Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:
Some of you will have enjoyed a good meal over Christmas, perhaps also at Thanksgiving if you are an American. It possibly included potatoes in some form; mashed, boiled, roasted, baked or in some other form of cooking. You would have probably considered them a vegetable. But the US Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee is planning to change that.
What an insult to potatoes everywhere. The US Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee is expected in 2025 to declare that potatoes aren't actually vegetables and instead will lump them in with grains and rice.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service, the primary vegetables consumed by Americans are potatoes and tomatoes. In 2019, the average American consumed nearly 50 pounds of potatoes and approximately 31 pounds of tomatoes throughout the year. French fries and pizza sauce FTW!
"The suggestion to reclassify potatoes as a non-vegetable is not grounded in any scientific metric," Kam Quarles, CEO of the National Potato Council, testified at a Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee meeting. "This unsupported notion, if acted upon, will confuse consumers, could result in nutrient gaps and also decreased vegetable consumption. We ask the Committee to avoid this chaotic outcome and continue to acknowledge the fact that potatoes are a vegetable."
Do you agree with this reclassification? Should the same 'logic' be applied to other root vegetables which today are commonly thought to be correctly described already? Parsnips, beet, sweet potato, onion, etc. Or is this a case of a government body thinking that it must make changes to justify its existence?
(Score: 4, Informative) by DrkShadow on Wednesday December 27, @03:13PM (4 children)
Is it even worth pointing out that tomatoes are not vegetables?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ElizabethGreene on Wednesday December 27, @03:42PM (2 children)
In this instance, no.
The primary consumer of this 'guidance' is its use in constructing 'healthy' meal plans for America's public school students and inmates. In that context, classifying a tomato as a fruit will just turn spaghetti or pizza into a starch with fruit spread instead of its current starch with vegetable spread. The underlying potato question is "Do French Fries, by far the most popular side item, count as a vegetable?" Whatever decision and guidance they reach, we all know the answer is no.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Immerman on Wednesday December 27, @03:52PM (1 child)
That's a very good point, and this comment exists to echo it a bit louder.
I'll also repeat a point I made elsewhere: starch is just another name for complex sugars made from three or more simple sugars (normal table sugar is made from two).
Our tongue no longer registers starch as sweet, and it digests more slowly than simpler sugars, but it's still 100% pure sugar.
(Score: 2) by quietus on Thursday December 28, @04:48PM
I think you confuse the food industry's sugar term with the biochemistry definition. The majority of plant bodies is made up (neglecting water for a moment) of such polycarbohydrates.
Anyway, interesting tidbit [wikipedia.org] on wikipedia:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28, @02:29PM
It's a just labeling. A tomato is also a berry, only because of how the words are defined.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Wednesday December 27, @03:17PM (8 children)
Here in Canada, the dietary guides usually talk about green vegetables.
Which leaves out tomatoes. But then, I suppose they're fruit.
And I remember hearing that green tomatoes are poisonous, so you wouldn't want to eat them as green vegetables. They don't want to get eaten until their seeds are ready for spreading.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday December 27, @03:47PM
Green vegetables does seem like a nice clear description that pretty directly relates to the nutritional niche they occupy.
It clearly excludes almost all savory fruits and starchy tubers, neither of which are known for providing the nutrients and fiber associated with green veggies.
Though perhaps "leafy green vegetables" would be superior. I couldn't swear to it, but I suspect green fruits like cucumbers, zucchini, bell peppers, green beans, etc. don't exactly fit well into the leafy vegetable nutrient profile either. Even though it's not sweet, it's still mostly sugar (*), fruit after all evolved to be calorie-rich bait to attract seed-spreading animals. While large seeds like beans mostly evolved to be calorie-rich stores of energy to help a baby plant get off to a good start.
(*) starch is just another name for any compound sugar made from three or more simple sugars bound together, which for whatever reason our tongues no longer register as sweet. It takes a bit longer for our bodies to break down than normal table sugar (which is made from only two bonded simple sugars,a glucose and a fructose), which reduces the associated blood sugar and insulin surges, but it's still pure sugar.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 27, @03:49PM (4 children)
We prefer yellow vegetables in 'Merica. Potatoes, corn, biscuits, butter, gravy, chicken...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by jc2334 on Wednesday December 27, @06:17PM (3 children)
Don't forget macaroni and cheese took
(Score: 2, Funny) by jc2334 on Wednesday December 27, @06:20PM (2 children)
Oops... Meant that too be too, not took.
(Score: 2) by The Vocal Minority on Thursday December 28, @03:35AM (1 child)
So that's why I couldn't find a recipe for Cheese Took!
(Score: 3, Touché) by kazzie on Thursday December 28, @06:37AM
Fool of a Took!
(Score: 2) by gtomorrow on Thursday December 28, @07:15AM (1 child)
And yet another reason I love your country! If it weren't so cold I'd have defected years ago!
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Friday December 29, @04:58PM
Hardly even any snow this month. But just wait for February!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mcgrew on Wednesday December 27, @03:56PM (2 children)
Then neither are onions, carrots, sweet potatoes, radishes... How about they stop calling a spade a pointy shovel and call the parts of plants their scientific names?
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 4, Interesting) by HiThere on Wednesday December 27, @06:03PM (1 child)
It doesn't work that way either. You've got to call it by it's dietary use to get a good dietary classification. FWIW, consider cashews. I tend to think of cashews as nuts, but I guy from India told me he thinks of them as a fruit...one that doesn't travel well. And the part he thinks of is the part that grows outside the shell rather than the part that grows within the shell.
It would be better to divide foods into "sugars", "starches", "fibers", "meats" (perhaps a few others) and admit that some foods fit into more than one category. (And, no, I don't agree that starch and sugar are the same thing. But I do consider both dextrose and sucrose to be sugar. Then there are things like sorbitol and other sugar alcohols.)
The world is not a simple place, and for most kinds of thing, simple rules are simply wrong. Even physics has run into problems, and that was specifically selected as the place where simple rules could make good predictions.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by julian on Friday December 29, @03:37AM
Blame Plato. It seems humans will never stop trying to organize the universe of things that exist (including abstract, mental, objects and concepts) into perfect and discrete categories, forms. Biology/botany is my field by education and thankfully I had professors who broke this habit early on. The concept of species (like vegetable) is a human invention to make our work easier. It's nowhere to be found in nature. Any system of taxonomy you come up with you can find an exception, or a gray area where something doesn't quite fit, or maybe fits into multiple categories. The point of any system of categorizations is to be useful, since none can be 100% true and consistent. Mathematics can't even be fully internally consistent and justified so why would we expect something as messy as biology to be?
Potatoes as a vegetable don't make sense because it's not useful for the purpose of planning nutritious meals for Americans--who almost universally need fewer calories and more leafy green vegetables in their diet. Even "leafy green" doesn't fully work because it leaves out good stuff like peppers, zucchini, squash, onions, and more.
(Score: 4, Informative) by fliptop on Wednesday December 27, @04:34PM (1 child)
Can we just call them what they really are? Potatoes, onions, carrots, beets, parsnips, turnips, etc. - they're tubers.
Tomatoes grow on vines, so technically they're berries. Not fruit or vegetables.
Oh and don't peel your potatoes, most of the iron is in the skin [lifesavvy.com].
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Score: 4, Touché) by vux984 on Wednesday December 27, @08:40PM
It's pretty funny to be this pedantic and also wrong.
Onions aren't tubers. They're bulbs.
Yes, tomatoes are berries, but all berries are fruit. So technically, tomatoes are berries AND fruit.
PS - I wonder what errors I made too.
(Score: 2) by helel on Wednesday December 27, @05:42PM (9 children)
All this nonsense about tomatoes being vegetables and potatoes being grains really points to the fact that what we need is a separate nutritional classification system. It's absolutely nonsense declaring bureaucratically that this fruit isn't a fruit and that vegetable isn't a vegetable. Just define a new set of terms based off the nutritional profiles we're trying to match and then you can accurately describe what you actually want people eating without a confusing haze of nonsense.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by loonycyborg on Wednesday December 27, @06:38PM (5 children)
There can't be a single classification system. And most people's ideas of nutrition are comprised of pseudo-scientific nonsense. Each person has own taste and is better off sticking to it. After all humanity wouldn't be able to survive in pre-civilization times if people weren't able to figure what and how much of it to eat based on instinct.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by helel on Wednesday December 27, @06:54PM (4 children)
There absolutely can be one classification system. Case in point, we've got one now. It's just really stupid.
Besides, my recommendation is really the opposite of saying there should only be one. My recommendation is that instead of trying to twist classification based on source (fruit, vegetable, grain, ect) to fit a completely different purpose (nutritional profile) that there should instead be a completely separate classification system to discuss nutritional profile.
You mention that most people's idea of nutrition is pseudo-scientific nonsense and a large part of that is because of the twisted mess we have for classifying foods now. Take how many people think you need meat in your diet to be healthy, for example. They see the "meat" box in the food pyramid and don't understand that what you actually need is a handful of essential amino acids* which, conveniently, you can get all of from a bowl of rice and beans.
* Yes, there's a whole world of additional details but that's a massive tangent.
(Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Wednesday December 27, @07:05PM
Each person has own needs for amino acids/vitamins/etc, and everyone requires at least some. But it wouldn't lead to a single classification because each need could be served in different way, and different foods could play different roles. Also depending on genetics and health conditions you could be absorbing varying amounts of stuff from food. Obviously how exactly it's prepared into the meal can matter too. Probably the only universally useful classification system would be concerned only with shelf life for purpose of logistics planning.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 27, @07:13PM
Obviously there's no accounting for taste...
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Thursday December 28, @02:27AM
But get the same amount of protein, you have to eat a lot more beans and rice.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28, @04:19PM
There's one elephant in the room that many are overlooking here.
Why have so many people been following advice on nutrition from the US Department of Agriculture?
That's like many people getting medical advice from pharmaceutical companies. Oh wait that's common in the USA too. 🤣
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday December 27, @09:48PM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday December 27, @09:51PM
My "quote close tag" here now identifies as a grain so f the haters
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Thursday December 28, @01:51AM
That's why they're trying to do by defining potatoes as "not vegetables". There is already a lot of legislation and documentation that uses the term "vegetable" to refer to specific nutritional profiles ("leafy greens"), so they're trying to plug the hole rather than define a new term and rewrite everything.
If you thought refactoring a legacy codebase was hard, let me introduce you to US legislation.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 5, Funny) by rufty on Wednesday December 27, @06:37PM (1 child)
This couch potato is no longer a vegetable!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29, @04:09AM
But you still can't move away from that compooter.
(Score: 5, Funny) by krishnoid on Wednesday December 27, @06:59PM (6 children)
Oh, so now it's not just speech! Does the government intend to enforce this via the tater thought police?
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 27, @07:35PM (1 child)
But what if the potato identifies as a vegetable?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 27, @09:55PM
Stop the tater genocide!
(Score: 1, Troll) by DadaDoofy on Wednesday December 27, @08:13PM
The US government has told lies throughout its existence. However, this trend has accelerated exponentially since 2020, to the point where most Americans don't trust them at all anymore. Once they realize the public is on to one of their lies, rather than come clean, they just "change the messaging" (lie better). Trying to sell obvious nonsense like this, just digs a deeper hole.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday December 27, @09:42PM (2 children)
It's a transvegetable. In the bad parts of town on the wrong side of the tracks of the information superhighway, you're gonna get lynched for deadnaming potatoes, so take care of yourself and don't visit places like that online.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Wednesday December 27, @10:13PM (1 child)
And remember, the eyes are always watching.
(Score: 3, Touché) by VLM on Wednesday December 27, @10:52PM
They are, after all, potatoes.
(Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Wednesday December 27, @09:07PM (1 child)
Most of these people also still seriously believe in imaginary sky fairies. Science and facts are already out the window. Compared to all that, mis-classifying vegetables is... small potatoes.
(Score: 2) by EJ on Thursday December 28, @09:16PM
Well, a lot of the people who don't believe in "sky fairies" aren't sure what a woman is anymore.
Both sides want to live in their own land of make-believe.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday December 27, @09:38PM (1 child)
Way more fun to apply to other classes. For example, corn is a fruit because its "mostly" eaten as toxic HFCS sweetener, not much different than drinking fruit juices. Soybean is a meat because its used to make toxic fake meats.
Maybe part of a "big lie" propaganda push. Have to discredit the organization if you want it ignored. Perhaps they're giving excellent advice to avoid some profitable product, get a guy in there to portray them as a bunch of ignorable lunatics, etc. Another popular propaganda technique is the conquered population must be humiliated, we're not to be permitted sensible governance or a government "for the people" so pushing nonsense is part of the humiliation ritual. Another popular propaganda technique is the usual "keep them scared to keep them controlled". Potatoes are now the scary bogey-man of ... rice?
Providing context is a revolutionary act in 2023, or at least providing numerate numbers is. The highest consumption of potatoes per capita was over 66 kg in 2003 and lowest was a hair over 47 in '62 and 2021 stats were in the 48 range so we're now butting up against record low potato consumption statistics. I'm going out on a limb and suggesting that whatever is fattening up Americans (pssst... hyperprocessed foods and seed oils and liquid fructose) it's probably not ma cooking potatoes as a dinner side dish each night LOL ....
Another "numeracy is a revolutionary act" is to rub the production of potato numbers up against consumption of fresh potato stats (like potatoes farmed or imported in the USA vs potatoes bought from the produce aisle, or at least cooked at the restaurant from scratch) and potatoes eaten as potatoes in 2023 is a mere 13 kg per capita per year and its been imploding since the turn of the century. Its interesting that per my data the USA consumes twice as much beef per year as unprocessed potatoes. The point of this ramble is twofold: The curve is not flattening and in "our grandkids lifetime" USA citizens will essentially no longer eat or likely even recognize unprocessed potatoes as food, and secondly, potatoes are mostly a feedstock for hyperprocessed foods, kind of like how corn is used to fatten people up via HFCS not by pigging out on corn-on-the-cob. Your potatoes (in the USA) are mostly used as a cheap starch in hyperprocessed foods. Relatively few are eaten as french fries or god help us as baked potatoes or similar, and fewer are eaten every year. Maybe a third meta point of this ramble is "in the long run" it doesn't matter how 'they' classify something nobody eats anymore and is mostly used in the production of industrial waste products sold as 'food'.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday December 28, @06:59PM
I'm sure giving rules of thumb because the actual science is complicated is far too complex an explanation for my friend Occam.
(Score: 2) by EJ on Wednesday December 27, @10:45PM
Since a large number of our politicians are potatoes, they are worried about them being labeled vegetables and removed from office.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Thursday December 28, @01:49AM (1 child)
"Ackchyually" vegetable refers to any part of a plant that is consumed as food. So all fruits are vegetables. All spices, like cinnamon, are vegetables. Nuts are vegetables.
The problem is that the term "vegetable" is used for nutrition guidance and clearly there's a wide range of nutritional value among vegetables.
So this is strictly about whether potatoes should be included in the vegetable category of various nutritional recommendations, which it obviously should not.
"We ask the Committee to [...] acknowledge [...] that potatoes are a vegetable."
says the *gasp* CEO of the National Potato Council. Not that I blame them, but let's not pretend we don't all know the interests at play here.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28, @04:10PM
From a culinary context potatoes are vegetables too:
https://www.simplyrecipes.com/recipes/potato_salad/ [simplyrecipes.com]
https://www.seriouseats.com/sichuan-stir-fried-potatoes-recipe-5218068 [seriouseats.com]
As for nutrition, potatoes have more protein and vitamin C than apples.
You'd might actually survive longer on a diet of only potatoes than on a diet of only apples.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28, @01:52AM (1 child)
If you need 4000-5000kcal a day and can eat 5kg of them[1]: https://www.nutritionvalue.org/Potatoes%2C_without_salt%2C_flesh%2C_cooked_in_skin%2C_boiled_nutritional_value.html?size=5000+g [nutritionvalue.org]
See also: https://www.nutritionvalue.org/Sweet_potato%2C_without_salt%2C_flesh%2C_baked_in_skin%2C_cooked_nutritional_value.html?size=5000+g [nutritionvalue.org]
😉
[1] https://slate.com/culture/2001/03/putting-all-your-potatoes-in-one-basket.html [slate.com]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28, @03:55AM
> ... five potatoes to the pound ...
Those are pretty small potatoes (heh, heh). According to:
https://idahopotato.com/dr-potato/number-of-potatoes-to-use-when-only-given-pounds [idahopotato.com]
Link also has details on other sizes of potatoes.
Based on the USDA number, a pound of potatoes is about 300 kcal, so if that old Irishman really ate 13#, that would be 3900 kcal/day. Not an unreasonable number for someone doing continuous heavy work.
Years ago I crewed for a friend who rode the bicycle Race Across America (RAAM) where the riders often pedal for 20 or more hours per day. His diet was 10,000 to 12,000 kcal/day. Interestingly, the liquid diet that he used was primarily potato starch.
(Score: 5, Funny) by gtomorrow on Thursday December 28, @07:31AM
So, this potato goes out to the bar on the weekend, meets up with some friends and proceeds to pound tequila shooters. After a few hours of this, he staggers into his Datsun, drove out on the expressway, went head-on into a semi...
The next day, his family is contacted by the local police; the potato inexplicably yet miraculously survived the terrible crash. They rush to the potato's bedside, he's hooked up to life-support, tubes and hoses everywhere, monitors of all types flashing and beeping. They ask the visiting doctor the situation and he replies...
"Well, the good news is that the potato is stable, physically there's nothing that he won't recover from...but unfortunately he'll always be a...a..."
Thanks a lot, US Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee! What is he? "Unfortunately he'll always be a grain"?!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Mojibake Tengu on Thursday December 28, @08:21AM
I'd be more scared of a headline "US Government May Demand We Stop Considering Potato a Planet".
Depending on where you live, potatoes may become respected alcohol, not exactly vegetable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuzem%C3%A1k [wikipedia.org]
So, a rare agreement with U.S. Government for me, this time. I usually put this one into cookies.
Respect Authorities. Know your social status. Woke responsibly.