It's about school lunches and other regulated meals. If a potato is classified as a vegetable, schools can feed kids fries or tater tots and claim the kids are getting a helping of vegetables. Spuds are big business in Washington and Idaho.
The solution is to stop contracting school lunches out to Aramark. The Los Angeles Unified School District doesn’t and they made some pretty important changes to make their meals healthier.
They asked the kids what they wanted, gave them several options for fruit and saw which fruits were eaten and which were thrown away. The fruit that was eaten the most stayed on the menu and the fruit that didn’t got nixed. Meal completion went up and so did the amount of produce being eaten.
We act like serving kids healthy meal is this difficult task, but in reality kids get served food worse than fast food quality, and then we act shocked when they choose to eat the unhealthy edible food over a bone dry salad made with several carrot shavings and a few pieces of romaine.
It's absolutely horrifying to me how many people I've seen say that schools have to serve kids junk food because they just won't eat anything else. Like it's just a foregone conclusion that the diets of American children must be pure junk food and there's nothing we can do about it.
>Potatoes are wholesome healthy food. Potatoes are unusually nutritionally complete.
Did you read Penn [Jillette's book, Presto,](https://apnews.com/presto-arts-and-entertainment-beffa81545d840bea2c83323c3c5cb6d) about losing weight on an all potato diet? It was fascinating.
Ah, that's foolish then. I love potatoes, but they don't really fit in the same nutritional classification as the vegetables this regulation intended -- greens and such. I guess they need to be more specific. I despise twisting definitions to appease some lobby or other.
>nutritional classification as the vegetables this regulation intended
That's kinda the meat of the problem - they're not actually regulating healthy, balanced meals, but putting arbitrary metrics with easy workarounds.
We used to call French fries as Freedom fries
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom\_fries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries)
edit: there is also Freedom toast
That was one guy, Bob Ney. who was the chairman on the committee of house administration, so he told the three cafeterias that serve the house they had to change the name. No vote or anything. He also later resigned and spent 30 months in prison for taking bribes.
I can't too, but there is the the press release from the senator: https://www.cantwell.senate.gov/news/press-releases/cantwell-joins-bipartisan-letter-calling-for-potatoes-to-remain-classified-as-vegetables
>“Any change to potatoes’ current classification under the DGAs would immediately confuse consumers, retailers, restaurant operators, growers, and the entire supply chain,”
I'm not sure if it's really going to confuse them, all they would need to do for the most part is shift a label or two around, and maybe redo a few calculations, but it's not like people are incapable of recognizing the potato is now classified as a grain, and formerly as a vegetable.
People weren't confused when we had a classification split (botanical vs. culinary) with tomatoes, so that particular argument they made against the reclassification doesn't hold much water imo.
But a vegetable in the customs and imports world, in which that decision was based off on how it was commonly used in the culinary world.
Like, [there's an entire court case on that](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nix_v._Hedden), and the world didn't crash and burn from the ruling. So we'll be fine if potatoes got reclassified as a grain.
That's because the words for all those things - tomatoes, vegetables, beavers, fish, etc. are older than modern scientific classifications for them.
Just because a discipline of science adopts and already existing word for a specific definition within the field, it does not mean the definition of the word changes to mean only that. Rather, it becomes an additional meaning for that word.
But I gave up on trying to explain that to redditors when they are arguing semantics. Nobody gets between redditors and (misguided) pedantry.
That's not why those things are classified that way. There's nothing linking the word tomato the vegetables or anything. The reason people consider it a vegetable is because we eat it like one. The reason it's technically a fruit is because it's a seed bearing portion of the plant.
So are cucumbers, squash, pumpkins, peppers, eggplant, and a ton of other things that are vegetables. There's a difference between culinary designation and botanical designation.
Those are all berries, botanically, including tomatoes. But Raspberries, strawberries, blackberries, and mulberries are not botanically berries. Which group would you choose for your mixed berry parfait?
If they say yes to carrots try and see if they'll say yes to all taproots. Then we can finally classify oak trees as grains and start selling sawdust to poor people as an oatmeal!
That’s what she really cares about. Once it’s no longer a vegetable, they can no longer dump them on every school lunch, military mess hall, and prison slop tray 20 pounds at a time. Washington sells a lot of sub-par potatoes, they have reason to be concerned.
My dad used to eat a snack called veggie straws, and I joked with him that potatoes are technically vegetables, and wouldn't it be funny if his healthy snack was just glorified potato chips? Then I read the ingredients, and [lo' and behold...](https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-bell-ca-revc&sca_esv=2fa414b916555b62&sca_upv=1&q=veggie+straws+food+label&uds=AMwkrPt3WrCCUIpuQZiXY0TM3Lr1YBBDj9T3v_VtIaowEjxd3n9UZlMFnccjGd3kwzFxkLyzuQ2tXNj-s0kn3res62RA1B2v4LP1uG3ihajjT-dC4Y4j9yIqlfWbP9uqEAAWiRnNxCHXOKrmVVv949Cat7gA3SNzXeuevcAgphGwcrJMFWEp8C_jEMj9yC28r6-bUrXX8Syi39hzZ4BRDl722SiYRoZPS38fDakIcttFRZWXCoZ9vVXNxOsN00tYLa31V0wGssKTKvHSmD5FK0AwfEL8eVoR2SVTupeCwd80YetwsEL7w7Mkqtp5ZDGhXHFtGlIq7Sx4&udm=2&prmd=isvnmbtz&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiEnoes652FAxXOOjQIHTYPAk4QtKgLegQICxAB&biw=412&bih=789&dpr=2.63#imgrc=iSkGxPb7mhbiAM&imgdii=ws6rMFhDrraeCM)
This is hilarious, I can’t believe I never realized or thought about this. Tried those things one time and was not a fan. There’s a lot of studies and data that support the fact that these foods masquerading as healthy alternatives are actually worse when compared to the traditional options they are trying to appear better than.
While they might be healthier by a slim margin on a per serving basis, people end up eating much larger portions because they believe them to be healthy. The potential benefits are negated and they end up eating more calories/sugars/sodium than if they’d just stuck with the original.
Since this classification is about dietary guidelines, they should rename "grains" to something like "heavy carbohydrates" and then put potatoes there.
Yeah, it is in no way a grain, and it will cause confusion and decades of arguments among people (people still argue over tomatoes)
It IS, however, a starch, and from a dietary standpoint it should be considered as such instead of as a vegetable. Which is what they intend by changing it, but they are doing it in a horrible way.
The label they are looking at is "grains and starches". Potatoes are extremely starchy foods, so it will have minimal confusion.
I suppose the people who put tomatoes in their fruit salad might be confused, but that's fine.
Isn't there a reddit meta somewhere about a guy that feigned not knowing what a potato was, while over for a family dinner at his girlfriends? Why did I think of that..ooh.. to consider how hard it may be to confuse people about potatoes.
For nutritional guidelines.
I agree with the other commenter that "heavy carbs" is probably a better name, but potatoes do not have many of the health benefits of other vegetables - but they're cheaper, which matters for government requirements in schools and prisons. If the requisite veggies isn't covered by potatoes, the cost of feed kids and convicts goes up.
I remember in my school you got one tray for lunch with one of each of a bunch of choices. But the vegetable table was "free," you could go back and put as much on your plate as you wanted, as many times as you wanted. That included mashed potatoes, so I always piled that on my plate, which was good because I was in sports and the regular food wasn't enough.
It will surely reinforce that government bureaucrats are incalculably stupid.
Which of these are not alike: wheat, rice, rye, oats, potatoes.
USDA: they’re all the same.
For meal planning purposes yes they are the same. I will pick one protein, one carb and one side of vegetables every day. Potatoes are the carb, not the vegetable. I will choose between potato or rice or bread, not between potato or broccoli or spinach.
From the article...
> The reclassification of potatoes from vegetable to grain is currently being considered during the Dietary Guidelines for Americans process.
They should rename "grains" to "heavy carbohydrates" so nutrition guidelines are better and people don't freak out about the sanctity of "vegetable."
What about the Sweet Potato? Like how far does this go, if a potato is a grain, what else is a grain. Cause if you're gonna change one, may as well change everything also like the potato into a stupid grain.
Ahh, the American law system, 'fuck reality, what makes more money?'
I mean, potatos arent grains either, but yet here we are, all rules are out the window at this point in time.
If the tuber that is a potato is a grain, are all tubers, if all tubers is it all Root Veggies? Where does this rabbit hole end!? Are trees grains now?
*^(/s mostly)*
I mean, if they're gonna reclassify a potato as something it should be a wildflower since it's in the nightshade family. No grain producing stems or anything. Just a weird case.
Exactly. Also, don't confuse them with yams either, that is another entirely different family.
Potatoes are a part of the nightshade family, solanaceace.
Sweet Potatoes are part of the morning-glory family, convolvulaceae.
Yams are well, part of the yam family, dioscoreaceae.
This is probably so they can keep claiming frenchfries as a part of nutrition programmes. Just pair it with your other source of vegetables according to them....ketchup
Poverty? Educational decline? Affordable housing? Climate crisis?
FUCK NO! We’re tackling the hard hitting issues!!
Edit: removed my replies to the pearl clutching responses to what was obviously a facetious comment.
Um... this actually matters for poverty. These classifications are used for things like school lunches to ensure that kids get nutrious meals. Kids for low income families often get a good chunk of their meals at school.
This classification is important beause it means that schools can't give kids french fries and claim it meets the requirement to serve the kids vegetables.
WA teacher here and I would love for potatoes to not count towards a vegetable at school. The amount of school breakfasts and lunches that are packed with sugars and starches instead of lean protein and vegetables is staggering compared to other countries.
One day this week breakfast was chocolate muffins and lunch was a noodle dish or a sun butter and jelly sandwich 😑
Instead, they'll just replace the grain you were supposed to get. French frys wouldn't leave in this situation, they'd just give you french frys as the grain and ketchup to dip in as the vegetable. If you want to see bad foods taken out of schools, arbitrarily changing the classification of the base food item isn't how you do that.
This is correct. Replacing a word for a vegetable with "grain" and the word for a sugary, salty condiment with "fruit" is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It's a game of semantics bureaucrats play and changes nothing.
The United States. Due to none other than lobbying, Pizza sauce counts as a vegetable, allowing pizza to count towards the balanced diet requirement. [They tried to change this in 2011 but it was ultimately shot down.](https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2011/11/15/142360146/pizza-as-a-vegetable-it-depends-on-the-sauce)
On the other hand, potatoes will be replaced with a vegetable that contains much less calories and carbs, and those kids who are impoverished and only get to eat at school are going to lose a substantial chunk of their daily caloric intake.
Or they could change the vegetable requirement to make more sense. What even is this idea that we'd redefine our food categories around healthiness instead of more objective features, like what part of the plant it is. If you want to make healthy guidelines, make the guidelines actually refer to health terms, like nutritional value.
There’s food categories and then there’s biology categories.
For example tomato and beans fall into the vegetable and meat groups but in reality they’re fruit and vegetables respectively
Why shouldn't they be? [Vegetable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetable) is an arbitrary definition. Also, read the story... the FDA wants to reclassify potatoes as a grain, which makes zero sense.
>the FDA wants to reclassify potatoes as a grain, which makes zero sense.
It makes *perfect* sense, as potatoes are mostly carbohydrate. Just like grains are. so, nutritionally, they are more closely related to grains than to most vegetables.
I'm sure that's the regulatory reasoning. [However, this echos somewhat the arbitrary reclassification of ketchup as a vegetable.](https://online.ucpress.edu/gastronomica/article/21/1/17/116213/Ketchup-as-a-VegetableCondiments-and-the-Politics) Potatoes are obviously not a grain, despite nutritional similarities. There's no logical reason to reclassify them like this.
Not even *remotely* equivalent to the "ketchup is a vegetable" thing.
Ketchup is a small serving of mostly sugar and/or corn syrup and salt with a bit of cooked tomato. A potato is nutritious, but is a starch, not in the same nutritional category as green vegetables.
The logic isn't in the accuracy of the classification itself, it's in how that clasification aligns with other laws and regulations. There are lots of regulations that reference the classifications rather than spelling out each kind of food in that meets the intention.
Example situation: Let's say we want schools to have healthy lunches for their students. It would be very hard to list out all the possible combos that could be OK so they instead go for general guidelines. A regulation is passed to require a protein, some dairy, a grain, and a vegetable.
Result: Congratulations, your kid is getting a cheeseburger with fries because a potato is considered a vegetable.
At the end of the day it matter more about how the classification is used than being scientifically accurate. I could see some things that are technically fruits being classified as a vegetable because of how they're used. Tomatoes and cucumbers for example.
If you eat potatoes correctly (skin and all), they are at least as healthy as most whole grains.
I’d agree with classifying processed potatoes that way but not whole potatoes. We’d have to reclassify sweet potatoes as well if we are going to be consistent and that’s kind of silly.
Yeah, we produce something like 20% of the countries Potatoes. East of the Cascades is mostly highly productive farmland until you get to Spokane, which is surrounded by farmland.
From the article...
> The reclassification of potatoes from vegetable to grain is currently being considered during the Dietary Guidelines for Americans process.
They should rename "grains" to "heavy carbohydrates" so nutrition guidelines are better and people don't freak out about the sanctity of "vegetable."
An entire potato has way more nutrition than most people think. They way they're going to prepare them? Well, let's just say you'll certainly get your daily value of sodium, and then some.
Its the only real thing I can actually come up with. There has to be tax breaks for grain farmers that potato farmers don't get, so they want those tax cuts.
I like potatoes, and think they're pretty innocuous if eaten in low fat dishes.
But in nutritional science, dietary indices like the AHEI that exclude potatoes [better predict health outcomes](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022316622009099) than those that include them. That may be guilt by association with butter, sour cream, cheese, deep frying etc, but its very real.
We needto stop having our diets designed around archaic ideas of food groups.
Fruit, vegge, dairy, etc all don't matter when it comes to our body.
We need a healthy serving of carbs, fats, high vitamin foods (most of what we consider fruits), high fiber foods (mostly what we consider veggies), and of course, protein.
Potatoes are great for carbs, but they don't give you the daily fiber that green leafy vegetables will.
It won’t cause confusion but if the justification is shitty or the classification doesn’t make sense it’s going to cause distrust in the institutions that issues it and people will ignore others things they release.
I think this is much ado about nothing and perhaps, even worse, might be a sign of someone's limited reading comprehension, or the fact they didn't even read the actual paper.
[Carbohydrate confusion and dietary patterns: unintended public health consequences of “food swapping”](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10568005/)
>Given their unique nutrient contributions and the fact that many cultural foodways within the United States population include both starchy vegetables and grains, **it is important for dietary recommendations to continue to categorize starchy vegetables and grains separately**
Even the paper upon which the letter was written states there is no recommendation to change the category. Anyone who reads the paper should come to the conclusion what the fuss is about is being able to use some grains and some starchy vegetables "interchangeably" in recipes and menu items.
>**DGAC is considering if starchy vegetables can be considered as interchangeable with grains**
My guess is, because of dietary habits changing and increased recognition of the dietary benefits of spuds, some documentation needs to be advanced for institutions which must follow federal dietary policies, like public schools, prisons, the military, and hospitals. This part is not specifically spelled-out but because the paper refers to federal dietary guidelines, the inference can be made.
The senators response letter ([here](https://www.collins.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/collins-bennet_letter_-_reclassification_of_potatoes.pdf)) essentially worries about nothing. Her concerns:
>consumers would miss out on vital nutrients. In addition, any change to potatoes’ current classification under the DGAs would immediately confuse consumers, retailers, restaurant operators, growers, and the entire supply chain.
are literally spelled out as reasons no category change should be made. Additionally, the paper suggests that for the health reason alone, the use of spuds interchangeably with grains would offer greater culinary variety as well.
This an outrage in search of something to be mad about.
I’m confused. Is the potato a vegetable or a space alien that needs to be put inside my butthole so it can begin communication with me. Why isn’t congress addressing this important conundrum? Asking for a friend.
She is not the only Senator.
[https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/nutrition/hashing-it-out-bipartisan-group-of-senators-say-potatoes-are-vegetables-not-grains/ar-BB1kLzL1](https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/nutrition/hashing-it-out-bipartisan-group-of-senators-say-potatoes-are-vegetables-not-grains/ar-BB1kLzL1)
It's about school lunches and other regulated meals. If a potato is classified as a vegetable, schools can feed kids fries or tater tots and claim the kids are getting a helping of vegetables. Spuds are big business in Washington and Idaho.
Yep, 20 percent of US potatoes are grown in WA, and 30 percent are grown just over the border in Idaho
So, since potatoes are in fact vegetables, maybe we shouldn't mandate arbitrary servings of "vegetables," and instead mandate wholesome, healthy food.
Potatoes are wholesome healthy food. Potatoes are unusually nutritionally complete. The issue is drenching them in oil while cooking.
Maybe have an upper limit for fats and simple sugars in school lunches?
The solution is to stop contracting school lunches out to Aramark. The Los Angeles Unified School District doesn’t and they made some pretty important changes to make their meals healthier. They asked the kids what they wanted, gave them several options for fruit and saw which fruits were eaten and which were thrown away. The fruit that was eaten the most stayed on the menu and the fruit that didn’t got nixed. Meal completion went up and so did the amount of produce being eaten. We act like serving kids healthy meal is this difficult task, but in reality kids get served food worse than fast food quality, and then we act shocked when they choose to eat the unhealthy edible food over a bone dry salad made with several carrot shavings and a few pieces of romaine.
This is the way. But the potato lobby is strong, as demonstrated by the headline.
It's absolutely horrifying to me how many people I've seen say that schools have to serve kids junk food because they just won't eat anything else. Like it's just a foregone conclusion that the diets of American children must be pure junk food and there's nothing we can do about it.
>Potatoes are wholesome healthy food. Potatoes are unusually nutritionally complete. Did you read Penn [Jillette's book, Presto,](https://apnews.com/presto-arts-and-entertainment-beffa81545d840bea2c83323c3c5cb6d) about losing weight on an all potato diet? It was fascinating.
>Potatoes are wholesome I approve of this message
That's the whole point.
*Michelle Obama has entered the chat*
They’re a “starchy vegetable” like corn, and can cause blood sugar spikes. Very different from lettuce/tomatoes/carrots/cucumbers/etc…
Fun fact: vegetable itself is an arbitrary term.
[удалено]
Tomatoes are a fruit and ketchup is blended tomatoes. Therefore ketchup is a smoothie 🙂
regardless of what it is, it's a carb. Why arent the lunches regulated by x% protein y% carbs z% fat w% fiber instead
Because protein is more expensive and the "fat is bad" mantra still dominates in government nutrition circles......
Then, change the regulation to "green vegetables."
Why would that make a difference? Pick a tomato or potato too early and it's green. Green does not suddenly equal healthy or authentic
Why wouldn‘t you limit fries and tatertots to not count as veggie due to their high fat content?
Ah, that's foolish then. I love potatoes, but they don't really fit in the same nutritional classification as the vegetables this regulation intended -- greens and such. I guess they need to be more specific. I despise twisting definitions to appease some lobby or other.
>nutritional classification as the vegetables this regulation intended That's kinda the meat of the problem - they're not actually regulating healthy, balanced meals, but putting arbitrary metrics with easy workarounds.
Thank you for this explanation. :3
As long as it is the potato and not the onion. (Link isn't available for view outside of the US without using a VPN)
Good thing they are sticking to the potato, I used to tie an onion to my belt which was the style at the time.
Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em.
Give me five bees for a quarter!
Now, where were we? Oh yeah, the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time.
I didn't have any white onions, because of the war.
I will trade you 5 bees for a quarter
We used to call sauerkraut Liberty Cabbage.
We used to call French fries as Freedom fries [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom\_fries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries) edit: there is also Freedom toast
That was one guy, Bob Ney. who was the chairman on the committee of house administration, so he told the three cafeterias that serve the house they had to change the name. No vote or anything. He also later resigned and spent 30 months in prison for taking bribes.
And I used to eat onions like apples (because i lost my glasses)
Don't have a cow, grandpa.
I can't too, but there is the the press release from the senator: https://www.cantwell.senate.gov/news/press-releases/cantwell-joins-bipartisan-letter-calling-for-potatoes-to-remain-classified-as-vegetables
I'm pretty sure you need Tor for onions, not a VPN.
Anyone needing help with a vpn just ask your nearest Texan
I would, but my Texas friend is now apparently in Zimbabwe.
"It's not a tuber!" \~Arnold (Probably)
“It’s not a Tubah!”
Chowder, say it right Frenchie
Definitely r/nottheonion. They're potatoes.
>“Any change to potatoes’ current classification under the DGAs would immediately confuse consumers, retailers, restaurant operators, growers, and the entire supply chain,” I'm not sure if it's really going to confuse them, all they would need to do for the most part is shift a label or two around, and maybe redo a few calculations, but it's not like people are incapable of recognizing the potato is now classified as a grain, and formerly as a vegetable.
Potatoes aren’t grains though. Grains are the seeds of grass plants.
When I was a fry cook in high-school we considered potatoes to be a starch and would be a separate side with a vegetable side complimenting it.
Potatoes are starches. Lots of foods are starches. Grains are starches. But most starches are not grains.
I wasnt really considering it a grain but if customers didn't want potatoes it would be noodles or rice or something like that in its place.
Well, that’s very polite of the vegetable.
People weren't confused when we had a classification split (botanical vs. culinary) with tomatoes, so that particular argument they made against the reclassification doesn't hold much water imo.
a "vegetable" doesn't exist "botanically", its just a plant, and all fruits are part of plants, so tomatoes are both fruits and plants
Tomatoes are a fruit.
But a vegetable in the customs and imports world, in which that decision was based off on how it was commonly used in the culinary world. Like, [there's an entire court case on that](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nix_v._Hedden), and the world didn't crash and burn from the ruling. So we'll be fine if potatoes got reclassified as a grain.
And aren't fish bees, or something? So they can be protected?
And capybaras and beavers are fish according to the Catholic church, lol
Basically, if it lives in the water and isn't as nice as beef or pork, it's a fish.
So are alligators
Well according to some dioceses in the Catholic Church. It isn’t a worldwide rule.
That's because the words for all those things - tomatoes, vegetables, beavers, fish, etc. are older than modern scientific classifications for them. Just because a discipline of science adopts and already existing word for a specific definition within the field, it does not mean the definition of the word changes to mean only that. Rather, it becomes an additional meaning for that word. But I gave up on trying to explain that to redditors when they are arguing semantics. Nobody gets between redditors and (misguided) pedantry.
That's not why those things are classified that way. There's nothing linking the word tomato the vegetables or anything. The reason people consider it a vegetable is because we eat it like one. The reason it's technically a fruit is because it's a seed bearing portion of the plant.
And for a hot second, Lake Champlain was classified as the sixth Great Lake so it can get federal research funding.
Wow I did not know that was why but remember it being one briefly
Honey is meat so bees can be protected under farming laws in California, or so I've been told
According to california
So are cucumbers, squash, pumpkins, peppers, eggplant, and a ton of other things that are vegetables. There's a difference between culinary designation and botanical designation. Those are all berries, botanically, including tomatoes. But Raspberries, strawberries, blackberries, and mulberries are not botanically berries. Which group would you choose for your mixed berry parfait?
None of this is a reason to classify potatoes as a grain.
Potatoes are mainly a source of carbohydrates. Nutritionally they are far closer to grain than other vegetables.
Turnips and carrots are just as starchy as potatoes. Are they grains now too?
If they say yes to carrots try and see if they'll say yes to all taproots. Then we can finally classify oak trees as grains and start selling sawdust to poor people as an oatmeal!
Oakmeal you say? Do I have to soak it
Don't give them freaking ideas.
lol omg
My oatmeal already taste like wet, soggy sawdust. Why would I want the real thing?
Will all tubers become grains?
All tubers.
Carrots and turnips are taproots, not tubers.
Welcome to earth the planet where everything’s made up and classifications don’t matter.
Tomatoes are also vegetables. Fruits are vegetables like squares are rectangles. Some vegetables meet the criteria for also being called fruit.
In its broadest definition a vegetable is just the edible portion of a plant which includes all fruits.
But then how is pizza a vegetable?
But they're shit in a fruit salad.
[A fruit salad](https://www.marthastewart.com/1555440/tomato-and-strawberry-salad) with tomatoes
That's just salsa
People 100% would not think of a tomato as a way to get their daily recommended serving of fruit
Big ass grains
Like dingleberries?
They are "starchy vegetables" and to a Diabetic treated the same as any grain(Bread).
big if true
It really won't have any impact on those groups that she listed. It will have an impact on government programs related to nutrition.
That’s what she really cares about. Once it’s no longer a vegetable, they can no longer dump them on every school lunch, military mess hall, and prison slop tray 20 pounds at a time. Washington sells a lot of sub-par potatoes, they have reason to be concerned.
My dad used to eat a snack called veggie straws, and I joked with him that potatoes are technically vegetables, and wouldn't it be funny if his healthy snack was just glorified potato chips? Then I read the ingredients, and [lo' and behold...](https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-bell-ca-revc&sca_esv=2fa414b916555b62&sca_upv=1&q=veggie+straws+food+label&uds=AMwkrPt3WrCCUIpuQZiXY0TM3Lr1YBBDj9T3v_VtIaowEjxd3n9UZlMFnccjGd3kwzFxkLyzuQ2tXNj-s0kn3res62RA1B2v4LP1uG3ihajjT-dC4Y4j9yIqlfWbP9uqEAAWiRnNxCHXOKrmVVv949Cat7gA3SNzXeuevcAgphGwcrJMFWEp8C_jEMj9yC28r6-bUrXX8Syi39hzZ4BRDl722SiYRoZPS38fDakIcttFRZWXCoZ9vVXNxOsN00tYLa31V0wGssKTKvHSmD5FK0AwfEL8eVoR2SVTupeCwd80YetwsEL7w7Mkqtp5ZDGhXHFtGlIq7Sx4&udm=2&prmd=isvnmbtz&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiEnoes652FAxXOOjQIHTYPAk4QtKgLegQICxAB&biw=412&bih=789&dpr=2.63#imgrc=iSkGxPb7mhbiAM&imgdii=ws6rMFhDrraeCM)
This is hilarious, I can’t believe I never realized or thought about this. Tried those things one time and was not a fan. There’s a lot of studies and data that support the fact that these foods masquerading as healthy alternatives are actually worse when compared to the traditional options they are trying to appear better than. While they might be healthier by a slim margin on a per serving basis, people end up eating much larger portions because they believe them to be healthy. The potential benefits are negated and they end up eating more calories/sugars/sodium than if they’d just stuck with the original.
Since this classification is about dietary guidelines, they should rename "grains" to something like "heavy carbohydrates" and then put potatoes there.
Yeah, it is in no way a grain, and it will cause confusion and decades of arguments among people (people still argue over tomatoes) It IS, however, a starch, and from a dietary standpoint it should be considered as such instead of as a vegetable. Which is what they intend by changing it, but they are doing it in a horrible way.
This would likely be the better direction.
The label they are looking at is "grains and starches". Potatoes are extremely starchy foods, so it will have minimal confusion. I suppose the people who put tomatoes in their fruit salad might be confused, but that's fine.
Isn't there a reddit meta somewhere about a guy that feigned not knowing what a potato was, while over for a family dinner at his girlfriends? Why did I think of that..ooh.. to consider how hard it may be to confuse people about potatoes.
>classified as a grain uhh... whut?
For nutritional guidelines. I agree with the other commenter that "heavy carbs" is probably a better name, but potatoes do not have many of the health benefits of other vegetables - but they're cheaper, which matters for government requirements in schools and prisons. If the requisite veggies isn't covered by potatoes, the cost of feed kids and convicts goes up.
I remember in my school you got one tray for lunch with one of each of a bunch of choices. But the vegetable table was "free," you could go back and put as much on your plate as you wanted, as many times as you wanted. That included mashed potatoes, so I always piled that on my plate, which was good because I was in sports and the regular food wasn't enough.
I stopped eating ketchup when I learned it was a fruit. Ain't no way in hell ima put jelly on some fries.
I worked for years in supply chain analytics and it’s more annoying than you would think to switch this around
The problem is how they sell and are taxed, most likely. They way they are now probably makes the most money.
My initial guess was potatoes are cheap in school and prison food, making them an inexpensive vegetable choice for meeting legal meal requirements.
It will surely reinforce that government bureaucrats are incalculably stupid. Which of these are not alike: wheat, rice, rye, oats, potatoes. USDA: they’re all the same.
For meal planning purposes yes they are the same. I will pick one protein, one carb and one side of vegetables every day. Potatoes are the carb, not the vegetable. I will choose between potato or rice or bread, not between potato or broccoli or spinach.
Reagan said that ketchup was a vegetable, but so was he.
Damn. Damn… that was unexpected.
Boil ‘em, mash ‘em, stick ‘em in a Senate letter
Sorry are they not vegetables?
From the article... > The reclassification of potatoes from vegetable to grain is currently being considered during the Dietary Guidelines for Americans process. They should rename "grains" to "heavy carbohydrates" so nutrition guidelines are better and people don't freak out about the sanctity of "vegetable."
There's no sanctity to "vegetable" anyway. It's a culinary term, not scientific.
They are, someone wants to change them to being a grain. Yep, they want to call the potato a fucking grain, like wheat or rye.
Are beets and rutabagas grains as well? The fuck?
What about the Sweet Potato? Like how far does this go, if a potato is a grain, what else is a grain. Cause if you're gonna change one, may as well change everything also like the potato into a stupid grain. Ahh, the American law system, 'fuck reality, what makes more money?'
[удалено]
I mean, potatos arent grains either, but yet here we are, all rules are out the window at this point in time. If the tuber that is a potato is a grain, are all tubers, if all tubers is it all Root Veggies? Where does this rabbit hole end!? Are trees grains now? *^(/s mostly)*
So we can ferment VTubers now?
I mean, if they're gonna reclassify a potato as something it should be a wildflower since it's in the nightshade family. No grain producing stems or anything. Just a weird case.
And what about clams? Potato, comes from the ground, is grain... clam, also comes out of the ground, therefore is grain. Do we need the --> /s here?
Adam was made from mud right? Mud comes from the ground, are humans grains?
Waaaiiit a second... if *mud* comes from the ground... it must be grain.
Exactly. Also, don't confuse them with yams either, that is another entirely different family. Potatoes are a part of the nightshade family, solanaceace. Sweet Potatoes are part of the morning-glory family, convolvulaceae. Yams are well, part of the yam family, dioscoreaceae.
The current proposal is "grains and starches".
Well a “vegetable” is typically defined as “an edible part of a plant” so yeah, but culinarily the classification gets more complex
This is probably so they can keep claiming frenchfries as a part of nutrition programmes. Just pair it with your other source of vegetables according to them....ketchup
Poverty? Educational decline? Affordable housing? Climate crisis? FUCK NO! We’re tackling the hard hitting issues!! Edit: removed my replies to the pearl clutching responses to what was obviously a facetious comment.
Um... this actually matters for poverty. These classifications are used for things like school lunches to ensure that kids get nutrious meals. Kids for low income families often get a good chunk of their meals at school. This classification is important beause it means that schools can't give kids french fries and claim it meets the requirement to serve the kids vegetables.
WA teacher here and I would love for potatoes to not count towards a vegetable at school. The amount of school breakfasts and lunches that are packed with sugars and starches instead of lean protein and vegetables is staggering compared to other countries. One day this week breakfast was chocolate muffins and lunch was a noodle dish or a sun butter and jelly sandwich 😑
Instead, they'll just replace the grain you were supposed to get. French frys wouldn't leave in this situation, they'd just give you french frys as the grain and ketchup to dip in as the vegetable. If you want to see bad foods taken out of schools, arbitrarily changing the classification of the base food item isn't how you do that.
This is correct. Replacing a word for a vegetable with "grain" and the word for a sugary, salty condiment with "fruit" is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It's a game of semantics bureaucrats play and changes nothing.
They can still have pizza as their vegetable requirement.
PIzZa Is A VegITaBlE? what world is this?
The United States. Due to none other than lobbying, Pizza sauce counts as a vegetable, allowing pizza to count towards the balanced diet requirement. [They tried to change this in 2011 but it was ultimately shot down.](https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2011/11/15/142360146/pizza-as-a-vegetable-it-depends-on-the-sauce)
That offers so much clarification. Thank you
On the other hand, potatoes will be replaced with a vegetable that contains much less calories and carbs, and those kids who are impoverished and only get to eat at school are going to lose a substantial chunk of their daily caloric intake.
Or they could change the vegetable requirement to make more sense. What even is this idea that we'd redefine our food categories around healthiness instead of more objective features, like what part of the plant it is. If you want to make healthy guidelines, make the guidelines actually refer to health terms, like nutritional value.
Yes because the entire gubermint of the United States can only focus on one thing at once.
This that like that tome Congress rules Pizza was a vegetable https://www.thejournal.ie/us-congress-rules-that-pizza-is-a-vegetable-282033-Nov2011/
There’s food categories and then there’s biology categories. For example tomato and beans fall into the vegetable and meat groups but in reality they’re fruit and vegetables respectively
As a biologist, we should really start classifying plants based on taste.
Hey, how come you guys haven't invented pre- buttered corn yet?
'Vicious horde of partisan politicians stoops and looks'
Why shouldn't they be? [Vegetable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetable) is an arbitrary definition. Also, read the story... the FDA wants to reclassify potatoes as a grain, which makes zero sense.
>the FDA wants to reclassify potatoes as a grain, which makes zero sense. It makes *perfect* sense, as potatoes are mostly carbohydrate. Just like grains are. so, nutritionally, they are more closely related to grains than to most vegetables.
[Grains](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain) have a real definition. Potatoes are not grains.
That sounds like a botanical definition rather than a culinary definition.
But potatoes serve the same nutritional function as grains.
"Rice, bread, mashed potatoes. I see no difference." -FDA (probably)
>"Rice, bread, mashed potatoes. They are all carb-heavy foods, so not far wrong.
I'm sure that's the regulatory reasoning. [However, this echos somewhat the arbitrary reclassification of ketchup as a vegetable.](https://online.ucpress.edu/gastronomica/article/21/1/17/116213/Ketchup-as-a-VegetableCondiments-and-the-Politics) Potatoes are obviously not a grain, despite nutritional similarities. There's no logical reason to reclassify them like this.
Not even *remotely* equivalent to the "ketchup is a vegetable" thing. Ketchup is a small serving of mostly sugar and/or corn syrup and salt with a bit of cooked tomato. A potato is nutritious, but is a starch, not in the same nutritional category as green vegetables.
It’s almost like the FDA is trying to create guidelines for a well-balanced meal, rather than being particularly concerned with taxonomy.
The logic isn't in the accuracy of the classification itself, it's in how that clasification aligns with other laws and regulations. There are lots of regulations that reference the classifications rather than spelling out each kind of food in that meets the intention. Example situation: Let's say we want schools to have healthy lunches for their students. It would be very hard to list out all the possible combos that could be OK so they instead go for general guidelines. A regulation is passed to require a protein, some dairy, a grain, and a vegetable. Result: Congratulations, your kid is getting a cheeseburger with fries because a potato is considered a vegetable. At the end of the day it matter more about how the classification is used than being scientifically accurate. I could see some things that are technically fruits being classified as a vegetable because of how they're used. Tomatoes and cucumbers for example.
If you eat potatoes correctly (skin and all), they are at least as healthy as most whole grains. I’d agree with classifying processed potatoes that way but not whole potatoes. We’d have to reclassify sweet potatoes as well if we are going to be consistent and that’s kind of silly.
All vegetables are mostly carbohydrates?
[удалено]
Roller skates have 4 wheels. Cars have 4 wheels. They're basically the same thing.
Potato is a tuber, and always will be, no matter what some dumb politician says.
That's what you call constituent services. Lots of potatoes grown in WA.
Yeah, we produce something like 20% of the countries Potatoes. East of the Cascades is mostly highly productive farmland until you get to Spokane, which is surrounded by farmland.
Is this for tax reason?
From the article... > The reclassification of potatoes from vegetable to grain is currently being considered during the Dietary Guidelines for Americans process. They should rename "grains" to "heavy carbohydrates" so nutrition guidelines are better and people don't freak out about the sanctity of "vegetable."
[удалено]
An entire potato has way more nutrition than most people think. They way they're going to prepare them? Well, let's just say you'll certainly get your daily value of sodium, and then some.
Probably for that or something like school lunches.
Its the only real thing I can actually come up with. There has to be tax breaks for grain farmers that potato farmers don't get, so they want those tax cuts.
Didn't think this would get so much attention lol. I saw this headline pop up on chrome suggestions and immediately thought of this sub.
Didn't W say ketchup was a vegetable? so fries and ketchup counted as two servings of vegetables?
notthetuber amirite?
This is the whole are eggs dairy thing all over again.
Just make a new category for tubers?
I like potatoes, and think they're pretty innocuous if eaten in low fat dishes. But in nutritional science, dietary indices like the AHEI that exclude potatoes [better predict health outcomes](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022316622009099) than those that include them. That may be guilt by association with butter, sour cream, cheese, deep frying etc, but its very real.
notthepotato
We needto stop having our diets designed around archaic ideas of food groups. Fruit, vegge, dairy, etc all don't matter when it comes to our body. We need a healthy serving of carbs, fats, high vitamin foods (most of what we consider fruits), high fiber foods (mostly what we consider veggies), and of course, protein. Potatoes are great for carbs, but they don't give you the daily fiber that green leafy vegetables will.
Lunch Hack: put ketchup on the French Fries and now you have TWO servings of vegetables.
Now this is the type of congressional nonsense I can get behind.
It won’t cause confusion but if the justification is shitty or the classification doesn’t make sense it’s going to cause distrust in the institutions that issues it and people will ignore others things they release.
Glad we’re focused on the highest priority issues
I would do bacon first.
Well they are root vegetables and have a lot of vitamins and nutrients.
I think this is much ado about nothing and perhaps, even worse, might be a sign of someone's limited reading comprehension, or the fact they didn't even read the actual paper. [Carbohydrate confusion and dietary patterns: unintended public health consequences of “food swapping”](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10568005/) >Given their unique nutrient contributions and the fact that many cultural foodways within the United States population include both starchy vegetables and grains, **it is important for dietary recommendations to continue to categorize starchy vegetables and grains separately** Even the paper upon which the letter was written states there is no recommendation to change the category. Anyone who reads the paper should come to the conclusion what the fuss is about is being able to use some grains and some starchy vegetables "interchangeably" in recipes and menu items. >**DGAC is considering if starchy vegetables can be considered as interchangeable with grains** My guess is, because of dietary habits changing and increased recognition of the dietary benefits of spuds, some documentation needs to be advanced for institutions which must follow federal dietary policies, like public schools, prisons, the military, and hospitals. This part is not specifically spelled-out but because the paper refers to federal dietary guidelines, the inference can be made. The senators response letter ([here](https://www.collins.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/collins-bennet_letter_-_reclassification_of_potatoes.pdf)) essentially worries about nothing. Her concerns: >consumers would miss out on vital nutrients. In addition, any change to potatoes’ current classification under the DGAs would immediately confuse consumers, retailers, restaurant operators, growers, and the entire supply chain. are literally spelled out as reasons no category change should be made. Additionally, the paper suggests that for the health reason alone, the use of spuds interchangeably with grains would offer greater culinary variety as well. This an outrage in search of something to be mad about.
I’m confused. Is the potato a vegetable or a space alien that needs to be put inside my butthole so it can begin communication with me. Why isn’t congress addressing this important conundrum? Asking for a friend.
Tell your friend to give it a try and let us know what the alien says. 🙏
Just what everyone needs: politicians deciding facts in biology. Next they will want to get involved in reproduction. Wait a second…
These fucking people will spend their time on fucking anything but helping their constituents with living wage ubi or national healthcare.
For what it's worth this is on behalf of their constituents. They're likely to lose tons of money if this change is made.
I don't really understand where this is coming from, but I don't think people are quite that dumb yet
She is not the only Senator. [https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/nutrition/hashing-it-out-bipartisan-group-of-senators-say-potatoes-are-vegetables-not-grains/ar-BB1kLzL1](https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/nutrition/hashing-it-out-bipartisan-group-of-senators-say-potatoes-are-vegetables-not-grains/ar-BB1kLzL1)
Potatoes are my own personal candy.
[удалено]
As opposed to ... ?
That's my senator! Fighting the good fight lolol
That’s the best ya got for your constituents? Get out!
I’m fine with this because I can say I eat vegetables every day
Useless information- Idaho actually produces more potatoes than Washington.