5 ms·

Well this is prima facie bad, but actually we're not in such a terrible spot as a society: the bulk of supermarket chicken and beef might be corn-fed, bland, wa

Well this is prima facie bad, but actually we're not in such a terrible spot as a society: the bulk of supermarket chicken and beef might be corn-fed, bland, watery mush these days, but it's a hell of a lot cheaper than it ever used to be, and that means that a wider segment of the population can afford reasonably good meat on a regular basis. Better nutrition means healthier kids who can do better in school, and you know the rest. The stuff isn't bad, it's just not as good as it used to be. But neither is it as exclusive as it used to be either. Those of us with more money still have the option to buy tasty, grass-fed beef steaks from niche producers. It takes more effort of course. Quite often I find that arguments against bland, cheap, tasteless food are really about unrealistic people expecting cheapness, high quality, and great convenience. You can't have all three!

mirekrusin 11y ago
It's true but it still means we could do better by trying to optimise for nutrition value as well - which seems to somehow hidden from us. You often don't taste or see nutrition value. Also what does it mean for food recommendation if one strawberry has completely different vitamins/minerals/etc than the other one? Eating strawberry A and B means completely different things now. "One fruit a day" or "One cheap fruit a day + supplement pill"?
- scrumper 11y ago
  Well, we've optimized for yield (=> cost) exclusively. Taste and nutritional value are other axes. In a way you're saying the same thing as the article - that it's a shame to focus only on yield. To answer your question, I think its important to first understand whether the nutritional gap between zero strawberries and modern strawberries is much greater than that between modern strawberries and old-fashioned low yield tasty strawberries. My opinion (worth nothing of course) is that it's better to have some fruit than no fruit, and high yield, cheap produce allows that.
chadcmulligan 11y ago
I remember when I was a kid (Back in my day :-)) roast chicken was an expensive Sunday treat. Then at some time they become really cheap and you could eat chicken whenever you wanted. Now no one bothers roasting their own chickens, they're all cooked for you.
- maerF0x0 11y ago
  Funny thing is roasted chickens are a loss leader and often cheaper than the raw ones. If I could get an organic pastured chicken preroasted as a loss leader I would, but usually the $5 bird has broken bones and a weak taste.
  - chadcmulligan 11y ago
    Depends where you live I suppose, Have a couple of local chicken shops that make great roast chickens, and of course supermarket ones nearby. I'm in Australia though, and I suspect our experience is different from the US.
gutnor 11y ago
Of course, it is good to have realistic expectation and not bite the hand that literally feed you. But were comes this above reproach that the food industry enjoy ? > Convenience, High Quality, Cheapness you can't have all three. What about ... everything else that is usually discussed here on HN. The food industry is as bad as the oil, banking, car, movie and music. It is generating a enormous amount of money, concentrated in few hands, is repeatedly involved in scandal, benefit from opaque government protections and regulations. There is 0 reason to think that the food that reach our table, is anything close to an optimum.

mirekrusin 11y ago

It's true but it still means we could do better by trying to optimise for nutrition value as well - which seems to somehow hidden from us. You often don't taste or see nutrition value. Also what does it mean for food recommendation if one strawberry has completely different vitamins/minerals/etc than the other one? Eating strawberry A and B means completely different things now. "One fruit a day" or "One cheap fruit a day + supplement pill"?

scrumper 11y ago
Well, we've optimized for yield (=> cost) exclusively. Taste and nutritional value are other axes. In a way you're saying the same thing as the article - that it's a shame to focus only on yield. To answer your question, I think its important to first understand whether the nutritional gap between zero strawberries and modern strawberries is much greater than that between modern strawberries and old-fashioned low yield tasty strawberries. My opinion (worth nothing of course) is that it's better to have some fruit than no fruit, and high yield, cheap produce allows that.

chadcmulligan 11y ago

I remember when I was a kid (Back in my day :-)) roast chicken was an expensive Sunday treat. Then at some time they become really cheap and you could eat chicken whenever you wanted. Now no one bothers roasting their own chickens, they're all cooked for you.

maerF0x0 11y ago
Funny thing is roasted chickens are a loss leader and often cheaper than the raw ones. If I could get an organic pastured chicken preroasted as a loss leader I would, but usually the $5 bird has broken bones and a weak taste.
- chadcmulligan 11y ago
  Depends where you live I suppose, Have a couple of local chicken shops that make great roast chickens, and of course supermarket ones nearby. I'm in Australia though, and I suspect our experience is different from the US.

gutnor 11y ago

Of course, it is good to have realistic expectation and not bite the hand that literally feed you. But were comes this above reproach that the food industry enjoy ? > Convenience, High Quality, Cheapness you can't have all three. What about ... everything else that is usually discussed here on HN. The food industry is as bad as the oil, banking, car, movie and music. It is generating a enormous amount of money, concentrated in few hands, is repeatedly involved in scandal, benefit from opaque government protections and regulations. There is 0 reason to think that the food that reach our table, is anything close to an optimum.