Looking at the UDSA’s nutrition index for raw green tomatoes vs raw red tomatoes. It appears that green tomatoes are slightly healthier. They have twice the vitamin C but a little less vitamin A. From my quick perusal most of the other differences have to do with red tomatoes having more water in them. Since most fast food tomatoes are picked green and gassed I presume that their nutritional content would be more like the green tomatoes.
The main difference is tomatoes is variety of plant. Most varieties available commercially are the same types that have been bread for shelf life and roundness. The other varieties are probably different nutritionally but are hard to find at any business that needs steady supplies.
Mind you there are some studies that say organicly grown crops contain more of a few nutrients. Leafy vegetables seem to have slightly more vitamin C- which isnt generally a concern for Americans however. But in general, the data is sparse and hardly conclusive.
From the book “Tomatoland” mentioned earlier in this thread:
The actual government document or study is not named in the book. I will also mention that I am on page 76 of the book and there have been perhaps five or six pages about tomatoes and 70 pages raging against the evil white farm owners and the horrors they inflict upon the non-white farm workers with a few side rants into the perils of chemical fertilizers and pesticides.
And in the interest of full disclosure: I have a tomato plant outside. They taste better ripened on the vine. That’s a fact.
I am right in the middle of reading Tomatoland, which discusses modern industrial tomato farming.
On page 16 I found this:
[QUOTE=Tomatoland]
According to analyses conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 100 grams of fresh tomato today has 30 percent less vitamin C, 30 percent less thiamin, 19 percent less niacin, and 62 percent less calcium than it did in the 1960s. But the modern tomato does shame its 1960s counterpart in one area: It contains fourteen times as much sodium."
[/quote]
I think it’s worth noting that as others have brought up, you’re generally not getting a whole lot from tomatoes anyway (I believe vitamin A is an exception). The nutrients cited as having significant declines appear to be in the 1-3% of your RDA range.
It has charts showing the levels of nutrients contributed by tomatoes throughout the year. A number of the percent changes even seem to match up to the Tomatoland claims. But it appears that the numbers in the chart are per capita. IE, take all the tomatoes grown in this country, divide by the number of people, and how much thiamin per person do you end up with coming from tomatoes? Not, what’s the difference between tomatoes today and 50 years ago.
Yes, indeed. Tomatoes, like many other fruits and veggies have a little less nutrients per 100grams. That’s because they are bigger that they were 50 years ago. Now, unless you are on some sort of weird SF diet that restricts you to so many grammes of tomatoes a meal, the statistic is meaningless. The tomato itself has more or less the same nutrients. Just that today, they are bigger- more water, more fiber, same vitamins and minerals.
It’s not that a organic heirloom tomato has more nutrients, it’s that it’s likely just 20% smaller that a new hybrid tomato.
I don’;t know of evidence that fast-food tomatoes are any less nutritious than supermarket “salad” tomatoes. To me they seem every bit as tasteless.
While there’s evidence that modern vegetables are often lower in certain nutrients, this needs to be balanced against greater production/availability/lower cost through modern farming methods. Another consideration is whether vegetable nutrient level changes are having a significant clinical impact.
With all of our dubious eating habits and concerns about whether fruits and vegetables are as nutrient-packed as they used to be, I truly wonder whether a higher percentage of people in developed countries are any more malnourished than they were 50, 100 or more years ago. For instance, the story about how wonderful diets were in the 19th century and how safe food was compared with now doesn’t square with reality too well.
I wouldn’t say that. It is well written and compelling reading but it is not ‘about’ tomatoes – it is an agenda piece about human rights violations in the tomato industry in southern Florida.
A family friend owns a Subway franchise. He cited the ability to source his owns veggies outside the corporate supply chain as a reason he chose to go with a Subway franchise. The implication was that some companies do not permit this, but I don’t know what other franchise opportunities he looked at.
He orders produce for his shop from the same independent distribution warehouse that also delivers to area groceries. At least for him it seems like the tomatoes, lettuce, and such would be exactly the same as what is found at the local grocer.
Regarding the quote from the book “Tomatoland” that I posted earlier in this thread – It turns out the author does quote his sources at the end of the book. It appears there may be some validity to the idea that commercially grown tomatoes are significantly nutritionally inferior to homegrown or small-farm heirloom type tomatoes.
Where, with what cites? :dubious: