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

Quinoa should be taking over the world. This is why it isn’t

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 186 posts

Re: Quinoa should be taking over the world. This is why it isn’t

#31

Post by wf »

rosser wrote: post #4

A particular concern with quinoa, given its narrow (native) growing area, and the poverty endemic to that area, is that worldwide demand for the crop has out-priced its growers' and their communities' ability to afford it in order to feed themselves . A select few brands set aside some of each harvest specifically for that purpose (and also put some of their profits back into improving the farms, sending the farmers'…

This is debatable.[1] After hearing about this through NPR I initially thought that it was terrible; however, after doing more reading it seems to be unclear what kind of effect this is actually having on their economy.[2]

[1] http://marcfbellemare.com/wordpress/2013/01/quinoa-nonsense-...

[2] http://ain-bolivia.org/2011/05/bolivian-quinoa-questions-pro...

Re: Quinoa should be taking over the world. This is why it isn’t

#32

Post by lukasb »

YokoZar wrote: post #6
rosser wrote: post #4

A particular concern with quinoa, given its narrow (native) growing area, and the poverty endemic to that area, is that worldwide demand for the crop has out-priced its growers' and their communities' ability to afford it in order to feed themselves . A select few brands set aside some of each harvest specifically for that purpose (and also put some of their profits back into improving the farms, sending the farmers'…

Why is this a problem? If quinoa sprouted literal diamonds we wouldn't be upset that the farmers were selling them instead of making their own jewelry. Having your crops be too valuable to eat is a good problem to have; these farmers incomes have more than sextupled. That easily lets them sell the crop and buy other food like everyone else.

I remember seeing a headline in Thailand "rise in rice prices hits small farmers hard". I've seen similar things in Kenya: "high maize prices devastate small farmers."

It turns out many subsistence farmers (of which there are roughly a billion) are net consumers of their staple crop. In order to survive, the poor diversify across a variety of agricultural products. Large industrial farming operations are growing the rest of the rice/maize ... and I'm guessing quinoa.

So, if the same pattern holds here, farmers consume more quinoa than they sell, and suffer when prices go up.

Re: Quinoa should be taking over the world. This is why it isn’t

#33

Post by oftenwrong »

pqqqqq wrote: post #26
ableal wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I deleted my post because someone else posted at the same time a reasonable explanation - a rice substitute ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6029358 ). Thanks for adding information. My original text: "The arid, cool land that quinoa needs was plentiful, since little else could grow there. And thus far, that trait has made it difficult to grow elsewhere." (posted link) "Protein content is very high for a…

It contains a good amount of all of the essential amino acids (ie the amino acids that your body cannot produce adequately itself). It also has calcium and iron. It's a pretty awesome nutritional food. EDIT: to emphasize, the key advantage of quinoa is that it has a lot of all of the essential amino acids, which is very very rare among plants. I believe the only other plant with all essential amino acids is soy.

There are other plants that provide the "complete" protein profile. For example, hemp seeds do.

Re: Quinoa should be taking over the world. This is why it isn’t

#34

Post by johnchristopher »

aaronblohowiak wrote: post #10
YokoZar wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this a problem? If quinoa sprouted literal diamonds we wouldn't be upset that the farmers were selling them instead of making their own jewelry. Having your crops be too valuable to eat is a good problem to have; these farmers incomes have more than sextupled. That easily lets them sell the crop and buy other food like everyone else.

>That easily lets them sell the crop and buy other food like everyone else. [citation needed].

I am pretty sure this is parent's conclusion of his logical argument.*

So the citation you are looking for is the bunch of sentences before the one you quote.

* which sounds a little bit like an open question "am I wrong ?" type.

Re: Quinoa should be taking over the world. This is why it isn’t

#35

Post by switch007 »

A quick search revealed that quinoa is between £4.50 and £8 a kilo in the UK and brown rice is £1-£4 (depending on quality).

To the rice you could just add some bran (£2/kilo, but you don't need much) and another, cheap source of protein to make it similar to quinoa's nutirtional values.

Re: Quinoa should be taking over the world. This is why it isn’t

#36

Post by iopq »

mc32 wrote: post #8
jsnk wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlike vegetable and fruits, how quinoa looks probably doesn't matter to consumers at all. Given this is the case, selection criteria will focus more on nutrition numbers which they can advertise easily (20g OF PROTEIN!!!) than looks.

How does that explain white rice vs. brown rice preferences, or glutinous rice vs longgrain, etc. People have preferences for some characteristics in something which would seem to be very ordinary. Maybe quinoa is different, but who knows, at this point. Maybe it's like oats. Oats are oats are oats, for most people, I think (except for the cutting vs rolling process)

brown rice tastes bad and has anti-nutrients that block absorption of B vitamins and minerals like magnesium

Re: Quinoa should be taking over the world. This is why it isn’t

#37

Post by [deleted] »

jsnk wrote: post #3
klipt wrote: post #2

> Quinoa is a plant that produces a tremendous amount of seed. So you have potential, with intensive selection, to identify variants that have unusual characteristics. Will it still be as nutritious after all that selection though? There was an article pointing out that when farmers select for bigger, shinier, more marketable fruit, it's often at the cost of actual nutritional value: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26…

Unlike vegetable and fruits, how quinoa looks probably doesn't matter to consumers at all. Given this is the case, selection criteria will focus more on nutrition numbers which they can advertise easily (20g OF PROTEIN!!!) than looks.

[deleted]

Re: Quinoa should be taking over the world. This is why it isn’t

#39

Post by twstws »

jsnk wrote: post #14
mc32 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that explain white rice vs. brown rice preferences, or glutinous rice vs longgrain, etc. People have preferences for some characteristics in something which would seem to be very ordinary. Maybe quinoa is different, but who knows, at this point. Maybe it's like oats. Oats are oats are oats, for most people, I think (except for the cutting vs rolling process)

I am not attempting to explain why every kind of food is selected for certain criteria for whatever reason. I am not also saying that you either select to for looks or nutrition. It's a matter of degree and compromise between different criteria. For quinoa particularly, I think it happens to be a type of food that largely guides people's preference based on nutrition rather than looks.

I expect quinoa will be selected for environmental tolerance first. Given how difficult it is to grow in th US, top priority would be getting consistent high yield in North American conditions. Breeding has to meet the farmer's needs before you start considering the consumer.
Post reply on HN