

Breeding the Nutrition Out of Our Food - akamaka
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/opinion/sunday/breeding-the-nutrition-out-of-our-food.html?pagewanted=all

======
tokenadult
The science behind this article (hat tip to DanBC for his top-level comment
linking to the author's promotional website) is dubious at best. Much of what
can be called in general "phytochemicals" (chemicals found in plants) and that
the author specifically praises as "phytonutrients" (chemicals found in plants
with nutritional benefits for human eaters) can be, depending on DOSAGE,
"phytotoxins" (poisonous chemicals found in plants). The poison is in the
dose. Agriculture was pioneered by human cultures all over the world,

[http://www.jstor.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1320774798622/...](http://www.jstor.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1320774798622/v52nS4.pdf)

because people wanted a reliable supply of food later. In many different
regions, human beings noticed that planting seeds not only made a crop for the
future likely, but also allowed artificial selection of high yield (a crucial
concern at first) and better taste. Plant foods from all over the world have
been actively selected for centuries or even millennia. In quite a few cases,
human beings selected plants so that they were loss toxic and more bearable to
eat in larger doses. The author is writing from ignorance of an evolutionary
perspective informed by the general biological fact that most plants produce
chemicals to REDUCE being eaten by animals, not to be beneficial to human
beings in a wild state.

~~~
codex
Just because plants produce toxins doesn't mean humans don't benefit from
them. Humans and plants coevolved over millions of years, and it's not
unreasonable for the human body to "expect" certain chemical triggers in the
environment, and to go awry without them. It could be that plant toxins turn
on specific cellular repair machinery which the body needs. This theory of
hormesis is young but promising, and attempts to explain the health promoting
effects of vigorous exercise, modest stress, resveratrol/sirtuin activation,
and mTOR activation.

For example, restricting calories improves life span, but in high doses (zero
calories) is fatal. But just because this strategy is bad at the limit doesn't
mean it's bad in small does. Similarly, exposure to the sun results in skin
cancer in large doses, but produces cancer fighting vitamin D in small doses.

What is the correct dose of plant toxins? We don't know, but it could well be
higher than in bred plants, at least for adults. Children generally hate
bitter foods and the reason could well be to protect their small livers from
overdose.

~~~
btilly
_...restricting calories improves life span..._

I suspect that your knowledge on this topic has hit its expiry date.

You are probably thinking of the various studies relating to rats and mice.
However the correlation failed when we went to monkeys, and there is no reason
to believe that it works in humans. See [http://www.nature.com/news/calorie-
restriction-falters-in-th...](http://www.nature.com/news/calorie-restriction-
falters-in-the-long-run-1.11297) for verification of that.

~~~
codex
One primate study verified the effect and one did not; see
[http://www.davidstipp.com/on-calorie-restriction-monkeys-
mag...](http://www.davidstipp.com/on-calorie-restriction-monkeys-magic-and-
medicine/) for an interesting, if biased, analysis of the NIH study.

~~~
btilly
Thank you for the additional information. I've updated my mental note from
"disproven for primates" to "unclear".

------
droithomme
The author of this article, Robinson, repeatedly claims that indigenous
americans were incapable of and ignorant towards selective breeding. This is
false.

He proposes that teosinte _spontaneously_ mutated into maize, which is totally
contrary to the accepted history, I've never even heard anyone make this
claim.

Samples of maize in its modern form have been found directly dated back 6000
years, and inferentially dated back 9000 years, to the advent of agriculture
in the western hemisphere.

Matsuoka showed through molecular dating that maize was likely domesticated
from a single source in a single event around 9000 years ago.

Matsuoka Y, Vigouroux Y, Goodman MM, Sanchez J, Buckler ES, Doebley JF. 2002.
A single domestication for maize shown by multilocus microsatellite
genotyping. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99: 6080-4.

Robinson's claims here that north american indigenous peoples didn't breed for
traits and this was a new thing that only the english did is totally absurd.
Various groups developed their own varieties that were attuned to their
particular land and territory. Tribes as far north as Manitoba grew vast
tracts of land in maize varieties they developed that were frost tolerant!

Boyd recently did an analysis of microfossils from ancient northern pottery to
identify ancient maize farming regions and found that nearly every site tested
had maize, including multiple sites that were north of the subarctic zone.

[http://anthropology.lakeheadu.ca/personal/mboyd/uploads/Boyd...](http://anthropology.lakeheadu.ca/personal/mboyd/uploads/BoydSurette_2010_AmAntiq_NorthernmostMaize.pdf)

~~~
akamaka
There wasn't much discussion of pre-Columbian plant breeding in this article.
Do you have any links to where the author makes these claims?

------
DanBC
This opinion piece is by someone who campaigns on this issue. The website has
lots of citations to research. I haven't checked those, so I don't know if the
journals are reputable or if the research is hooey or not.

(<http://www.eatwild.com/jo.html>)

~~~
takluyver
The citations on that site look legit. It's not exactly my field, but the
titles and the journal names both scan like mainstream science, i.e. technical
and restrained.

However, those references are all about methods of raising animals. This
article is on quite a different topic, nutrient content in plants. I'm wary of
the way a host of mostly unspecified compounds are lumped together as
'phytonutrients' and presented as universally beneficial. I've never heard
that term before, and it's got the same kind of ring as 'detox'. There's
plenty of chemicals in plants that really aren't good for us - see for example
this review of legumes: <http://tinyurl.com/pydm56o> (email me if you're
interested but don't have access).

It roughly fits into the ideas of the 'paleolithic diet', that what people ate
~20k years ago is nutritionally optimal. That's controversial, and it looks
like Wikipedia has quite a detailed entry on it.

------
raverbashing
"It is now known that many of the most beneficial phytonutrients have a
bitter, sour or astringent taste"

Well, thanks evolution...

"A blast of radiation had turned the corn into a sugar factory!"

What a great story, making GMOs before anyone else.

------
Guvante
> Studies published within the past 15 years show that much of our produce is
> relatively low in phytonutrients, which are the compounds with the potential
> to reduce the risk of four of our modern scourges

While this sounds really informative, it is a very vague statement. "If we eat
different food than we currently do we may not have to deal with these
things".

------
aaron695
Lack of nutrients are not killing us, too much of some sort of X is. (I think
it's sugar and high refined carbs, some think it's fat, some believe both)

The reason vitamin pills are consider phooey is because there is no evidence
of missing nutrients in our diets (There are some exceptions, ie when
pregnant, if you're vegan etc)

End of the day, anything that makes us eat less X is what we need. To me
that's fruit and veg that taste great and are cheap, not their nutrient
content.

------
juskrey
And no single word about animal sources

~~~
ht_th
The thesis of the article was to contrast our wide-spread belief in the health
benefits of fruits and vegetables with the actual (significant) lower health
benefits measured by some (significant) measure. It does not compare health
benefits of fruits and vegetables with meat.

Having said that, however, just as we have bred plants to our subjective
preferrable tastes, wishes, and ideas, we also have bred livestock for
specific treats, like docility and size, without any regard for health value
for humans.

~~~
maxerickson
The standard hog has been leaned up considerably, based on the idea that less
fat is healthier (also because lard is less valued, but still).

Edit: And consumers can choose healthier animal sources without triggering any
breading, replacing beef with chicken is widely considered a healthy thing,
fish even more than chicken.

~~~
ht_th
Sure, we _now_ care about that. But we've been breeding animals for over ten
thousand years. During that process, what did we lose? What of that can we get
back with scientific supported breeding?

Or to state it differently, was the prehistoric cow significantly healthier
for us than our current cow (or chicken)? And will it be possible to breed
that extra "healthiness" back in?

~~~
takluyver
As a biologist, my intuition is that there's been little change in the
nutrient value of meat. Plants synthesise a very broad array of compounds
which affect their flavour and nutrient value. Animal biochemistry is nowhere
near as complicated, so there's not so much that can change.

There may well have been a shift in the protein/fat ratio of meat, but I guess
that would be dwarfed by changes in what we eat and how we prepare it.

~~~
juskrey
Grain-bred animals totally lack omega-3, comparing to grass-fed.

And my intuition tells me that is only a small part.

