> Stabilizers and thickeners, as defined in Section 170.3(o)(28) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
...
> “Stabilizers and thickeners: Substances used to produce viscous solutions or dispersions, to impart body, improve consistency, or stabilize emulsions, including suspending and bodying agents, setting agents, jellying agents, and bulking agents, etc.”
So ... flour? Actually healthier things with scarier names like xanthan gum?
> Actually healthier things with scarier names like xanthan gum?
This would almost certainly fall afoul of these rules. And with good reason. Xantham gum is fine per se, but it tends to help unhealthy food stay together. I don’t see why a school kitchen needs to serve anything thickened with it.
Xantham gum is used quite often for gluten-free foods. It can really help make a usable gluten-free loaf of bread and sauces as well. It's purchaseable at plenty of grocery stores and is sometimes included in flours, it's been a boon for those living gluten free.
I was more commenting on the uses of xanthum gum to be helpful, but reading through the Nova classifications... They seem problematic in the exact way you're describing here and are at best a proxy for nutrition that can be manipulated, using words like "simple food products" and "rare culinary use" is ripe for interpretation.
The bill itself calls out using USDA databases for various ingredients and various sections of federal regulations, so I can't comment too much about how they'd feel about xanthum gum without diving deep. Not to go off on a tangent, but just from the bill's text, I can say for sure they don't like nonnutritive sweeteners, which I think really hurts diabetics choices at reducing their reliance on insulin while still enjoying nice treats. Although not too important for a school meal, it's definitely part of the ultra processed conversation and why it's not a simple thing to categorize food into groups.
> The bill itself calls out using USDA databases for various ingredients and various sections of federal regulations, so I can't comment too much about how they'd feel about xanthum gum without diving deep.
For reference: xanthan gum specifically would fall afoul of the rules, as... a (ii) stabilizer or thickener, (iv) coloring or coloring adjunct, and (v) emulsifier.
I cook all of these on a regular basis, and have done so for 15 years, and I’ve never had Xanthan gum in my house. I wouldn’t even know where to find it in my grocery store.
Depending on the consistency you're going for, many are way better with it than other thickers. It's natural, and has a much lower impact on your blood glucose than flour. It's good stuff. Everyone should have it in their kitchen.
For various reasons, I believe the CFR defines flour as a food, not a food additive, but it may have additives that qualify. (I can't find any text that explicitly states that foods are not food additives, but either way, no form of wheat flour is listed in the Substances Added to Food database.)
Common culprits include chemicals added during the bleaching process and addition of "enzyme" / other ingredients that help improve baking consistency. Some examples:
Oh, ok, that doesn't mean at all what I thought it meant, sorry! (British, I just assumed 'commodity food supplied by agriculture' would be all cereals etc., possibly nationally grown only, but you know, commodities.)
So is the same item counted as UPF when the USDA supplies it but not otherwise, or does it mean the USDA supplying it grant the category of item non-UFP status.
Does this count if they supply it from a vending machine on their premises :-)
...
> “Stabilizers and thickeners: Substances used to produce viscous solutions or dispersions, to impart body, improve consistency, or stabilize emulsions, including suspending and bodying agents, setting agents, jellying agents, and bulking agents, etc.”
So ... flour? Actually healthier things with scarier names like xanthan gum?