It's more profitable to have a fast growing fat red tomato than a slow growing nutritious slightly ugly tomato.
this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2024
59 points (98.4% liked)
Science
12999 readers
72 users here now
Subscribe to see new publications and popular science coverage of current research on your homepage
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
And, playing the devil's advocate, if you die in your early 60s due to long-term sustained malnutrition that is better for the economy than if you live until you are 80.
They got to do everything they can to prevent them from having to pay back those social security loans they took out and never paid back.
Didn't those SS trust fudn loans were already converted into national debt?
Cure of you to assume boomers ain't gonna go get that money lol
Here is the problem with crop quality:
- Most of the purchase decision is what is observable at the store.
- Does it look good.
- What is the price.
- How is the smell, texture, weight...
- Some happens at home, and you might remember for next time.
- How does it taste.
- How long does it last.
- Does it make you feel satisfied.
- It is basically impossible to know how good food was for you.
- You eat a lot of food and the response is delayed.
- Even if you have a response you probably don't properly understand your body.
- In the end most of the "health" of food is just your believes and marketing.
So there is basically no business pressure to have crops be nutritious.
the communist in me yearns to blame capitalism for everything, and its sort of their fault but not directly, the actual reason that nutritional content is going down is because plants are growing faster and bigger while taking a similar amount of nutrients because there is more co2 in the air, its not really about business pressures or anything to do with specific decisions being made by corporations or farmers and the difference is irrelevant anyways (for now).
But it does boil down to business pressures. The business prefers more and bigger produce to more nutritional produce.
Is that a bad thing? Maybe not. Maybe you can just eat more to get your nutrition since higher yield should reduce cost.
But the point still stands that there is very little business pressure to make a nutritious product.
In my ideal world, the population would be sufficiently educated about nutrition in fruit and vegetables that picture-perfect tomatoes that are picked unripe so that they survive long distance hauling would simply never sell.
Even then how you you know? I don't think anyone can reliably look at a vegetable and tell you how nutritious it is. I don't think it is reasonable to have the general population being experts in evaluating vegetables.
I think what could work here is mandated labeling. This is required for most foods but generally not produce. I think there are some reasonable reasons for this, but for farms producing huge volumes it seems that occasional testing that gets reported at the store would make sense.
Are you sure it's not mostly a matter of soil depletion and synthetic fertilizers giving only what's necessary to grow fast?
not as far as i know i could be mistaken, im no biologist of botanists but i did some research a while ago cuz its interesting and more co2 seems to be the agreed upon cause, plants in greenhouses with more co2 also have this "problem".
Communism is notorious for causing famines and issue these regikes had into 1990s
yes in the west anyways, in reality capitalism is responsible for far more famines and far more severs ones and the people who are not subjected to 24/7 anti communist propaganda know it, but yes in the west people have that erroneous association.
British starved bengalis... Go on...
and the Irish. do u really need me to list a bunch of famines? surely even u are capable of using google to find this Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines and then only look at the ones that happened under capitalism.
USSR was founded in 1917 and based on my rough count it looks like majority of the famines in time period were conducted by communists regimes.
This seems like a what aboutism. I am not going to disagree that capitalist regimes didn't cause famines for funsies like like commies did but recent time frame comparisons show communist did do it more frequently.
Especially once you account for the fact that have been very few comminist regimes, and they all of that that came to lower via a "revolution" ie brute force used famine as tactic to pacify the peasants.
Yeah, higher yield and no change in the nutrient level will mean a decreasing concentration of nutrients.
Honestly some plants grow so fast they simply do not have time to extract the nutrients from the soil and fertilizer that they used to.
How does this impact taste?
Many vegetables today are either sweeter than their predecessors or less flavorful or both.
Corn, for instance, grows so fast under modern fertilizers that the internal cells split during the growth process.
Their stalks are weaker but their yield has more than doubled since the 80s.
If you want to learn more about that, I can highly recommend the book The omnivore's dilemma. It's fascinating how modern agriculture is so completely divorced from what most people think it is.
Noted! Thanks!