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.
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.
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
> 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.
WTF? Here in California (both nor and so) all our home grown veggies and farmers markets and CSA's produce excellent veggies and fruits.
The stuff you buy at mainstream supermarket is all plastic though.
The issue here is that typical vegetables in your average supermarket have lower nutritional value than they did a generation ago, even though almost everything else in this society is getting better. A related issue is that processed foods are essentially a combination of corn, soybeans & sugar. Bottom line: people are eating worse food, but they are choosing to do so, not being forced.
Growing your own vegetables is labor intensive. Although it can be emotionally rewarding, specialization is more rational economically. Better to just go down to the Trader Joes / Whole Foods / Local Organic Farmers Market and part with a bit of coin to pick up some of the good stuff there.
* people are eating worse food, but they are choosing to do so, not being forced. *
Really? Try finding a Coke with real sugar, and try getting a week worth of food without any corn syrup in them. My understanding is that the corn industry is basically forcing their products down our throats by lobbying the hell out of Washington.
Try finding a Coke with real sugar, and try getting a week worth of food without any corn syrup in them.
This is easy enough. Red Bull makes a cola with real sugar (expensive, but pretty tasty).
It's easy to avoid corn syrup when you don't buy processed foods. Go to your local organic market, and you'll find a whole store that contains no corn syrup what so ever. (A little bird told me that you can cook your own food, and if you don't want to add corn syrup, you don't have to.)
Anyway, corn syrup is really cheap, so that's why it is in really cheap food. Most people think of food and think "more", not "more nutrition", so that's why it's popular. But fortunately, there are plenty of (mainstream) places that will sell you better food, so there is no reason to complain.
Every story I read mentions that real sugar is cheaper to produce, but corn syrup comes from corn which is subsidized by taxpayers.
Secondly, it is likely that much of real food (as you call it) would be cheaper than it is now, if it were not considered a premium product.
Third, HFCS, more than corn, is the problem. It is put in many products, even hot dogs. Avoiding products with HFCS might be a good strategy to get in shape simply because a person may have to go out of their way to find healthy food they can afford. But a biological reason is that the human body is not designed for processing fructose.
> "But a biological reason is that the human body is not designed for processing fructose."
Actually that's false, it's perfectly designed for processing fructose. HFCS wouldn't be a problem if you didn't process the fructose but it still tasted sweet. The problem is we're biologically designed so that fructose doesn't trigger the same processes as regular sugar.
The reason for this? Well primates formed a symbiosis with trees, they gave us fruits with lots of energy in the form of fructose, and in turn we killed the species that threatened our trees.
The most interesting thing I learnt was on the whole question if humans would have evolved if dinosaurs had been around, and the answer was yes. It's yes, because we didn't evolve by chance, we evolved because the trees 'chose' us to. The response to large herbivores that strip-feed was primates, because we protected large areas of land and specifically the trees we fed from. The prime example of this is that when fig trees are ripening, it can be dangerous for camera crews because a 150lb chimp is likely more dangerous than a 150lb man.
So essentially the key problem with HFCS is that we're designed not to respond to fructose. We simply store all that sugar as fat, which again is the problem all humans face. Society is trying to fight biology, and it sure as hell isn't an easy battle.
I don't think the problem is the HFCS itself. If you used sugar in place of HFCS in all of those products, it wouldn't be any better for you. Simply, too much sugar of any kind isn't good for you.
There's pretty solid evidence that fructose is particularly damaging if you get it in large quantities without much fiber. Eating fruits is fine, but HFCS is dangerous.
"A high flux of fructose to the liver, the main organ capable of metabolizing this simple carbohydrate, perturbs glucose metabolism and glucose uptake pathways, and leads to a significantly enhanced rate of de novo lipogenesis and triglyceride (TG) synthesis, driven by the high flux of glycerol and acyl portions of TG molecules from fructose catabolism. These metabolic disturbances appear to underlie the induction of insulin resistance commonly observed with high fructose feeding in both humans and animal models. Fructose-induced insulin resistant states are commonly characterized by a profound metabolic dyslipidemia, which appears to result from hepatic and intestinal overproduction of atherogenic lipoprotein particles. Thus, emerging evidence from recent epidemiological and biochemical studies clearly suggests that the high dietary intake of fructose has rapidly become an important causative factor in the development of the metabolic syndrome."
You can also find sugared Coke if you live near the Mexican or Canadian borders in the US. Or if you look for the bottles of Coke sold around Passover. [Correcting my earlier misnomer - Coke with corn syrup is perfectly "kosher", just not appropriate for Passover.]
(I don't actually like either type. Weirdly, I only like the taste of Diet Coke, and not even Coke Zero.)
Right, but unless they specifically source it from Mexico (as that link seems to for that outlet), it might be Canadian Coke, which also has sugar and which you can also buy in glass bottles.
Your understanding on the corn industry and subsidies is correct, but your complaint is questionable. You can avoid corn syrup by preparing your own food; when you rely on processed and pre-made food, you inherently have less control over the ingredients.
Going back to the topic, though, supermarket produce doesn't actually seem to contain any corn syrup.
It's the government that has the violence monopoly. Industries are lobbying for governments to use its power do certain things. I believe corn syrup is cheaper because of government subsidies/tariffs/taxes makes corn syrup cheaper than sugar in the US.
Consumers are rarely forced to buy soda. But the producers are using corn syrup over sugar because the government has put it's gun to the head of the market.
Even in the US you can find Coke with sugar if you are prepared to pay the price. Government is the reason it is so expensive and hard to find. If you believe positive "change" is coming to American sugar tariffs with the new administration I think you will be disappointed.
You are correct, if you cook exclusively from raw ingredients. As soon as you get something that's somehow processed, it's likely HFCS has snuck its way in there.
That's the rub. It doesn't occur to most Americans how many products contain corn syrup. Wander through any conventional supermarket in America. Study the ingredients list for whatever product you have in your hand. The list of ingredients is printed in a small, sans-serif font below or next to the nutrition chart.
Notice the corn syrup in condiments: ketchup, salad dressing, peanut butter, jam, some pickles and mustards, etc. Notice the corn syrup in yogurts, ice creams, and frozen desserts. Notice the corn syrup in fruit drinks and flavored milk drinks. Notice the corn syrup in breakfast cereals and brand-name hearty-looking breads. Notice the corn syrup in brand-name cookies and crackers (Ritz, Wheat Thins, IIRC). Notice the corn syrup in canned pie fillings. Notice the corn syrup spaghetti sauces. Notice the corn syrup in canned soups.
Any food not located at a far outside aisle is likely to contain corn syrup. If a food has a brand name and it comes in a bottle, jar, tub, or box, it probably contains corn syrup. If a food comes in a can and it's not plain vegetables, it probably contains corn syrup.
I kind of exaggerate here, but not much. I notice that factory producers have been eliminating corn syrup from some foods in the past year or two. So, you might see "cane juice" or sugar in the ingredients list, instead of corn syrup. Cane juice is the new euphemism for sugar.
One of my Russian-American friends said about ten years ago, "I khate American food. Too sweet." It's "too sweet" because so many products contain sweeteners. If you're accustomed to American food, you probably don't notice the sweetness. Therefore, it wouldn't occur to you that it contains corn syrup (or sugar).
Well, there are two types of corn syrup - plain old "corn syrup" ala Karo, and high fructose corn syrup, which is a very common sweetener in processed foods.
(HFCS is also, for some reason, a bit of a nutritional boogeyman for a lot of people. There's no actual evidence that consuming X calories of it is any worse for people than consuming X calories of sugar or honey, but it's the new "dioxin" in some circles.)
Vlad, that's an un-sourced argument from authority. (And particularly unconvincing authorities, in the case of athletes and body-builders, who have been known to jump on a lot of wild and often harmful nutritional fads.)
Don't forget sugar tariffs. If the sugar lobby was not in bed with the corn lobby to keep cheap caribbean and south american sugar out of the US market the price advantage enjoyed by HFCS would not be a significant factor. [For the record, there are reasons other than enhancing sweetness to use HFCS but if sugar costs were close to parity with HFCS it would fall from the second or third ingredient in many processed foods down towards the bottom of the list doewn near "natural and artificial flavorings", etc.]
> It doesn't take much land to grow a significant amount of food.
That made me think of this quote:
"When Eleanor Roosevelt did something similar in 1943, she helped start a Victory Garden movement that ended up making a substantial contribution to feeding the nation in wartime. (Less well known is the fact that Roosevelt planted this garden over the objections of the U.S.D.A., which feared home gardening would hurt the American food industry.) By the end of the war, more than 20 million home gardens were supplying 40 percent of the produce consumed in America. "
It doesn't take much land to grow a significant amount of food
This is very true!!! Although I live on ten acres, I only have a relatively small garden (about 20x40') and it is still capable of producing much more than my family can consume unless I preserve a lot of it. A single pumpkin seed for example, can result in almost 100 lbs of pumpkins even if you don't take care of them. They just grow like weeds!
Tomatoes, potatoes, squash: plant a few seeds and you're up to your neck in veggies in a few months.
And about the strawberry comment: everyone who loves strawberries should do themselves a favor and grow some, even if it's just in a small pot on the windowsill. Home grown strawberries are vastly superior to the ones in the supermarket in every aspect except shipping ability.
I have 18 strawberry plants ready to go into a new patch, nice and big, so they'll propagate outward into twice as many... :D
I just moved to a house on 7 acres, so I tilled, manured and fenced off 25' * 25' for vegetables, but... found myself wanting more room for corn, so I tilled 25' * 50' more, plus the strawberry patch.
If we spent as much time as we do on our lawns on vegetables, every house would easily be self sustaining for fruits and veggies!
You are correct--soil damage has much to do with this. Wendell Berry (among others) has written much about this. Large scale farming tends not to view the soil and its cycles as important to the process of growing food.
I'd like to see some data regarding this, actually.
I've got a good friend that owns a tree farm in Oregon, and if you listen to the environmentalists, they make it sound like Richard is some sort of maniac clear-cutting idiot who is destroying a precious natural resource.
The opposite becomes apparent if you actually talk to him about the farm, and look at the money they put into both planning and tree-farming technology. Him, and his family, view their forest as a long-term asset, not to mention an effectively infinite stream of future revenue, and a great place to go hiking.
They go to incredible lengths to make sure that their forest is going to be around, and viably growing, a few hundred years from now.
It seems odd that any large company wouldn't look at their company-owned farms in the same fashion.
Of course, corporate owners can be greedy and stupid as well. So I'd like to know more about how large-scale farming causes soil damage.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
The following books also contain some good coverage of the alarming state of unsustainable agriculture especially in the US (among a number of other topics regarding sustainability):
Natural Capitalism by Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins
The Ecology of Commerce by Paul Hawken (to a lesser extent)
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).
+ 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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Well, the whole point of a farmer's market is to build a strong social relationship with the people who grow your food... So why not ask them while you're buying from them?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.