonalds to control the proportions of these items with more precision, or give them the luxury of some shelf time before cooking. Note that there are no eggs in this recipe; the glycerides and lecithin are most likely substituting for them, both physically and nutritionally -- close enough, anyway.

I won't get into the fat issue, except that I would think that most people might have some apprehension that deep-frying, even properly done, might increase fat content.

The disingenuity represented by this list only clouds the issues. If the case was decided based on this sort of reasoning, we should be more concerned about our legal system than a box of McNuggets.

[enthusiast]

very interesting reply Dave. i slightly suspected that there was a certain amount of disingenuousness about the list and wanted to ask what it all meant.

but

i've never cooked breaded anything other than some rather good lobster cutlets and all i remember using was an egg wash and breadcrumbs and then shallow fried them in vegetable oil.

nor do i find these comments entirley reassuirng:

It's used to prevent spoilage of animal feed

It is also used as a filler for pesticides

so i accept that the comment is overblown but i think the defintion of junk food may be somewhere along the lines of food which has been treated for commercial reasons (for preservation, presentation etc) unrelated to nutrition or taste.

its a start anyway

[Fat Guy]

the defintion of junk food may be somewhere along the lines of food which has been treated for commercial reasons (for preservation, presentation etc) unrelated to nutrition or taste.

A hundred years ago, unless you lived near the equator, if you were eating food during the winter you were eating preserved food. The reason preservation exists is so that food won't become dangerous and will remain edible over time. Preservation has existed since the moment humankind stopped living day-to-day and hand-to-mouth in the forest. Not only does preservation often occur for reasons unrelated to nutrition or taste, it historically has occurred contrary to nutrition or taste. Canning, pickling, smoking, curing, drying, fermenting . . . while these processes have been developed over the centuries to yield delicious food and now we do them for their own sakes, they were all born of necessity. Certainly, canning, pickling, curing, or drying something never improves its nutritional value. It simply makes it possible, in a world without refrigeration and modern food technology, to have less nutrition rather than none during the winter. Canning would be a good example of a technology that virtually always diminishes both nutrition and taste, but is nonetheless not something that we would say creates junk food per se. Canned tomatoes, anchovies, fruit preserves . . .

In terms of presentation, it's hard for me to think of a single food item sold in any context where presentation -- for aesthetic reasons only -- isn't a consideration for the producer and consumer.

Processing of food is a fact of life. It always has been and it probably always will be (though modern agriculture, packaging, distribution, and refrigeration methods mean we have access to more fresh and less processed food than ever before -- in the industrialized world it is now possible to eat fresh vegetables and meat all winter even if you live in Canada, something that would have been impossible outside the tropics for most of human history). Again I think we get into issues here of "good" and "bad" processing.

[mamster]

Dave, I've always thought it would be great to do a quiz where someone lists the detailed ingredients of a common natural food and people have to guess what it is. The idea was inspired by the book Can You Trust a Tomato in January by Vince Staten:

"The label would read like this: Starches, sugars, cellulose, pectin, malic acid, citric acid, succinic acid, anisyl propionate, amyl acetate, ascorbic acid, vitamin A, riboflavin, thiamine, phosphate. Sounds scary. What is it? A melon."

Those esters have particularly scary names, I think.

As for junk food, I think it's food that makes you feel guilty when you eat it and superior when someone else eats it, but only in a certain way. As noted, you might feel guilty if you polished off a whole lobe of foie gras, but you probably wouldn't say, "I ate a lot of junk food." Junk food is what stereotypically lower-class gluttons eat. It would be very hard to come up with a nutritionally sound definition.

[Fat Guy]

Last summer I visited The Food Centre, which is part of the University of Saskatchewan, and I met with Dan Prefontaine, the guy who runs the place. It was one of those situations where I had intended to look around for 15 minutes but wound up staying most of the day. TFC helps small-scale food producers -- the standard example would be someone who has been selling jam at farmers markets and now wants to package it for supermarket sale -- get up and running with basic food-safety, equipment, etc., knowledge. They have a team of experts on every aspect of food production -- recipe standardization, quality assurance, and the like -- and they even have a small processing facility where a company can make its first batches of product experimentally before investing in equipment and manufacturing space. It's a great organization staffed by people who really seem to care about what they do. http://www.foodcentre.sk.ca/default.asp

Anyway . . . the point is that they use pretty much the standard arsenal of modern food-manufacturing techniques, preservatives, additives, and packaging technologies at this place. They're not reckless about it. Their goal is to help small businesses make appetizing, safe, transportable food in a profitable manner. One of the biggest hurdles Dan was telling me about is that often a mom-and-pop manufacturer will come in with a very strong negative attitude about additives. So for example a company will want to make a jerky from bison and saskatoon berries, but they'll say, "We want it to be 100% bison and berries -- nothing else, no additives, 100% natural!" And of course then begins the education process whereby people learn which additives perform what functions. A lot of food manufacturers, especially at the small scale, use as few additives in as small a quantity as possible. As with so much else in the food universe, most of these additives are harmless and indeed beneficial if used wisely and in moderation.

[Dave the Cook]

enthusiast: I wasn't trying to render a judgment on the desirability of any particular ingredient. I'm with you on the slight queasiness that comes from relating pesticides and food. My point was that, despite what the excerpt alleged, these things are already in most kitchens.

This includes the glycerides in your egg wash. Food processors break things down because it gives them better control over ingredients and product assembly. Raw eggs, for instance, are a pain: you have to refrigrate them; their desirable qualities deteriorate over time; you're always having to juggle supply and demand for a perishable product.

Matthew: I've had the same notion; maybe we should set up an eG quiz show (another round could be: Does It Need to Be Refrigerated?). Succinic acid has long been one of my favorite components. On the other hand, amyl acetate reminds me of a gray-market inhalant popular in the 70s and 80s. Gives me a headache just thinking about it.

FG: the story of the Mom-and-Pops is exactly what I would expect to happen, and I am not ideologically opposed to additives and preservatives. But the slippery slope shape of the thing reminds me of the movie The Candidate, where, bit by bit, Redford's character is seduced by the desire for success. By the time he wins, he's forgotten why he wanted to run in the first place. Same with artisinal producers: add a little of this for improved texture, a little of that for longer shelf life, and pretty soon the product doesn't taste or act the way that made you want to produce it in mass quantities.

edit: spelling, clarity

Edited July 27, 2003 by Dave the Cook (log)

[fifi]

I was going to stay out of this one but I can't resist.

[soapbox coming out of closet]

I am always amused and dismayed when I hear someone moaning about "all of those chemicals" in our food. EVERYTHING IS CHEMICALS FOR CHRISSAKES! Ok, (deep breath), I have a degree in this stuff but it doesn't take a trained chemist to get the basic concepts. A high school introduction to chemistry should be sufficient. We seem to have so neglected education in the basics of science in this country that a lot of the population does not have the knowledge to make rational decisions on issues regarding food, the environment, etc. AND THESE PEOPLE VOTE! God forbid that anyone should be subjected to a curriculum that takes a little work. I mean, like, it might hurt their self esteem, you know.

The chapter in Jeffrey Steingarten's The Man Who Ate Everything on the lethal veggies should be required reading.

[soapbox going back into the closet, cork being pulled on a good bottle of merlot, whew]

[Dave the Cook]

fifi: you're right, of course.

I find that most people have no problem understanding the "everything is chemicals" proposition. They nod and make positive noises. Then they walk away and revert to reactionary habits. It's not knowledge that's lacking, it's the will to act on knowledge.

You know that merlot contains sulfites, don't you?

[fifi]

You know that merlot contains sulfites, don't you?

And mighty fine sulfites they are, too.

[Fat Guy]

But which has more sulfites, a merlot or a Bordeaux?

[Dave the Cook]

Good point. I don't care about the grape variety. I always pick the one with the better sulfites.

[enthusiast]

big day at work tomorrow - so stop distracting me...

"everything is chemicals" - is not really an argument is it? everything in computers is bits and bytes - doesn't mean every bite is tasty.

my understanding of this is thin. in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king. and of course progress is great. preservatives were essential, period, before fridges. now we have fridges we can drop the preservation that only preserved and keep the ones that enhanced the flavour - smoking or whatever.

i love The Candidate analogy - and will definitely use it in something else. chip away and eventually the integrity is gone.

the hawks in this argument - in the reductio ad absurdum form "everything is chemicals" - seem to end up arguing soemthing i don't believe they really believe in that all food is food and equally valid.

perhaps it just come down to this: the sad point about capitalism is that everything is reduced to the profit motive. the quality of the food will be reduced along a utility curve until it maximises profit - how bad/cheap can we make it (compensated for by added chemicals - including sodium chloride) until too many stop buying it.

[Dave the Cook]

I don't think anybody is arguing that there's no difference between one chemical and another. Instead, I'd say it's not helpful or useful to look at a list of ingredients, read the chemical names off and assume that they're all evil. They're not.

I won't counter your capitalism argument, as it's clear that it has a dark side. But capitalism also brought us those refrigerators and smokers, too.

(As for distracting you, well, I'm sorry, but you've contracted eGull's Syndrome. Make two posts and check your threads in the morning.)

[Fat Guy]

i don't believe they really believe in that all food is food and equally valid.

I do believe all food is food. I don't believe all food is equally valid. But my criteria for establishing a hierarchy of validity do not include the presence of additives provided those additives consumed in moderation are not demonstrably harmful. What I care about is assessing validity is, primarily, whether food tastes good.

perhaps it just come down to this: the sad point about capitalism is that everything is reduced to the profit motive. the quality of the food will be reduced along a utility curve until it maximises profit - how bad/cheap can we make it (compensated for by added chemicals - including sodium chloride) until too many stop buying it.

The nice thing about the profit motive, though, is that it's relatively free of value judgments. If consumers decide en masse that they want salads instead of hamburgers, corporations will desire nothing more than to give them salads. There are some immoral corporations out there, i.e., the kind of corporations that would fight salads through legislative action and propaganda campaigns, but most are what I'd call amoral, i.e., they would just get right to work on producing salads. Also, I really don't think the standard corporate calculus is "how bad/cheap can we make it." Rather, I think it's "how good/cheap can we make it." That's just good business. It's not a question of "until too many stop buying it." It's a question of competition -- whomever can provide the best combination of price and quality (defined for this purpose as what the target audience wants) wins.

[fifi]

- whomever can provide the best combination of price and quality (defined for this purpose as what the target audience wants) wins.

Aaaannd... Mickey D is hurting lately. See... It works!

[Katherine]

- whomever can provide the best combination of price and quality (defined for this purpose as what the target audience wants) wins.

Aaaannd... Mickey D is hurting lately. See... It works!

I understood that Micky D's problems are more of a service issue. In other words, it doesn't matter how cheap it is, if fast food isn't fast, people will make a turn into the next driveway and have a whopper.

[KNorthrup]

1. Junk food is anything my mother wouldn't let me eat.

2. I find it very hard to believe anyone would really think that a McNugget is healthier than a burger because it's chicken rather than beef. Deep frying would seem to trump ingredients every time.

3. Along the lines of the game show analogy, I was at a grocery store once somewhere that I didn't speak the language (probably Austria) and one type of soda was facing back-out on the shelf and said -- in English -- something about 'flavoured with vegetable extracts.' I turned it around to see what kind of weird foreign notion of tasty this was and really the bright red of the can should have already tipped me off.

[JAZ]

I don't think anyone has yet addressed this point, so I will:

The concept of "junk food" is only a possibility in cultures which have too much food available consistently. If, as is still the case in parts of the world, every available calorie is needed desperately, then nothing edible -- and I mean nothing -- can be considered anything but essential.

One thing most people from industrialized countries don't usually think about is that the foods that we consider to be "good" for us are not necessarily the foods that are good for underdeveloped populations who struggle to merely get enough calories to survive.

I remember reading (in McGee's On Food and Cooking, I believe) that some food organization was giving whole wheat bread food to malnourished children thinking that it was better for them than white bread. It wasn't. Whole wheat bread contains marginally more vitamins, minerals and protein, but the high fiber content dramatically lessens the calories and nutrients that the intestine absorbs. Of course if you don't get enough fiber in your diet, then whole wheat is a good choice. But if what you need is to absorb calories, white bread (especially if enriched) is the way to go. So to say that white bread is junk food and whole wheat bread is healthy is a very narrow view.

Most of us do not lack for calories, but we shouldn't forget that this is a very recent development. Our bodies are designed to stoke up on energy rich foods, and fats and sugars are the best in that regard. It's really no wonder that the foods that are high in fats and carbohydrates are the foods we crave.

It's also important to keep in mind that all the "processing" that we now seem to deplore resulted in more food and better nutrition for most of our population. We might despise canned vegetables in comparison with fresh, but canned is much better than none, which was the option for most of the population most of the year. Anything that preserved food was a good thing.

It may be unfortunate much of the population of the US is consuming too many calories, not enough fiber, too many trans-fatty acids, too many chemicals, not enough vitamins, or too much "artificial" food, but the fact that we can do so is the direct result of the very admirable goal of making more food more readily available for more people. It's ironic that our success in feeding ouselves has resulted in the evolution of the concept of "junk" food.

I think the very term should be used with caution, if at all.

[fifi]

JAZ... Most intelligently and thoughtfully stated.

To give a concrete example of what you just said:

A few years ago, I was involved in a project in Mexico to supply the plastic for soft drink bottles. Everywhere in Mexico you see fleets of soft drink trucks with the wooden boxes of single serving glass bottles. These glass bottles, of course, are recycled in that they are returned and refilled. Recycling is very popular in Mexico. It is another cycle of commerce for the people. The appeal of the PET resin bottles was that with the weight savings, fuel consumption for transport, at all points of the cycle, would be greatly reduced, and the PET bottles themselves are very recyclable. In fact, whole new enterprises could be built on the recycled plastic. Then my next question was... What is with all of the soft drinks? These people are poor so why waste resources on what I considered an optional "treat". I was informed that the soft drinks supply clean water and much needed calories. Boy did I feel stupid.

Diet Coke is hard to find in Mexico outside of the tourist areas.

Edited July 28, 2003 by fifi (log)

[oraklet]

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?

fruit, for one thing. but there's the problem of white bread, of probably-unhealthy fats, and in general, lack of vitamins. and then i think it can be argued that the amount of greens is hardly sufficient.

not only will you be malnourished, you will probably get diabetes, too, as the only bread is white and the only thing to drink is soda pops. (oh, sure, you can drink tap water, but that can be a very nasty alternative in some places)

and by the way, coca cola and other "easy carbs" are causing lots of diabetes in, say, mexico. it's basically a stupid way of getting your calories. if it's to get clean water, there are, after all, better ways of doing that. but of course, those ways involve redistribution of income, and that is taboo, i guess.

[aliwaks]

Blue food is junk food

Anything with corn syrup as it's second third or fourth ingreident is junk food

If the predominant taste is a fascimile of a true flavor (ie cheese flavored puffs or strawberry flavored creme) it is junk food.

If it comes from a aerosol can and is meant to be eaten it is junk food.

If it has to used the word food as a modifier i think we can safely assume that that is junk food as well (processed cheese food).

If it is meant to be eaten standing up at a counter or over a garbage can at 3am drunk (think cheesesteak) yup junk food

[fresco]

"If it comes from a aerosol can and is meant to be eaten it is junk food. "

What about stuff that comes in squeezable tubes? Or is it the propellent that makes it junk?

[Fat Guy]

Blue food is junk food

Blueberries?

[Katherine]

Blue food is junk food

Blueberries?

I had a teacher who used to say this, and would never use blue food coloring in a cake for that reason.

Blueberries are actually red on the inside, if you mash them with sugar, he would say.