Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Crops are less nutritious because of how we grow them New study

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
nosmokes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 04:40 PM
Original message
Crops are less nutritious because of how we grow them New study
Could be one reason why us merkuns are so fat and lazy, our food is no longer nourishing us, simply filling our bellies. But our bodies know we need more so we eat more and still we don't get the vitamins and minerals we need from far more calories than we need. Why? because we're trying to nourish ourselves from dead soil that we're pumping up w/ petro chemical additives but just like the old margarine commercials said, 'you can't fool Mother Nature.'
--###--

original-organiccenter

"Still No Free Lunch" Released
September 10, 2007

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contacts: Chuck Benbrook, The Organic Center
541-828-7918, cbenbrook@organic-center.org
Brian Halweil, Worldwatch Institute
631-725-2625, bhalweil@worldwatch.org

Still No Free Lunch
Crops are getting less nutritious and farming methods are
partly to blame.

September 11, 2007, BOULDER, Colorado — Today’s farmers raise more bushels of corn, pecks of apples, and pounds of broccoli from a given piece of land than they did decades ago. But those crops are often less nutritious, according to a new report released today from The Organic Center, “Still No Free Lunch: Nutrient levels in U.S. food supply eroded by pursuit of high yields.”

“Our crops are more abundant , but they are also generally less nutritious,” said report author Brian Halweil, a senior researcher at the Worldwatch Institute and a member of the Organic Center’s scientific advisory board. Historical records from the U.S. Department of Agriculture show that everyday fruits and vegetables—from collard greens to tomatoes to sweet corn—often have lower levels of some vitamins and less iron, calcium, zinc, and other micronutrients than they did 50 years ago.

The most compelling data supporting the general decline in nutrient levels in crops comes from contemporary studies where researchers have grown modern plant varieties side-by-side with historic, generally lower-yielding cultivars, using similar production practices and levels of inputs, like nitrogen fertilizer. Several such studies have found that the modern-era varieties produce 10 to 25 percent lower levels of iron, zinc, protein, calcium, vitamin C, and other essential nutrients per pound of produce or grain.

For instance, looking at 63 spring wheat cultivars grown between 1842 and 2003, researchers at Washington State University found declines in the concentrations for all eight minerals studied, with an 11 percent decline for iron, 16 percent decline for copper, 25 percent decline for zinc, and 50 percent decline for selenium.

“To get our recommended daily allowance of nutrients, we have to eat many more slices of bread today than people had to eat in the past,” said Halweil. “Less nutrition per calorie consumed affects consumers in much the same way as monetary inflation. That is, we have more food, but it’s worth less in terms of nutritional value.”

Because of the impressive and ongoing increases in per acre yields, the decline in the nutrient content per serving of food or bushel of grain has gone largely unnoticed by agricultural scientists, farmers, public health officials, and policymakers. The decline in nutrients over the last few decades has unfolded alongside significant changes in the composition of the average American diet.

Not only are consumers getting less nutrients per serving of food today, many people are also consuming a far larger share of their daily caloric intake from highly processed junk foods high in added fat, sugars, and salt. According to The Organic Center’s Chief Scientist Dr. Charles Benbrook, “Less nutrient-dense foods, coupled with poor food choices, go a long way toward explaining today’s epidemics of obesity and diabetes.”

Reversing Nutrient Decline

Plants bred to produce higher yields tend to devote less energy to other factors, like sinking deep roots and generating health-promoting compounds known as phytochemicals. Farming practices have worked hand-in-hand with plant breeding in setting the stage for nutrient decline. Modern conventional agriculture production practices, such as close plant spacing, heavy use of chemical fertilizers, and reliance on pesticides, tend to produce fast-growing, high-yielding crops, but also plants that do not absorb a comparable quantity of many nutrients, and often have poorly developed and unhealthy root systems.

The good news is that recent research shows that existing varieties of a given crop often vary widely in terms of their mineral and vitamin content, so it should be possible for crop breeders to draw on the genetic diversity within plant species to make our food more nutritious.

Moreover, backing a bit back down the yield curve through strategic changes in farming systems should help reverse the decline in nutrient content. For instance, although organic farming results in somewhat lower yields in many cases, studies show that it also tends to produce crops with higher concentrations of micronutrients, phytochemicals, and other health-promoting compounds.

Organic sources of soil nutrients, like manure or cover crops, offer more balanced mixtures of nutrients, and tend to release nutrients more gradually. As a result, according to Benbrook, “Plants develop more robust root systems that more aggressively absorb nutrients from the soil, and produce crops with higher concentrations of valuable nutrients and phytochemicals.”

“This intimate relationship between soil quality, crop yields, and food nutritional
quality is farming’s equivalent of no free lunch,” Benbrook continued. “This study
highlights the benefits of building soil quality in improving crop nutritional quality, whether on organic or conventional farms.”

The nutritional advantage of organic food ranges from a few percent to sometimes 20 percent or more for certain minerals, and on average, about 30 percent in the case of antioxidants. Some studies have reported even more dramatic differences in concentrations of specific phytochemicals—for example, nearly twice as much of two common antioxidants in organic tomatoes compared to conventional tomatoes.

“This advantage will vary depending on the crop, soil quality, and growing conditions,” said Halweil. “And there will be some cases where conventional crops have higher nutritional quality than nearby organic crops, especially as organic farmers find ways to push yields to or above the levels on conventional farms.”

Improving the nutritional quality of our crops on a per serving basis will be an important part of addressing larger nutritional and health problems, particularly as the baby-boom generation ages. This report and others from the Center have stressed the benefits of food that delivers more nutrition per calorie consumed.

According to Alan Greene, M.D., chair of the Center’s Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee, “For many of our most costly and common health problems in the years ahead, progress in reducing the frequency and severity of disease will depend increasingly on improving food nutritional quality and patterns of dietary choice, rather than simply an ever-widening dependence on drug-based therapies and surgery.”

Editor’s Note – The Center can provide photos and additional information, and arrange interviews with key scientists. Contact Dr. Charles Benbrook at 541-828-7918, or via email cbenbrook@organic-center.org.

About The Organic Center
The Organic Center is a non-profit organization dedicated to understanding the health and environmental benefits of organic food and farming systems. The Center’s program of sponsored research strives to better understand how organic farming can improve food safety and quality in order to:
· Document and quantify the current benefits associated with organic food and farming systems;
· Expand the scope and increase the frequency of existing benefits; and
· Create new benefits in the future.

The reports of the Center, including “Still No Free Lunch,” are accessible free of charge on our website: http:// www.organic-center.org.



For More Information Contact:

For more information on the work of The Organic Center, contact 303-499-1840.




















complete releasehere
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
soothsayer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
1. we're soooo much stupider than our ancestors. seriously. they'd be ashamed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
superkia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. We are but not the wealthy ones doing it to us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. You're absolutely right.
We're being deprived of more nutritious food solely because of profit margins. Big agribusiness has made it mandatory that everything must be high yield, so nutritional value is not a criteria for choosing crops.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
3. I have often suspected this. I live in the San Joaquin Valley and see the fields daily.
Edited on Wed Sep-12-07 05:14 PM by Mountainman
First they plant lettuce, then harvest it in a few months. The field looks like a group of people picked all the lettuce which is what they did. Many leaves laying around. A week latter the field is nothing but pure dirt. No leaves, no weeds, no nothing just perfect looking dirt. They used some chemical to kill everything that was there before. Then they plow and plant some other crop. Dump a new chemical onto the sprouting plants. A few months go by and the same thing happens as before. The crop is harvested. Chemicals kill all the remaining living things and a new crop is planted in the perfect looking dirt.

This may happen 4 or 5 times a year on the same piece of land.

The chemicals do all the work for them. I doubt that the produce grown there is as nutritious as what was grown there 50 years ago buy old fashion methods on family farms.

What we have now are very efficient factory farms owned by large corporations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skids Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 05:35 PM
Response to Original message
5. How "the ancients" did it...

...there's a small amount of buzz about a process that was used in ancient agriculture where burying charcoal created very rich, very durable soil. It's called "Terra Praeta"/"Terra Preta" Google it it's interesting stuff.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knitter4democracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
6. And then there's taste.
I buy little produce from the store during Michigan's growing season any more. I get what I can from small farms (belong to a CSA--delivery day today!), roadside stands, and such. These are from small family farms, and my food tastes better. The scale is smaller, often a different variety, and the taste is better.

Take a good Michigan apple. Compare it to one grown in Chile or Washington state and picked green, gassed to keep ripe, and shipped all over the place. The Michigan apple will beat anything else, hands down, every time. I have a few orchards I go to (small family places), and I get enough to put up my own applesauce, dried apple slices, and fruit leather. I then keep some in our basement to keep as long as I can (if it's an apple that keeps well, like the winesaps I'm always on the hunt for).

I think we can tell the loss of nutrients in the taste. Good stuff grown well has an amazingly strong flavor in comparison.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nosmokes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. fresh picked heirloom tomato pie w/ farmmade goat cheese
and basil picked hours earlier that day cannot be beat. It's as close to sex as you can get w/ you can get w/ your clothes on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knitter4democracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. That sounds like good stuff!
That reminds me--time for another batch of pesto for the freezer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. I use to live in Pine Grove Township outside of Kalamazoo. On the way home in the fall
Edited on Wed Sep-12-07 05:55 PM by Mountainman
we always stopped off at a farm where the owner sold squash and apples and some other things. I worked in Kalamazoo and drove passed the farm each day.

He had apples he called double delicious. They were huge red delicious apples and they were the best tasting, sweetest apples I have ever eaten in my life. I sure wish I could get them again.

He would always load your bushel up to over flowing even though you only had to pay for 1/2 a bushel.

Those are some of the good memories I have of living in Michigan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knitter4democracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Our area is a huge produce growing area.
Best apples ever!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viva_La_Revolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #9
19. I miss Brophy watermelons..
grown in the sand hills of Colorado. Red inside, big black seeds and the flavor!

even the farms around here now grow nothing but those tasteless seedless puny little things. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YankeyMCC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Indeed!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 05:42 PM
Response to Original message
7. so... it's good news then.
"The good news is that recent research shows that existing varieties of a given crop often vary widely in terms of their mineral and vitamin content, so it should be possible for crop breeders to draw on the genetic diversity within plant species to make our food more nutritious."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nosmokes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Only if we move away from the industrial ag model that is currently in use
and start using a more holistic, organic and sustainable method of growing our food.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. Why?
Thanks to industrial agriculture, far more people are getting the nutrients they need then they were 100, even fifty years ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eppur_se_muova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
12. Cherish those 'heirloom' crops -- if we don't husband them carefully, ...
they'll all be gone before we realize what we've lost.

Lower yields, maybe. Less taste, no. Now it looks like they're likely better nutrition as well.

So many modern fruits and vegetables are bred to SHIP and STORE well at the expense of flavor and nutrition that we're going to find ourselves with unperishable (shades of Mr. Pither!), but nutritionally worthless, food supplies. Most apple varieties today are chosen for shipping qualities -- and Iceberg lettuce got its name because it was once the only lettuce that could be shipped "fresh" simply by filling the boxcars with ice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 06:55 PM
Response to Original message
16. One thing that they're leaving out here,
The fact that we are in desperate need of rehabbing our soil. It has been sprayed and eroded and compacted and depleted to the point where vast stretches of it are virtually sterile and nothing will grow on it without adding chemicals.

This isn't a process that can be accomplished in a few years, but more like a couple of decades worth of manuring, cover crops, lying fallow, etc. I've experienced this first hand on my own land, and while I can work around this problem by adding more fertile soil around my fruit trees and other crops, you can't do this on the scale needed to rehab all of our growing land.

While I realize this will offend the vegetarians, what is desperately needed is large herds of cattle, horses, and other such animals to manure lare tracts of ground in rotation, followed by planting cover crops, more manure, etc. etc. until the soil is fertile again. Then we need to engage in sensible crop rotation practices, the kind that haven't been prevalent for decades now.

This will be a pain, and could very well drive up the price of some foods. But if we don't, our soil is going to get to the point that it won't be able to grow anything, even with chemicals, ever again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eppur_se_muova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. WILD buffalo & deer would not offend vegetarians. :)
Where do you think that rich soil came from originally?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-13-07 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #16
20. Speaking as a vegetarian, I don't think many vegetarians will be offended by your idea.
If they are anything like me, we realize we are a minority and are vegetarian for personal reasons. We don't need to proselytize and don't want to. If someone wants to become vegetarian, fine, if they don't that's fine too. We are not on any crusade.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eppur_se_muova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 07:42 PM
Response to Original message
17. Earlier study, narrower in scope ... (link)
Edited on Wed Sep-12-07 07:47 PM by eppur_se_muova
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=22606&mesg_id=22606

edit to add: (on that page, "SEE ALSO" on the RHS of page has other interesting links)



DAYYUM those look tasty! :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 04:01 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC