Is mac and cheese really health food?
The article reads like this product was at least at one time just pasta, milk, butter, and actual cheese (albeit all dried/powdered).
Organic Pasta (Organic Wheat Flour), Whey, Cultured Cream, Nonfat Milk, Salt, Butter (Pasteurized Cream, Salt), Dried Cheddar Cheese (Cultured Pasteurized Milk, Salt, Non-Animal Enzymes), Corn Starch, Citric Acid, Annatto Extract (For Color), Lactic Acid, Sunflower Lecithin, Sodium Phosphate, Silicon Dioxide (For Anticaking).
None of this bothers me, but the declaration "No artificial flavors, synthetic colors, or synthetic preservatives" seems out of place with those last six ingredients. It's technically true, but that's a context where you sorta want more than merely "technically true".
I don't think any of them are harmful... but then, neither are the artificial and synthetic versions they're replacing. They don't strike me as all that different from the Kraft ones:
enriched macaroni (wheat flour, durum flour, niacin, ferrous sulfate [iron], thiamin mononitrate [vitamin b1], riboflavin [vitamin b2], folic acid); cheese sauce mix (whey, milkfat, milk protein concentrate, salt, sodium triphosphate, contains less than 2% of citric acid, lactic acid, sodium phosphate, calcium phosphate, with paprika, turmeric, and annatto added for color, enzymes, cheese culture).
I do prefer organic animal ingredients, in the hopes that the animals themselves are treated slightly better if they have to avoid diseases rather than be given antibiotics. Unfortunately, I lack the resources to verify that (which is why I have cut way back on my animal product consumption).
The actual meaning of 'organic' when it comes to crops:
> Produce can be called organic if it’s certified to have grown on soil that had no prohibited substances applied for three years prior to harvest. Prohibited substances include most synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. In instances when a grower has to use a synthetic substance to achieve a specific purpose, the substance must first be approved according to criteria that examine its effects on human health and the environment (see other considerations in “Organic 101: Allowed and Prohibited Substances”).
https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2012/03/22/organic-101-what-...
It's probably healthier for you, in that there's less chance of trace chemicals that might have one effect or another that won't be understood or documented for decades. It's almost certainly healthier for the planet, as it requires a growing process that's more holistic than just regularly spraying down fields with various fertilizers and pesticides.
that isn't true, see below
>in that there's less chance of trace chemicals that might have one effect or another that won't be understood or documented for decades
You often trade a trace chemical that has been well studied and found mostly harmless for a much higher concentration of some other chemical that is known as somewhat toxic but has been used for hundreds of years.
> It's almost certainly healthier for the planet, as it requires a growing process that's more holistic than just regularly spraying down fields with various fertilizers and pesticides.
It is worse for the planet in other ways. You can't use chemicals to destroy weeds, so instead you plow which destroys soil microbes, and the tractor pulling the plow emits for more CO2 than the whole process of making and applying the chemical.
Remember, organic processes that research shows are better are adopted by non-organic farmers. The opposite is not allowed.
My problem here is largely with the industrializing of the "organic" label. The things that you're really hoping for -- crop rotation, co-planting, mulching, no-till, etc -- don't really scale well. The organic farms look a lot like conventional farms, enormous monocultures. The names on the labels are just different.
I'm presenting the negative case here, just to point out that I'm really not certain. I'm a big supporter of what JI Rodale was doing when he popularized the term "organic", but that's not what you get in the grocery store. I have hopes that the grocery store is in fact ultimately a little better for the planet, but I wish I could be more certain.
[0] https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1...
edit: This, of course, only applies to the USDA organic program. Products produced elsewhere may have different rules.
Spread ammonium based fertilizer, you aren't organic.
Spread manure from cattle raised on crops grown using ammonium based fertilizer, you are good to go.
[0] https://www.annies.com/product/organic-classic-cheddar-mac-c...
(Here's one, for example: https://money.cnn.com/2016/03/08/news/companies/kraft-mac-an...)
I had spoken to some flavor manufacturers about a decade ago, and they say that the shift to "natural" flavors had been in the works for some time. Only very bottom-of-the-line products were still using artificial flavors. (They're very down on this since they don't think it makes any difference aside from costing more, and they're probably right. But consumers seem to like it better.)
It bothers me that consumers like making changes that don't really matter, but don't want to make hard changes that do matter (like the fact that neither one of these products contains a significant amount of nutritive value other than calories). That would mean eating a lot less macaroni and cheese.
That is true if one is speaking about the basic categories like "fats/carbs/sugars" etc., but the concern is really about certain additives in processed foods. When ingesting a carcinogen, sure it is repeated exposure that raises one’s odds of developing cancer, but all it might really take is just a single time. That is why additives are sometimes banned from country to country: because there might not even be a "reasonable amount" greater than zero.
e.g.
> “Beating obesity will take action by all of us, based on one simple common-sense fact: All calories count, no matter where they come from, including Coca-Cola and everything else with calories,” the female announcer said. “And if you eat and drink more calories than you burn off, you’ll gain weight.”
There's obviously no difference between the foods and everything that compromises us is just due to personal failure.
I drink less than one coke a month. I get the sugar kind, because I prefer the mouth feel, but even with corn syrup, there is just no way this has any negative health consequences for me.
This is part of a very general problem, one without obvious solutions: anything which feels good, or is fun, will have people who harm themselves by using it too much.
Mitigating this (it can't be solved) is a boring, slow, social process. Soda vending machines probably shouldn't be in schools. Maybe fast food restaurants should stop bundling a soda for basically-free? But it is basically free, pennies per cup, and I'm wary of anything which forces a huge corporation to not pass that on to the consumer. I've seen no evidence that soda taxes are effective, it strikes me as just a regressive tax.
So we're left with the long slog of convincing people that it's a bad idea to drink a soda with every meal. Which appears to be working... slowly.
When I gain excess weight, it's bread. And not the low-status peasant bread with dough conditioners and added sugar: no I get the fancy sourdough bread, or bagels, and just eat more of it than I really should. There is only one person who can prevent this, and he does my grocery shopping.
They are bluffing and they know that.
At some point (mid-80s) my mother decided we would switch from Kraft to the peanut butter you would get in bulk at these stores. So yes, I remember them. :)
I'd still rather eat Annie's than Kraft.