
The great nutrient collapse - clumsysmurf
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511?lo=ap_a1
======
skosch
For more details, I recommend this Nature article:
[https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-
of...](https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-
atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108)

The short version, if I remember it correctly: Plants open and close their
pores ("stomata") to balance the need to get CO_2 from the air with the need
to conserve water, which easily evaporates away and then needs to be
replenished through the roots. If we give plants lots of CO_2, they will close
their pores to prevent water loss (because who knows when it'll next rain,
right?). But the micronutrients, including the N required to make proteins,
come from the ground – so the plants' own mechanism to minimize having to rely
on water from the ground results in the plant accumulating fewer
micronutrients.

------
baxtr
I think it's great that we have people researching this. However, what worries
me are not the results but how we are going to deal with them. As a species we
have to cope with the fact that the climate is changing, we won't reverse that
so easily. This is a fact. I'd rather talk about how to overcome the obstacles
exposed by this study not only the mere fact that our food is changing "for
the worse". Finally, I believe for many parts of the world I suppose it isn't
as bad as portrait to have a higher carbohydrate share in their meals.

~~~
AstralStorm
For the rich, the ~10% difference in nutrients is trivial to compensate. As
long as they will care to do so.

What will happen to poorer people and how the society is going to deal with it
though?

~~~
baxtr
As far as I understand the article it states that the share of carbs is
increasing. That food is lacking other nutrients seems to man made as well but
the underlying reason is not climate change but agricultural methods that have
changed

------
FrojoS
The article mentions a connection to obesity. "To what degree would a shift in
the food system contribute to that? We can't really say.” I really wonder if
this already a part of the worldwide obesity crisis.

More carbs/nutrition in the food leads to more calories/nutrition. So, on
average, you would have to consume more calories to get all required macro and
micro nutritions. The effect doesn't have to be big. Just a few more percent
in calories consumed can lead to a large weight gain, compounded over many
years.

I'm likely missing some important pieces on nutrition science but it's
interesting to play with the numbers. The article says that the amount of
'important minerals' might drop by 8% in the future. Let's say it has already
dropped by 5%. In order to get the same amount of minerals today, you have to
eat about 5% more of the same food leading to about 5% more consumed calories.
Let's say you would keep your current weight at 2500 kcal/day, but now you
consume an extra 150 kcal/day. Assuming a weight gain of 1 kg/7700 kcal, this
would lead to a weight gain of 150 kcal/day x 1 kg/7700 kcal x 365 days/year =
7 kg/year. Hence, a 1.65 m tall person starting with a weight of 60 kg (BMI =
22, normal weight) would be considered obese within a mere 3 years (81 kg, BMI
= 30).

Of course, the increase in CO2 and subsequent drop in nutritions with a
magnitude of 5% takes place over a longer time span than 3 years. But I still
find it interesting, that apparently this effect could explain an enormous
amount of the obesity puzzle. If, hypothetically, humans wouldn't have changed
the composition of their diet or calorie expenditure at all, but their bodies
are tuned to maintain a fixed amount of nutritions, the small drop in
nutrition content alone could apparently explain a worldwide increase in
obesity.

~~~
Recurecur
"But I still find it interesting, that apparently this effect could explain an
enormous amount of the obesity puzzle. If, hypothetically, humans wouldn't
have changed the composition of their diet or calorie expenditure at all, but
their bodies are tuned to maintain a fixed amount of nutritions, the small
drop in nutrition content alone could apparently explain a worldwide increase
in obesity."

This effect is easily explained by the "food pyramid" theory of nutrition,
which emphasizes carbs as the major food source. It seems very clear that this
is wrong, and the healthiest diet includes substantially more fat and protein.
The other increasingly missing ingredient for a leaner population is called
"exercise".

------
spodek
The problem ought to affect all life, not just humans, I would expect. The
article barely touched on other animals.

Have people looked at how the changes affect other animals -- wild or
domesticated? Does it affect us through animals we eat? If so, does the effect
compound?

~~~
porlune
Considering how much we supplement our nutrient intake through eating
processed foods (e.g. enriched flour) I doubt a human study would even be
possible.

------
tw1010
How does all this fare with Michael Pollan's whole thesis that nutrients
aren't even the things we aught to focus on?

~~~
chrismealy
Pollan's point is that there's more to nutrition than carbs and protein. It
was already established that the green revolution (which ultimately was about
turning fossil fuels into food) resulted in food with more carbs and less
everything else. Global warming apparently is doing the same.

------
jqs79
An 8% decline is not a "collapse." Also, this could be considered a feature,
not a bug, that crops can be produced with less fertilizer, that zinc and iron
is still in the soil for the following years. Nutritionists always say that
eating a balanced diet provides people with far more of the essential minerals
and vitamins than we actually need.

So an alternative headline: "Climate change allows crops to be produced more
abundantly and with less fertilizer and added micronutrients, while retaining
more than 90% of their nutrients"

~~~
newscracker
It may not be a collapse for people who get to choose what they eat, how much
they eat, when they eat and how often they eat. But this certainly has a huge
impact on the overall human population, where the poorer classes stand at a
huge disadvantage with an 8% drop in nutritive value and cannot get
supplements and other aids. The existing research and initiatives to fortify
staple foods will have to intensify and become more widespread. That's easier
said than done.

------
rcarrigan87
Very interesting issue although I would say as it relates to humans, our diets
are already so poor and artificial that changing eating habits and what we put
in our food could likely balance out some of this nutrient loss in the actual
plants.

------
purplezooey
I wonder what intern had the responsibility to find some 90s clip art of rice,
wheat and barley.

------
transverse
This is why I take a hundred pills a day and continue making one change a week
to this regimen. I still optimize my diet though.

~~~
weavie
Please expound. What pills do you take?

~~~
transverse
Well I certainly won't post it here on this terrible HN forum where people
downvoted my post because it's an idea that they are not used to.

------
aaron695
This is an interesting theoretical idea. All Science is great.

But today, today we have massive issues with the 3rd world poor with micro-
nutrient deficiencies.

This makes no difference, wow 200 million people goes to 240 million people
sometime in the far future if we do nothing.

How about we solve the real issue, micro-nutrients in the 3rd world poor
instead.

It's not sexy like, big scary global warming. And it has simple boring
solutions.

But today we can save lives cheaply and it creates long term solutions
(lacking micro-nutrients in children reduces IQ, stopping this happening help
pulls people out of poverty permanently)

Frankly if you are worried about this, then your priorities/morals are shot.

~~~
arekkas
Not only is it an issue of scale, it's also an ignorant view that the human
species can only solve one issue at a time.

~~~
ainiriand
Just like the false conundrum of caring for animals when kids are starving in
the 3rd world.

~~~
zimablue
Whilst it's not true that the world can only progress on one issue at a time,
I think that there's a fair point to make about prioritization. You as an
individual can only focus or fund so many issues and we do have to make
choices on what to focus, eg. first world identity politics vs wealth
inequality.

