Talk to old-timers, and they’ll often tell you that the tomatoes you find in supermarket produce sections don’t taste anything like the ones they had in their childhoods in the ‘30s and ‘40s.
Turns out, they’re probably not as nutritious, either.
In an article [PDF] published in the February 2009 issue of the HortScience Review, University of Texas researcher Donald R. Davis compiles evidence that points to declines in nutrition in vegetables and (to a lesser extent) fruits over the past few decades.
For example:
[T]hree recent studies of historical food composition data found apparent median declines of 5% to 40% or more in some minerals in groups of vegetables and perhaps fruits; one study also evaluated vitamins and protein with similar results.
He points to another study in which researchers planted low- and high-yielding varieties of broccoli and grain side-by-side. The high-yielding varieties showed less protein and minerals.
The principle seems to be that when plants are nudged to produce as much as possible—whether through lots of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides or through selective breeding—they deliver fewer nutrients. It evidently isn’t just the flavor that’s become diluted in those bland supermarket tomatoes.
This is a fascinating insight. We should reflect that for at least 50 years, the best-funded agricultural researchers are the ones work to maximize yield—that is, gross output per acre. Even now, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is expending hundreds of millions of dollars in an effort to increase yields in Africa.
Rather than isolate and fetishize yield, perhaps ag researchers should learn to take a whole-systems approach: study how communities can develop robust food systems that build healthy soil and produce nutritious food.
(It should also be noted that last year the Organic Center compiled peer-reviewed studies finding that organically grown produce tends to deliver significantly higher nutrient levels than conventional.)
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving
One doctor’s quest to sound the alarm on ‘wind turbine syndrome’
Comments
View as Flat
Inoculated Mind Posted 6:26 am
28 Jan 2009
The most comprehensive review of the conventional-organic health issue was made by Dr Carl Winter at UC Davis, who I intereviewed two years ago on my radio show:
http://www.inoculatedmind.com/2007/07/203/
There may indeed be nutritional benefits that can be derived from how exactly each crop is grown, however, to state that we have sufficient evidence to conclude that organic is healthier goes beyond the scope of current knowledge.
And if you'll examine the organization that funded and published the research, authored by Benbrook (who has a habit of leaving out information that goes against his perspective), you might notice that they are essentially pulling up research that only supports... their stated agenda. It's no different from Monsanto writing a study to 'confirm' that GMOs are good, or Big Pharma saying 'drugs are good.' Why is this conflict of interest uncritically overlooked?
A case in point about Benbrook overlooking published research, on page 20 the paper claims that:
There has been no new published review on this
topic since 2003, and the most recent review was
based on literature through 2001.
Carl Winter's study is completely missing from his analysis.
On to plant breeding.
The decline in nutrition and yield may be the result of the absence of selection pressures. When nutritional quality (and flavor, I might add) are not used as criteria in breeding, it will not increase and may even decrease. Plant breeders have historically focused on yield, and responses to abiotic and biotic factors. Pest resistance is a big one, and cold tolerance is another. Several studies have found that, absent the selection pressure toward more nutritious produce, nutritional content has gone down. Some nutritional traits may be tied to yield, others may be along for the ride.
I would like to suggest, which you overlook in your post, that a big solution to this would be actively breeding for enhanced nutritional content. Some commercial breeders, I know, do breed for more striking and deeper colors in the resulting produce, which is correlated with some aspects of nutritional content, but the relationship isn't perfect. It's a complicated task, but we can direct our attention toward these traits, and if you walk through the halls of your local plant breeding research university, you'll find that it's already happening. But it needs to happen more.
This is one big reason why I got into plant breeding, and I'm into my second year of graduate study at UW-Madison.
I'd also recommend that you check out Harvest Plus, http://www.harvestplus.org which focuses on breeding and engineering nutritional quality traits into widely consumed plant-based foods. It is no coincidence that it has been provided funding by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation - they are not continuing the singular "fetishized" focus on yield that you're suggesting, but actually helping improve the nutritional quality of many crops around the world.
Permalink
Avelhingst Posted 2:20 am
29 Jan 2009
Permalink
J4zonian Posted 3:33 am
03 Feb 2009
"Rather than isolate and fetishize yield, [or anything else] perhaps ag researchers should learn to take a whole-systems approach: study how communities can develop robust food systems that build healthy soil and produce nutritious food." [brackets mine]
Even that doesn't say it all, since maturing times, root systems, companion relationships (to other plants, bacteria, insects, eg...), types of crops grown and other factors also help determine the health of ecosystems, social structures and the usefulness of food to industry vs. people. A whole systems approach to food and everything connected to it--climate change, ecological health, democracy, land patterns, and the whole of our existence, would in the end yield better results in all ways. It is becoming more apparent, just for one example, that honeybee collapse is not an isolated problem with one cause, and may very well not be curable except by healing the agriculture system and our relationship to Nature as a whole.
Permalink
splashy Posted 6:34 pm
04 Feb 2009
Reminds me of my dairy days. Used to be everyone had a little Jersey cow, or a small herd, each of which only gave a gallon or so a day but the milk was very rich. You could churn butter out of it and still have rich milk. Then everyone started going for production, and bred huge Holsteins whose milk was far less rich, and more watery, but a much larger quantity. They also don't live as long, and have more physical problems because of their huge udders. They get things like ketosis because of their huge production.
Oh, and they are much less intelligent too. The Jerseys could fend for themselves fairly well, if they had pasture and a bit of grain and water. Holsteins not so much. They need far more help.
Permalink
James Bond Posted 1:14 pm
08 Feb 2009
When it comes to food dicussions do not go down the nutrient path. This is only an element and misses the point entirely about organic. You also have to be writing to people that are interested in food, which from the scientific perspective you leave out. Food isn't just about intake. I recently read an article about a person putting in 40 acres of organic blueberry production. This is completely counter to what people should be looking at and is only a marketing gimmick. Anyone truly understanding organic would have a diversified production. Ever walk through a managed forest where there is only one species of tree? Is the forest alive of dead? To me it is dead, but then I am not in the lumber business.
Innoculated Mind, please keep this url in your thoughts. http://www.goveg.com/factoryFarming_chickens.asp reveals that there are many assets to consider. Eggs from here are USDA approved. If we go down the measuring of nutrient path, these chickens/eggs may have all the same levels as that of pasture raised organic fed, but elements from sick animals however measured, would not equate to good nutrients being ingested by humans(at least from my viewpoint). Perhaps this is why our current society things eggs are bad for you?
I hope you both get my message. Tom I appreciate your desire, but direct it to people that want to know about good food, in all its flavor and benefits or confine it to those academia that see scientific measure as what is important. I stand that you cannot separate the 2, without losing focus on what matters.
Regards 007
Permalink