←back to thread

Price of rice in Japan falls below ¥4k per 5kg

(www.japantimes.co.jp)
126 points PaulHoule | 8 comments | 30 Jun 25 19:54 UTC | HN request time: 0.993s | source | bottom
1. ianpenney ◴[01 Jul 25 01:32 UTC] No.44429728[source]▶
[flagged]
replies(2): >>44429971 #>>44430678 #
2. techbrovanguard ◴[01 Jul 25 01:48 UTC] No.44429802[source]▶
american exceptionalism at work
3. zahlman ◴[01 Jul 25 02:18 UTC] No.44429971[source]▶
I would say the downvotes are primarily because you are inferring a political purpose to the OP that isn't in evidence, and railing against it in a way that appears simply off topic.

"So, if I may be editorial as a Canadian: No." is a strange, nonsensical way to respond to a post titled "Price of rice in Japan falls below ¥4k per 5kg".

Complaining about it and sarcastically ascribing ideological positions to downvoters is probably not helping, either.

replies(1): >>44430185 #
4. userbinator ◴[01 Jul 25 02:44 UTC] No.44430098[source]▶
tests show over 90% of sampled U.S. fruits (like apples, cherries) have residues of multiple pesticides

So do non-US fruits, unless it's the "organic" stuff.

5. SoftTalker ◴[01 Jul 25 02:56 UTC] No.44430151[source]▶
> the growth hormone rBGH

is prominently labeled as "not used" in any of the milk at my supermarket. Where is all this rBGH milk coming from?

replies(1): >>44430197 #
6. ianpenney ◴[01 Jul 25 03:03 UTC] No.44430185{3}[source]▶
See the top comment on this thread. It’s not nonsensical. It’s refuting the spirit of the conversation so far.

As for pesticides US vs Canada: Chlorpyrifos Neonicotinoids Ractopamine

All being phased out or banned up north. And much more restricted in EU/Internationally. While US use seems to me to be rampant.

Japanese rice costs more _because it is better_. And especially because it’s known by laypersons to be better. If any of the commenters here had any authority because perhaps they could claim they’ve spent a bunch of time in Japan like I have? I’d respect that.

And indeed, we Canadians are subject to politics about our supply management on dairy and poultry. It’s not just there to protect business. It’s there to protect health as far as my contemporaries are concerned.

7. ianpenney ◴[01 Jul 25 03:06 UTC] No.44430197[source]▶
> Regulatory status

The use of rBGH is approved in the United States. However, many grocery store chains don’t carry milk from cows treated with rBGH. A United States Department of Agriculture survey conducted in 2014 found that fewer than 1 in 6 cows (15%) were being injected with rBGH.

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/chemicals/reco...

The correct answer is zero. It’s the difference between opt out and opt in. I don’t and can’t shop at your supermarket.

8. tomhow ◴[01 Jul 25 04:49 UTC] No.44430678[source]▶
Your comments in this subthread are against the guidelines. Issues of food safety and environmental externalities are important, and thus need to be discussed in a respectful and earnest way, not an inflammatory and combative one. Please read the guidelines and make an effort to observe them in future, notably these ones:

Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.

Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html