Well, who here buys their vegetables based on nutrition? Who even knows how nutritious their particular vegetables are (probably not if you have a lab)?
Companies optimize for what customers will pay for, and everything else falls by the wayside.
Companies optimize for what customers will pay for, and everything else falls by the wayside.
Go to Denmark--they're small but packed full of flavor.
I would much rather have the smaller ones. I wonder if the large, crisp, apple-esc strawberries really sell better. They're certainly bigger.
Jokes aside, my personal experience is that strawberries grown in some grandmother's garden in a Nordic country, including Denmark, will beat the mass-produced stuff in the stores when it comes to taste. I can't imagine the same wouldn't apply to Canadian or Russian strawberries, grown under similar conditions, as well.
Apart from that, I had delicious small homegrown ones as a kid, and the occasional almost or totally tasteless medium-sized ones from shops ever since. I always wonder how it feels to be a farmer growing totally tasteless strawberries for a living.
I imagine it’s a bland but fruitful experience.
Plant hormones added
However, of course I'm just assuming that something is actually nutritious. You're right that I don't actually know that, and that kinda is the point of the article, right? We have all been taught that veggies are good for you, bla bla bla, but in the light of the article you can now at least wonder to what degree that is still as true as it was some years ago.
Could be, but arent't there other mechanisms? Like companies optimizing for profit, then using advertisement to lure customers in paying for it?
I would never buy vegetables if they weren’t important for nutrition.
There’s a reason doctors suggest fresh fruits and vegetables, instead of inventing a multivitamin and psyllium husk supplement to replace vegetables.