Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How we're scammed into eating phony food

nypost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 475 posts

Re: How we're scammed into eating phony food

#141

Post by Rexxar »

mac01021 wrote: post #121
Dutchie wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's not just protectionism. If I buy Bleu d'Auvergne (it's a French cheese) in the Netherlands, I want to be sure I get the real deal, as a consumer.

But what if someone outside France is able to produce equivalent cheese using the same formula? Why do you care where it's from?

The same reason you cannot use someone else trademark even if you use the same formula. Origin guarantees are just collective trademarks for small producers.

Moreover quality of the product is not always the only reason to buy a product (see fair trade, organic product, religious belief ...)

Re: How we're scammed into eating phony food

#142

Post by spiderfarmer »

eru wrote: post #79
Qantourisc wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could also come from greenhouses, where they are typically grown on something that resembles cotton balls and nutrients, no ground involved. When I see tomatoes grown like that, I always think of them as tomatoes on life support. Also there are different tomatoes species, I could certainly see one using faster and more water-holding tomatoes.

I quite liked the Dutch tomatoes that we got in Germany. I understand they are grown in greenhouses?

You're not the only one: http://www.hortidaily.com/article/20364/Germany-Only-Dutch-t...

Re: How we're scammed into eating phony food

#143

Post by spc476 »

vacri wrote: post #73

The article conflates the problem of "the physical item is a bait-and-switch" with the problem of "same thing made the same way, just not in the geographical location with the name". If the only thing that differentiates two food items is the name of the location in which one was made, then that's just pure food wank.

Not always. An onion marketed as a Vidalia onion can only come from Vidalia, Georgia (and a few counties around it [1]). Vidalia onions are different because of the soil used to grow them; they are sweeter and milder than normal onions (and if you take seedling Vidalia onion plants elsewhere, you'll end up with regular onions).

Now, does this make Vidalia onions a different food from onions? I don't know.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vidalia_onion#Legislation

Re: How we're scammed into eating phony food

#144

Post by Dutchie »

mac01021 wrote: post #121
Dutchie wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's not just protectionism. If I buy Bleu d'Auvergne (it's a French cheese) in the Netherlands, I want to be sure I get the real deal, as a consumer.

But what if someone outside France is able to produce equivalent cheese using the same formula? Why do you care where it's from?

In this particular case, as with the Champagne example, the name of the product indicates its origin. Bleu d'Auvergne means "Blue from Auvergne" (a region in France), where blue is short for "blue cheese".

If someone outside of France (Auvergne, more specifically) can concoct a product with similar quality, let them label and market it under their own name.

If you fork an open source project, wouldn't it be convenient to come up with a new name for your project?

Re: How we're scammed into eating phony food

#145

Post by sampo »

joshu wrote: post #18

Has anyone ever sent anything to a lab to be examined? How would I get started For the escolar example, would we need to do genetic testing or is there something cheaper?

> would we need to do genetic testing or is there something cheaper?

I would assume that DNA sequencing services are pretty cheap nowadays. You would need to understand basic genetics to be able to request them to sequence sites that suit your needs, and then you would need to interpret the results yourself when you get the data.

23andme does a pretty comprehensive profile for $199, and to figure out the species of a fish, much less sequencing would be needed.

Re: How we're scammed into eating phony food

#146

Post by internaut »

lsc wrote: post #65
internaut wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes it really could be a conspiracy. http://imgur.com/W7AcUDV Medieval peasants ate 4000 - 5000 calories per day. As late as the 40s, it was recommended that people eat 3000 calories per day and many men ate 4000 calories per day. Now it is recommended we eat 2250 calories per day. Neither of the first two groups are known for being fat. Actually the opposite. They look amazing in photos, all of them. This is d…

>I'm not confident that is the case. It sounds wrong to me because although I accept that our grandparents were far more physically active than we are it is known that exercise burns calories at a low rate. Exercise has always been a bad way to lose weight. It has always been easier to lose weight by eating less. You could skip the gym for two days by neglecting to eat half a mars bar. I don't want to call you out fo…

> I don't want to call you out for exaggerating, but you are approaching exaggeration by orders of magnitude. A mars bar is under 300 calories.

I was making a general point. It is easier to stop eating than to lose weight by exercise. Much easier. Also mars bars have been undergoing food inflation. It's another sinister conspiracy we can actually prove is real. They used to be about 1/3 bigger. The world around you seems a little darker now doesn't it.

> For me? a 6', 210lb man? bicycling for one hour at 14-16MPH is gonna burn well north of 900 kcals.

I should warn you that those machine counters are kind of optimistic. The human body is really good at holding onto calories. We walk and run very efficiently, I think we may even be the most efficient at long distance running in the animal kingdom.

I'm not trying to stop you running or cycling around. I approve of it. It is very good for your health even if it doesn't lose many calories. I think there is also a multiplier affect indirectly coming from exercise in that it elevates mood and this makes you less likely to binge on food. It is however probably not the calories you burned per se that are causing you to lose weight, not unless you're the 1% that actually exercise seriously and continually.

Maybe this is subjective. I don't consider 500 calories a lot of food, but to me it's a significant amount of running. A mouthful of food vs half an hour on a treadmill.

> I'd bet money that the increased caloric intake of our ancestors is entirely explained by their increased physical activity.

I'm not denying our ancestors were very much more physically active than we are. Probably that accounts for at least half the results despite us also eating half or less of the calories we used to.

I think there could be confounding factors. Like a slightly warmer world would presumably mean the inhabitants burn less calories on an ongoing basis. Less obvious factors could invisibly add 50 or 100 calories per day and that would add up over time.

By the way I am not fat! This isn't an attempt to avoid guilt :)

Re: How we're scammed into eating phony food

#147

Post by alxv »

Hockenbrizzle wrote: post #109

Can anybody comment on how well food is regulated in Canada? Since moving from the US to the EU I've definitely noticed a difference in food quality. I'll soon be moving to Quebec so I would be interested to hear if Canada is more like the US or EU in this respect.

During the winter, most fresh vegetables in Canada are imported from Mexico and the US. These are mostly breed for shelf life and usually bland. In the summer, local fruit and vegetable can be quite tasty if you know where to shop. The public markets of Montreal are very good (http://www.marchespublics-mtl.com/). You can also subscribe to get weekly organic baskets from local farms during the harvest season (http://www.paniersbio.org/en/).

Re: How we're scammed into eating phony food

#148

Post by enricosada »

mac01021 wrote: post #121
Dutchie wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's not just protectionism. If I buy Bleu d'Auvergne (it's a French cheese) in the Netherlands, I want to be sure I get the real deal, as a consumer.

But what if someone outside France is able to produce equivalent cheese using the same formula? Why do you care where it's from?

Food is not like building a car in a factory. It's not a formula like chemistry.

The milk matter, cereal matter, where cow live matter. The whole supply chain. it's really difficult/impossibile to replicate that.

You can have something similar, but call it with the generic name.

In Italy you can get really good food everywhere. But i can assure you, you can feel the difference between location. For that we get DOC, DOP to certify location, tradition, etc.

Post reply on HN