Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Hot Pockets are a rebranding of meat pies, which have been around since medieval times.


Hot Pockets are not a rebranding. Hot Pockets are economically adulterated putrescence masquerading as a meat pie.

Ingredients: ENRICHED FLOUR (WHEAT FLOUR, MALTED BARLEY FLOUR, NIACIN, IRON, THIAMINE MONONITRATE, RIBOFLAVIN, FOLIC ACID), WATER, COOKED BEEF PATTIE CRUMBLES (BEEF HAMBURGER, WATER, TEXTURED VEGETABLE PROTEIN [SOY FLOUR, CARAMEL COLOR], SOY PROTEIN CONCENTRATE, LESS THAN 2% OF THE FOLLOWING: SALT, SPICE, NATURAL FLAVORS, DEXTROSE, YEAST EXTRACT, ONION POWDER, POTASSIUM CHLORIDE, SODIUM TRIPOLYPHOSPHATE), REDUCED FAT CHEDDAR CHEESE (PASTEURIZED PART SKIM MILK, SKIM MILK, MODIFIED FOOD STARCH, CULTURES, SALT, FLAVORS, POTASSIUM CHLORIDE, ANNATTO, VITAMIN A PALMITATE, ENZYMES, INGREDIENTS NOT IN REGULAR CHEDDAR CHEESE), KETCHUP (TOMATO PUREE [TOMATO PASTE, WATER], CORN SWEETENER [HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, CORN SYRUP], VINEGAR, SALT, SEASONING [SPICES, SALT, NATURAL FLAVORS, ONION POWDER, GARLIC POWDER], DEHYDRATED ONION), VEGETABLE OIL (SOYBEAN OIL AND/OR CORN OIL), ONIONS, 2% OR LESS OF DILL PICKLE RELISH (PICKLES, WATER, DISTILLED VINEGAR, SALT AND NATURAL FLAVORS), NON-FAT DRY MILK, BUTTERMILK POWDER, MODIFIED FOOD STARCH, SUGAR, VINEGAR, TOASTED SESAME SEEDS, FRACTIONATED PALM OIL, YEAST, DOUGH CONDITIONER BLEND (CALCIUM SULFATE, SALT, L-CYSTEINE HYDROCHLORIDE, GARLIC POWDER, TRICALCIUM PHOSPHATE, ENZYMES [WHEAT]), SALT, SOY LECITHIN, SODIUM STEAROYL LACTYLATE, METHYLCELLULOSE, WHEY, SOY FLOUR, DRIED EGG WHITES.


I'm no fan of hot pockets, but what exactly is the point here? That the list of ingredients is long?

Most of the list is regular food ingredients or vitamins/minerals added to the "enriched flour". The stabilizers and emulsifiers with scary chemical names are present in tiny amounts regulated by various health departments.

If hot pockets are unhealthy, it's because of the qualities they might share with a homemade meat pie; too much or too little of some nutrients. Not because of some magical consequence of being too processed or having too many ingredients.


> If hot pockets are unhealthy, it's because of the qualities they might share with a homemade meat pie

Sorry to pick on you, but this confusion that a Hot Pocket is the same as a homemade meat pie is a great demonstration of the food corporations' capture of nutritional intuition and discourse.

The public has been convinced that there's nothing concerning about increasingly replacing, for example, a nutritious, real meat or cheese (milk, cultures, and rennet) with cheaper analogues that are so empty that modified food starch, emulsifiers, and textured soy have to be added to the product for no other purpose than to masquerade as the texture you expect of real ingredients.

You're eating a replica of food and you've been persuaded that the only difference is some "scary chemical names".

The food corporation has a new breakthrough, figures out how five more cheap ingredients can be used to create the texture of some chicken, and you have somehow told yourself that it's the ingredient count that people must be making a fuss over rather than what the growing list represents.


I'm not confused about hot pockets being the same as honest meat pies. Insofar as they're even in the same category, hot pockets are a pretty sad alternative.

My point was that their nutritional value rests on the same qualities as any other food. Overabundance or lack of certain nutrients. Say lack of fibre, or too much saturated fat.

Excepting certain unequivocally harmful ingredients like partially hydrogenated vegetable oils (which could just as easily be added to homemade meat pies in the form of shortening), I don't think the number of ingredients or processing steps will materially affects the nutritional value of a food independent of its nutrient quantities.


I'm not going to engage with someone who didn't read the original article, nor is familiar with the domain. Sorry.


ok, slightly reformatting the above and excluding "2% or less" ingredients for the first approximation we get:

- flour, water, beef, soy, cheese, ketchup, corn syrup, vinegar, salt, onion.

- the rest is "2% or less" which we can ignore for the first order approximation

To my taste it's too much salt and I also don't like sugar in my food, but other than that the ingredients are pretty benign.

It's 250 calories per 100 grams, close to my personal upper limit of "reasonable foods".

If eating one or two of these for breakfast make you feel full and happy until lunch - why not?

(edit: reformatting)


I'm not going to engage with someone who didn't read the original article, nor is familiar with the domain. Sorry.


Was all-caps necessary? Or maybe a link instead?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: