Hacker News Reader

This article seems to lack common sense. Yes, the amount of Vitamin C will reduce the longer you store a vegetable or fruit in a fridge, but the amount of calcium and iron does not change. Nor does the the density of other minerals.

Why is the author nominating Walmart as the winner based just on their speed to market? What about the other factors like soil degradation etc., which reflect the amount of iron and other minerals?

View on HN

Deep in the text they mention that a study looked at nutrient contents and Walmart was the best:

“I learned this from talking to Brent Overcash, co-founder of a startup called TeakOrigin, which specialized in testing nutrient content in groceries from retail grocery stores. For years, every week, his team would walk into grocery stores, buy thousands of produce items the way normal consumers would, and bring them back to the lab to assess nutrient content.“

they did the testing, but those lab tests didn't conclude walmart was the best. That conclusion was based on supply chain speed.

It said this: “Walmart tended to come out on top”

Reply on news.ycombinator.com