Conclusion: 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.
Worth noting there is no use of the phrase "soil depletion".
I take issue with the comment near the end:
> Also, foregoing pesticides and fertilizers in favor of organic growing methods is good for the soil, the produce and its consumers. Those who want to get the most nutritious fruits and vegetables should buy regularly from local organic farmers.
To my knowledge, organic farming employs just as much, if not more, pesticide and fertilizer. But there are regulations determining which products are allowed to be classed as "organic". Such regulations can be somewhat arbitrary; for example, a lot of so-called organic produce is the product of radiation-induced mutation [0].
I believe the root (pun intended) issue is the soil biology. In a no till environment where bacteria and funghi are present and healthy, they make soluable the micronutrients needed by the plant. In an unhealthy soil environment where bacteria and funghi are depleted, the plants are dependent on being fed soluable forms of all nutrients. The fertilization regime likely isnt incorporating them all.
To my knowledge, organic farming employs just as much, if not more, pesticide and fertilizer.
If this is true, I would love to see your source.
I buy a lot of organic because I expect it to have less pesticide (and other potentially 'bad' things). And, if that's not the case, I will change my buying habits.
I do understand that there is a fraud issue in organics. I have seen examples of farmers owning organic certified farms and then buying produce from the distribution market to resell as organic. Also, I have seen examples of people doing similar things at farmers markets.
We should be focusing into building soil and edible forest to harvest multiple floors instead of just that usual monoculture one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSPNRu4ZPvE
If we look closely forest's soil usually gets better and better, I see some people replicate this and seen some 'agroforest' with more then 5 years old and its stunning how productive there lands are, how diverse and how the soil just get better without adding external stuff like fertilizer, its a process type of agriculture instead of an input one.
You're right that the label "certified organic" is somewhat arbitrary. But it's a moot point for most sellers at organic farmers markets because they usually can't afford certification anyway. And many of them do not use pesticides of any kind, and if they do use something like Neem oil, they will tell you.
This does not solve the systemic issue, but knowing the person who knows your food definitely seems like it would be better than anonymous food at a grocery.
I remember reading a study in the NY Times maybe 5 years ago that found no difference in nutrients (between organic and conventional produce) but lower levels of pesticides in organic produce. So while not pesticide free, it is unfair to say they use "just as much if not more"
I once bought some organic heirloom variety tomatoes shipped from Mexico. I was surprised to find that they were disgusting, flavorless and spongy. I've grown the same varieties myself in rich yard soil, and they were flavorful and delicious. I can only imagine that the imported tomatoes were grown in depleted soil using less than sustainable methods.
I really wish big ag people would wake the frick up and realize that the benefits of sustainable polyculture go way way way beyond sometimes-higher yields. Permaculture methods strengthen the diverse ecologies that enrich soil in the first place.
Like anything else there's going to be some amount of fraud going on if it's profitable.
My experience buying mostly organic produce for a decade has shown to have generally better results than conventional. Conventional produce doesn't taste as good at the very least, and it's very obvious there can be significant differences.
Organic fruits rot much quicker, it's impossible to keep organic strawberries around for more than a day.
Organic heads of romaine lettuce are often full of living insects like tiny green aphids and other small winged bugs. Previously finding an insect in my produce was such an exceptional occurrence and my perspective so skewed by consuming only conventional produce that I would dispose of it if there were any evidence of insects, finding it so abhorrent as to be bad. Now when there are insects, which is quite common with organic lettuce, I somewhat rejoice in the evidence of insects finding my food an appropraite place to live, wash it off, and eat.
Having said that, most of my experience is in the SF bay area at quite high quality grocery stores where the produce department is large and almost entirely organic from local suppliers, the New Leaf in Half Moon Bay for example is organic by default, conventional clearly labeled and the exception. These places move so much organic produce there's no problem stocking large quantities and varieties without throwing it all away due to the short shelf life. Whenever I'm visiting the midwest and try continuing my normal diet of predominately organic produce, my options tend to be limited to Whole Foods and they don't have much organic produce because the local population isn't buying it. What organic stuff they do have is of notably worse quality than what I've grown accustomed to, not from local sources, and often packaged in branded bags or plastic containers with a suspiciously chemical taste I've come to associate with conventional produce.
There seems to be some access privileges in play with quality organic produce. If you're in an affluent area with health-conscious people and abundant local sources, the grocers have incredible organic produce and there's an obvious advantage. YMMV
I also would like to see actual research backing the "soil depletion" hypothesis. And ruling out alternative theories like https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140507-crop... which showed that rising CO2 levels reduces how nutritious many crops are.
Nothing you read in the media can be trusted at all. Everything is grossly wrong or propaganda. This is likely propaganda for the organic food industry. Whole Foods was just bought by Amazon and organic is higher margin, so expect a lot more now that Amazon's muscle is behind convincing higher earning people to spend more on food.
I've worked on an organic farm and we used pesticides in combination with a multi-stage bacteria compound. All "organic" stuff that touched live plants, but we were allowed to spray glyphosate on anything we weren't growing. Wind carries small particles very far, though...
> in which there may be trade-offs between yield and nutrient content.
Aren't GMO crops most likely to make that trade-off?
I think it's not just fruits and veggies, but everything else, too, that has a much lower nutrient content, from "low-fat" foods to non-grass-fed meat, eggs, and so on. I saw somewhere that eggs from non-grass-fed chickens have about half the nutrients of eggs from grass-fed chickens.
Humans also eat meat because they get nutrients from meat. But if the animals only eat a certain type of low-nutrient food, then the humans aren't going to get too many nutrients from meat, either.
Add to that the processing of foods, too, which tends to destroy a lot of the nutrients, as well. But somehow people still say that taking vitamins is not necessary if you have a "balanced diet".
First off, 8/10 of those who talk about balanced diets probably still don't have a balanced enough diet, if they think that drinking kale shakes and some carrots and tomatoes is all they need for that balanced diet. If you're not tracking your daily micronutrients, then you don't have a balanced diet. Period.
Second, the above shows that eating food may become increasingly less effective at giving you the nutrients you require.
Since the question was specifically about carrots, it is interesting to note wild carrots were originally white, then once domesticated white, yellow and purple. The Dutch cultivated orange carrots in the 17th century.
A greater issue than soil depletion is the loss of phytonutrients through selective breeding for taste and early picking of produce for ease of transportation. A fantastic book on this subject, with advice for how to find produce with higher phytonutrient content, is Eating on the Wild Side[0].
Here's a real question -- even if they're less nutritious individually, are we still able to get more nutrition than ever before?
The variety of fruits and vegetables I'm able to eat during the winter is frankly astounding. Heck, even the variety during the summer is a cornucopia compared to 30 years ago (the local supermarket certainly didn't carry kale or swiss chard back then).
If I'm more easily to get whole different sets of nutrients than before, is it a net win?
As an organic farmer I'm disturbed by how few commenters here understand what organic produce is.
"Certified organic" (aka USDA organic) means the farmer complied with a very strict list of regulations spelled out in the National Organic Program's Final Rule [1] and audited by an accredited certifying agent. See [2] for the TLDR version of the final rule.
"Organic" produce (aka non-certified organic) doesn't mean shit. The farmer may be following organic practices or may not be. YOU are the auditor in this case. Visit the farm and observe their practices with your own eyes before spending extra on this "organic" produce.
Bottom line: If you're concerned about synthetic fertilizers, GMOs, and/or sustainable agricultural practices in general, make sure you're buying USDA certified organic produce. Or grow the stuff yourself.
We know that picking produce before peak ripeness results in lower nutrient densities. And from a logistics point of view, higher yields almost inevitably mean earlier picks, to compensate for the more intense logistics of serving geographically larger markets from the same source. It makes me wonder how much of the nutrient decline is due to sampling baseline changes.
I'd be interested to see if there are significant differences in nutrient density for canned produce, which should significantly cut down on this potential error. Canned produce is almost universally canned and sealed within 24 hours of pick, and as such they almost always pick right in the window of peak ripeness, as opposed to several weeks before like most "fresh" produce.
back in 89, I worked as a farm hand for a season which was a fascinating experience for many reasons. But I remember the farmer complaining about the tomatoes grown for export were tasteless and devoid of nutrition and he hated them with a passion... But they packed well due to uniform growing shape, looked good - perfectly round, had consistent color, and lasted longer without spoiling.... And supposedly this is what the consumer wanted. When people go through the produce section, its almost all looks and price that the majority of people judge fruit on.
Although now, people do seem to be thinking of and talking more about how their food is made. But I am not sure how much of that really is a general trend and how much of that is the company I keep or the country I live in.
The problem comes down to our demand for out of season fresh vegetable(of a very limited selection) with an extended shelf life.
The fact that we do not want to eat frozen and canned vegetables is forcing the cultivation industry to select against healthy variants in order to provide the health conscious consumer with the illusion of healthy food all year round.
This even goes so far as harvesting CO₂ from the atmosphere and indiscriminately feeding it to greenhouse crops, while we know that many plant varieties will respond by having far less available nutrients for human consumption.
It'd be interesting to see a study that tried to tease apart the extent depleted soil contributes to the problem and the extent that faster growth (and faster harvest) just results in less nutrients.
Many vitamins contain only carbon, hydrogen and oxygen and there are even more if you add nitrogen and phosphorus, both of which are in "basic" fertilizer. So none of those are particularly going to be soil limited.
Even though the debate about the amount of nutrition in organic/non-organic is unsettled, I think it’s still worth buying organic to reduce pesticide exposure.
Here is a good article summarizing studies on soaking fruits and veggies (both organic and conventional) in baking soda to strip away pesticides.
Here’s a key quote from the article:
“Even with bicarbonate, buying organic may still be worth it!
One thing this article should not be abused is as evidence in an argument against buying organic. Yes, you can reduce the pesticide load on the peel of your favorite produce to almost zero and yes, even the latest (highly pro-organic) review of the literature highlights that pesticides are where the major differences are, but you're (a) still left with the pesticides beneath the skin and will (b) not benefit from the other potential benefits Tiziano Gomiero highlights in his latest paper in Applied Soil Ecology (see Figure 4).”
Maintaining a fruit and vegetable garden is more than just a hobby. My family and in-laws have said for years how nutrient deficient produce from chain grocers is. There's a huge difference between locally grown and foreign imported produce. This has compelled us to grow and take gardening much more seriously.
Has anyone seen any research looking at the nutritional content of something that is picked fresh verse picked unripe and shipped? I'm really curious how this might impact food quality. I know it's the only way to do it but I always wonder if those expensive blueberries are really worth it.
Pretty soon we’re about to have a lot of rich farmers. And a lot of VCs wondering why they didn’t get in on this market earlier.
Glad to see these pieces popping up on here as it helps bring into the discussion that there’s outside factors at play that will be driving this change in the industry.
Makes me wonder how this has contributed to obesity, as well as other illnesses (e.g., depression). That is, if you're not getting the nutrients need there are going to be "side effects."
I don't know about the nutritional value, but I've heard that the mineral composition of soil can directly affect the flavor of fermented grape juice. This may require some personal research on the matter...
[+] [-] n4r9|8 years ago|reply
http://saveoursoils.com/userfiles/downloads/1351255687-Chang...
Conclusion: 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.
Worth noting there is no use of the phrase "soil depletion".
I take issue with the comment near the end:
> Also, foregoing pesticides and fertilizers in favor of organic growing methods is good for the soil, the produce and its consumers. Those who want to get the most nutritious fruits and vegetables should buy regularly from local organic farmers.
To my knowledge, organic farming employs just as much, if not more, pesticide and fertilizer. But there are regulations determining which products are allowed to be classed as "organic". Such regulations can be somewhat arbitrary; for example, a lot of so-called organic produce is the product of radiation-induced mutation [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding
[+] [-] scott_s|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rmrm|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] afpx|8 years ago|reply
If this is true, I would love to see your source.
I buy a lot of organic because I expect it to have less pesticide (and other potentially 'bad' things). And, if that's not the case, I will change my buying habits.
I do understand that there is a fraud issue in organics. I have seen examples of farmers owning organic certified farms and then buying produce from the distribution market to resell as organic. Also, I have seen examples of people doing similar things at farmers markets.
[+] [-] 7sigma|8 years ago|reply
I would take whatever the OCA says with a huge mound of salt, given their antivax and anti fluoride in the water stance.
[+] [-] alisson|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] samirillian|8 years ago|reply
This does not solve the systemic issue, but knowing the person who knows your food definitely seems like it would be better than anonymous food at a grocery.
[+] [-] drdrey|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andrei_says_|8 years ago|reply
Industrial farming optimizes for efficiency and rarely goes to the lengths necessary for maintaining rich soil and healthy environment for the plants.
You may want to look up biological farming.
[+] [-] blurbleblurble|8 years ago|reply
I really wish big ag people would wake the frick up and realize that the benefits of sustainable polyculture go way way way beyond sometimes-higher yields. Permaculture methods strengthen the diverse ecologies that enrich soil in the first place.
[+] [-] NikolaeVarius|8 years ago|reply
This article was an opinion piece based off a misreading of the original paper
[+] [-] zxcb1|8 years ago|reply
https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrie...
[+] [-] chrisseaton|8 years ago|reply
What's wrong with that? Is mutation not an organic process?
[+] [-] codeulike|8 years ago|reply
Citation needed for that.
[+] [-] Dwolb|8 years ago|reply
Sounds like a good opportunity for growers to begin to differentiate among themselves.
[+] [-] newnewpdro|8 years ago|reply
My experience buying mostly organic produce for a decade has shown to have generally better results than conventional. Conventional produce doesn't taste as good at the very least, and it's very obvious there can be significant differences.
Organic fruits rot much quicker, it's impossible to keep organic strawberries around for more than a day.
Organic heads of romaine lettuce are often full of living insects like tiny green aphids and other small winged bugs. Previously finding an insect in my produce was such an exceptional occurrence and my perspective so skewed by consuming only conventional produce that I would dispose of it if there were any evidence of insects, finding it so abhorrent as to be bad. Now when there are insects, which is quite common with organic lettuce, I somewhat rejoice in the evidence of insects finding my food an appropraite place to live, wash it off, and eat.
Having said that, most of my experience is in the SF bay area at quite high quality grocery stores where the produce department is large and almost entirely organic from local suppliers, the New Leaf in Half Moon Bay for example is organic by default, conventional clearly labeled and the exception. These places move so much organic produce there's no problem stocking large quantities and varieties without throwing it all away due to the short shelf life. Whenever I'm visiting the midwest and try continuing my normal diet of predominately organic produce, my options tend to be limited to Whole Foods and they don't have much organic produce because the local population isn't buying it. What organic stuff they do have is of notably worse quality than what I've grown accustomed to, not from local sources, and often packaged in branded bags or plastic containers with a suspiciously chemical taste I've come to associate with conventional produce.
There seems to be some access privileges in play with quality organic produce. If you're in an affluent area with health-conscious people and abundant local sources, the grocers have incredible organic produce and there's an obvious advantage. YMMV
[+] [-] btilly|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pratyushag2|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] api|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kakarot|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtgx|8 years ago|reply
Aren't GMO crops most likely to make that trade-off?
I think it's not just fruits and veggies, but everything else, too, that has a much lower nutrient content, from "low-fat" foods to non-grass-fed meat, eggs, and so on. I saw somewhere that eggs from non-grass-fed chickens have about half the nutrients of eggs from grass-fed chickens.
Humans also eat meat because they get nutrients from meat. But if the animals only eat a certain type of low-nutrient food, then the humans aren't going to get too many nutrients from meat, either.
Add to that the processing of foods, too, which tends to destroy a lot of the nutrients, as well. But somehow people still say that taking vitamins is not necessary if you have a "balanced diet".
First off, 8/10 of those who talk about balanced diets probably still don't have a balanced enough diet, if they think that drinking kale shakes and some carrots and tomatoes is all they need for that balanced diet. If you're not tracking your daily micronutrients, then you don't have a balanced diet. Period.
Second, the above shows that eating food may become increasingly less effective at giving you the nutrients you require.
[+] [-] JackFr|8 years ago|reply
* Vegetables are lower in nutrients than in the 1950's.
* Here is some serious academic research that shows that.
* It indicates that the cause is the breeding and cultivation of varieties which are lower in nutritional content by farmers.
* But I will assert absent any evidence, soil depletion.
WTF, Scientific American?
[+] [-] ars|8 years ago|reply
It would be easy enough to test - there's plenty of pristine, hardly used, soil around.
You can also test different cultivars in different soils and see what the real cause is.
[+] [-] will_brown|8 years ago|reply
There are no shortage of articles about the difference between modern and medieval fruits/vegetables, but if you haven’t seen one take a second: https://amp.businessinsider.com/foods-before-genetic-modific...
[+] [-] fortythirteen|8 years ago|reply
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Eating-Wild-Side-Missing-Optimum/dp/0...
[+] [-] crazygringo|8 years ago|reply
The variety of fruits and vegetables I'm able to eat during the winter is frankly astounding. Heck, even the variety during the summer is a cornucopia compared to 30 years ago (the local supermarket certainly didn't carry kale or swiss chard back then).
If I'm more easily to get whole different sets of nutrients than before, is it a net win?
[+] [-] rymohr|8 years ago|reply
"Certified organic" (aka USDA organic) means the farmer complied with a very strict list of regulations spelled out in the National Organic Program's Final Rule [1] and audited by an accredited certifying agent. See [2] for the TLDR version of the final rule.
"Organic" produce (aka non-certified organic) doesn't mean shit. The farmer may be following organic practices or may not be. YOU are the auditor in this case. Visit the farm and observe their practices with your own eyes before spending extra on this "organic" produce.
Bottom line: If you're concerned about synthetic fertilizers, GMOs, and/or sustainable agricultural practices in general, make sure you're buying USDA certified organic produce. Or grow the stuff yourself.
[1]: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=3f34f4c22f9...
[2]: https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Organic%2...
[+] [-] darkstar999|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saosebastiao|8 years ago|reply
I'd be interested to see if there are significant differences in nutrient density for canned produce, which should significantly cut down on this potential error. Canned produce is almost universally canned and sealed within 24 hours of pick, and as such they almost always pick right in the window of peak ripeness, as opposed to several weeks before like most "fresh" produce.
[+] [-] mdtancsa|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Stranger43|8 years ago|reply
The fact that we do not want to eat frozen and canned vegetables is forcing the cultivation industry to select against healthy variants in order to provide the health conscious consumer with the illusion of healthy food all year round.
[+] [-] Confiks|8 years ago|reply
Another explanation/hypothesis which is rarely talked about is rising CO₂ levels: https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrie...
This even goes so far as harvesting CO₂ from the atmosphere and indiscriminately feeding it to greenhouse crops, while we know that many plant varieties will respond by having far less available nutrients for human consumption.
[+] [-] maxerickson|8 years ago|reply
Many vitamins contain only carbon, hydrogen and oxygen and there are even more if you add nitrogen and phosphorus, both of which are in "basic" fertilizer. So none of those are particularly going to be soil limited.
[+] [-] sbenitoj|8 years ago|reply
Here is a good article summarizing studies on soaking fruits and veggies (both organic and conventional) in baking soda to strip away pesticides.
Here’s a key quote from the article:
“Even with bicarbonate, buying organic may still be worth it!
One thing this article should not be abused is as evidence in an argument against buying organic. Yes, you can reduce the pesticide load on the peel of your favorite produce to almost zero and yes, even the latest (highly pro-organic) review of the literature highlights that pesticides are where the major differences are, but you're (a) still left with the pesticides beneath the skin and will (b) not benefit from the other potential benefits Tiziano Gomiero highlights in his latest paper in Applied Soil Ecology (see Figure 4).”
http://suppversity.blogspot.com/2017/10/nahco3-aka-baking-so...
[+] [-] justifier|8 years ago|reply
wherein elevated CO2 levels in the grow environment correlates negatively with nutrient content of plants
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016953470...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4036122/
https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrie...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15253127
[+] [-] artursapek|8 years ago|reply
1. buy some land
2. grow your own food
3. learn how to preserve it
https://www.amazon.com/New-Complete-Book-Self-Sufficiency-Re...
[+] [-] Dowwie|8 years ago|reply
Garden culture for the win.
[+] [-] leekyle333|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wcchandler|8 years ago|reply
Glad to see these pieces popping up on here as it helps bring into the discussion that there’s outside factors at play that will be driving this change in the industry.
[+] [-] randomerr|8 years ago|reply
http://www.arcworld.org/projects.asp?projectID=633
[+] [-] chiefalchemist|8 years ago|reply
Makes me wonder how this has contributed to obesity, as well as other illnesses (e.g., depression). That is, if you're not getting the nutrients need there are going to be "side effects."
[+] [-] tfuop|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tfuop|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] DoubleCribble|8 years ago|reply