How salad became a major source of food poisoning in the US
vox.com
vox.com
That article mentions 3,000 people per year die from food poisoning, and leafy vegetables are the cause of 1/4 of that, or 750 deaths/year.
However, heart disease alone causes 610,000 deaths per year (https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm). "Individuals who ate more than 5 servings of fruits and vegetables per had roughly a 20 percent lower risk of coronary heart disease" (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you...). 20% of 610,000 = 122,000/year. That the heart disease risk reduction is 162x more significant than the food poisoning risk increase, should be more than enough to outweigh the risk of food poisoning.
However, and less clear, there is also evidence that leafy green vegetables protect against diabetes, cancer, dementia, and Alzheimer's.
It's unfortunate that some are advocating just abandoning chapters of our local cuisine as being no longer viable in our era. I'd rather we more strongly enforce regulations so we can hold onto our salads.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/green_room/...
[1] http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2010/09/recycling-animal-and-...
Some nutrients in some vegetables are diminished by cooking (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1750-3841... for example). Some are also enhanced. For example: lycopene from tomatoes. Overall, it seemed to me that cooking often harms nutrition more than it helps.
I know evolutionary biology isn't as intuitive as people always assume, but theoretically this fits within my model - digestion burns precious calories (at least in a world with too many calories), breaking down the food using fire somewhat allows for the body to spend less calories on breaking it down itself. So our ancestors who used fire to cook had an advantage because they could spend less calories on digestion.
Archaeological evidence suggests that humans can control fire between 700,000 years ago and 120,000 years ago.
There's also a hypothesis that the nutritional changes allowed through cooking increased our brain size - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_fire_by_early_human....
But fundamentally, I wonder if we cook too much. Some compounds are very fragile, and cooking would harm nutrition (as you said). As I said, not my field, but I try to stick to a lot of leafy greens as is recommended by health services, and the occasional cooked proteins.
FTFY.. it's a bad idea to make absolute statements like that
People want to eat more and get less calories, not the other way around.
It's not clear that this is relevant to heart disease. Vitamin C, for example, is degraded by heat, but has no role in preventing heart disease. "Antioxidants" is the smoke signal of the woo practitioner.
>Overall, it seemed to me that cooking often harms nutrition more than it helps.
This is such a common and annoying myth that I need to call it out as such. Humans literally evolved to eat cooked food.
http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/1_142929513.pdf
http://symposium.cshlp.org/content/early/2009/10/19/sqb.2009...
https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/16498
https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/12770
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...
Also, lycopene is not a "nutrient".
In this case, individuals who eat more that 5 servings of fruits and vegetables probably also exhibit a whole host of behaviors that contribute to this outcome. Essentially, they are not a representative sample of the population at large, but rather a sub-group who is "healthful" in a whole bunch of ways.
Building a double-blind clinical trial regarding changing people's diets over their lifetime and observing cardiovascular mortality is very hard.
Some clinical studies do exist, but they are usually looking over shorter terms and at heart disease risk factors rather than mortality. These show similar results:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16368299 - Systolic blood pressure decreased from 144 (SE +/- 1.1) to 134 mm Hg (SE +/- 2, P < .001), and diastolic blood pressure decreased from 87.4 (SE +/- 1.2) to 83.4 mm Hg (SE +/- 1.2, P < .05) from tomato extract.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26328470 - In the subgroup of hypertensives, quercetin (onion skin extract) decreased 24 h systolic BP by -3·6 mmHg (P=0·022) when compared with placebo (mean treatment difference, -3·9 mmHg; P=0·049).
Many of the epidemiological studies also adjust for many of the features that you might look for. For example https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/30/1/130/619054 adjusts for "age, randomized treatment, body mass index (BMI), smoking, alcohol intake, physical activity, history of diabetes, history of hypertension, history of high cholesterol, and use of multivitamins" and comes to the same conclusion.
But it is the only diet research that can actually generate knowledge.
The studies you cite are nice and all, but the first two are for studies that measured outcomes after 6-8 weeks. If you assume an average lifespan of 70 years, the longest study represented ~1/450th of a human lifespan. And, as you mention, they only measure what we think are valid indicators, not actual outcomes! And the third study may control for all of the things you mention, but it doesn't control for the other foods the study participants ate!
Really the only piece of information that you need to know regarding red meat is that public health messaging for the last 50 years has been that people should limit red meat intake. And it was successful. According to this[0], red meat consumption has decreased from 133lbs per person in 1965 to 107lbs per person in 2016. But it is during this exact same time period that the obesity epidemic came into existence. So, perhaps red meat is marginally bad for you, but it is almost certainly not cause of all of the various afflictions that we think are caused in some way by our diets.
[0]: https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/st...
Red meat consumption is on the rise: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-02/have-a-me...
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/livestock-meat-domest...
Scroll down to the Beef pivot table. Increases year over year.
Yes, red meat consumption is on the rise, along with others.
And, given that this same time frame has coincided with the obesity epidemic, it seems hard to make the case that red meat is bad for you. I think the best argument you could make is that red meat is bad for you in a small way, but something else is causing the Really Bad Stuff™. I'm open to changing my mind, but the data has to lead me there.
[0]: https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/januaryfebruary/us...
> The studies you cite are nice and all, but the first two are for studies that measured outcomes after 6-8 weeks. If you assume an average lifespan of 70 years, the longest study represented ~1/450th of a human lifespan. And, as you mention, they only measure what we think are valid indicators, not actual outcomes! And the third study may control for all of the things you mention, but it doesn't control for the other foods the study participants ate!
I fully agree with everything you wrote about the science here.
However, many of the epidemiological studies are over very large populations and time periods, so it's not as though the body of evidence consists of a 6-8 week studies. And honestly the fact that the effects are so strong in such a short period of time strengthen the argument in some ways.
> Really the only piece of information that you need to know regarding red meat is that public health messaging for the last 50 years has been that people should limit red meat intake. And it was successful. According to this, red meat consumption has decreased from 133lbs per person in 1965 to 107lbs per person in 2016. But it is during this exact same time period that the obesity epidemic came into existence. So, perhaps red meat is marginally bad for you, but it is almost certainly not cause of all of the various afflictions that we think are caused in some way by our diets.
Interesting response. I never claimed that meat was bad, only that leafy vegetables were good. I find it almost incredible that your argument against the nutritional value of leafy vegetables is that there aren't enough double blind clinical trials, and then your defense of red meat uses a time correlation that doesn't adjust for any confounding variables at all. It also cites a document from an meat industry group. If you look at USDA numbers (https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-per...), overall meat consumption has been consistently and slowly rising, however beef is being replaced with chicken, so yes red meat consumption is declining.
The studies all tell us nothing about the long term implications of diet. The long study tells us nothing because it is purely correlational. The short studies tell us nothing because they are not measuring the thing we care about (long term health outcomes). You can't somehow generate knowledge by combining two types of studies which each are incapable of generating knowledge about the thing we care about.
> I never claimed that meat was bad, only that leafy vegetables were good.
Yeah, I clearly was hallucinating. Nowhere did you mention red meat. And yet I rambled on about it for a paragraph. :-) Sorry!
But:
> I find it almost incredible that your argument against the nutritional value of leafy vegetables is that there aren't enough double blind clinical trials, and then your defense of red meat uses a time correlation that doesn't adjust for any confounding variables at all.
That's because correlation cannot demonstrate causation, but it can demonstrate the lack of causation. It's all about confounding variables, as you point out. If you have two trend lines which correlate, there can always be a third, unmeasured variable which is actually causing the two measured variables. However, if you have trend lines which do not correlate, then the only way they can be related is by some extremely convoluted chain of causation. Which, I guess, is technically possible, but rapidly approaches 0 probability.
In other words, epidemiology is very useful for narrowing the possibly explanations for some phenomena, and it can suggest places where we should continue focusing our attention, but it can't actually tell us if we've found the right culprit.
Any nonlinear enough process will show with wrong low correlations.
Suppose the process is stepwise - silly sample hypothesis, eating over x grams meat a day is harmful. It is binary. Correlation is meaningless for such a process. You have to use significantly more powerful statistic tools. Logistic regression will somewhat work for such a process for instance if the boundary is somewhat fuzzy. (You can put exact mathematical bound on how fuzzy.)
To extend it for multivariate analysis you get to use such complex tools as nonlinear ICA. (Instead of CCA and PCA for linear.)
Now, it may be that there is a different relationship, like the one that you mention: that eating more than X grams per day is harmful. The data from an observational study can negate this hypothesis (if there is no threshold pattern evident in the data), but it cannot prove the hypothesis. All it can do, at best, is let you know that the hypothesis might be true.
This is very rare and hard to run, so more direct interventional short term studies are used more often.
Suppose a certain country believed an observational study pointing that eating more than certain amount of sugar is harmful (suppose backed by other evidence). They instated hard tax and limit on sugar in foods as an intervention. After some time a big observational study is ran and it is assessed if the intervention brought results.
This is precisely what observational studies (follow up) should do. Not really try to find hypotheses - these need more direct evidence.
Even Karl Popper believed in astronomy.
I guess the difference between astronomy and diet is that, in my conception, at least, the systems studied in astronomy tend to be less complex than the human body and, therefore, they can be modeled relatively easily. My hunch is that this has something to do the human body being a self regulating, though climate systems on earth are probably of a similar level of complexity, yet are not self regulating (or at least, not in the same way).
So, the difference in complexity between a astronomical system and the human body would be akin to the difference in complexity between a program which implements some relatively straightforward business logic vs. one that implements a system which can identify and hunt prey. You can probably prove the correctness of most programs which implement basic business logic, but I'm guessing a system which can identify and hunt prey probably cannot be proven to be formally correct. You would need to test it in the real world by tweaking inputs and measuring how it responds.
To needle you slightly further, though, I'd recommend you consider John Snow's investigation into cholera clusters near certain water sources in London: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1854_Broad_Street_cholera_outb...
What should we make of that?
Ok, more generally...
I'm glad you're giving this some thought, because this line of inquiry (or something like it) really affected the way I think about science and knowledge. It's an incredibly rewarding line to go down, though not entirely free of frustrating dead ends.
If you find this stuff interesting, you might want to poke around a bit in 20th century philosophy. There are some (needlessly lengthy) summaries at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, esp. under "Logical Empiricism." I hesitate to recommend that, though, it's long on history and short on significant arguments and though-provoking examples.
"Two Dogmas of Empiricism" by Quine profoundly affected the way I think about all of this. It's not an easy piece, I had to read it a few times and kept turning it over in my head for months. At first I thought it was nonsense. Then I thought it was just wrong. Then it sort of wormed its way into my head and changed a few core things I believed about knowledge. Or reorganized them. Karl Popper, Rudolf Carnap, and Wittgenstein all had profound contributions here too.
At the end of Quine's paper he says that White basically said everything important on this already in "The Analytic and the Synthetic: An Untenable Dualism." I haven't read that, but maybe it's the accessible version. One could hope.
http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/R...
Obviously it's an imperfect experiment, but it seems like a pragmatic compromise.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...
There are many other short term studies that support this fully. You may not want to believe red meat consumption is indicative of negative health indicators, but most notable cardiologists in the field fully support the position.
Edit: vegetable --> plant, and if I win (we can agree on some defined objective comparisons and scoring offline) I'll even donate the money you'd have repaid back to the charity of my choosing. I'd be glad to make our miminal findings public as well.
Read Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes if you want to do a deep dive on how so many people can be so wrong about something for so long. It will completely undermine your faith in experts along the way.
[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/magazine/16epidemiology-t...
[1]: https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/januaryfebruary/us...
My guess here is that it's because you offered somebody a 6-12 month physical challenge on a discussion thread about nutrition. Unless you're willing to engage in a 6-12 month comprehensive study of messageboard thread challenges, which we will cofinance (but in the end, if we find that these types of challenges are generally accepted as arguments, I'll compensate you for your half of the research budget, and vice-versa), you must concede that that's a silly thing to wonder about...
You should read it. Seriously. It’s way more important than anything else on HN right now. I promise.
In fact, the study he proposed to test his hypothesis failed: https://community.fitbit.com/t5/Manage-Weight/NuSI-study-bac...
That's not to say Taubes has not written a lot of good and important things, but it is an example of someone who is in so deep that they are missing the forest for the trees. Carbs are obviously not the devil, it's just that the overabundance of cheap, processed carbs have made the diseases of abundance commonplace.
Do you have a link to your before/after panels? I'd be curious to see this, and also be interested in your before/after diet.
You don’t avoid concern about increasing food borne pathogens in lettuce because of heart disease. The issue is the economic and regulatory environment that is making contaminated lettuce a thing.
If it’s like E. coli problems in meat, the primary contributor is poor production, handling and packaging process.
Your general point is reasonable enough, but this arithmetic per se is not really supportable. (a) There is no breakdown there of the number of people who ate > 5 vs. < 3 servings of vegetables (either among the general population or among heart disease sufferers), and (b) the risk number is about developing heart disease at all, not deaths (without even mentioning (c) these are cohort studies showing correlations, not proving causal relationships).
It is possible that e.g. serious heart-disease cases likely to cause death result from causes unrelated to vegetable consumption, while many non-vegetable-eaters develop minor heart disease cases which they would not have if they had eaten vegetables, but which still do not result in death.
Likewise, it is likely that of the 610,000 deaths, many (most?) of them were of people eating > 3 servings of vegetables per day.
But there's a lot of ambient food poisoning that can be prevented by washing lettuce, especially in reducing cross-contamination (the lettuce wasn't contaminated, then got exposed during the cooking prep process, etc.)
And there's a whole thing to say about frigerator hygiene - they are not sterile just because of lower temperatures, while they are hard to clean unless turned off, because water won't dry, whereas they are hard to turn off, when they are always filled. I'm being pedantic, I know.
It's mixed type greens, mustards, lettuce etc. Cut when leaves are about the size of the business part of a spoon. Cut it so it comes back and you can get 3 or 4 cuttings per planting. Plant it successively (i.e every week or two plant another section) so it's constantly available.
Faster to harvest, more sustained harvest, and it tastes better than lettuce because you can put little greens like collards and arugula in the mix. Indoors you'd avoid the insect troubles that plague these tiny greens outside as well.
Hydroponics are not just great for food, they are awesome for people suffering from lack of light exposure in winter months. When I lived in Canada, I used to put a 4 foot long plant stand with fluorescent daylight bulbs along each wall of my apartment. I can't remember how long I had the light timer set for (probably 14 hours). It's incredible the difference. These days you can get creative with various LED solutions and probably do even better.
The safety heuristics cant be delegated to a larger system as one doesn't exists so individual households maintain this knowledge and many of them turn into habitual preference.
FWIW I've seen the same behaviors you described in most developing economies where people don't seem to trust the larger system. I don't know if the end result is any better - food borne illnesses are still quite common despite these 'heuristics' (as you aptly named them), but there might be far more causes than just unclean veggies.
Additionaly it seems like only textbook are Americans using paper towels to open bathroom doors after washing their hands. My mom instilled that at a young age (I'm 36 now). Now it irritates me to see a Dyson hand dryer, and have to open the bathroom door by pulling it.
The one time I couldn't manage to get my boots off, I just sort of awkwardly slept with my legs hanging over the edge of the bed.
For example, if such things were a worry then I'd be more concerned over my dog's bare paws while outside and his nonchalant attitude of not wiping them as he comes inside.
It's even worse in the cinema, where there's a lot more people using it and only those dyson things. Plus not everyone washes their hands. Some only sorta wave their thumb and index finger under a bit of water.
Also, I believe that was a joke.
Have you read the article? It’s absolutely true, and the article cites many reasons why (hint, the fact that we cook meat is one of them).
Also, to deal with this, some farms have movable portable bathrooms on wheels that hover over the produce or in between and follow the group, I am sure they leak.
Poor living and working conditions for migrant farmworkers is a contributing factor to outbreaks like this. Workers who are present illegally or are otherwise marginalized and taken advantage of, even if they are part of legal guest-worker programs, suffer conditions where poor housing facilities or the need to work under great time pressures leads to inadequate sanitation.
A 2017 story [0] illustrates this:
>Kristina Espinoza, a labor department investigator who recently visited the farm, described a "makeshift labor camp" that was "dangerous" and "unsanitary," according to court documents. [...] Gonzalez had workers shower in nine stalls inside a cargo container; there was no functional sewage system, so wastewater accumulated underneath the container, Espinoza said. The electrical cord used to light the facility was exposed to standing water, posing a risk of electrocution, according to court documents. The workers shared one toilet in the trailer and had access to port-a-potties.
[0] http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-farmworker-abuse-20170...
This confirms what I had always been suspicious of. Those prepackaged veggies sitting in plastic bags are just a few degrees of temperature away from being perfect bacterial breeding grounds. Don't ever buy that crap.
Just because it's already chopped and in a bag doesn't mean it suddenly doesn't need rinsing.
If I recall, not rinsing pre-chopped lettuce was one of the things pointed out to Chipotle after their recent debacle, that may have helped avoid making customers sick.
I had always thought that constant high pressure water usage would flush whatever crap is in a pipe. Preventing any real contamination. Well...a quick google search shows that biofilm on residential water pipes is a huge problem. High pressure activity does not eliminate biofilm...of course stagnant water is more of an issue...
"Slow sand filters work through the formation of a gelatinous layer (or biofilm) called the hypogeal layer or Schmutzdecke in the top few millimetres of the fine sand layer."
Treating all bacteria as the enemy is really solving the wrong problem — the question is not how to kill all the bacteria (which is impossible, from almost thermodynamic considerations (if there is free energy and the ability for life colonize it, then there will be life)), but how to manage the bacteria so we favor nonpathogenic or useful species and help them outcompete the 'bad' bacteria.
Incidentally, this is the same strategy our own bodies use—the immune system spends enormous amounts of effort discriminating between commensal/mutual and pathogenic species, and favoring the former as much trying to outright kill the latter.
We need to pick the right analogies. How to herd, tame, and recruit allies, not just how to fight and kill.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_sand_filter#Method_of_ope...
You generally don't cook romaine lettuce prior to making a salad.
Any cooking method that would kill ecoli will also destroy those helpful bacteria.
Factory farms in the US wash their vegetables with chlorinated water.
Learn about the gut micro-biome. The main reason salad is good for you it's effect on gut.
We eat to feed the gut, not ourselves. To imply that prebiotics/probiotics aren't the main reason vegetables have a positive health effect on us is beyond ignorant. That's the reason why diabetes, cancer and heart disease is now worse than all the wars of history combined.
So just take a bunch of probiotics with your steak n shake, and call it good?
And, you meant to say salad that hasn't ever been washed in chlorinated water is good for you.
Are you taking the piss?
"And, you meant to say salad that hasn't ever been washed in chlorinated water is good for you."
You're the one putting words into my mouth. I never said that because I don't believe that. Salad that's fresh from a traditional farm using healthy soil, practices and cultivar is good for you.
If you're satisfied with nutritionally bankrupt, sterile food, fine. Good for you.
https://traditionalcookingschool.com/food-preparation/recipe...
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1&q=chlorine+... (google search)
Of course, it is intended to mislead. People see "triple washed", the bag is sealed, they think they are getting convenience and safety, but they are not.
That doesn't sound like something I need to wash before I eat it.
It's not even clear that "washing" (i.e. rinsing) would wash of a significant growth of harmful bacteria.
Some pathogens can't be washed off. Others can if you scrub, but not if you rinse.
If you buy the whole head, pathogens can hide in the core. And if you buy pre-cut bagged salad, how can you wash that?
What if you drench the salad in vinegar before eating it, will that kill E. coli O157:H7?
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/011406710037678...
Skip down to the section on "Internalization of bacteria into deeper plant tissues"
Not sure what you mean? Why can't you wash it?
Do you wash each piece individually? Or dump it into a bowl of water and swirl it around??
And then your salad is a soggy soup!
(Essentially, the same way one would wash fruit such as blueberries or strawberries, though I usually use the box those come in since they already have holes.)
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/26/dining/26curi.htmlCarry on as you are? You're more likely to get hit by a bus than catch E. Coli from a salad.
A silly comparison, but it does raise the concern that even those that watch what they eat and try to be healthy can't escape the widespread bacterial problems in food in modern industrial food processing.
[0] https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2011/12/16/organic-101-what-...
Is there any way to regulate marketing terms so that hippy-dippy ad-men don't seize upon words that have meaning and then proceed to dilute that meaning with steaming loads of nonsense?
I'd be happy enough if a label said "this has never touched poop".
It's why petro-chemical fertilizers, or the crops grown with them are in-organic, but passing corn grown with petro-chemical fertilizers through the digestive system of a cow magically makes said fertilizer organic.
There's a bunch of stuff that we "tested for centuries" and thought were safe... until they weren't. see: lead, smoking, asbestos, cured meats.
Some people want to eat the same way people ate for millennia. Good for them. It's one of the benefits of living in a free market society. People have mistakenly thought a lot of things to be safe or dangerous, but if something has been working for thousands of years, even imperfectly, it carries a guarantee nobody else can provide.
Finally I don't understand why people are so angry at organic produce. I rarely buy it too, but what's the big deal? It sounds like they need to prove something. I don't get it.
my point is that the guarantee is a very weak one, and one based on tradition rather than facts. something being used for thousands of years merely means it doesn't cause harm in small enough timescales so that people can associate it with the effects. see: smoking, which is dangerously poisonous, but the effects are on such long timescales that its negative effects are dissociated from it.
>Finally I don't understand why people are so angry at organic produce. I rarely buy it too, but what's the big deal? It sounds like they need to prove something. I don't get it.
I guess the anger is directed to both the people that are gullible enough to buy it and continue to perpetuate the myth that it's somehow better, and the companies pushing organic produce (by exploiting said ignorance, and perpetuating said ignorance as a way to sell high margin produce)
This is incredibly wrong. The guarantee is based 100% on facts. This is literally the only thing it's based on. No assumptions about mechanisms and correlations. Just facts.
You then proceed to explain how if something can bypass this method of testing it's only causing mild, low-level symptoms on large timescales. This is a much better guarantee than a paper published on nature. For me at least, because this is an opinion. You're free to be wrong, just as I am. Time shows who's gullible and who's not.
You're throwing around the word "fact" a little too liberally. "people did x for thousands of years" is a fact, but it's not a guarantee of safety. "x is safe because people used it for thousands of years" is a guarantee of safety based on your opinion, but it's not a fact.
>You then proceed to explain how if something can bypass this method of testing it's only causing mild, low-level symptoms on large timescales. This is a much better guarantee than a paper published on nature.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you accepting that harmful substances that cause mild, low-level symptoms can "fly under the radar" of "the test of time"? Or are you saying that the fact something is used for a long time is automatically a better proof of safety to you than a study published in nature?
I don't really follow you here. You mean that the guarantee is about safety? I mean back then our life expectancy was lower. The fact that humanity survived with old methods doesn't mean what we did was safe(r) in general. It just means that enough people survived so that humanity didn't die off as a whole. That is a very weak guarantee.
>JMPR’s risk assessment found out that based on the weight-of-evidence approach these compounds are unlikely to cause cancer in people via dietary exposure.
I'd imagine many people are coming at it as something like "not produced or processed via industrial processes." And irradiation would probably be considered an industrial process.
This is why I hate big-food. They use any and all opportunities to mislead about what truly is going on.
Similarly, someone might not know what canola is - they may know it by the name rape. And some people avoid it - maybe the package should say "Warning! Rape oil."
Certainly that's additional truthful information, but it's also more misleading, not less.
Sinilarly, because the average person (maybe including yourself, judging by your complaint) does not know how nuclear physics works, a clearer statement on packaging would actually cause more people to believe incorrect things.
I never quite got to like lettuce. I don't know why people like it. It just doesn't have much taste, its leaves are too big, so have to shove them in awkwardly.
I'd rather have a salad with chopped ripe tomatoes, onions / chives, cucumbers, cabbage, etc. Even with those, I often wonder if people don't eat more veggies because American veggies from grocery store taste like plastic. So eating them is a chore, because well, it's "healthy" but not because they taste good.
I just spent winter away from my usual SF bay area haunts and have had to shop at a grocery store more along the lines of a Safeway with a small selection of overpriced corporate organics on a little island in the produce department. This stuff is maybe slightly better than the conventional produce sold alongside it, it's pretty awful, and really helps me appreciate why most of the public doesn't seem to see any difference with organic vs. conventional outside of the price.
It really is an exceptional privilege to have access to quality organic produce in the USA.
Just in the last couple of years I have noticed the same with lettuce that I have been gifted from a neighbor's garden. I think I missed my window for planting it this year but plan to next year.
Sorry not sorry.
(Annie's makes it but it's almost impossible to find in stores, so here's the recipe if you're a fan of umami flavors: https://recipes.sparkpeople.com/recipe-detail.asp?recipe=698... )
[1] https://www.medicaldaily.com/e-coli-contamination-found-7-sp...
Add a simple vinaigrette to that, and tell me when to show up for dinner.
You are absolutely correct in your assessment of vegetable quality. Everything is bred for transportability, appearance, and shelf life, then flavor and nutrition go out the window.
It's exactly the same story as the Red Delicious apple. They were bred to be very red, not at all sour, and to not bruise too easily. So they look good, but taste like garbage.
I have noticed the same devolution in watermelons. You used to be able to get huge, arm-filling watermelons, juicy and sweet, but shot through with big black seeds. Now at the supermarket they're all seedless, nearly flavorless, and small.
Same with strawberries. They used to be small, but intensely flavored, and ranging from very sweet to slightly sour. Now you can find them as big as your clenched fist, but then bite into one, and it just tastes like dirty water.
I don't buy food to look at it. It seems like the greatest minds of the last agricultural generation have all been wasted on making foods look like they'll taste good, and look like they're worth the money, but then become a total disappointment to your tongue.
My parents used to have a small garden growing up and we grew tomatoes once in a while. It was pain, because they needed a lot of watering, but they had an intense delicious flavor. I'd just go and eat them one after another right off the vine. Here in US it's hard to find that flavor. Some of the little green and yellow mixed tomatoes kind of have flavor, they are call heirloom tomatoes, I usually buy those.
> They used to be small, but intensely flavored, and ranging from very sweet to slightly sour.
The most delicious strawberries I have ever had, were wild strawberries. They were very smaller, about the size of a raspberry or smaller and would find them the woods in Eastern Europe when we went to pick mushrooms.
That recipe seems to be for disappointment.
If the only way to redeem an otherwise boring and useless chunk of iceberg lettuce is to put better foods on top of it, like steak, why not just throw out the lettuce and eat the other foods instead?
Can you suggest any use for iceberg lettuce that I can test at home that would not be vastly improved by either leaving the iceberg out, or substituting Romaine, Bibb, or leaf lettuce in its place?
Green cabbage is the lowest vegetable on the hierarchy that I'll actually eat by itself. Though even with that, I sometimes put a red cabbage leaf on top of it.
> Instead of shipping heads of lettuce or large carrot sticks that people wash, we chop them and mix them up in processing, then package them in plastic bags. In that process, Marler said, “The bacteria has a chance to grow. And a lot of people get sick.”
So it's not just the lettuce heads that get contaminated, it's how they are processed. This is reminiscent of the issues with large meat packing plants.
I've often wondered what effect that processing has on lettuce. Personally I prefer to buy a head and clean it myself because it tends to last a lot longer than a bag that's usually full of consendate and mashed onto the shelves by store employees, bruising half the contents...
I buy the whole mushrooms for that reason and simply because they're cheaper.
Yeah the difference is the head of lettuce is alive and the chopped stuff is dead. Better is it's been 'washed' AKA inoculated with whatever bacteria is living in the wash water.
Application of volcanic tuff rock dust.
Should I stop buying pre-washed? Should I buy local?
I like my salads, how do I get it safely on my plate?
And while the C.D.C. recommends washing all produce with water, including heads of lettuce, it does not recommend washing other forms of bagged lettuce, which has already been washed before bagging. “Your chances of contaminating it in your kitchen” — with contaminants that may already be on your kitchen countertop, hands or elsewhere — “are actually higher than if you didn’t wash the salad greens,” notes Dr. Gieraltowski.
source: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/19/well/eat/romaine-lettuce-...
Well then carry on as you are...
Okay, so which green counts? All I eat are spinach, kale, arugula, bok choy and the likes. The article seems really lacking in details.
Are they saying that once the e.coli is trapped it can start spreading inside the lettuce?
Here in an European country I can buy pre-washed salad like sliced sugarloaf or lettuce. I toss this directly on my plate and chow away. It's more expensive, but it's convenient and probably safe. I trust the shop to sell me good quality.
I suspect the reason is simple - we distrust shellfish preparation, and take extra care.
With salads ... I mean yesterday I tipped a bag of salad into a bowl, stuck some dressing on an ate it.
Either salad bag makers are going to go the extra mile with "Washed in frozen nitrogen by astronauts for your safety" or the industry is dead.