Talk:Spinach

History
I've edited this section:

"In 1533, Catherine de'Medici became queen of France; she so fancied spinach that she insisted it be served at every meal. To this day, dishes made with spinach are known as "Florentine," reflecting Catherine's birth in Florence. [7] Because spinach was then regarded as having high iron content, wine fortified with spinach juice was used to treat French soldiers weakened by hemorrhage"

since the part stating "because spinach was then regarded as having high iron content, wine fortified with spinach juice was used to treat French soldiers weakened by hemorrhage"

does not make sense in this context. The source cited for this statement says only "During the war, wine fortified with Spinach juice 1 in 50) was given to French soldiers weakened by haemorrhage" - but does not specify which war. Evidently it was not during any war connected with Catherine de'Medici, since the role of iron in the blood was unknown in the 1500s. I'm guessing this reference is to the First World War, judging by the 1931 original publication date, but further evidence is needed.142.167.107.127 (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Iron and Oxalate
I followed down nearly every link and article I could find regarding how oxalate impacts the bioavailablity of iron, and the only actual scientific research I could track down easily actually indicated that oxalate had no appreciable impact on iron absorbtion. In comparison, the articles I found as "references" in this article that supported the oxalate reducing iron absorbtion were speculative or contained no actual research on the subject matter. 68.37.6.213 (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Needs taxobox
Needs taxobox. Eric Forste 00:39, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Confusion with Silverbeet in New Zealand
I'm a New Zealander, and I have never seen Silverbeet called Spinach. Unless there is some evidence to the contrary, I believe this snippet can be removed.


 * The source for that snippet of information was Rosemary Stanton's book. She could be mistaken of course, so if other New Zealanders feel strongly that this is incorrect, perhaps it should be removed. Any comments in favour or against? The same applies for Australians.


 * I'm I New Zealander, and I too feel it to be incorrect. It's certainly not a common mistake - the distinction between the two is widely noted. I think this factoid could come from the fact that silverbeet is more commonly eaten in the antipodes (it's easier to grow, too), and the fact that the two are visually similar to people who aren't used to silverbeet. Anyway, the difference is widely known, and when the two are confused it's usually noted as a mistake.


 * Another thing to note is that there is, apparently, a 'New Zealand Spinach' (or, in Australia, Warrigal Greens) variety, which isn't actually silverbeet or spinach..


 * I can't speak for Australia. I also can't dig up any solid sources noting the distinction (just individual New Zealanders ), but surely the burden of evidence is on Stanton? --Dom 10:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm an Australian. Silverbeet is commonly called spinach here, perhaps more often than by its real name. By the way, this article says spinach grows "to a height of fifty million feet". I would correct it if I knew the actual figure. I know approximately, of course, but would prefer a horticulturally correct figure to be given. Anyway, it made me laugh in a way that Britannica could not.

I'm Australian and I've never confused spinach and silver beet, ever. Sometimes spinach is called English spinach but that's just another variety. I've also never seen silverbeet in shops called spinach. This confusion must be based on some small sample of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.88.15 (talk) 08:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm Australian and have noticed silverbeet frequently labelled and spoken of as 'spinach'. A lot of people just don't know the difference (similarly, many Australians don't know the difference between shallots - as in the bulb vegetable, a.k.a. French shallots - and green or spring onions, a.k.a. scallions). --TyrS (talk) 04:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I am Western Australian, born in 1966. Growing up I hated "Spinach", because it was in fact a form of beet leaf. It was chewy, stringy, and had a particularly strong & earthy flavour. I can recall later eating the same "Spinach" that had been shopped finely and sautéed with butter and garlic, and it was more tolerable. I can remember hearing the phrase "English Spinach" to differentiate, but I can't recall which was which. I can't say when this changed. Obviously "true" spinach is now widely available, and consumed, here, and has been for many years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.82.157 (talk) 10:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Turnip family?
Quadell? Am I confused? Not that that's unlikely.

Pekinensis 23:51, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Spinach is NOT in the turnip family. Spinach is in Chenopodiaceae, the same as sugar beet and beetroot, whereas turnip is in cruciferae. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Storage
How about gowing, usage and storage tips?

I'd also like to know more about how spinach loses its nutritional value during storage, some numbers, or at least a citation somewhere.

Heating twice a health hazzard?
I've heard that it is reccomended not to heat spinach twice because nitrate contained in spinach then breaks down (at a faster rate) and the products of this reaction could be toxic. Anyone have any source to corroborate or disprove this? Or any more details? I just found one site which corroborates this, but I am not sure as to its validity. Food-Info.net : Can you heat spinach twice? TheQz 20:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Probably just a publich myth.
 * My friend food technologist tells me it has something to do with nitrates decaying to (somewhat cancerogenic) nitrites. --bonzi 19:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

On a package of SPAR (Dutch supermarket chain) deepfreeze spinach, it says "WARNING. Don't keep spinach after heating and never reheat. After defrostign don't freeze again". Dutch law isn't such that companies have to cover themselves for every eventuality just in case they might get sued, so there is probably a real reason for them to put this on there. DirkvdM 15:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It's the same text in Sweden. They also advice against giving spinach to minors because of nitrate oxidation.

It's very widely "known" in the Netherlands that you should not reheat spinach. But according to the Albert Hein FAQ about ingredients in Dutch (the largest supermarket chain in the Netherlands) while the nitrates do increase when reheating nitrate rich greens, it is not by much. As long as it is not kept warm (cools off quickly) and is not kept for longer then 2 days in the fridge the level of nitrates should remain low. This apparently from investigations in 2005 according to a comment on the web elsewhere.

Can i freeze spinach leaves - chirs.leroux@ifsworld.com

There is no scientific support or rationale for the concern that reheating spinach will lead to the formation of n-nitrosoamines. I have deleted this section as it is in error and misleading. Assuming that the spinach is properly prepared, served, and safely stored within a reasonable time after serving, and then properly reheated and served again, there are no data to suggest an elevated risk from nitrosamines in that food. The nitrate level does NOT increase upon heating nitrate-rich greens. Nitrosamines form when nitrites (note different spelling) are incubated with amines under specific conditions favorable for the formation of the nitrosamine. Cooked spinach is not such an environment. [E.R. Blonz, Ph.D.](Blonz (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC))

2006 U.S. spinach recall
I'm doing the best i can to try to get the section up to date. Wikipedians, i beg you to search the internet for news stories on this issue from the beginning to now and to update, expand and write the section so it flows the best that you can, please. dposse 22:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I just added a map, hope that helps the section Coasttocoast 04:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am dismayed by the alarmist reporting here on the E. coli outbreak. The distinction between raw, uncooked spinach and cooked spinach should have been made earlier.


 * Another avenue to explore is "organic" vs. "regular" farming. Which method has led to fewer cases of contamination? --Uncle Ed 15:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 100 people getting sick and one dying is "alarmist"? Anyone, thank you, Coasttocoast, for the map. However, that's just a small thing that is needed here. This section really needs alot of help... dposse 19:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I didn't object to the reports of illnesses. The problem was the alarmist implication that "all spinach was dangerous", while failing to reassure the public that cooked spinach is okay. You can cook it yourself (15 seconds at 160 F), or buy pre-cooked spinach in a can. --Uncle Ed 20:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the FDA has said that you shouldn't eat FRESH spinach. Meaning the type of spinach you make salads out of. That info is in the article already. I didn't see a point to the second section, so i removed it. dposse 22:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I merged this section to 2006 United States E. coli outbreak. —Quarl (talk) 2006-09-19 19:35Z 

IMO the outbreak, while notable as news, is not particularly relevant to the spinach article and deserves footnote status at best. Perhaps a note that spinach, like all leaf vegetables, has been occasionally contaminated with E. coli. -- WormRunner 19:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought the same thing (and quoted you in my blog (http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/lawgeek/?p=12) for a wiki-related class). That kind of goes to the heart of whether we are looking for true notability - which this wouldn't have - or momentary notability. I agree with your suggestion, and a breakoff article would also solve the problem. 140.247.249.130 23:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * A few sentences pointing to the main article is fine. Wikipedia is optimized for reader interest.  Lots of people are going to be searching for this topic under "Spinach".  So what if Britannica's article on Spinach doesn't mention this.  These few sentences will fade into a footnote once it's out of attention.  This just means Wikipedia is dynamic and quickly updated. —Quarl (talk) 2006-09-22 06:19Z 


 * OK, but can someone who knows how move the "breaking news" box from the head of the article to the relevant paragraph? Spinach itself is hardly an event in progress ;) --bonzi 19:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Bolt resistant
"Bloomsdale is also somewhat bolt resistant." Bolt?? --Gbleem 13:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yikes :-(. That should be linked to bolting... doing that now :). -- SB_Johnny |talk|books 16:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I need to know it gets to the usa

Vandalism Problem
Been seeing a lot of vandalism here. I really think this article should be locked for the time being. -67.142.130.14 18:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone who knows what they are doing might want to elinate the following joke from the second reference: "Kittens are the cutest monsters in the world as seen in asdf movies the cute kitten killed the man who looked at it" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.205.243.174 (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

How-to issue
I'm going to move the purchasing and storage sections to b:Cookbook:Spinach, as they're really not written up in wp fashion (for one thing, they address the reader in the second person, but the content is also plainly instructional). The sections could be rewritten to discuss packaging and storage, but there wouldn't be much content there. -- SB_Johnny |talk|books 09:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I merged the 2 sections and removed the how-to material, now found on the wikibooks page instead. -- SB_Johnny |talk|books 14:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate
Is the 2006 e coli break appropriate to place inside this article? 12.226.13.0 03:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Saracen
Worth mentioning Saracens introduced it to Sicily? Trekphiler 23:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Fifths
"All of the iron in grains and vegetables, and about three fifths of the iron in animal food sources (meats), is nonheme iron. The much smaller remaining portion from meats is heme iron"

Two fifths is not a much smaller portion than three fifths.

Old people say
I've got some unchecked information about spinach that seems to be interesting...

I was on a travel in Vietnam for a while...lived in one monastery for a few days, stayed in fishermen hats e.c.t. ...spending my days manly in places where the "medicine" comes from kind of healers and shamans... Rise and water spinach are two most common parts of the meal all over the country... I had a bad knee after an accident... local people, particularly as they got to know you a bit and started to act in the way of care, wouldn't allow to eat a spinach...  the reason was a worth healing because of something about spinach...my Vietnamese wasn't enough for real conversation and a lot of talking would be in drawings... I doubt they could explain it better any way... it that they knew from early days but they wouldn't hear anything about amount of iron, vitamins or anything concrete what prevent healing...  Any related information would be appreciated  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.139.72 (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

can ppl include the chinese name for spinach in the article? 59.189.84.174 09:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

raw vs. cooked
Please clarify the nutritional aspects of eating spinach raw vs. cooked.

Please clarify the nutritional aspects of eating baby spinach vs. mature spinach leaves. Baby spinach leaves are commonly sold at retail in the US; they seem milder, and more expensive. -69.87.199.9 (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). WLU (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

seeds and growing
The current article is mostly about spinach-the-food, very little about the plant. What do the seeds look like? How to grow? Not even any links to such info! When was it first domesticated? When did consumption spread, to what cultures? What current cultures consume most/least spinach?

Where is major production now? The graphic is obviously wrong -- too small to understand, and the US locations make no sense. -69.87.199.9 (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). WLU (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Food plant statistics
Each food plant article should include:
 * total annual production/harvest worldwide
 * top ten country production figures
 * annual consumption per capita in various countries
 * import/export flows
 * wholesale and retail prices
 * production per acre
 * inputs: labor, water, fertilizer, weed killer, insecticide per acre and per kilo of food production
 * environmental/sustainability aspects
 * history of domestication; current split between formal vs. subsistence production/consumption

Until we incorporate such information into the articles, what are the best external sources of such information?

This seems like a good general global data resource:
 * Food and Agriculture Organization
 * Food and Agriculture Organization Corporate Statistical Database
 * Plant Search Form -- 2568 plants; detailed data sheet for each foot plant
 * FAOSTAT by-country data access

Spinach

This seems like the best place to start for the US:
 * http://www.ers.usda.gov/News/spinachcoverage.htm
 * Fresh-Market Spinach: Background Information and Statistics
 * August 30, 2007

"Driven by fresh-market use, the consumption of spinach (Spinacia oleracea) has been on the rise in the United States. Per capita use (covers both disappearance for food consumption and marketing loss) of fresh-market spinach averaged 2.2 pounds during 2004-06—the highest since the mid-1940s. The fresh market now accounts for about three-fourths of all U.S. spinach consumed. Much of the growth over the past decade has been due to sales of triple-washed cello-packed spinach and, more recently, baby spinach. These packaged products have been one of the fastest-growing segments of the packaged salad industry.

The United States is the world’s second-largest producer of spinach, with 3 percent of world output, following China (PRC), which accounts for 85 percent of output. A cool-season crop that grows quickly and can withstand hard frosts, spinach is a native of Asia (likely origin in the Persian region) and has been cultivated in China since at least the 7th century. Spinach use was recorded in Europe as early as the mid-13th century, with seed accompanying colonists to the New World.

California (73 percent of 2004-06 U.S. output), Arizona (12 percent), and New Jersey (3 percent) are the top producing States, with 12 other States reporting production of at least 100 acres (2002 Census). Over the 2004-06 period, U.S. growers produced an average of 867 million pounds of spinach for all uses, with about three-fourths sold into the fresh-market (includes fresh-cut/processed). According to the 2002 Census of Agriculture, spinach was grown on 1,109 U.S. farms—down 17 percent from 1997, but about the same number as in 1987.

The farm value of the U.S. spinach crop (fresh and processing) averaged averaged $175 million during 2004-06, with fresh market spinach accounting for 94 percent. The value of fresh market spinach has more than doubled over the past decade as stronger demand has boosted production, while inflation-adjusted prices largely remained constant. California accounts for about three-fourths of the value of both the fresh and processing spinach crops. Average grower cash receipts for spinach during 2004-06 exceeded those for such crops as garlic, asparagus, and green peas.

Like other cool-season leafy crops, most (about 96 percent) of the fresh spinach consumed in the United States is produced domestically. Although rising, imports (largely from Mexico) totaled about 23 million pounds in 2004-06, compared with 3 million pounds in 1994-06. During the last 10 years, exports (largely to Canada) have jumped 70 percent to 47 million pounds (2004-06), with much of the growth occurring earlier this decade." (from US gov site, therefore not copyright?)

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/VGS/Jan04/VGS30001/
 * Factors Affecting Spinach Consumption in the United States 2004
 * "The analysis indicates that per capita spinach consumption is greatest in the Northeast and West. About 80 percent of fresh-market spinach is purchased at retail and consumed at home, while 91 percent of processed spinach is consumed at home. Per capita spinach use is strongest among Asians, highest among women 40 and older, and weakest among teenage girls."

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib792/aib792-2/aib792-2.pdf
 * U.S. Fruit and Vegetable Consumption
 * Who,What,Where, and How Much

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FruitVegPhyto/Data/veg-spinach.xls
 * US import/export data

-69.87.199.71 (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Even if it's not copyright, we still don't need the full dump, the weblink is sufficient.
 * Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). WLU (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a citation for China producing 85% of the world's Spinach? It sounds a bit off that China's production is more than 20 times US production. (Anon 24 Apr 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.113.168.130 (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"Second biggest producer?"
The article says the USA is the world's second biggest prducer of Spinach. If so, then why isn't the biggest producer mentioned?  Alm ighty  Clam  14:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Iron Content
The mixes units in "180 gram serving of boiled spinach contains 6.43 mg of iron, whereas one 3 oz. ground hamburger patty contains at most 2.21 mg" are misleading.

The oz measure should be converted to grams for clarity.

The hamburger, rather than almost 1/3 the iron as implied, is about 2/3 the iron content of the spinach.

Alannon (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

SPINACH HAS STEROIDS IN IT
"SOME may scoff at the notion that spinach - despite containing nutrients - builds muscles, but Popeye may have been on to something. A steroid found in leafy greens ramps up protein synthesis in muscles.

A team led by Ilya Raskin of Rutgers University in New Jersey extracted phytoecdysteroids from spinach. When they placed the liquid extract on samples of cultured human muscle, it sped up growth by 20 per cent. Rats were also slightly stronger after a month of injections of the extract (Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, DOI: 10.1021/jf073059z). Unfortunately, you would need to eat more than a kilogram of spinach every day to gain equivalent amounts of the steroid."

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19826554.400-why-popeye-may-have-been-right-about-spinach.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=specrt10_head_Eats%20ya%20greens!

Brancron (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Brancron

SPINACH CANNOT MIX WITh SOYA BEANS
I heard spinach and soya beans or any soya beans contained product cannot be cooked together or eat together as it's cancerous. Is it true? If so, it can be scary.
 * Both contain cyanide, but cooking or eating them together does not have a synergistic effect. Many plants that are eaten have chemicals that can cause cancer, but the amounts of the chemical are generally minimal, some have both cancer causing and cancer "preventing" chemicals (like broccoli)- but the amounts are not enough to have much effect in a normal diet. Hardyplants (talk) 06:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow! Both are cancerous. Perhaps someone should list down the veggies thats cancerous and those thayt have cancer preventing chemicals like broccoli. From 203.126.93.30  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.93.30 (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Iron
This article contradicts itself: "Thus spinach does contain a relatively high level of iron, compared to other vegetable and meat sources." vs. "In truth, spinach actually has about the same iron content as a lot of other vegetables, and even less than others." I'm more inclined to believe the former since it is referenced, but could someone confirm? Not to sound like pop cultured dumbass, but one of the judges on Iron Chef mentioned that spinach has little nutrition in its raw state, but did not elaborate. DKqwerty (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's just the tip of the iceberg in this article. The whole section on iron is a hilariously stupid back and forth. Can someone with a proper education please fix this? 69.226.32.192 (talk) 08:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * you guys should read this article on spinach: http://www.cracked.com/article_18517_the-7-most-disastrous-typos-all-time.html98.164.196.22 (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's right, a Cracked article is a more reliable source on spinach's iron content than the USDA nutritional database. The fact is that spinach does have a lot of iron in it, gram for gram, more than is in beef.  There are plant sources with more, but the misprint everyone quotes said it had ten times as much as it does, or over ten times beef, not "almost as much as red meat."  The news of the typo getting out has left a lot of people convinced that it's got a tenth what it does, but that's not true.  Twin Bird (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Per the USDA nutritional database -- Raw Spinach has: Iron, 2.71 mg per 100 grams// while cooked t-bone steak meat has: 3.66 mg Fe per 100 grams.  Cooked Beef, chuck, top blade has 2.8 mg per 100 grams, if the meats were freshly butchered and cooked just to a raw state they would have much more iron.  The more pressing problem that spinach has (than having less iron the meat), is that much of the iron in spinach can't be absorbed by the body so its a very poor source of nutritional iron. One is much better off eating the beef if you need iron.  Hardyplants (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Cooked spinach has more by weight, since so much of spinach is water. I'm checking, and it has more than every raw or cooked muscle steak I can find.  But that's not the point; the point is that the article linked saying the idea that it has "almost as much as red meat" comes from thinking it has ten times what it does is just wrong.  Twin Bird (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your correct that the incorrect number would have given it much more iron than meat. Freshly cooked spinach has the water removed from the cells, a comparable comparison with meat would be jerky. Hardyplants (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really. Cooked spinach, with the water gone, and cooked beef, with most of the water retained, are the rules, with jerky and raw spinach the exceptions.  Twin Bird (talk) 05:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, I do not know what "are the rules" means, but I am making a comparison, were both have their water content removed from the cells. Maybe you mean that those two items are what is consumed in the greatest quantity? If so, it would be interesting to see some type of data that indicated how much spinach is consumed in a specific way.  There is data for spinach production but I do not know of any for consumption.  As a side note, canned spinach has a very diminished iron content compared to fresh spinach, but maybe it has less binding agents too. Hardyplants (talk)

Nitrite content in this vegie....
--222.64.22.16 (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+spinach+nitrite&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

Spinach in popular culture
Apart from the comic relief value for this section's name, it should probably be renamed (I literally laughed out loud when I saw its title). (no offense meant) UNIT A4B1 (talk) 05:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

At present, the article states that "Spinach, along with Brussels sprouts and other green vegetables, is often portrayed in the media, including children's shows, as being undesirable." But I've never encountered the same kind of hostility towards, say, lettuce, as towards spinach; it's the ones which taste just fine to some people, and nasty to others, such as Brussels sprouts because of ptc sensitivity, cilantro because of the buggy taste, spinach because of the overwhelmingly strong [or to others mild] taste, etc. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The spinach, Popeye and decimal myth
In the Spinach section, a myth that has only recently been busted still appears: "A frequently circulated story claims that this portrayal was based on faulty calculations of the iron content.[19][20][21] In the story, German scientist E. von Wolf misplaced a decimal point in an 1870 measurement of spinach's iron content, leading to an iron value 10 times higher than it should have been. This faulty measurement was not noticed until the 1930s." This has been proven not true, and is recommended to be changed. ref: http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/Sutton_Spinach_Iron_and_Popeye_March_2010.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuphrer (talk • contribs) 19:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The paper above is now accessible here: https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/b93dd4_1fe4a4c3e82444d1986c4ef560a91e28.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.79.209.48 (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Introduction to India and etymology
The article now states that spinach was brought to India by Arab traders (introduced into the article with this edit). I'm wondering why. Persia has Pakistan/India as their direct neighbour to the east, whereas the Arabs live to the west of the Persian empire. The reference that is now presently used does not mention Arabs bringing the plant to India, only to north Africa and Europe. I have searched with Google and I can find no reliable references which state which people were responsible for its introduction to India. To change it from Arab to Muslim is also fairly strange because it came to China via Nepal (and therefore it had to be in India first) by 647 AD, less than two decades after the Muslim conquest of Arabia and before the completion of the Arab conquest of Persia. The most logical conclusion would be that it came directly from Persia to India, brought there either by Persian traders or imported by Indian traders. Per this database the origin of spinach is said to be northern Iran, Afghanistan and Turkmenistan: directly west and northwest of India/Pakistan. This thesis states that it was only recognised by Arabs in India and China. Perhaps it is best to state that how it came to India is unknown because as it stands now, it seems to be creating its own myth with many websites repeating this unsourced piece of information from wikipedia. As for the source of the name, this research paper states that it comes from the Persian word ispanai, meaning "green hand". - Takeaway (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Popular culture - Mike Sutton's Spinach article
The section on popular culture is currently dominated by Mike Sutton's scholarship, which seems questionable to me. Sutton is attempting to revise the notion that an overestimation of spinach's iron content led to spinach being considered a health food, and ultimately its prominent place in Popeye cartoons and comics.

However, The Internet Journal of Criminology is an unusual source for such a paper on comics, food, and popular culture. It turns out that the Internet Journal of Criminology masthead lists the Chief Editor as Mike Sutton. It is unclear to me if this is a legitimate peer-reviewed journal, as many of the articles are written by Mike Sutton (with coauthors). Furthermore while the spinach paper is located on the website of the Internet Journal of Criminology, it isn't actually included in the list of peer-reviewed articles, but is included on a list of "primary research". It seems likely to me that Mike Sutton did some interesting original research here but is using his position at one journal to skip the step of submitting it to a peer-reviewed journal with a more appropriate theme.

Sutton seems to have been successful in disseminating his view of the story: I see it cited in other places now, often with similar wording to the Wikipedia article. Although Sutton's research may be interesting, Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy. I suggest it be removed until the paper makes it into a peer-reviewed journal to be evaluated by appropriate experts. –NeilK (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * By that reasoning the entire section should be removed, because the iron version of the story also wasn't from any peer reviewed papers (it was mentioned in peer reviewed papers, but not as a conclusion from research, just a reference to common knowledge or other sources). Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Urban legend
At the moment the "Urban legend" section says "The source behind the myth was a study from the 1930s which misplaced a decimal point and thus made it appear as if spinach contained ten times as much iron as it really did. ".

When only reading the abstract of the referenced article it is easy to take away this incorrect message. However, the full text of the article states, for example:
 * "Nothing indicates that the decimal point error ever was made"
 * "Sutton did a tremendous job, digging back to the 19th century and exposing for us all that Hamblin’s debunking of the myth about the exaggerated iron content was itself a myth."

I proposed the following new version of the section:


 * In contrast to the description above, spinach is sometimes wrongly claimed to be a good source of iron. However, this myth is often also wrongly explained by researchers misplacing a decimal mark. References to this decimal error story often lead back to T. J. Hamblins article "Fake!" in the British Medical Journal from 1981. This article is neither the original source nor does it provide any proof or reference for the decimal error story.


 * Mike Sutton showed that there most certainly was no decimal error involved in deriving the wrong iron content of spinach. Later analysis also supports the idea that the true reason for the misestimation of the iron content of spinach are "unreliable methods or poor experimentation". Mike Suttons inquiry lead T. J. Hamblin to conclude that "even by the turn of the twentieth century errors in earlier measurements were readily apparent without the need to invoke decimal places."

This however was reverted by User:Zefr with the comment "Previous version and source are better; Hamblin rambles. (TW)" I agree that blogs are not as reliable a source than peer-reviewed articles, but the article in question does not state what the section here says. In my version I mostly elaborated what is stated in referenced article and referenced to the original sources. How do we get to a better version from here? --Snipergang (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * . Thanks for raising this on the Talk page first where it can be considered for WP:CON. I have to say your suggested text makes far too much about this myth, and suggest rather than on the spinach article, you discuss it at the Mike Sutton article. The issue is minor and really doesn't get attention anymore, so is quite moot. Because it's not really a matter of nutrition, I'm moving the "urban legend" content to the "popular culture" section.
 * Seems fine for me to move it into the "popular culture" section and not focus on the myth. However, the text is still wrong for two reasons: 1. The source of the myth is not from the 1930s and it is not about a misplaced decimal point. The referenced source does not say what the current text says that it does (even though the abstract is quite easy to misinterpret).Snipergang (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that reading those tangled 2010 stories by Sutton and Hamblin reveal how futile and useless this information is. I'm removing it from the article all together as unencyclopedic per WP:UNDUE. --Zefr (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Raw foodism
This article doesn't inform if spinach can/should be eaten raw, instead of boiled.--MisterSanderson (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Feel free to edit.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  01:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Further reading - archiving
Little value to this reading section, as all sources are more than 13 years old. Moved from article to here for discussion or archiving. --Zefr (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Abstract
 * Rogers, Jo. What Food is That?: and how healthy is it?. The Rocks, Sydney, NSW: Lansdowne Publishing Pty Ltd, 1990. ISBN 1-86302-823-4.
 * Cardwell, Glenn. Spinach is a Good Source of What?. The Skeptic. Volume 25, No 2, Winter 2005. Pp 31–33. ISSN 0726-9897
 * Blazey, Clive. The Australian Vegetable Garden: What's new is old. Sydney, NSW: New Holland Publishers, 1999. ISBN 1-86436-538-2
 * Stanton, Rosemary. Complete Book of Food and Nutrition. Australia, Simon & Schuster, Revised Edition, 1995. ISBN 0-7318-0538-0

Spinach vs Popeye
Pepperbeast, I hope you'll see this; I also posted it to your own Talk page.

I'm a longtime animation scholar with the book credits to prove it, but I'm not saying that to brag... I'm just trying to establish my credentials.

I edited "Spinach in popular culture" today to correct the citation and source for Popeye's theme song (it's not just a catchphrase as indicated, has a different official spelling, an author, and a citable original source). However, after I made the correction and added the citation via a new note, I found you undid my changes a few hours later, with the comment "Revert good-faith. Article has enough tangential trivia."

But it's not tangential trivia—I was trying to correct the spelling of the phrase and cite its origin and author. I was working on some unrelated E. C. Segar (Popeye creator) research for a new book, noticed the misspelling and lack of source and thought it should be clarified and added. Isn't more accuracy better? Ramapith (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's tangential trivia. Popeye is just barely relevant to the subject of spinach. The name of the composer of Popeye's theme song is a couple of degrees less relevant.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  14:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)