The Awful Reign of the Red Delicious (2014)
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
Something I like about home canning my own applesauce is bug-leg-free applesauce is commercially unavailable in stores, its safe to eat buggy applesauce but pretty gross once you have a source of bug-leg-free applesauce. Also if you follow the USDA/BallBook you can't vary lemon content for food safety reasons but you can vary cinnamon and its an eternal experiment to try different ratios. Also there are USDA approved low/no sugar applesauce recipes but in the store you can only buy corn syrup or artificial sweetener applesauce.
Anyway to make a long story short, store applesauce is gross, few hobbies are as delicious as home canning applesauce, and I've had "OK" results with red delicious in applesauce form. Its not pure red evil or whatever as the article claims.
Next story, lets debate Concord grapes, vs Flame seedless, in raw and home canned jelly form.
However, stores near here do carry a no sugar added bottle of applesauce. That's all we ever buy, and I can't imagine why they would even consider adding sugar/corn syrup. I like making it at home because I can play with the tartness a little more by adding in some grannies, and I like to leave in the skin for the added nutrients.
Small correction, but that study (and I believe there was only one) indicated that fructose metabolism produced less satiation than glucose, not that it actually prevents it. If you add fructose to a food and eat it, you'll still be more full than if you hadn't added fructose, just less full than if you had added glucose.
I think the reasoning was more like this: "Focus groups show that kids like their applesauce sweeter. What's a cheap sugar?"
I gave up buying products using refined sugar entirely for an extended period, and baked all my own bread, oatcakes, biscuits etc. Food which I previously found unpalatable without adding sugar or syrup, I could now eat and find perfectly tasty. When I cook porridge in the morning, water and a touch of salt are all it needs. I think it recalibrated my taste significantly--if I now try to eat even a biscuit from a supermarket, all I can taste is the excessive amount of salt in it. Likewise anything with refined sugar--it's too much, and it tastes disgusting. I think with industrially-produced food, we've become so used to the excessive amount of salt and sugar, that it has become normal to expect it even when it's unnecessary and things taste bland when they aren't included--even though it's perfectly fine. You're likely right it sells better. But it's like the music "loudness war" but with ingredients; the end result isn't that enjoyable or good for you even though it seems superficially better.
One example of this is the use of salt or spices on fruit. The generic US palette considers the sweetness of fruit to be its purpose, but many cultures will spice, salt, or cook the same fruits the way vegetables are prepared in the US.
You can call it biohacking if you want, but it is no more so than when your mom made you dinner.
>The more salt you eat, the thirstier you get. Right? Wrong, according to two studies released today in The Journal of Clinical Investigation. The research found that as salt consumption increased, people actually drank less water. And the high-salt diets seemed to make study subjects hungrier, too.
Just about any commercial fruit processing is going to need a plan for standardizing brix. That usually will involve some form of sugar. In theory you could have very stringent requirements of your suppliers, but that will get expensive, and even if brix is good, you may need to deal with abnormal acidity in a batch.
If you are grocery shopping at the dollar store or walmart, perhaps your mileage varies...
We do not add any spices or sugar, but do so to taste if you wish.
I know the stuff is not good for me from a carb and alcohol standpoint but making it myself is an inherent limiter to consumption and if I'm going to eat junk food its going to be fantastic amazing junk food.
Pork chops taste good. Homemade canned brandied apples as a side dish to pork chops is delicious.
For raw grapes, there's no debate, thick-skinned grapes are amazing.
I don't understand what you're saying here ... there are many, many national brands of applesauce that consist of just a single ingredient - apples. Santa Cruz is one, as is Cadia, as is the Whole Foods "365" brand ...
I've heard of Whole Foods (aka Whole Paycheck) and was motivated to pull the stats. Some google work indicates Whole Foods gross sales revenue last year was $15B vs the US supermarket chain stores gross sales of $649B. Of course this doesn't count "superstore" concepts like walmarts and targets (and probably others) selling food, nor online or delivery groceries, independents, organic stores, etc etc. So "much more" than 98% of applesauce is not sold at Whole Foods. Assuming that all applesauce sold at whole paycheck is unsweetened, etc. Assuming goods distribution is similar, from my own experience at whole paycheck most people are buying specialty goods like alcohol, meat, produce not bulk processed goods although they do stock them.
Honey Crisp Apples are the best tasting apples I have ever eaten but they cost almost triple the price. Pink Ladies are also phenomenal. My 6 and 10 year old like them better then candy.
If they're shipping Pink Ladies from New Zealand, and there's an efficient market, can't we imply that it's a better allocation of resources to get Pink Ladies from New Zealand? I mean, they're probably cheaper _even though_ they're getting shipped halfway across the world. What the market is saying is that: the highly skilled population of Germany is probably better off doing more advanced things than growing apples.
It could also be a quality concern about doing stuff like picking food super raw and waiting for it to ripen in transit, which seems less than ideal.
But your point about the efficient market is certainly valid FWIW.
We are depleting oil reserves at about 5 million times the rate they formed.[1] Corollary: oil price reflects an off-books depletion factor of roughly 5 million-fold. The price is vastly too low.
Our fossil fuel consumption translated to present total biomass production (NPP, or the "photosynthetic ceiling"), is a very substantial fraction of all plant growth, I believe about 40%. We currently account for 20% of NPP consumption without utilising biomass as fuel.[1]
The history of why extractive natural resources are costed on a labour-required basis only (and some very questionable economic and legal theories support this) is an interesting accident of history, religion, law, geology, business, oil, and more. I've been digging into that, though have further to go. The short answer is that we'd started using the stuff long before we understood its creation, and by the time we understood we pretended not to care.[2]
The history of oil price response to overextraction in particular is mesmerising, with the booms at Titusville, Spindletop, and East Texas especially. The latter saw price per barrel fall from a $1 target, to $0.13, and then further to $0.02/bbl, before the national (and effectively global) production quota system managed by, of all organisations, the Texas Railroad Commission, was established in 1931. That lasted until 1972, after which you may be aware oil's price fluctuated somewhat.[3]
Similar issues exist for other strategic minerals, as first grasped during WWII, leading to the creation of the Harbord List, now the U.S. Strategic Mineral Reserve.[4]
(Oil is also subject to strategic reserves. You may be aware of an incident involving the U.S. Naval Strategic Petroleum Reserve a few years back, the Teapot Dome scandal of the Harding administration.[5])
Until the early 20th century, only direct labour was considered as a cost of production.[6]
________________________________
Notes:
1. https://dge.carnegiescience.edu/DGE/Dukes/Dukes_ClimChange1.... See also https://redd.it/2cvap7 and https://redd.it/1x9maq
2. Partial expansion here https://redd.it/5w1zw3 and here https://redd.it/5rnjg0 In particular, the religion and Young Earth Creationist associations are fascinating.
3 Daniel Yergin, The Prize, chapter 13 generally, though also the history of monopolies and cartels: Standard Oil, As-Is Agreement, Seven Sisters, National Producers, OPEC. http://www.worldcat.org/title/prize-the-epic-quest-for-oil-m...
For oil price, BP's Annual Statistical Review. See:
http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/4defd684cadcbbe55e0...
Current report: http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/stati...
4. E.g., http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article33647.html
5. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teapot_Dome_scandal
6. Alexander Hamilton Church, Production factors in cost accounting and works management, 1910, p. 9.
https://archive.org/stream/productionfactor00churrich#page/8...
It's important to know that when considering the factor of 5 million you toss out there.
Natural gas as feedstock to the Haber-Bosch process and coking coal in steel production, for reducing ore, are both much more formidable. They account for a large fraction the consumption of both (15% in the case of coal), and substitutes are difficult.
The story of where Earth's crustal iron comes from, when, and how, particularly as banded iron formations, is another interesting story.
The cost is what's required to create it.
The price is what it exchanges for.
These are three independent attributes.
Generally, though, sustainability comes when cost <= price < value.
https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/48rd02/cost_va...
The horrors of oil being all used up and energy cheaper than ever.
I asked you to complete the information required to back up the claim and you rejoined with some aside about how there were multiple ways to interpret one of the words in my question.
My framing is sloppy (because I only talk about the future value of oil rather than the cost of obtaining the equivalent), but I think the point survives it, because the value of oil would drop to the cost of obtaining the equivalent.
I'm not sure if you're aggreeing with me, disagreeing with me, or purple the unicorn umbrella ran ran syzzygy!!!
If you've got a specific question or point you'd like to make, please make it or ask it.
But to clarify, my statements above are made in all earnestness and as my best-faith effort to model and understand the world I see.
You?
https://www.c2es.org/technology/factsheet/FreightTransportat...
Ocean transport is roughly 20x more fuel efficient per tonne-kilometer as overland trucking.
Rail is the new element, it's essentially dry ships, though aabout half the efficience of marine transit.
For example, the Newtown Pippin: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/05/dining/it-s-crunch-time-fo...
Different apples need different climates. That cultivar originated in Australia. It needs a long hot growing season.
edit: if you can downvote, you can answer the question. I did my fair share of hard thinking about this, I come prepared, so until anyone has anything, this stands, and you'll either have to step up or live with that.
* Why Honeycrisp apples are so expensive - YouTube || https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4eQX2vZ_Zg
* The Story Behind Honeycrisps, America's First Brand-Name Apple || http://www.esquire.com/food-drink/food/a20018/honeycrisp-pri...
And look, hope for better apples on the horizon!
* Washington Apple Growers Sink Their Teeth Into The New Cosmic Crisp : The Salt : NPR || http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/05/03/525421226/was...
- They're not hardy (trees need support, apples are thin skinned, and they ripen at different times)
- A university holds a patent on the tree (only $1 per tree, tho)
A Pink Lady apple is actually a Cripps Pink, grown and picked in accordance with certain quality standards. Anyone can sell a Cripps Pink, but only licensees of Brandt's Fruit Trees Inc can sell a Pink Lady.
Anecdotally, UMN has one of the best agriculture research programs in the world, and it's entirely based around figuring out how to grow really anything when first frost is early September (Minnesota).
Personally, I like thicker skins but only on Jazz apples, which are tart and sweet. Red delicious are inferior in that the thick skin indeed covers an undesirable mouthful of mush.
Their availability might depend on location, though. I only see them in Toronto for 2-3 months every year.
With the realization that I just hated Red Delicious apples, I tried a few other varieties. I really like Fuji apples too.
When a new variety is on sale, sometimes, I like to buy a bag and try them out.
One day, Royal Gala started showing up and I basically just ate those exclusively until this new wave of "designer Apples"
Here is Western Massachusetts you can get Cortland, Macoun, Empire, Mutsu, Spy, Spencer, Ida Reds, Paula Reds, Jersey Mac, Gravenstein, Redfree, Gingergold, Suncrisp, Rom Beauty, Jonagold and (probably) hundreds of other varieties. Some might be better for baking or cider but hey, maybe you'll like them to eat in-hand.
Life is too short to eat crappy apples.
I think it would be one thing to be a snob to the extent of "I'll only eat this one cultivar from New Guinea which costs $30 apiece and must be ripened individually under a swan's left wing", but it's another to say "I only care for a few types of apple, and also screw the Red Delicious".
Of course, I've never had the original one, but the heritage Red Delicious apples from multiple small orchards within a certain radius of where it was developed all taste totally unlike the ones in large groceries elsewhere in the US.
The ones from Iowa you would probably recognize as Red Delicious if you were told that, and if you were not told their identity you probably wouldn't. They're much smaller, rounder, more variegated in color, and have a much more complex flavor. Many people would probably guess McIntosh, but probably would say they have no idea.
My experiences have left me with the strong impression that some kind of subsequent genetic drift/inadvertent selection occurred, or that there's such a dominant set of horticulture protocols with the apple that the original characteristics of the apple have been washed out.
New apple strains are, as far as I know, not really bred for. They're found in the wild.
I may be wrong, but I'm pretty confident that an apple that isn't a strict clone of red delicious can't be marketed as a red delicious. It's also possible that growing conditions now have changed enough to alter the fruit, but I'm not positive that it would be a large enough difference to notice.
I understand that the rhetoric of privilege isn't intended as personal attack, or at least that that's not its ostensible intent. I wish more people who favored it understood that, however intended, personal attack is the way it comes across, and that makes it unhelpful - indeed, actively harmful, if the purpose is to promote sympathy, among those not so predisposed, for those philosophies in whose service the rhetoric is invariably deployed.
I'm not saying, "your life was privileged, and you suck." I'm saying, "your situation of having fresh-off-the-tree apples was an unusual privilege." Am I wrong, or do you just object to the one word, and want me to know a bunch of other things about how you lived too?
It's not that complicated or controversial a point, or at least I wouldn't have thought so - that, when attempting to communicate, the intent with which you speak is irrelevant to the effect your words produce in your interlocutor. Unless your intent is actually to piss people off - and I see no reason to suspect that it is - then using a rhetorical structure which consistently produces that effect is counterproductive. If your intent is to inspire sympathy for the contention that there's something "elite" about having access to fresh apples, regardless of any surrounding circumstance, then using a rhetorical structure which consistently antagonizes people, and thus is much more likely to depress the tendency to sympathy among the already unconvinced than to inspire it, is counterproductive as well. And arguing that those whom you so anger and antagonize, are in the wrong to feel so, only compounds the error.
It's not that I fail to understand the concept - I expect I should do, considering I deployed it often enough myself back in my doctrinaire-progressive youth. And it's not that I fail to grasp that your intent is not to give insult - even if my own experience could not inform me on the other side of the question, mere charity would require I not so presume.
The problem I have is, quite simply, that the rhetoric you are using, in any case save when talking to someone who already agrees with you in every meaningful particular, does not work. Outside that very specific internecine context, the only thing it achieves is to make people angry, and that helps nothing and nobody as far as I can see.
If, in fact, "privilege" does in fact trigger this massive anger you say it does, then I totally agree that its use is counterproductive. I just don't see it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2017/03/23...
I can't really claim with confidence that the book makes a point I'd be entirely happy with, because I'm only just about to start reading it myself. But this review, and what I'm seeing on its Amazon page, suggest that it's quite close at least to the point I'm trying to make, and so I recommend it sight unseen.
If you don't feel like making the purchase directly, email me at the address in my profile, and I'll gift you a copy in whichever format you prefer. In any case, I'll be interested to hear what you think of it.
The word implies an actor. Privilege is, by definition, caused. A benefit of privilege by definition originates in a system of structural inequality, one more or less deliberately designed to benefit some, but not others, based on some criterion such as sex, skin color, sexual preference, or the like - and that's not a possibly tendentious definition of my own invention, but rather the one applied by the proponents of the concept, all the way back to McIntosh's formalization in the late 80s that began the modern popularization of "privilege" in the first place.
A further implication, also original but more clearly elucidated by Maltz Bovy, is that to do other than abandon or at least forswear the benefit of privilege, and work to dismantle the structural inequality that furnishes it, is iniquitous. To say that someone is or has been privileged therefore cannot but at minimum verge upon an accusation that that person lacks virtue. That, I think, is at base what provokes anger in response - and not unreasonably so, because it does constitute an attack on the quality of one's character. Even when leveled at someone who is progressive and does accept the theory of privilege without question, such an attack tends to elicit a defensive response. How much more so, then, from someone who is not, and does not?
And "privilege" remains so freighted, regardless of intent. It's especially pernicious, therefore, to conflate privilege with simple good fortune, which is fundamentally distinct in that good fortune isn't caused. It's just a thing that happens, and happens to work out well for someone. That's what we're talking about here. No system of structural inequality put those trees next to that hovel. You cannot reasonably posit a deliberately unequal allocation of benefit to have brought about that result. The very idea is risible at best, outright nonsense at worst. And, in stating nonetheless that that must be the case, you level the sort of opprobrious allegation I describe above.
It is not reasonable, nor is it acceptable in any conversational context where civility and charity are meant to hold sway, to offer one's interlocutor insult, then become incensed when said interlocutor responds as though insulted. Cet animal est très méchant: Quand on l'attaque, il se défend. Voltaire's sarcasm remains a sarcasm, whether you mean it so or otherwise.
The politics of privilege basically says that unless you have had the worst life that it is possible to have, you have to yield to anyone that had anything worse off than you. Since the word "elitism" is what brought all that into the conversation, perhaps it was a poor choice.
While at previous times in history, it might have been a mark of elite privilege to not have to pick your own fresh produce, that is no longer the case. Now, having fruit trees and a garden in your backyard means you are lucky enough to have direct control over a portion of your food supply, and can therefore choose to grow food with flavor and nutrition, rather than superior shelf life, visual appeal, and transportability--which are the characteristics that the grocery store will choose for you.
The apples that grew in my (rented) backyard as a kid were sour, with a woody texture, and were usually covered in wasps or ants. But they certainly did taste better than store-bought Red Delicious. The ants added a lemony flavor. I never thought to try the wasps.
I would think the elitism is insisting that the only way to truly judge them is straight off the tree (after a spell of opportunistic weather).
Having a tree is pretty hard where I live now but pretty normal back in the Midwest.
We can't remain at the point where our problems with coping with emotions restrict our intellectual movements. This isn't asking anyone to run 50000 miles, or go a week without sleep or a year without food, it's just saying "this thing you think is good is actually kind of shit, and if you knew this actually good thing that would be immediately obvious to you, please don't die now". And while most people (including me) can't have a tree, everybody but the very poorest could save up some money to buy just one "real" apple to at least confirm this. Or maybe buy two, and give one to a poor person, just so they know how bad the apples they sometimes eat are. And then the question is "what does this mean, how can this be improved", etc., and not "how do I live with this blow to my ego". Please, don't take this as me being upset at your comment at all, it triggered me, you could say. I read Fahrenheit 451 recently and since then every HN discussion has aspects that remind me of it.
If people didn't personally identify so much with what they know and do etc., there wouldn't even be any hurt feelings to overcome, but I'm not even going there. Let's assume it's real offensive to be corrected or put down a peg: yes, and, so, what? That should motivate us to head off others at the pass, and to smoothly inspect their lessons and take them on board without blinking should they have merit, to become good at it, instead of attempting to ban it.
> internet folks trashing the preferences of 99 percent of the population
vs. article:
> His words contain the paradox of the Red Delicious: alluring yet undesirable, the most produced and arguably the least popular apple in the United States. It lurks in desolation. Bumped around the bottom of lunch bags as schoolchildren rummage for chips or shrink-wrapped Rice Krispies treats.
Maybe it's a bit rich coming from me after going on such tangents, but still, it takes some mental gymnastics to turn complaints about "ramming [these apples] down the throats of American consumers" into "being a snob for thinking lowly of people for liking these apples so much". No, everybody would be able to tell the huge difference, but as you said, most people don't get the chance. That's the problem, not the solution.
I've had Red Delicious both directly off the tree and reasonably fresh from the farm, and they are, in either of those cases, generally far better than from the supermarket, true.
Even so, they aren't now as good as I remember them—even from the supermarket—from 30-35 years ago (they seem to be on average a lot more mealy now), and, even back then they were a middling variety for eating without preparation, and not particularly outstanding for any preparation I can think of.
I liked Red Delicious back in the early 80s, but I noticed by the late 80s that they were becoming less flavorful, and tougher skinned. Now, the crunch and the visual is about all the red delicious has going for it.
I haven't seen Jonagold mentioned, but it's another one I like (though it doesn't store particularly well).
Granny smith have more fiber: https://olumialife.com/knowledge/are-granny-smith-apples-the... Red delicious (particularly the dark red) have more antioxidants, although Granny smith is also high: http://www.healthextremist.com/comparing-apples-apples-antio.... Most of the antioxidants are in the skin, hence peeling / juicing tends to reduce them. But of course the antioxidants are also the bitter taste. Golden Delicious and a lot of others are high in sugar and not much else, closer to candy in terms of food group: https://furthermore.equinox.com/articles/2013/10/apples
Overall I just buy the cheap apples; the differences aren't significant except to a connoisseur (easily adjusted for with supplements), and I prefer to spend my money on startups.
The health impacts of antioxidants are also not well established.
I guess there is a pretty good argument for not eating lots of a sweet variety (but 1 a day is meh).
It's becoming clear Chinese and American consumer behavior concerning food are vastly different from one another, and globalization has not eliminated all of those differences. Food is still one of America's biggest exports, so there may be a lot of undiscovered opportunities here for smart entrepreneurs in the food manufacturing industry to take advantage of these differences.
Politicians can create and trade restrictions and tax breaks, but they can't wave a magic wand and move consumer markets around more to their liking. The presence or absence of a market is what decides the viability of a business. Either the market's there or it's not.
I agree that red delicious are terrible eating apples but most of the newer varieties seem to be a bit on the sweet side for my liking. Braeburn has the perfect balance of tart and sweet while being consistently crisp.
What they are not is a good storage apple, which is why their status as our primary commodity apple is strange.
(I think of them as consistently and impressively mealy)
Fuji, gala, and red delicious seem to be the most common. Honeycrisp and pink lady are often available.
Cox's Orange Pippin is surely the ideal eating apple. A wonderful, complex flavour without being too sweet or too tart and it has an almost non-existent core. The seeds seem to just rattle around in there.
If you'll ever visit ex-USSR in late summer or early autumn ask for "byeliy naliv" apples (meaning something like "white shine"). They are green to white in color (more white as they are more ripe) and not very hard when ripe.
Same thing with mangoes you find in the store.
As production has increased I have noticed an uptick in mealy Ambrosias, but they can usually be identified by a slight softness.
They are certainly poorly suited for actual eating.
Fujis have a good taste/price ratio, making them my default value option. Honeycrisps are great, but currently rather expensive. Hopefully that price can come down as more Red Delicious orchards are demolished and replaced.
The most bizarre part of the article is where it says people buy Red Delicious and just throw them away. While that would be insane for private residences, the Red Delicious is somewhat of a symbolic icon for "fruit". If you manage a convenience store, truck stop, or hotel breakfast nook, you can buy one Red Delicious and keep it around for a few months, secure in the knowledge that no one will be foolish enough to eat it. And the whole time it is not being eaten, you can advertise that you offer "fresh fruit".
Just look at your fruit at home. All that stuff gets eaten and replaced. If you go out on the road, the standard fruit basket becomes Red Delicious apples, small, hard oranges, and bananas--literally the three cheapest fruits you can buy in any grocery store. And the apples might as well be wooden apples, painted red, because when the bananas and oranges go, they remain.
I recently found a tree of unknown variety next to a Forest Service road in the mountains near me. I'm sure someone thew an apple core out the window many years ago. I had several people try them and all kinds of names were thrown out, but none of use could nail down what it was. Whatever it is, it is good!
I buy honeycrisps by the peck for eating, and I've tried cooking with mutsus, detroit reds, and september wonders, and few others, but jonathans and jonagolds have proven themselves staple worthy in my kitchen.
Reading these comments, though, does make me want to try Pink Ladies.
One man's red delicious is another man's ambrosia (apple, my favorite variety)
Whatever. Red Delicious, Gala, even Mackintosh (remember them? usually for pie)... they're all good. Red Delicious is unfashionable, plain and simple. I find them great, when fresh. They get mealy/mushy when they've been sitting around too long.
I have thought “red delicious” were terrible since grade school, when they used to hand them out as snacks, and I promise you that 6-year-old me was not trying to signal anything.
No "k" in Macintosh, but this is a weird statement to me. Macs are very popular in Canada and virtually every grocery store that I've been in carries them (in Ontario anyways). They can be really excellent fresh off the tree but are generally a fair to middling apple in my opinion.
This nonsense where every expression of opinion or preference is labeled as "signaling" has got to stop.