Hacker News Reader

Comment by jinushaun | Hacker News Reader

I know this article is trying to "scare me with science," but it actually makes me proud that science allows for orange juice year round. Fresh is always better than not fresh, but this is something we as a society should be proud of, not ashamed.

View on HN

If it wasn't for labeling requirements this process wouldn't even exist. It normally wouldn't make sense to extract liquid from oranges, store it for a year, and then re-combine it with flavor and texture to create a beverage. But unless the liquid and all those byproducts actually come directly from oranges you can't call it "100% pure orange juice".

You could produce the exact same chemical result without this process a lot safer and cheaper but then you couldn't call it pure orange juice not from concentrate.

I don't know if fresh is always better. It is better at some things. I like freshly squeezed oranges at home but there have been several cases around the world where unpasteurised fresh orange juice has been the cause of salmonella infection.

Sometimes we trade taste and nutrition for convenience, safety, consistency and year round availability. I like freshly squeezed oranges off my orange tree but they don't grow all year round. I am mostly happy not to consume oranges out of season but that isn't really a basis for a sustainable industry and beverage companies have sensibly created a market for year round, consistent tasting juice products.

> I like freshly squeezed oranges off my orange tree but they don't grow all year round. I am mostly happy not to consume oranges out of season but that isn't really a basis for a sustainable industry...

Actually I'd call that the definition of a basis for a sustainable industry...

Yeah there's common sense in accepting that some produce is only available some of the time. There's plenty of decent fruit even in winter; I don't need strawberries right now.

There wouldn't be plenty of decent fruit in winter where I'm from without a massive transportation infrastructure.

The article is not about "scaring you with science". It's about accuracy and honesty in labelling.

Don't label something "natural" or "100% fresh juice" if it's not.

"juice is dangerous. It’s far too easy to consume"

This is the sub-text of the article, so I think you're being a little naive. Working backwards from the conclusion, there is no difference between various type of juice.

To some extent that's right, but it's also riddled with unsourced assertions and pseudoscience. It's not really a good source.

The point you make is a more complex one than you seem to be implying. What does it mean for something to be "natural"? Is pasteurisation natural? What about homogenisation? Packaging?

Where I'm from (idk about elsewhere) pasteurized and homogenized milk is labelled as such. It is not something companies try to hide from consumers and it is not something consumers try to avoid.

That's how I think it should work. Honest labeling, and letting consumers decide.

The only controversial aspect of "honesty in labeling" is that it would enable and empower FUD campaigns from the "scaring you with science" crowd. Saying that these issues are separate is like a coal salesperson saying "my product is about energy, not polluting the environment." Maybe you wish that were the case, but that does not make it so.

I don't want genetic engineering and industrial preservation techniques to go the way of nuclear energy -- discarded for an alternative that comparatively damages our health, damages our wallets, and damages the environment simply because the otherwise superior option has a higher coefficient of sensationality.

So you would you advocate the so-called Noble Lie? [1]

The problem to me with such an approach (even given that the end is in fact alturistic and beneficial) is: who gets to decide which lies get to be told, and who decides what is beneficial? Beneficial to whom? the whole society? some subset of society?

Do we allow all lies in advertising? Or just ones you or some elite (perhaps scientists or technocrats) determine are for the benefit of society?

Personally, I'd rather have the truth be told, and hold advertisers to a higher standard.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie

And who gets to define what is a lie and what isn't? Where you see a lie, I see a truth that causes misdirection when vitalists trip over their own logical shortcomings.

Let's get one thing straight: you're the one who wants to extend the current definition of "lie" to include this particular brand of misdirection and then censor that misdirection. You're the one who wants to "hold advertisers to a higher standard" in the name of benefiting society. I'm the one advocating the comparatively hands-off approach of continuing to restrict censorship to literally false statements. Those hard questions you asked about who should get to make arbitrary decisions are the ones you have to answer for your argument to be convincing.

Well if a lie is a misdirection of truth then you've just agreed with the GP.

> but it actually makes me proud that science allows for orange juice year round.

I am not proud of regulatory environment that allows them to not have to list those ingridients on package and instead do what they do and still claim "Fresh", "Natural", "Not from Concentrate" (i.e. pasteurized) etc.

When that "fresh" OJ has a fraction of the nutritional benefits of the real thing, is it even the same thing?

EDIT: https://www.google.com/search?q=nutritional+value+of+jurice+... (Change Juice type to Orange

The claim that deoxygenated orange juice has a fraction of the nutritional benefits of hand-squeezed juice is an assertion that needs to be backed up with evidence, not blindly assumed.

I charge you with the opposite task- prove industrial orange juice is healthier than juice squeezed from an orange.

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

Aee ere ire l'acca fan fuggire

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

Sorry. What game are we playing here?

Ab abusu ad usum non valet consequentia :)

Colloquial translation for those of you playing along at home:

The burden of proof lies with he who affirms not he who denies, since by the nature of things, he who denies cannot produce any proof.

(This is the classic statement of the presumption of innocence, and also one of the core principles in the dawn of Enlightenment era science, where it was adapted into our modern understanding of scientific skepticism.)

>That which is said in Latin seems deep.

Just because something is abused does not mean that a proper usage of the same is also wrong.

We're also attempting to communicate solely through well known quotations, which poses its own set of unique constraints.

I never realized Google do this themselves.

https://www.google.com/search?q=nutritional+value+of+jurice+... (change Juice type to Orange)

So we can see right off the bat the compared to Juice, oranges per unit volume have 12 times more dietary fiber, more vitamin A & C, almost 4 times more calcium.

That wasn't hard to find.

Fiber is not a nutrient; fiber is any part of a food which cannot be digested. It's no surprise that oranges have more pulp than orange juice.

As for micronutrients like vitamins, all of them can be destroyed by heat. All forms of cooking reduce the amount of vitamins in the food, and pasteurization is no exception. The trade-off is generally worth it, however, as it takes a fair amount of work to avoid enough foods that you end up with a deficiency, and the health benefits of killing the bacteria are so great.

Also, fruit juice has a lot of sugar in it; you don't want it to be too large a part of your diet anyway.

That is the difference between eating a whole orange versus just drinking the juice. But what Niten asked was whether there is any difference between drinking freshly squeezed juice versus drinking pasteurized+stored juice. Can you find any sources discussing that question?

That's a comparison between whole oranges and orange juice, not a comparison between fresh orange juice and deoxygenated orange juice.

Do you have evidence for that? I prefer freshly squeezed juice because it tastes better, but processing like this allows for cheap juice to be available in large quantities year-round, which also has value.

> which also has value.

No it (i.e. orange juice) doesn't have meaningful value. It's like soda minus the bubbles.

Edit:

8oz of Coca-Cola contains 26g sugar: http://www.coca-colaproductfacts.com/en/coca-cola-products/c...

8oz of Tropicana orange juice contains 22g sugar: http://www.tropicana.com/products/tropicana_pure_premium/no_...

If you're concerned about your Vitamin C intake, try a multi-vitamin.

The same can be said for most juices, regardless of how recently they have been squeezed.

While I usually suggest drinking something that isn't full of sugar, I'm glad science and engineering has found ways to store juice for long periods without spoiling. These techniques can probably be used in other ares. Advances in science and technology often have wider benefits, often unexpected.

The only potential problem I see with the orange juice situation is labeling. More accurate labeling requirements keep markets honest, and the claim of being "freshly squeezed" factually wrong given any reasonable definition of "fresh".

Quite right, which is why I never drink juice, and suggest you don't either.

Or you drink juice mixed with a lot of water.

Often even the Schorle sold in stores has too much juice, average seems to be at 60%[1], I prefer more like 30%. In the recent years, 5% to 10% Schorle has become increasingly popular.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apfelschorle

I like how juice tastes when mixed with carbonated water, apple as well as orange. I usually just drink the carbonated water itself, though.

An interesting type of (approximately) zero sugar drink is mixing bitters with {,cabonated} water. In particular, a dash or two of Peychaud's Bitters in soda water is almost like a floral (gentian) "kool aid"-style drink without the excessive sweetness.

Forgive my inexperience with alcohol (I have never drunk it and I am not from the States), but bitters as defined here [1] seem to be alcoholic -- therefore a bad choice for anything but after hours, leisure drinking, right?

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitters#Cocktail_bitters

You only use a few drops. It's like vanilla extract - you use so little of it that the EtOH is insignificant.

"Value" doesn't necessarily mean "nutritional value". If it tastes good, it is valuable.

It all depends on your reason for drinking OJ in the first place. Maybe you, grecy, drink OJ primarily for the nutritional value of it. But i'll bet pounds to pennies that the average person drinks it primarily, and maybe only, because they enjoy the taste. And because the human body needs and craves fluids, of course.

It's not like HN readers invented the concept of eating healthy. Many people drink orange juice because they want something sweet but perceive orange juice as healthier than soda. This perception is false, but it's one of the biggest drivers of the juice industry.

There's not much nutritional benefit to actual fresh squeezed juice either. Current recommendations are don't bother, but restrict yourself to a small glass if you do, and only count 1 glass as one of your five a day, and more glasses don't count.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com