The author is talking like a chemist or a chemical engineer WRT "low quality feedstock" "low quality source" and language like that. Here's a typical journal a

The author is talking like a chemist or a chemical engineer WRT "low quality feedstock" "low quality source" and language like that. Here's a typical journal article about Vit C stability while stored. Sealed, its actually pretty stable... assuming your seal is really good. http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jac/papers/vol2-issue4/D0242024.pdf http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jac/papers/vol2-issue4/D024... There is another way to talk about "low quality" which is WRT discourse. There's a widely held belief that there is a constant fixed long term demand for certain substances that is invariant between people with the possible exception of demographics (prenatal vitamins, and advertising campaigns relying on selling higher priced mens/womens products to men/women). Then that compounds with liberal arts grad types thinking vitamin / mineral / supplement / medication are mere synonyms that can be freely safely interchanged to sound good in written prose. Finally experimental data shows that regardless of what was sealed into the package at the factory or farm or factory farm, somewhere between a little bit and practically all of the vitamin decays before you eat it (also cooking destroys / leaches out nutrients, etc) This all leads to the engineering comedy of your food having 3 sig figs of "percent of US RDA of vitamin C for an imaginary person eating an imaginary 200 calorie diet". When in reality its closer to 1 sig fig at best and all we really know for sure is completely removing it from your diet for a couple months or eating months of the supply at one sitting will make you really sick. Oh and another thing we know for certain, is a lot of people make a lot of money by making sure the public is poorly informed and anxious about the topic, but that's also a given in all the other areas of the consumer economy.