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

Supermarket vegetables now 5-40% lower in nutrients than 50 years ago

time.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 85 posts

Re: Supermarket vegetables now 5-40% lower in nutrients than 50 years ago

#41

Post by bmj »

ars wrote: post #38
bmj wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me, it's far more important to buy locally than it is to buy organic (though it's also easy, at least where I am, to do both). The food industry has caught on to the organic trend and there are now organic factory farms which are only slightly better than non-organic factory farms. And organic guidelines don't prohibit the use of some pesticides. Granted, what they might use isn't as bad, but it is pesticide none…

>For me, it's far more important to buy locally Why? Certain plants grow better in different places. It makes no sense to grow a plant locally if it would grow better elsewhere. It usually costs extra energy to do so as well. If you are not sure which one is better for the environment check the price - the cheaper one is better (pesticides not included).

That's why I do my best to buy produce suited to my locale. Cheap energy has spoiled us--we can eat blueberries in the dead of winter. I'm not sure that's a Good Thing.

If you are not sure which one is better for the environment check the price - the cheaper one is better (pesticides not included).

I'm no sure what you mean? Cheap food is better for the environment? Feedlots, which generate much of the meat you find your supermarket, literally put out tons of pollution.

Re: Supermarket vegetables now 5-40% lower in nutrients than 50 years ago

#42

Post by menloparkbum »

Semiapies wrote: post #39
menloparkbum wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need to live by the border. Just go to a Mexican market and get the glass bottled Coke.

I'm a few hundred miles away myself, but in a border state. How far into the US interior do they ship it?

I've found it in Minnesota and Oregon.

Re: Supermarket vegetables now 5-40% lower in nutrients than 50 years ago

#43

Post by Semiapies »

menloparkbum wrote: post #42
Semiapies wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a few hundred miles away myself, but in a border state. How far into the US interior do they ship it?

I've found it in Minnesota and Oregon.

Hmm. Remember, Canadian Coke also uses sugar. Minnesota is a border state, and Oregon is not that far at all.

Re: Supermarket vegetables now 5-40% lower in nutrients than 50 years ago

#44

Post by jws »

Semiapies wrote: post #39
menloparkbum wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need to live by the border. Just go to a Mexican market and get the glass bottled Coke.

I'm a few hundred miles away myself, but in a border state. How far into the US interior do they ship it?

I can buy glass bottled Mexican coke in Missouri. You don't get much further from a border than that.

Re: Supermarket vegetables now 5-40% lower in nutrients than 50 years ago

#45

Post by Semiapies »

vlad wrote: post #40
Semiapies wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, there are two types of corn syrup - plain old "corn syrup" ala Karo, and high fructose corn syrup, which is a very common sweetener in processed foods. (HFCS is also, for some reason, a bit of a nutritional boogeyman for a lot of people. There's no actual evidence that consuming X calories of it is any worse for people than consuming X calories of sugar or honey, but it's the new "dioxin" in some circles.)

If not, then why do nutritionists, athletes, diabetics, and bodybuilders favor sugar instead of HFCS?

Vlad, that's an un-sourced argument from authority. (And particularly unconvincing authorities, in the case of athletes and body-builders, who have been known to jump on a lot of wild and often harmful nutritional fads.)

Re: Supermarket vegetables now 5-40% lower in nutrients than 50 years ago

#46

Post by rjurney »

nraynaud wrote: post #29

As far as I know, in countries fighting against obesity like ours, and with no real vitamin deficit, it's not really a big problem having lesser energetic food. my 2c.

Its not less energetic, it has more carbs and less vitamins. Possibly. 5-40% is an absurd range.

Re: Supermarket vegetables now 5-40% lower in nutrients than 50 years ago

#47

Post by menloparkbum »

Semiapies wrote: post #43
menloparkbum wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've found it in Minnesota and Oregon.

Hmm. Remember, Canadian Coke also uses sugar. Minnesota is a border state, and Oregon is not that far at all.

Yeah, but I'm talking about the Mexican Coke. It only comes in glass bottles. The regular Coke in MN and Oregon is corn syrup.

This stuff:

http://www.mexgrocer.com/6295.html

Re: Supermarket vegetables now 5-40% lower in nutrients than 50 years ago

#48

Post by Semiapies »

menloparkbum wrote: post #47
Semiapies wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm. Remember, Canadian Coke also uses sugar. Minnesota is a border state, and Oregon is not that far at all.

Yeah, but I'm talking about the Mexican Coke. It only comes in glass bottles. The regular Coke in MN and Oregon is corn syrup. This stuff: http://www.mexgrocer.com/6295.html

Right, but unless they specifically source it from Mexico (as that link seems to for that outlet), it might be Canadian Coke, which also has sugar and which you can also buy in glass bottles.

Re: Supermarket vegetables now 5-40% lower in nutrients than 50 years ago

#49

Post by menloparkbum »

Semiapies wrote: post #48
menloparkbum wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but I'm talking about the Mexican Coke. It only comes in glass bottles. The regular Coke in MN and Oregon is corn syrup. This stuff: http://www.mexgrocer.com/6295.html

Right, but unless they specifically source it from Mexico (as that link seems to for that outlet), it might be Canadian Coke, which also has sugar and which you can also buy in glass bottles.

Oh cool. I think it says made in Mexico on the bottle, though.

Re: Supermarket vegetables now 5-40% lower in nutrients than 50 years ago

#50

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

rjurney wrote: post #4

Its not surprising that 60 years after the green revolution ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution ) that we would have washed trace minerals from the soil of our most productive farmland, which produces most of our vegetables, resulting in them having lower mineral content. Its also not surprising that nitrogen fed fruits and vegetables bred for size and weight would be larger and so contain diluted mineral…

It doesn't take much land to grow a significant amount of food

This is very true!!! Although I live on ten acres, I only have a relatively small garden (about 20x40') and it is still capable of producing much more than my family can consume unless I preserve a lot of it. A single pumpkin seed for example, can result in almost 100 lbs of pumpkins even if you don't take care of them. They just grow like weeds! Tomatoes, potatoes, squash: plant a few seeds and you're up to your neck in veggies in a few months.

And about the strawberry comment: everyone who loves strawberries should do themselves a favor and grow some, even if it's just in a small pot on the windowsill. Home grown strawberries are vastly superior to the ones in the supermarket in every aspect except shipping ability.

Post reply on HN