Hacker News Reader

Great comment! I like your attitude and thanks for the links. BTW we have tried your suggestion (growing our own) and after several attempts we're giving up: self-grown veggies have almost the same lack of taste as the manufactured ones from a supermarket: I suspect that's because the seeds themselves have been genetically ruined. Same with farmers markets: their vegetables are not only tasteless, but they're also ugly and more expensive.

We've asked my parents in Russia to send me their seeds of tomatoes and cucumbers but they won't grow here due to climate/soil differences. So we're stuck with "plastic" ones from the store. Many 1st gen. immigrants I know, particularly from southern Europe, share my disdain for American agricultural products. Strawberries are my favorite example: they're 2-3 times bigger than normal, have different texture and are completely devoid of taste. They're basically enlarged 3D prints of strawberries made of eatable synthetic substance. And don't get me started on various deserts with "strawberry" flavors: if the periodic elements table had a smell, that would be it - a US-made strawberry milk shake.

You're not stuck! You just need heirloom seeds, and tons of compost and you can raise great tasting vegetables. Personally, I get my seeds from http://www.harrisseeds.com (no affiliation) but if you google, you can find many heirloom seed providers - just make sure to talk to them before you buy to make sure they will grow ok in your climate zone - heirlooms are less tolerant of climate ranges than the modern breeds.

As to the strawberries - you're not stuck there either! While personally I can't imagine anyone not preferring gigantor strawberries, to each his own. There is a different breed of species in Europe, you can get them here, they will grow here. I don't remember the exact species/breed, but an heirloom seed supplier will know. You can see the different species on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragaria

> I suspect that's because the seeds themselves have been genetically ruined. Same with farmers markets: their vegetables are not only tasteless, but they're also ugly and more expensive.

WTF? Here in California (both nor and so) all our home grown veggies and farmers markets and CSA's produce excellent veggies and fruits.

The stuff you buy at mainstream supermarket is all plastic though.

The issue here is that typical vegetables in your average supermarket have lower nutritional value than they did a generation ago, even though almost everything else in this society is getting better. A related issue is that processed foods are essentially a combination of corn, soybeans & sugar. Bottom line: people are eating worse food, but they are choosing to do so, not being forced.

Growing your own vegetables is labor intensive. Although it can be emotionally rewarding, specialization is more rational economically. Better to just go down to the Trader Joes / Whole Foods / Local Organic Farmers Market and part with a bit of coin to pick up some of the good stuff there.

* people are eating worse food, but they are choosing to do so, not being forced. *

Really? Try finding a Coke with real sugar, and try getting a week worth of food without any corn syrup in them. My understanding is that the corn industry is basically forcing their products down our throats by lobbying the hell out of Washington.

Try finding a Coke with real sugar, and try getting a week worth of food without any corn syrup in them.

This is easy enough. Red Bull makes a cola with real sugar (expensive, but pretty tasty).

It's easy to avoid corn syrup when you don't buy processed foods. Go to your local organic market, and you'll find a whole store that contains no corn syrup what so ever. (A little bird told me that you can cook your own food, and if you don't want to add corn syrup, you don't have to.)

Anyway, corn syrup is really cheap, so that's why it is in really cheap food. Most people think of food and think "more", not "more nutrition", so that's why it's popular. But fortunately, there are plenty of (mainstream) places that will sell you better food, so there is no reason to complain.

Every story I read mentions that real sugar is cheaper to produce, but corn syrup comes from corn which is subsidized by taxpayers.

Secondly, it is likely that much of real food (as you call it) would be cheaper than it is now, if it were not considered a premium product.

Third, HFCS, more than corn, is the problem. It is put in many products, even hot dogs. Avoiding products with HFCS might be a good strategy to get in shape simply because a person may have to go out of their way to find healthy food they can afford. But a biological reason is that the human body is not designed for processing fructose.

> "But a biological reason is that the human body is not designed for processing fructose."

Actually that's false, it's perfectly designed for processing fructose. HFCS wouldn't be a problem if you didn't process the fructose but it still tasted sweet. The problem is we're biologically designed so that fructose doesn't trigger the same processes as regular sugar.

The reason for this? Well primates formed a symbiosis with trees, they gave us fruits with lots of energy in the form of fructose, and in turn we killed the species that threatened our trees.

The most interesting thing I learnt was on the whole question if humans would have evolved if dinosaurs had been around, and the answer was yes. It's yes, because we didn't evolve by chance, we evolved because the trees 'chose' us to. The response to large herbivores that strip-feed was primates, because we protected large areas of land and specifically the trees we fed from. The prime example of this is that when fig trees are ripening, it can be dangerous for camera crews because a 150lb chimp is likely more dangerous than a 150lb man.

So essentially the key problem with HFCS is that we're designed not to respond to fructose. We simply store all that sugar as fat, which again is the problem all humans face. Society is trying to fight biology, and it sure as hell isn't an easy battle.

I don't think the problem is the HFCS itself. If you used sugar in place of HFCS in all of those products, it wouldn't be any better for you. Simply, too much sugar of any kind isn't good for you.

There's pretty solid evidence that fructose is particularly damaging if you get it in large quantities without much fiber. Eating fruits is fine, but HFCS is dangerous.

"A high flux of fructose to the liver, the main organ capable of metabolizing this simple carbohydrate, perturbs glucose metabolism and glucose uptake pathways, and leads to a significantly enhanced rate of de novo lipogenesis and triglyceride (TG) synthesis, driven by the high flux of glycerol and acyl portions of TG molecules from fructose catabolism. These metabolic disturbances appear to underlie the induction of insulin resistance commonly observed with high fructose feeding in both humans and animal models. Fructose-induced insulin resistant states are commonly characterized by a profound metabolic dyslipidemia, which appears to result from hepatic and intestinal overproduction of atherogenic lipoprotein particles. Thus, emerging evidence from recent epidemiological and biochemical studies clearly suggests that the high dietary intake of fructose has rapidly become an important causative factor in the development of the metabolic syndrome."

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/2/1/5

You can also find sugared Coke if you live near the Mexican or Canadian borders in the US. Or if you look for the bottles of Coke sold around Passover. [Correcting my earlier misnomer - Coke with corn syrup is perfectly "kosher", just not appropriate for Passover.]

(I don't actually like either type. Weirdly, I only like the taste of Diet Coke, and not even Coke Zero.)

The holiday is Passover and it's in a month from now. You should be able find the sugar versions in about 2 weeks.

Also, I've heard that the coke bottler in western PA has switched to sugar coke year round.

You don't need to live by the border. Just go to a Mexican market and get the glass bottled Coke.

I'm a few hundred miles away myself, but in a border state. How far into the US interior do they ship it?

I can buy glass bottled Mexican coke in Missouri. You don't get much further from a border than that.

Neat.

I've found it in Minnesota and Oregon.

Hmm. Remember, Canadian Coke also uses sugar. Minnesota is a border state, and Oregon is not that far at all.

Yeah, but I'm talking about the Mexican Coke. It only comes in glass bottles. The regular Coke in MN and Oregon is corn syrup.

This stuff:

http://www.mexgrocer.com/6295.html

Right, but unless they specifically source it from Mexico (as that link seems to for that outlet), it might be Canadian Coke, which also has sugar and which you can also buy in glass bottles.

Oh cool. I think it says made in Mexico on the bottle, though.

I think that's a pretty good indication of origin. :)

Your understanding on the corn industry and subsidies is correct, but your complaint is questionable. You can avoid corn syrup by preparing your own food; when you rely on processed and pre-made food, you inherently have less control over the ingredients.

Going back to the topic, though, supermarket produce doesn't actually seem to contain any corn syrup.

It's the government that has the violence monopoly. Industries are lobbying for governments to use its power do certain things. I believe corn syrup is cheaper because of government subsidies/tariffs/taxes makes corn syrup cheaper than sugar in the US.

Consumers are rarely forced to buy soda. But the producers are using corn syrup over sugar because the government has put it's gun to the head of the market.

Even in the US you can find Coke with sugar if you are prepared to pay the price. Government is the reason it is so expensive and hard to find. If you believe positive "change" is coming to American sugar tariffs with the new administration I think you will be disappointed.

Its actually not hard to avoid corn syrup - if you cook :)

You are correct, if you cook exclusively from raw ingredients. As soon as you get something that's somehow processed, it's likely HFCS has snuck its way in there.

Which products contain corn syrup? I didn't know that it existed until now, but I can't think of anything I eat that could contain corn syrup.

That's the rub. It doesn't occur to most Americans how many products contain corn syrup. Wander through any conventional supermarket in America. Study the ingredients list for whatever product you have in your hand. The list of ingredients is printed in a small, sans-serif font below or next to the nutrition chart.

Notice the corn syrup in condiments: ketchup, salad dressing, peanut butter, jam, some pickles and mustards, etc. Notice the corn syrup in yogurts, ice creams, and frozen desserts. Notice the corn syrup in fruit drinks and flavored milk drinks. Notice the corn syrup in breakfast cereals and brand-name hearty-looking breads. Notice the corn syrup in brand-name cookies and crackers (Ritz, Wheat Thins, IIRC). Notice the corn syrup in canned pie fillings. Notice the corn syrup spaghetti sauces. Notice the corn syrup in canned soups.

Any food not located at a far outside aisle is likely to contain corn syrup. If a food has a brand name and it comes in a bottle, jar, tub, or box, it probably contains corn syrup. If a food comes in a can and it's not plain vegetables, it probably contains corn syrup.

I kind of exaggerate here, but not much. I notice that factory producers have been eliminating corn syrup from some foods in the past year or two. So, you might see "cane juice" or sugar in the ingredients list, instead of corn syrup. Cane juice is the new euphemism for sugar.

One of my Russian-American friends said about ten years ago, "I khate American food. Too sweet." It's "too sweet" because so many products contain sweeteners. If you're accustomed to American food, you probably don't notice the sweetness. Therefore, it wouldn't occur to you that it contains corn syrup (or sugar).

Well, there are two types of corn syrup - plain old "corn syrup" ala Karo, and high fructose corn syrup, which is a very common sweetener in processed foods.

(HFCS is also, for some reason, a bit of a nutritional boogeyman for a lot of people. There's no actual evidence that consuming X calories of it is any worse for people than consuming X calories of sugar or honey, but it's the new "dioxin" in some circles.)

If not, then why do nutritionists, athletes, diabetics, and bodybuilders favor sugar instead of HFCS?

Vlad, that's an un-sourced argument from authority. (And particularly unconvincing authorities, in the case of athletes and body-builders, who have been known to jump on a lot of wild and often harmful nutritional fads.)

That was the point--your arguments are unsourced. :)

You can't source an absence of evidence.

Please source your argument, that I am not allowed to appeal to authority or make bold claims without evidence, but you are. :)

Because its a marker for a junk food, but not literally the problem.

http://www.kingcorn.net/

(I haven't actually seen this yet, but the thread reminded me of the trailer)

Here's a direct link to the trailer, since the above link is a bit slow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiCRwMMh9k8

I would recommend Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma. He traces corn from the farm to its varied outputs.

Anything that could be sweetened. It's just a replacement for sugar that used in the US because it's cheaper.

> Which products contain corn syrup?

Every packaged food in the US comes with an ingredient label.

More than likely up until lately you thought only hippies would be interested in knowing what's in their food.

Sodas in Europe, including Coke, are made with sugar. Europe doesn't have the massive supply of cheap HFCS that the US does.

This is true in most of the world; HFCS's popularity in the US is due to federal subsidies making it cheaper than sugar.

Don't forget sugar tariffs. If the sugar lobby was not in bed with the corn lobby to keep cheap caribbean and south american sugar out of the US market the price advantage enjoyed by HFCS would not be a significant factor. [For the record, there are reasons other than enhancing sweetness to use HFCS but if sugar costs were close to parity with HFCS it would fall from the second or third ingredient in many processed foods down towards the bottom of the list doewn near "natural and artificial flavorings", etc.]

> It doesn't take much land to grow a significant amount of food.

That made me think of this quote:

"When Eleanor Roosevelt did something similar in 1943, she helped start a Victory Garden movement that ended up making a substantial contribution to feeding the nation in wartime. (Less well known is the fact that Roosevelt planted this garden over the objections of the U.S.D.A., which feared home gardening would hurt the American food industry.) By the end of the war, more than 20 million home gardens were supplying 40 percent of the produce consumed in America. "

"The Food Issue", NY Times ( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/magazine/12policy-t.html )

Which reminds me of the Atlanta Community Food Bank 'Plant a Row Campaign' to feed the hungry - http://www.acfb.org/projects/community_garden/plant_a_row/

It doesn't take much land to grow a significant amount of food

This is very true!!! Although I live on ten acres, I only have a relatively small garden (about 20x40') and it is still capable of producing much more than my family can consume unless I preserve a lot of it. A single pumpkin seed for example, can result in almost 100 lbs of pumpkins even if you don't take care of them. They just grow like weeds! Tomatoes, potatoes, squash: plant a few seeds and you're up to your neck in veggies in a few months.

And about the strawberry comment: everyone who loves strawberries should do themselves a favor and grow some, even if it's just in a small pot on the windowsill. Home grown strawberries are vastly superior to the ones in the supermarket in every aspect except shipping ability.

I have 18 strawberry plants ready to go into a new patch, nice and big, so they'll propagate outward into twice as many... :D

I just moved to a house on 7 acres, so I tilled, manured and fenced off 25' * 25' for vegetables, but... found myself wanting more room for corn, so I tilled 25' * 50' more, plus the strawberry patch.

If we spent as much time as we do on our lawns on vegetables, every house would easily be self sustaining for fruits and veggies!

Couldn't I just eat 30% more vegetables? Or vitamin fortified wheat products?

You are correct--soil damage has much to do with this. Wendell Berry (among others) has written much about this. Large scale farming tends not to view the soil and its cycles as important to the process of growing food.

I'd like to see some data regarding this, actually.

I've got a good friend that owns a tree farm in Oregon, and if you listen to the environmentalists, they make it sound like Richard is some sort of maniac clear-cutting idiot who is destroying a precious natural resource.

The opposite becomes apparent if you actually talk to him about the farm, and look at the money they put into both planning and tree-farming technology. Him, and his family, view their forest as a long-term asset, not to mention an effectively infinite stream of future revenue, and a great place to go hiking.

They go to incredible lengths to make sure that their forest is going to be around, and viably growing, a few hundred years from now.

It seems odd that any large company wouldn't look at their company-owned farms in the same fashion.

Of course, corporate owners can be greedy and stupid as well. So I'd like to know more about how large-scale farming causes soil damage.

Borlaug was mentioned on Penn & Teller's show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIvNopv9Pa8