Fruits and vegetables less nutritious than half a century ago

[rucky]

Fruits and vegetables less nutritious than half a century ago
FFN Staff

March 2006


A US government study that tracked the nutrient levels in fruits and vegetables for 50 years has found today's offerings are less abundant in key nutrients than those of the 1950s.

The United States Department of Agriculture monitored 13 major nutrients in fruits and vegetables from 1950 to 1999 with six showing noticeable drop-offs — protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin and vitamin C. The declines ranged from 6 per cent for protein, 15 per cent for iron, 20 per cent for vitamin C, and 38 per cent for riboflavin.

Head researcher Donald Davis, a biochemist at the University of Texas, said the trend toward fast-growing and large-yielding crops was one reason for the decline, noting US fruit and vegetable productivity had increased dramatically in the past five decades. However, fast-growing plants aren't always able to acquire the nutrients slower-growing varieties can, either by synthesis or from the soil.

A Canadian study mirrored the US results, as did a UK study that analysed the nutrient content of fruit and vegetables going back to the 1930s. It showed that, on average, vegetables had lost about half of their sodium and calcium content, a quarter of their iron and 76 per cent of their copper content. The nutrient levels of fruits had also declined significantly with iron, copper and zinc all falling by up to 27 per cent.

MORE: http://www.ffnmag.com/ASP/articleDisplay.asp?strArticleId=937&strSite=FFNSite&Screen=HOME

[Skink]

1. Isn't that the goal remove all nutrients from food.

Then sell nutrition prepackaged in the form of supplements.

[sui generis]

2. And "organic" veggies and fruits are twice as expensive

I usually select the "small" varietals - small tomatoes and small apples and fruits generally have more flavor (and I presume other good stuff) than big watery fruits and veggies.

They grow these carrots out in central Washington that are enormous soup can sized carrots that don't even taste like carrots - WTF? I think they're the ones taht get diced for campbells soups and frozen mixed veggies - just orange cardboard.

[KurtNYC]

3. Those guys are in the business of selling supplements

I went to the article to see what study they were citing and they don't say. Plenty of varieties of vegetables that are now on shelves did not exist 50 years ago. The modern watermelon for example is a hybrid of the round all green watermelons and pumpkins. So I am curious about their methodology.

But their conclusion is no surprise, given the business they are in! Many supplements are a waste of money and some are harmful. A co-worker was taking 10,000 mg of vitamin A per day and complaining of headaches and other problems. This chart shows the effects of Vitamin A over a range of intake levels:


10,000 mg is a dangerous level of supplement because there are plenty of natural sources for A already in the diet. Other recent studies have shown problems with Calcium supplements.

I completely disagree with the statement in the last paragraph. YES you can get all the nutrients you need from real food!

More on Vitamin A toxicity:
http://www.ansci.cornell.edu/courses/as625/625vita.html

[TexasProgresive]

4. They don't taste as good either.

It seems that chemically grown fruits and vegetables cultivars that are meant to ship and store are not as good as the old fruits and vegetables that you could only get in their season.

[havocmom]

9. And picked too early to allow longer shelf life is a factor

Folks, grow as much as you can for your own table. Look into ways to make community gardens. Learn to dry things and can things. If you have a window sill with some light, you can grow some spinach.

Gardening can be a political act. Let it be one of the ways you rebel against the corporate monsters.

[msgadget]

5. Because modern farmers and factory farmers don't do what responsible

farmers of old did and that's rotate fields. My grandfather would use a field for a season, maybe two and then plant a cover crop that would be tilled under while using other fields the following season. Old farmers were more conscious of soil nutrients because they didn't use commercial fertilizers or pesticides. Vegetarians have known and talked about this for at least a couple decades.

That brings up a question - I keep hearing experts say supplements are less useful than eating a well-rounded diet. Is that true now that this finding is official?

[KurtNYC]

12. I'm still trying to understand what their 'finding' is exactly

They didn't cite a specific study. It is probably true that there are less nutrients pound for pound in modern vegetables but the size of the drop and its significance are not addressed by the supplement salespeople. Your money is far better spent on vegetables than on supplements IMHO. The BBC ran this article on the subject:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2096672.stm

clip:
The study said that the millions of people taking daily doses of vitamins C and E and beta-carotene were not protecting themselves from cancer, heart problems, strokes and other potentially fatal disease.

The scientists said that people would be better off eating fresh fruit and vegetables.

[rucky]

13. Absorption is the key

supplements are finding new methods of administration to increase absorption, which is good, but I'd say the best way is still food - ORGANIC, though. the study didn't distinguish between organic and non-organic, but I've seen studies that do, and the difference is considerable.

[msgadget]

19. Thanks, rucky

I eat organic as much as possible so I'm hoping you're right about them being more nutrient dense!

[BlackHeart]

6. I don't really think that farmers

are in bed with the supplement manufacturers but still there is a point here.

[rucky]

16. I'm in "the biz"

a little bit. enough to know that the "evil" wing of the supplement industry is owned by big pharma. Most people in nutrition science are really on a mission to give the body its optimal nutrients. The magazine that the article was cited from often features nutritional studies on food, primarily for the purpose of isloating and extracting the chemicals/enzymes, etc that make food "nutritious". I'm personally very interested in this, and I think it's a good thing for the public to know.

[MadHound]

7. Another reason to stop buying your produce from the store

And start buying it at your local farmers market. The only way to insure yourself of healthy, nutritional produce. Either that or start growing your own.

[BanzaiBonnie]

15. Find a CSA (Community Supported Agriculture)

You will receive better quality food and you will be able to see where your food came from.

[MadHound]

17. True that,

However I personally live out in the country, and grow a lot of my own. However I might start up a CSA for my group of friends.

[SpiralHawk]

18. A link for CSA info

http://www.chiron-communications.com/farms.html

[Dora]

8. And then can them, freeze them, process them in any way possible...

... just to wring out what remaining nutritional value is left.

[Gormy Cuss]

10. I found an abstract from the cited survey

I've seen results from organic farming orgs that are similar but they would also have a special interest in such a finding. I would think this study has had peer review because of the journal publication but I haven't confirmed that.

Bold emphasis is mine.

http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/abstract/23/6/669

Changes in USDA Food Composition Data for 43 Garden Crops, 1950 to 1999
Donald R. Davis, PhD, FACN, Melvin D. Epp, PhD and Hugh D. Riordan, MD

Bio-Communications Research Institute, Wichita, Kansas (D.R.D., M.D.E., H.D.R.)
Biochemical Institute, The University of Texas, Austin, Texas (D.R.D.)

...Methods: We compare USDA nutrient content data published in 1950 and 1999 for 13 nutrients and water in 43 garden crops, mostly vegetables. After adjusting for differences in moisture content, we calculate ratios of nutrient contents, R (1999/1950), for each food and nutrient. To evaluate the foods as a group, we calculate median and geometric mean R-values for the 13 nutrients and water. To evaluate R-values for individual foods and nutrients, with hypothetical confidence intervals, we use USDA’s standard errors (SEs) of the 1999 values, from which we generate 2 estimates for the SEs of the 1950 values.

Results: As a group, the 43 foods show apparent, statistically reliable declines (R < 1) for 6 nutrients (protein, Ca, P, Fe, riboflavin and ascorbic acid), but no statistically reliable changes for 7 other nutrients. Declines in the medians range from 6% for protein to 38% for riboflavin. When evaluated for individual foods and nutrients, R-values are usually not distinguishable from 1 with current data. Depending on whether we use low or high estimates of the 1950 SEs, respectively 33% or 20% of the apparent R-values differ reliably from 1. Significantly, about 28% of these R-values exceed 1.

Conclusions: We suggest that any real declines are generally most easily explained by changes in cultivated varieties between 1950 and 1999, in which there may be trade-offs between yield and nutrient content.

...

Abbreviations: CI = confidence interval • CV = coefficient of variation = SD/mean • N = number of foods reported • R = ratio of moisture-adjusted mean nutrient contents per weight • 1999/1950` • RSE = relative standard error = SE/mean • SD = standard deviation • SE = standard error • USDA = United States Department of Agriculture

[KurtNYC]

14. Thank you!

After WWII the american farmer was called upon to supply additional food for Europe because the war had devasted significant amounts of farmland there. The emphasis was on yeild and shelf life. We are still eating the "cultivated varieties" that were selected/created for the post-war period.

[PATRICK]

11. Peak Food

But if you increase the amount of nutrients taken from the soil, the soil itself faster falls behind recovery. Any way you look at it there seems to be limit in nutritious food masked by temporary quantity. Less food or even more "fast fruit and vegetables" means belt tightening. Less nutrients in soil means less population eventually. So basically we are plumping up on raw starches and relying on vitamin additives and supplements. relying upon, not merely boosting or enriching our health.

So does sustainable food mean more fakery and bulk with vitamin and mineral extracts directly taken? Separating the organic combination itself is not as effective or healthy yet some nutrients cannot be obtained anyway in a normal rich diet.

Slowly though, despite our maneuvers, there comes a point as with any other exhausted resource when denial enhanced by scientific fixes and solutions merely makes consumption a more devastating disaster, the cycles denied, the suffering postponed, the consumption ever increasing and encouraged to increase.

[Shakespeare]

20. Grow your own food. Make your own compost.

What you grow will be much more nutritious and MUCH more flavorful. We're addicted to mass-produced, imported crap at the supermarket, and our health suffers as a result.

[Cleita]

21. It's a toss up really. I remember back in WWII that

fruit and veggies had a good chance of having worms in it, especially apples and cabbage. My mother used to slice up the apples cutting out the wormy part. However, nothing could have been more organic than the produce then and I do think they were more nutritious.

Milk also was only pasteurized. The cream would float to the top and the family would skim that off for their coffee. The milk tasted better too before they homogenized it and irradiated it with Vit. "D". I never cared for the off tast Vit. "D" gives it. Of course now days I just use soymilk.