
Supermarket vegetables now 5-40% lower in nutrients than 50 years ago - crocus
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1880145,00.html
======
rjurney
Its not surprising that 60 years after the green revolution (
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution> ) that we would have washed
trace minerals from the soil of our most productive farmland, which produces
most of our vegetables, resulting in them having lower mineral content. Its
also not surprising that nitrogen fed fruits and vegetables bred for size and
weight would be larger and so contain diluted minerals.

But if we intend to continue to increase our agricultural output and continue
to feed the earth's population then there's no going back, and you can't feed
everyone on earth with organic methods. Its hard enough using every trick in
the book. Borlaug ( <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug> ) is an
amazing guy and anyone who enjoyed this article will enjoy reading about the
bio-hacker that fed a billion people and ended mass starvation in India and
China by breeding kick-ass wheat and rice that raised agricultural output by
seven times since the 1940s!

The solution for Americans: grow your own vegetables! Use plenty of compost,
use organic heirloom seeds suitable for your area and spray weekly with dilute
dish soap and you'll have minerals a plenty in your veggies and no pesticides.
And they'll taste better than anything you've ever had! It doesn't take much
land to grow a significant amount of food.

~~~
old-gregg
Great comment! I like your attitude and thanks for the links. BTW we have
tried your suggestion (growing our own) and after several attempts we're
giving up: self-grown veggies have almost the same lack of taste as the
manufactured ones from a supermarket: I suspect that's because the seeds
themselves have been genetically ruined. Same with farmers markets: their
vegetables are not only tasteless, but they're also ugly and more expensive.

We've asked my parents in Russia to send me their seeds of tomatoes and
cucumbers but they won't grow here due to climate/soil differences. So we're
stuck with "plastic" ones from the store. Many 1st gen. immigrants I know,
particularly from southern Europe, share my disdain for American agricultural
products. Strawberries are my favorite example: they're 2-3 times bigger than
normal, have different texture and are completely devoid of taste. They're
basically enlarged 3D prints of strawberries made of eatable synthetic
substance. And don't get me started on various deserts with "strawberry"
flavors: if the periodic elements table had a smell, that would be it - a US-
made strawberry milk shake.

~~~
rjurney
You're not stuck! You just need heirloom seeds, and tons of compost and you
can raise great tasting vegetables. Personally, I get my seeds from
<http://www.harrisseeds.com> (no affiliation) but if you google, you can find
many heirloom seed providers - just make sure to talk to them before you buy
to make sure they will grow ok in your climate zone - heirlooms are less
tolerant of climate ranges than the modern breeds.

As to the strawberries - you're not stuck there either! While personally I
can't imagine anyone not preferring gigantor strawberries, to each his own.
There is a different breed of species in Europe, you can get them here, they
will grow here. I don't remember the exact species/breed, but an heirloom seed
supplier will know. You can see the different species on wikipedia:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragaria>

------
Semiapies
I'm not clear on the importance of this claim, even if it were to pan out. We
aren't seeing vitamin deficiencies in this country beyond those people who
don't actually _eat_ vegetables.

~~~
patio11
When you hear people talk about food being bad for you, they aren't talking
about vitamin deficiencies, they're talking about _moral_ deficiencies. The
difference is that moral deficiencies happen whether there is any externally
visible impact at all.

Boo boo on Big Ag, rah rah organic. But put a crate full of cheap Big Ag
tomatoes in a room with a handful of people suffering from scurvy and, bam, no
more scurvy.

Scurvy. You know, that vitamin C deficiency that you've only heard of in
pirate movies. Americans routinely suffered from it as recently as the 1950s
-- infants, especially, since all-natural healthy mother's milk from a mother
with insufficient vitamin C in her diet means you're on a one-way ticket to
scurvyville. That bad, unnatural, killing-you-softy bottled formula has
vitamin C added to it. The green revolution, improved
transportation/refrigeration/processing of tomatoes in cheap pasta sauces and
ketchup, and whatnot largely eliminated borderline vitamin C deficiency in
mothers. Wham, infantile scurvy essentially vanishes from the US.

Scurvy is still quite common in the Third World and epidemic in refugee
populations but, hey, at least they're not being given Evil Unnatural
Frankenfood tomatoes which were probably poisoned by Monsanto.

~~~
trapper
Can you point to some papers/sources on the scurvy issue? I'd be interested to
read as I have heard the opposite.

------
lutorm
"The Omnivore's Dilemma" is a great book about this.

One thing I learned there is that if you buy a strawberry flavored something
that lists "natural flavorings" on it, that doesn't mean it has any strawberry
in it. "Natural" just means the material originates in nature, not that the
actual molecules are natural. Material from corn chemically processed into
something that tastes (barely) remininscent of strawberry is a "natural
flavor" according to the system.

~~~
ewiethoff
Perfumes and food flavors are concocted in the same factories in New Jersey by
the same chemists. In other words, food flavors are food perfumes. Factory
processing of mediocre quality farm products can create a food which is not
particularly appetizing. Adding "natural flavors" or "artificial flavors"
makes this brand-name food smell yummy. And adding some colors makes it look
yummy.

"Natural flavors" are made from plants or animals using old-fashioned
processes. "Artificial flavors" are made from 1) plants or animals using
newfangled processes or 2) icky substances such as petroleum or coal tar.
"Natural strawberry flavor" is made from a tree (birch? willow? can't
remember), not from strawberries.

I'm pretty sure I learned these factoids around ten years ago from a book
called _Mauve_ , about the history of fabric dyes, of all things. Or some of
this might be found in _Fast Food Nation._

BTW, my aroma memory tells me that if you slap on some Polo cologne, the scent
that remains after a few hours is "blueberry flavor" from Betty Crocker muffin
mix.

------
triplefox
This does not come as a surprise if you've followed prior evidence suggesting
that processed stuff contains less nutrition than natural foods(whole grains,
grass-fed, organic, etc).

~~~
jwilliams
\+ supermarkets tend to value longevity, ability to store, hardiness,
appearance... This has led to gradual section of (say) tomatoes that can
survive transport the best, but don't necessarily have the best flavour or
nutrition.

My parents have a property and grow a lot of their own food - and the taste
difference just blows me away sometimes.

~~~
anamax
> supermarkets tend to value longevity, ability to store, hardiness,
> appearance

Supermarkets value what is profitable. You know, the difference between what
people will pay for something and what it costs to provide said something.

People pay more for appearance. In store shelf-life reduces costs and post-
purchase shelf-life increases buying and reduces angry customers and returns.
etc.

------
dangoldin
This doesn't really address how to solve the issue. Would going to farmer's
markets/growing your own be the only way to address this on an individual
scale? Or would the farmers be doing the same thing.

~~~
rjurney
It depends. I think most organic growers use modern, disease tolerant breeds
that produce as much as possible - just like commercial farmers, they just
lack certain Monsanto genetic improvements. So you will see dilution of
minerals in larger fruits in greater numbers per plant, if that is the primary
cause of the decrease in minerals.

On the other hand if the cause is primarily due to poor soil that relies
entirely on inorganic fertilizer and hasn't been properly amended with organic
material - compost - then the organic produce will indeed have more vitamins
and minerals.

The other benefit of organic produce is that if you buy from a farmers market
- inorganic or not, you are often buying from a local farmer and your produce
will have more nutrients because it is fresher. It is said that frozen
vegetables are actually healthier because they are flash frozen near the
field, and decompose less than vegetables in the 'fresh' section of the
supermarket that have crossed the country, decomposing the whole way.

And of course organic vegetables don't have traces of pesticides.

~~~
bmj
For me, it's far more important to buy locally than it is to buy organic
(though it's also easy, at least where I am, to do both). The food industry
has caught on to the organic trend and there are now organic factory farms
which are only slightly better than non-organic factory farms. And organic
guidelines don't prohibit the use of some pesticides. Granted, what they might
use isn't as bad, but it is pesticide nonetheless.

~~~
ars
>For me, it's far more important to buy locally

Why? Certain plants grow better in different places. It makes no sense to grow
a plant locally if it would grow better elsewhere. It usually costs extra
energy to do so as well.

If you are not sure which one is better for the environment check the price -
the cheaper one is better (pesticides not included).

~~~
bmj
That's why I do my best to buy produce suited to my locale. Cheap energy has
spoiled us--we can eat blueberries in the dead of winter. I'm not sure that's
a Good Thing.

 _If you are not sure which one is better for the environment check the price
- the cheaper one is better (pesticides not included)._

I'm no sure what you mean? Cheap food is better for the environment? Feedlots,
which generate much of the meat you find your supermarket, literally put out
tons of pollution.

~~~
ars
You are right about pollution - price doesn't tell you anything about that.

Price mainly tells you about energy usage (carbon emissions). And resource
usage (like mining).

But you were talking about local, not about feedlots. And the reason people
buy local is energy. And for that, price is an excellent way of detecting
which product used less energy in it's making.

So if frozen blueberries from Brazil cost less than the blueberries from the
farm up the road, then, despite not being local, they used less energy in the
growing.

Personally I think that pollution is important, not just CO2, so I buy organic
when I can, and I don't care in the slightest about local.

~~~
bmj
These are good points, and I don't disagree. My localism is driven by more
than simply C02 math, however--it's about community and supporting people I
can know.

------
artaak
There is an interesting documentary "Food matters" (<http://foodmatters.tv/>).
The facts presented are astonishing. However, I do not necessarily advocate on
taking their point of view, In my opinion it would be reasonable to withhold
judgment and look on their facts. It might change your perspective.

"You are what you eat"

------
nraynaud
As far as I know, in countries fighting against obesity like ours, and with no
real vitamin deficit, it's not really a big problem having lesser energetic
food.

my 2c.

~~~
rjurney
Its not less energetic, it has more carbs and less vitamins. Possibly. 5-40%
is an absurd range.

------
rarrrrrr
Nutritionists have been saying this for years. This is why the very high end
multi vitamins ($50-100 per month!) include such a wide variety of
ingredients, and the does is somewhere between 9-12 capsules PER DAY.

Examples:

Life Extension Foundation: [http://www.lef.org/Vitamins-
Supplements/Item01335/Life-Exten...](http://www.lef.org/Vitamins-
Supplements/Item01335/Life-Extension-Mix-Tabs.html)

NSI: [http://www.vitacost.com/NSI-Synergy-Supreme-Multi-Vitamin-
Ve...](http://www.vitacost.com/NSI-Synergy-Supreme-Multi-Vitamin-Version-3)

~~~
scott_s
See this short series of posts from a week ago about whether or not vitamins
actually help: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=507501>

Short version: I post a link to a NYT piece on the lack of medical evidence,
someone eventually posts a link to a study which might show benefit. In the
meantime, I think we don't know either way yet.

~~~
rarrrrrr
Like many things in mainstream media, this doesn't show the full picture.
Nutritionist and serious athletes and athletic trainers will tell you
differently.

Here are some factors:

\- Several studies have used no vitamins at all! (only surveys about "Do you
take a vitamin?") They don't take account the frequency/consistency, quality,
etc.

\- Vitamin studies often focus on single vitamins in isolation. Nutrition
doesn't work like that. You need the full range.

\- Most studies involve really low end or even average vitamins, and I'm
specifically suggesting very high end vitamins.

\- There are plenty of studies that show the real benefits of high quality
supplementation. LEF has cataloged and published many of these. So have
countless others.

Nearly all vitamins sold in pharmacies, Walmart, etc. are poor quality. A
Center for Nutritional Education study found that many low end child's
vitamins are no healthier than candy.

You can always tell by reading the label. If B12 is packaged as
"cyanocobalamin" it's an inferior vitamin. Look for B12 as hydrocobalamin
instead (but you'll probably have to go to a health food store to find it.)

One time I saw a display of vitamins advertising heart-healthy Omega oils,
however the vitamins also included hydrogenated oils (which promote heart
disease.)

So, I don't doubt that average vitamins fewer benefits.

There's also the issue that too many people expect vitamins alone will solve
their health problems, and disregard other important factors like having
healthier meals, exercise, sufficient water and sunlight. Health involves the
full package.

~~~
scott_s
Nutritionists, serious athletes and athletic trainers may disagree, but
without studies that show a benefit, I have no reason to believe them. As I
said in that thread, if there is a benefit, we should be able to measure it.

~~~
rarrrrrr
On the LEF site (the first link I posted) there's a description of the various
specific and measurable benefits of various high quality supplements, as
established by various studies and published in respected medical,
nutritional, and biochemical research journals.

That page has 182 separate citations. Click the "References" link to see all
of them.

~~~
scott_s
Those references are not enough for me to search for. I need article titles.
(Edit: They also don't clearly mark which claims are associated with which
reference.)

That site looks like its primary purpose is to sell products, not dispense
genuine medical advice. As such, I view it with extreme skepticism. In more
blunt terms, that product looks like modern snake-oil.

Also, "These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. These products are
not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease."

~~~
rarrrrrr
Well, you've stumbled upon some of the deep problems with nutrition
information dispersal in the US. Many regard the FDA/USDA to be largely
corrupt in their handling of health information, due to the many conflicts of
interest and ties to pharmaceutical companies and food industry.

Making it illegal for farmers to label their beef as mad-cow tested is one
example of this. The way trans fats are labeled in the US compared to
Canada/EU is another example. In fact, in most of EU trans fats are not
acceptable food ingredients. In the US, they're acceptable ingredients for
vitamins. A third example might be the silence regarding the importance of
sunlight and vitamin D as a prevention for many forms of cancer.

Regarding "these statements have been evaluated by the FDA" -- it's actually
illegal for supplement companies to make anything that resembles a health
claim about their own products, even if it's demonstratively true.

In general, the big problem with health information in the US (as you've
demonstrated) is that it's inaccessible. There's plenty of industry and
financial interest in it remaining inaccessible. So, you'll have to do more
than glance at a website for 30 seconds and drawing the fast and easy
conclusions.

Finally, the Life Extension Foundation is a non-profit with a 30 year history,
and one of the most respected health and wellness research organizations world
wide. Googling around will demonstrate this.

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
_it's actually illegal for supplement companies to make anything that
resembles a health claim about their own products, even if it's
demonstratively true._

Absolutely false. It is completely legal to make the claim as long as you
demonstrate that it's true to the FDA and they accept your data. If the
benefit were actually present, they could file safety & efficacy data with the
FDA and on approval legally make the claim. The fact that they don't tells me
that there isn't any benefit worth noting.

------
hs
there's "do-nothing" technique from masanobu fukuoka
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masanobu_Fukuoka>

he claimed his yield is the best in japan -- by weight

he could win the most nutritious award too if such category existed

