by somenameforme on 5/2/22, 5:59 AM
This is the conclusion of the paper [1] that this article is based upon: "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."
What National Geographic says scientists say, "Scientists say that the root of the problem lies in modern agricultural processes that increase crop yields but disturb soil health. These include irrigation, fertilization, and harvesting methods that also disrupt essential interactions between plants and soil fungi, which reduces absorption of nutrients from the soil. These issues are occurring against the backdrop of climate change and rising levels of carbon dioxide, which are also lowering the nutrient contents of fruits, vegetables, and grains."
Modern media in a nutshell.
[1] - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15637215/
by unglaublich on 5/2/22, 10:28 AM
Intensive agriculture has been focusing too much on short-term yields, and too little on long-term soil performance.
Plants need nutrients which they normally retrieve from the soil. Natural soil is rich in organic matter and minerals, a product of microorganisms consuming biomass and excrement. Note that it forms a cycle!
Nutritious soil -> Growth -> Death -> Decomposition -> Soil enhancement.
Plants are just the visible part of the cycle. The other part consists of microorganisms.
The use of pesticides, monocultures, and an absence of organic waste material and natural decomposition, effectively kills the microorganisms in the soil. This is what intensive agriculture does. Now, the soil is devoid of nutrients that plants need to grow. So farmers have to use fertilizer to substitute the required organic building blocks.
The problem with this, is that fertilizer just provides the most common organic building blocks. This is enough to grow, but not in the most healthy and fruitful way possible. It's comparable to humans living on a diet of water and rice. They'll survive, but their health will suffer from a lack of nutrients.
Now that intensive agriculture has literally killed the soil, there is no easy way back, and we are dependent on fertilizer to produce food of inferior quality.
Luckily, alternative ways of agriculture are picking up popularity. See for example, biodynamic farming: https://www.biodynamics.com/
by gregwebs on 5/2/22, 2:28 AM
This article mentions that regenerative agriculture as the solution. There is a lot of concern now about the potential for a global food shortage at the end of this year because of rising fertilizer prices (leading to less planting). Regenerative agriculture can help solve this as well by focusing on restoring the biome of the soil, thereby harnessing nitrogen from the air and minerals from the soil.
by cat_plus_plus on 5/2/22, 2:20 AM
They are also more abundant than they used to be and that's a valid tradeoff to consider. Would it be worth it to only have access to seasonal produce local to your region for that produce testing better? Make do with pickles and potatoes instead of fresh fruit and vegetables in late fall through early spring? If not, shelf life, productivity and greenhouse feasibility are relevant metrics in addition to taste and vitamins. Old ways of gardening are still available, but most people will end up using these as a supplement rather than replacement to supermarket food that is at least always there in sufficient amounts.
by pleb_nz on 5/2/22, 5:15 AM
Not to mention more sugar.
I have read zoos have started having to source fruit not raised for human consumption has the sugar levels are now getting too high. In some cases 30% more sugar content if I tember correct.
by foofoo4u on 5/2/22, 1:46 AM
This sparks an interest of mine. I want to grow my own garden of fruits and vegetables. I can grab seeds from my local hardware store. But are these genetically the best I can buy? Is there not a genetic strain of seeds that I can buy somewhere else, perhaps online, that produce both the most nutritious and delicious?
by technothrasher on 5/2/22, 1:37 AM
National Geographic is much less nutritious than it used to be as well.
by robinsoh on 5/2/22, 5:43 AM
I think the latest research was showing that soil and mycorrhizae networks are very critical to the nutritional content of various plants. The sad thing is that same study (need to find it again) showed that applying conventional fertilizer actively reduced mycorrhizae and biological diversity in the soil. The scary thing is there's not much awareness of this in mainstream media. The only thing I've seen in mainstream media about this soil problem was from a hermit Indian guru type on a spotify podcast.
by collaborative on 5/2/22, 6:35 AM
The way things are going we'll all end up taking vitamin pills and calling it a day
Eating fruit and veg is becoming increasingly pointless. No taste, no nutrients, lots of chems. May as well drink water
by bjcy on 5/2/22, 7:25 AM
When gluten-free diets began to become popular, I had a similar question as to why a food that had been a staple of multiple civilisations for hundreds of years had suddenly become "bad for you". Dan Barber has a book on this called The Third Plate, which served as a great introduction for me on nutrition, but from a culinary perspective. He's also one of the chefs profiled in the first season of Netflix's Chef's Table.
by sicromoft on 5/2/22, 5:12 AM
by dehrmann on 5/2/22, 3:25 AM
Considering the US has an obesity epidemic and scurvy and rickets aren't common, is this a problem?
by lambdaba on 5/2/22, 7:16 AM
This plays a big part in the unhealthfulness of modern diets IMO, the reduction in magnesium content especially. Magnesium is extremely important and involved in so many enzymatic reactions, and so easily leeched out by high-sugar diets (and other stressors), that replenishing it (via supplementation) makes it look like a panacea.
by biggu on 5/2/22, 6:45 AM
The savesoil.org movement could be a possible solution. Incentivise farmers to plant cover crops when it's not season. This increases organic content in the soil, which over time increases the nutritional value in the fruits and vegetables.
by refurb on 5/2/22, 2:10 AM
National Geographic has really gone to crap.
”One of the largest scientific studies to draw attention to this issue was published in the December 2004 issue of the Journal of the American College of Nutrition.”
And what did that paper conclude?
“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.”
Nothing about “loss of mother earth’s soil nutrients”. But that wouldn’t sell ads would it?
by andrew_ on 5/2/22, 12:28 PM
I'm trying to find the source, however I read a while back that arugula (rocket) and green onion (chives/scallions) are two examples of plants that have not been selected for traits and are essentially the same as they were 1000 years ago. I recall the article (or maybe it was Nova?) going on to say that there were many more varieties of food plants in the same category, as an exception to so many which have been.
by alecco on 5/2/22, 8:09 AM
This article is mostly nonsense. The biggest problem is we want supermarkets to provide us with the same crops year-round at inexpensive prices. The apples you buy from overseas had to be taken when still green to survive months of storage.
If you want nutritious buy seasonal ripe greens and fruits from local organic farms. Don't expect to have red apples year-round. And expect to pay 50% more.
by frogpelt on 5/2/22, 1:34 AM
Websites are harder to read than they used to be.
by dghughes on 5/2/22, 11:44 AM
Vertasium has a video about this the shocking part was even weeds plants you'd never eat had fewer "nutrients" (if you call it that). Even comparing saved weed samples from 100 years ago the difference was evident.
by pipeline_peak on 5/2/22, 4:33 AM
What’s the point of posting articles only members and desktop browsing users can read?
by jamal-kumar on 5/2/22, 4:02 AM
It's interesting because we're at a point where we might consider how to fix this.
If solutions in how to use less water as well as increasing nutrient uptake are interesting to you, check out aeroponics!
by udfalkso on 5/2/22, 1:24 PM
I recently read a great book that dug into this issue, explaining a lot of the history behind it and exploring potential future solutions. The Dorito Effect. Would recommend.
by kderbyma on 5/2/22, 11:03 PM
Is Soil the new Carbon? seems very prevalent in news, forums, and everywhere since the Rogan episode.
by drdd on 5/2/22, 11:08 AM
Less nutritious = lower costs for production = increased sales
by l5870uoo9y on 5/2/22, 1:11 PM
I wonder if this necessitates taking multivitamins regularly?
by beebeepka on 5/2/22, 8:21 AM
Does NG provide anything but cheap, shallow propaganda? I think not.
The shiny fruits and vegetables are useless, even bad for you. The small ones that look beaten and/or eaten are almost always better tasting.
So yeah, thanks for posting garbage
by nomilk on 5/2/22, 1:31 PM
They also look better but taste blander.
by RicoElectrico on 5/2/22, 9:29 AM
by jaequery on 5/2/22, 1:16 AM
Yes and it’s less tasty too. GMO ruined it.