"Nutrition" implies a health outcome; it is not enough to count the nutrients in a food and then declare it less nutritious. The claim in the article is that fo

"Nutrition" implies a health outcome; it is not enough to count the nutrients in a food and then declare it less nutritious. The claim in the article is that food which is the result of agriculture is less nutritious, which means that we have a worse health outcome from eating it than food we ate before agriculture. I think that is controversial, and it was not backed up.