Just because it’s tinned doesn’t mean it’s not nutritional… Most things in a can aren’t changed or added to in any way other than pasteurization after being sealed to kill anything on the food in the can.
At worst, canned soups and meats and sometimes vegetables with added salt have too much salt and canned fruits have added sugar when they are packed in “syrup” instead of water or their own juice.
I think it’s fair I should also share where I stand on this. In my OP I wanted to avoid soap-boxing and shaping the replies.
I, (german/elder millennial) used to think of it as right wing. That is partly because the social democrats who define (center-) left for me reject it. And partly because of Milton Friedman and his UBI proposal. Friedman was a noted right-wing economist of the Chicago school and was advisor to both Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.
Nowadays, I think of it as more liberal than either left or right. Like a number of people here said, I see it depending on what other policies surround it.
The reason I asked is, because I have seen a number of posts on this server proposing a UBI as a solution for some social ills; especially feared future mass unemployment. To me, looking to improve existing unemployment benefits and other programs would be a more obvious solution (not least, because it’s more politically achievable).
Lemmy is supposed to be left-wing. Which made me wonder if this indicated a right-ward shift in economic policy preference. So I tried to get at this in a slightly subtle way.
Well, your question as asked has the answer of yes, and then no.
Canning absolutely does not destroy or otherwise remove “nutrition” totally. And, as such, if the food that is canned was not empty calories to begin with (which is a kinda bullshit term tbh, since the only thing that covers is sugars only, and maybe fats only, which nobody cans), then the food inside the can is not empty either.
As others have said, the process of canning does break down some nutrients. However, so does cooking to some degree. But, cooking also makes some things easier to extract from the food as it goes through digestion, so it isn’t like raw things are inherently better than their cooked versions by virtue of being raw.
So, in general, canned foods are going to be “good enough” on average, when it comes to vitamins and minerals. Some things will be better than others in that regard, so you’d have to look things up as you go and figure out what is going to be reduced enough to merit going through extra effort to obtain and store frozen/raw.
Two of my favorites are from books and don’t have pictures: the nanotech weapon given to grunts in “Old Man’s War” and the Soft Weapon from Niven’s short story titled, appropriately enough, “The Soft Weapon”. There was an animated Star Trek episode based on The Soft Weapon, but I can’t remember what I looked like, I just remember the producers weren’t brave enough to animate an alien with two heads and three legs.
Other than those, I really liked the silly guns in Ratchet and Clank, epecially the Vacuum Cannon.
Somewhere in between. The canning process does alter the ingredients, but not by a whole hell of a lot compared to something like, say, cooking them.
So, they still can have good nutrition. The bigger thing to worry about are things like extra salt and sugar added, which can add up with other things in your diet to reach an unhealthy amount.
All that said, frozen is usually better these days, pretty much across-the-board.
Canned foods tend to have less nutrients compared to fresh or frozen fruits/veggies.
IIRC, frozen actually has the most nutrients because its harvested when its ripest versus fresh produce thats harvested earlier than it should be and "ripens " as its delivered and shelved. Could be wrong, just something I remember hearing.
I prefer fresh to frozen, because of the texture changes.
Mostly, but sometimes cooking them can actually increase some values by breaking down cell walls and making nutrients more available (to a point, anyhow).
Huh, well it’s definitely got some of the nutritional values added (fat, salt, carbs, protein, etc.), but vitamins appear to be absent. In the US, if they weren’t listed, I would assume they were not present but TBF, I have no idea how (if at all) labeling is regulated in the UK.
The standard US “Nutrition Facts” label is very limited and typically doesn’t include much information on micro nutrients. I don’t know how it compares to other regions, but it certainly leaves a lot to be desired.
Yeah it would be nice to have mandatory micronutrient labeling. Some labels have them, others don’t. I think it might be up to the producer to decide which micronutrients they can list.
Nah, the US has “per serving” on the label instead of “per 100 gr.”. And since “per serving” is mostly an arbitrarily term (the legislation which defines it basically admits so much even), it means food producers can grossly mislead consumers about the contents of their food.
Interestingly, UK foods destined for import in the US market use the US label and do include that information. Heinz Beans have 50mb calcium, 1.5mg Iron, and 370mg potassium per 130g serving, for example.
So, maybe 20 years ago when I was in middle school I had a dream that I was being chased by a long, giant, weasel with hundreds of legs like a millipede. This happened at an overnight LAN party at a friend’s house. I sometimes talk in my sleep and my friends overheard me muttering about the “chainweasel” in my dreams and I never lived it down.
More strict sanitation laws often. It doesn’t matter how non-food related the system (like the box crushing machine) if it is going in a US food plant it will follow IP69K.
My family had a cat who sometimes did that. The poor little guy just missed the box sometimes. The box would be clean too and it wasn’t too small for him. We think he may have not been very bright because he also never covered anything. He scratched at the side of the box or the wall. His brother always covered it for him. He was very cute though.
American: In how left - right is commonly (mis)used here, It would be left-wing.
If you look at from a perspective where left is socialism and right is capitalism, It is slightly right-wing. But when your culture calls anything more than corporate handouts socialism, it seems pretty left-wing.
asklemmy
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.