Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consider it for how processed a specific brand of food is, rather than a general food. Right now most specifications don’t get more specific than organic, free range, grass fed, vegan, all natural, no preservatives, etc. I suspect the problem would lie in data quality more than deriving insights. For example: a sliced apple is technically processed food, but what is it sprayed with?
Usually hydrogen peroxide[0] (when sliced) but if you are referring to what chemicals a farm uses, that would be really, really hard to provide. I believe Chipotle tried to do a farm to store supply chain doc and gave up and went with a distributor. However, they still are trying w/ robotics and other initiatives.[1] At the end of the day, how do you really know what chemicals are used on the farm? The cost of tracki…
Show HN: Intuitive nutrition information
41–42 of 42 posts
Re: Show HN: Intuitive nutrition information
#42Have to comment since I've been listening to Dr. Lustig lately ( https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM?si=6mS-3SKI7R4zOdYT ). The site shows that 1 can of Coca-Cola has fewer calories and less carbs than a medium apple: 90 vs 122 calories, 25 vs 30 gram of carbs. There is no other information, e.g no fiber content or added sugars section. Would this lead someone to believe, against common sense, that Coke is equivalent or eve…
Adding "fiber" in the results (and changing "carbs" to "net carbs") would help. I never understood the motive of highlighting "added sugar" though. Who cares if it's considered "added" or not? I recently was browsing the cranberry juice section at a grocery store, and without going into detail, it was obvious that some brands are gaming the definition of "added". Also, many natural sugar sources have unhealthy levels…