Fruits and vegetables are less nutritious than they used to be - Mounting evidence shows that many of today’s whole foods aren't as packed with vitamins and nutrients as they were 70 years ago, potentially putting people's health at risk.


Vegetables like this freshly picked carrot lying on a garden bed of frisée endive are critical sources of nutrients. Mounting evidence shows that many fruits, vegetables, and grains grown today carry fewer nutrients than those grown decades ago. This trend means that “what our grandparents ate was healthier than what we’re eating today,” says Kristie Ebi, an expert in climate change and health at the University of Washington in Seattle. But studies have shown that changing farming methods can reverse these nutrient declines. Produce cultivated on farms that embrace regenerative farming practices is more nutritious.

As you gaze across the rows of brightly colored fruits and vegetables in the produce section of the grocery store, you may not be aware that the quantity of nutrients in these crops has been declining over the past 70 years.

Mounting evidence from multiple scientific studies shows that many fruits, vegetables, and grains grown today carry less protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin, and vitamin C than those that were grown decades ago. This is an especially salient issue if more people switch to primarily plant-based diets, as experts are increasingly recommending for public health and for protecting the planet.

Nutrient decline “is going to leave our bodies with fewer of the components they need to mount defenses against chronic diseases—it’s going to undercut the value of food as preventive medicine,” says David R. Montgomery, a professor of geomorphology at the University of Washington in Seattle and co-author with Anne Biklé of What Your Food Ate.

Even for people who avoid processed foods and prioritize fresh produce, this trend means that “what our grandparents ate was healthier than what we’re eating today,” says Kristie Ebi, an expert in climate change and health at the University of Washington in Seattle.

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.

Experts say it’s important to keep these declines in perspective and not let this news deter you from eating a variety of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains to maintain your health. But they hope the results will spur more people to care about how their food is being grown.

“Most people know that what we eat matters—if how our food is raised also matters, it opens a new, compelling reason for the average person to care about agricultural practices,” says Montgomery. “We can’t afford to lose arable land as population grows. We need to prevent further damage and work to restore fertility to already degraded lands.”

The point of diminishing returns

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. Using USDA nutrient data published in 1950 and 1999, researchers at the University of Texas at Austin noted changes in 13 nutrients in 43 different garden crops—from asparagus and snap beans to strawberries and watermelon.

These raw fruits and veggies showed declines in protein, calcium, and phosphorus, which are essential for building and maintaining strong bones and teeth and for proper nerve function. There were also dips in iron, vital for carrying oxygen throughout the body, and in riboflavin, which is crucial for metabolism of fats and drugs. Levels of vitamin C—important for the growth and repair of various tissues in the body and for immune function—also fell.

The level of decline varied depending on the specific nutrients and the type of fruit or vegetable, but it generally ranged from 6 percent for protein to 38 percent for riboflavin. In particular, calcium dropped most dramatically in broccoli, kale, and mustard greens, while the iron content took a substantial hit in chard, cucumbers, and turnip greens. Asparagus, collards, mustard greens, and turnip greens lost considerable amounts of vitamin C.

Further studies since then have backed up the case that nutrient levels are dissipating. Research in the January 2022 issue of the journal Foods found that while most vegetables grown in Australia had relatively similar iron content between 1980 and 2010, there were noteworthy drops in certain veggies. Declines in iron content, ranging from 30 to 50 percent, occurred for sweet corn, red-skinned potatoes, cauliflower, green beans, green peas, and chickpeas. By contrast, Hass avocadoes, mushrooms, and silverbeet (another name for chard) actually gained in iron.

Grains have also experienced declines, experts say. A study in a 2020 issue of Scientific Reports found that protein content in wheat decreased by 23 percent from 1955 to 2016, and there were notable reductions in manganese, iron, zinc, and magnesium, as well.

The alarming declines have ripple effects for meat-eaters too. Cows, pigs, goats, and lambs are now feasting on less nutritious grasses and grains, Montgomery says, which in turn makes meat and other animal-derived products less nutritious than they used to be.

A problematic perfect storm

Multiple factors are contributing to the problem. The first is modern farming practices that are designed to increase crop yields.

“By learning to grow plants bigger and faster, the plants aren’t able to keep up with absorption of the nutrients from the soil or able to synthesize nutrients internally,” explains Donald R. Davis of the University of Texas at Austin. The retired chemist and nutrition researcher was the lead author of the eye-opening 2004 study, as well as an author on subsequent papers on this subject.

Higher yield means nutrients from the soil must be distributed across a greater volume of crops, so in effect, the nutrients these fruits and veggies produce are being diluted. “Unfortunately, farmers get paid for the weight of their crops, so that incentivizes them to do things that aren’t good for the nutrient content,” Davis adds.

Another culprit is the soil damage that results from high-yield crops. Wheat, corn, rice, soybeans, potatoes, bananas, yams, and flax all benefit from partnerships with key fungi that enhance the plants’ ability to access nutrients and water from the soil. The “fungi act as root extensions for the plant,” Montgomery says. But high-yield farming depletes soil, which to some extent compromises the ability of plants to form partnerships with mycorrhizal fungi, explains Montgomery.

Rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are also undercutting the nutritiousness of our foods.

All plants have photosynthetic pathways through which they bring in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, break it apart, and use the carbon to grow, explains Ebi. But when crops including wheat, rice, barley, and potatoes are exposed to higher levels of carbon dioxide, they generate more carbon-based compounds, which leads to a higher carbohydrate content. In addition, when concentrations of carbon dioxide are higher, these crops draw in less water, “which means they bring in fewer micronutrients from the soil,” says Ebi.

Experiments described in a 2018 issue of Science Advances confirmed that concentrations of protein, iron, zinc, and several B vitamins decreased in 18 types of rice after exposure to higher levels of carbon dioxide.

A looming threat to public health

To be clear: Fruits, vegetables, and whole grains are still among the healthiest foods on the planet—but consumers may not be getting the nutrients they’re counting on from plant-based foods. And if these nutrient declines continue, some people may be at elevated risk for developing deficiencies in certain nutrients or less able to protect themselves from chronic diseases through good nutrition, experts say.

While these nutrient declines affect everyone, some people are more likely to suffer harm.

“Wheat and rice compose more than 30 percent of calories consumed around the world,” Ebi notes. “Anyone whose diet relies heavily on these grains, particularly low-income populations, could be affected by decreasing consumption of protein, B vitamins, and micronutrients [in these grains]. These dietary changes could lead to deficiencies, such as iron-deficiency anemia in women and girls.”

Nutrient declines are a huge concern in countries that are already struggling with severe food insecurity, adds Chase Sova, senior director of public policy and research at World Food Program USA.

“As many as three billion people around the planet, most of them in low- and middle-income countries, cannot regularly afford a healthy diet, and at least two billion are suffering from so-called hidden hunger, missing key micronutrients in their diets,” Sova says. “These people cannot afford additional nutrient declines in plant-based foods.”

No matter who’s eating them, foods with fewer nutrients also may be lacking another important attribute: flavor. A lot of the health-protective compounds also impart flavor to foods, so some of the shifts in farming practices that are responsible for lower nutrient levels are the same ones that contribute to their meh tastes (we’re talking about you, tasteless tomatoes and bland carrots).

Soil: The key to boosting nutrients

Unfortunately, the nutrient levels in produce are not likely to improve given the current trajectory of global changes.

Using models with the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations predicted by the year 2050, researchers estimate that the protein content of potatoes, rice, wheat, and barley is likely to decrease another 6 to 14 percent, according to a study published in a 2017 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives. As a result, 18 countries, including India, may lose more than 5 percent of their dietary protein.

There’s an ongoing debate about whether organic produce is more nutritious than conventionally grown produce, but it’s a moot point, according to some scientists, because of the considerable overlap in farming practices and environmental exposure to carbon dioxide.

Montgomery says the effects of farming practices on soil health are a better lens through which to view the nutrient content of crops. Most studies that compare produce from conventional farms with organically farmed food don’t control for soil health, which Montgomery says is the most important factor.

One strategy for improving soil is with regenerative farming—a sweeping set of practices that can restore soil fertility. A study in the January 2022 issue of PeerJ: Life & Environment shows that regenerative farming practices produce crops with higher soil organic matter levels, soil health scores, and higher levels of certain vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals.

The first step is to leave the soil alone as much as possible and reduce tillage, a practice that leads to mineral depletion. Planting cover crops (which are grown to cover the soil in order to protect it) such as clover, rye grass, or vetch can help by preventing erosion and suppressing weed growth. And rotating the range of plants grown in each field can improve the nutrient content of subsequent crops.

For the most part, though, the healthiest thing the average shopper can do is keep eating an array of produce. “We’re not talking about a 50 percent decline in nutrient density, so if you’re getting a variety of different-colored fruits and vegetables, you’ll still meet your nutritional needs,” says Kristi Crowe-White, an associate professor of nutrition at the University of Alabama and a member expert for the Institute of Food Technologists.

It’s very unlikely that everything you eat will be devoid of beta carotene, for example, which the body converts into vitamin A. “By eating a variety of fruits and vegetables, you will offset some of these nutrient losses” she says.

“Across the board, people should be eating more fruits, vegetables, and whole grains to optimize the effects on human health,” Montgomery adds. In this instance, variety isn’t just the spice of life—it may help you reap and harvest better health.
 
Even homemade farming like, say planting beans in your front yard is considered unusual.
Unusual and in some places, illegal. Can't speak for everywhere, but I know there are cities where growing crops type plants require you to be zoned for it, and yes, the city will come for your blood. Knew a family that had their own little victory garden (as they were once called) and the city decided to rezone, they filed for a variance, got denied, and then the city started stacking a lien via daily fine for having their plants they had for years.
 
Carrots actually were originally purple. Being orange was bred into them.
I love purple carrots.
1651362434691.png
 
This is to be expected. No matter how you grow your food ("regenerative agriculture" is bullshit, fight me about it) the plants will pull nutrients out of the ground. Unless those plants die and decompose in the same place they grew, those nutrients are lost. The only way to resupply the soil is to add nutrients and fertilizers which enviro-faggots have been railing against for decades.
 
Lol so basically admitting many modern industry-controlled fields are omitting proper crop rotation in favour in quick gains. This research isn't new: plenty of literature on how early harvesting and poor soil management affects yields and nutritional value, we're just noticing it now because taking Russia and Ukraine out of the provider picture makes North American supplies appear weaker.

The Green Revolution was a serious boon for farming, but we're in the era of perpetual growth and globalization so the benefits born from it are diluted in favour of sheer output. Hell this article says it best, it's all about yields right now and not about value. Correct for that and we in North America (or Europe) have no problem.

As for Africa and Asia you ask? Should've better appreciated Western knowledge then. You want to live and thrive, learn what works.
Well we destroy some of our crops to keep the food prices competitive, so we are increasing yield in this manner just to destroy the 'excess' anyway.

Plus too much of the corn, soy, rice, fruits and vegetables gets turned into nutrition-less junk food and such, great for the corporations that make extra money from it, bad for the average person who could have more of the healthier stuff if it wasn't being destroyed or shunted into obesogenic junk foods.
 
This is to be expected. No matter how you grow your food ("regenerative agriculture" is bullshit, fight me about it) the plants will pull nutrients out of the ground. Unless those plants die and decompose in the same place they grew, those nutrients are lost. The only way to resupply the soil is to add nutrients and fertilizers which enviro-faggots have been railing against for decades.
Wouldn't adding nutrients to soil be good for the environment? I am very confused now.
 
Wouldn't adding nutrients to soil be good for the environment? I am very confused now.
I may have misspoke:
Organic fags LOVE nutrients and fertilizers when it takes the form of cow shit or other "natural" sources. The problem is all you're doing is transporting bioavailable nutrients from one place to another in an extremely inefficient manner. There are legitimate problems with nitrogen fertilizers as the runoff results in algal blooms in lakes which kill fish and shit but we've found ways to optimize the process and mitigate the damage (farmers want their fertilizer to stay IN the soil and minimize the cost by having to use less of it for the same effect, after all).
The solution to the nutrient problem is synthetically produced nutrients, created in a factory, from non-bioavailable raw ores. but that's scary and unnatural so hippies hate it.
 
I may have misspoke:
Organic fags LOVE nutrients and fertilizers when it takes the form of cow shit or other "natural" sources. The problem is all you're doing is transporting bioavailable nutrients from one place to another in an extremely inefficient manner. There are legitimate problems with nitrogen fertilizers as the runoff results in algal blooms in lakes which kill fish and shit but we've found ways to optimize the process and mitigate the damage (farmers want their fertilizer to stay IN the soil and minimize the cost by having to use less of it for the same effect, after all).
The solution to the nutrient problem is synthetically produced nutrients, created in a factory, from non-bioavailable raw ores. but that's scary and unnatural so hippies hate it.
They even sell cow manure at Home Depot
 
They even sell cow manure at Home Depot
It's not terrible fertilizer. An old friend of mine used horse manure on his marijuana grow some years back and it was fine. It's just inherently unsustainable. Especially since the manure is also going to become less nutritious as this problem persists.
He had a much better time after switching to "chemical" fertilizers/nutrients anyway. Just had to dance around the topic when his customers asked questions about how he grew the shit.
 
To go back to the dog metaphor, you can spend $20 a month feeding your dog cheap-ass 90% corn kibble or you can spend $200 a month feeding your dog the really fancy stuff you have to refrigerate.

Your dog will probably be healthier with the $200 stuff, yes. However, if you're a broke fag and you can't afford that shit, your dog can also live to a pretty good age on the kibble and feeding the dog kibble isn't bad, it's just not the best. And it's totally possible to fuck up your dog on fancy stuff, such as the "grain-fee" fad.

Chemical fertilizers are plant kibble. The plants grown from them are fine. Maybe there are better plants out there, but fuck paying $5 for a tomato. Grow your own or make a friend for the fresh, well-fed tomatoes, and store-bought big ag is fine for recipes.

And for hippies who don't like chemical fertilizers, I think a lot of people are genuinely ignorant about the difference between chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and have a hard line that all pesticides are bad because they're chemicals and oh noes hard science!

"They're spraying something on the plants!"

You have no idea what they're spraying, or even if they're spraying*, but the farmers know what they're doing and they're not out there throwing money away.

*It wasn't too many years ago when I learned that a lot of what looks like "crop dusting" in Northern California in the springtime is actually sowing.

 
This is old news.

Compare the average carrot to one grown in say, New Zealand and compare the vitamin content.
 
But no. The chemical fertilizers are better. It's the environmental impact people bitch about. Organic farming is a massive grift and I avoid the entire section for ethical reasons. Those niggers kill more people than the opiate industry.
This reminds me back in high school when I worked in the town grocery stores produce department. The store director mandated we expanded the organic section because it was "the future", even though we threw out like 99% of all the organic produce cause it went to shit.

Really tanked our numbers, the fucking retard might have had 30 years in the business but he lived in the city his whole life and had no fucking clue about anything.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I'm sure the problem with the modern diet is that carrots have 10% less vitamin C. It has nothing to do with the five trips a week to Burger King and the fact that nearly half of Americans drink less than 24 ounces of water a day. I didn't make that water figure up, that's actually true. Half of Americans drink something other than water as their primary source of fluid.

Now I know what you're thinking, and no, the fact that the entire west coast imbibes nothing but semen isn't enough to skew the numbers this badly.
 
the fucking retard might have had 30 years in the business
Here's the thing about that:
When you work in an industry that's notably dynamic and constantly evolving, your years of experience don't mean a whole hell of a lot. It's part of the reason the tech industry is almost always dominated by young up-and-comers who are soon replaced by the next kid. Experience may breed a sort of instinct on how the winds and currents will change, but they also breed hubris.
Not just agriculture, but the marketing around it as well, are in the midst of a massive paradigm shift. "Organic" is the old guard fighting tooth and nail to slow the train on CRISPR edited crops/animals, new pesticides and fertilizers, and the slew of other amazing advancements being made in the food industry. Meanwhile, consumers are shifting away from the "natural=better" mindset and those same people who used to scream their ire from the mountaintops about the evils of Monsanto and gobbled up bullshit "organic" foods are now being similarly scammed by the fool's gold that is "lab grown meat."
One of the biggest hurdles biotech has to overcome to absolutely revolutionize the way we grow crops is not technical limitations or market viability, but government institutions who are run by the "too experienced" and those influenced by the propaganda machine propped up by the organic industry. The market, even among bugmen, has changed. Case in point:
soylent pro gmo.jpg
 
Back