15 ms·

Dirt Poor: Have Fruits and Vegetables Become Less Nutritious?

• n4r9 9y ago
  Here is the study mentioned in the second main paragraph: http://saveoursoils.com/userfiles/downloads/1351255687-Changes%20in%20USDA%20food%20composition%20data%20for%2043%20garden%20crops,%201950-1999.pdf 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding
  • afpx 9y ago
    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.
    • orclev 9y ago
      In most places in order to qualify as "organic" they're only allowed to use a certain subset of pesticides (generally ones derived from natural sources such as bugs or other plants). They aren't pesticide free, and there's no requirement on the quantities of pesticides used, only the kinds of pesticide. There's also no requirements around fertilizer used as far as I'm aware. Like most of the health buzzword fads, organic doesn't really mean what most people think it means, and in truth what it means is highly variable depending on who's using the term.
      • bobthechef 9y ago
        Certainly, the term "organic" is abused, much like the term "natural" (which also doesn't mean what people think it means). However, surely the kind of pesticide you use matters. And while nothing in principle guarantees that naturally-sourced pesticides are guaranteed to be non-toxic (except the pests in question, etc), the ones that are generally used[0] are undoubtably safer than "conventional" pesticides. [0] http://www.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/xerces-organic-approved-pesticides-factsheet.pdf http://www.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/xerces-orga...
        • jasallen 9y ago
          "Ubdoubtably"... because... Well because by definition we don't doubt articles of faith right?
        • toasterlovin 9y ago
          It's the dose, not the substance, that makes the poison.
          • gowld 9y ago
            The substance determines the dose that makes the poison.
      • afpx 9y ago
        After reading through USDA certification and compliance material, I do see limitations on what chemicals can be used. Approved chemicals may be allowed in some cases, but the producer must have a plan that limits the use of them and have a documented multi-step process to ensure that they are only used as a last resort. Plus, they must have detailed documentation available when and if they were used. Here’s the list of allowed chemicals. It’s a short list. And, I’m ok with more being used, since most look harmless (e.g. ethanol, lye). http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1025eb0e6b67cadf9d3b40&rgn=div6&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7&idno=7 http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f10... Organic seems good to me.
    • calvinbhai 9y ago
      As a price and 'fresher/tastier veggie' conscious buyer, I'm not a strong pro/anti organic consumer.But my belief (no sources) is that organic farming using organic pesticide and organic fertilizer, is legit organic.
    • marcoperaza 9y ago
      Organic just means that that the pesticides and fertilizers are organic as opposed to inorganic. So while a nonorganic farm will fertilize with a mixture of nitrogen/phosphorus/potassium compounds (scary-sounding "chemicals"), an organic farm will fertilize with organic (previously/currently living) material that contains high levels of those chemicals.
      • orclev 9y ago
        That's not what organic means. Technically organic can mean derived from something that is/was living, but it can also mean anything that contains hydrocarbons. Similarly inorganic can mean either something not contained within anything that is/was living (which honestly with how varied life is doesn't cover much), or else something not containing carbon. That however is the actual definition of organic as opposed to how it's used in marketing material. When talking about marketing, organic just means that a particular subset of approved pesticides and possibly fertilizers, was used in growing the produce. It has no particular meaning beyond that when used as a marketing term. In particular what pesticides are or are not approved is at the discretion of the organization providing the organic certification, so depending on where you are and what group is certifying a product as organic will determine what was used in growing it.
        • marcoperaza 9y ago
          Just to clarify, I was referring to the meaning of “organic” specifically in “organic food”. The way the regulations have defined it is “grown with only non-synthetic or exempted synthesized fertilizers/pesticides/etc.” This is a totally different meaning than “organic” in “organic chemistry” or “organic compounds.”
        • marcoperaza 9y ago
          I don't think 'organic' in "organic food" includes synthesized "organic compounds".
          • kokey 9y ago
            It doesn't, but it does make it fun to say things like kerosene and plastic are organic.
    • chiph 9y ago
      There's "FDA Organic" which meets the government standards (which are somewhat weak) and then "Real Organic" from farmers who hold themselves to the original meaning of being pesticide and GMO-free. The problem is that as a shopper, you can't tell the difference, unless you sign up with a CSA and get to know your food supplier personally.
      • gbrown 9y ago
        Well put.
        • SlowBro 9y ago
          There's another way to tell: Switch to organic for the "dirty dozen" fruits and veggies[1] for three weeks. Then try conventional again. In my own experience I couldn't tolerate conventional anymore, and the difference is more than placebic: Headaches and yuck feeling. Prove it for yourself. [1]https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/dirty_dozen_list.php https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/dirty_dozen_list.php Also in my experience, organic tastes WAY better. For example I never liked the taste of conventional celery; some bitter aftertaste (pesticide residue?) and just bland. But organic celery really pops, with no aftertaste. Baby carrots are noticeably tastier as well. The difference is so stark I think I could validate these on a double-blind test any day.
          • perseusprime11 9y ago
            When I eat Non organic beetroot, it just feels like I am eating some pesticides. Same with non-organic corn. Try keeping in this mind when you eat these vegetables next time and I am sure you will catch the aftertaste.
            • slavik81 9y ago
              If they're thinking about pesticides and their taste while eating, it might be hard to seperate the thought from the reality. Like, thinking about maggots while eating your rice. I'm sure your rice doesn't contain maggots, but do you really feel like eating rice right now? Try a double-blind test and ask a series of questions. Some of the questions about taste should be the things you're looking for. Others should be irrelevant, just to set a baseline. Perceptions of taste are very subjective and easily influenced. Experimental rigour is necessary to mitigate that.
    • gascan 9y ago
      Organic allows pesticides- but the list of approved pesticides is full of things like ethanol and soap. It passes the sniff test that a farmer controlling pests with ethanol might use more than a farmer using, e.g. neonicotinoids. As for fertilizer, I wonder if compost is considered fertilizer. I use lots of compost on my garden.
    • sbenitoj 9y ago
      I still believe it’s worth buying organic, here is a good article summarizing studies on using baking soda to remove pesticides from fruits and vegetables, and 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-soda-washes-all.html?m=1 http://suppversity.blogspot.com/2017/10/nahco3-aka-baking-so...
    • Obi_Juan_Kenobi 9y ago
      The reality is that you don't know for sure. 'Good' organic growing practices are perfectly safe. They'll minimize pesticide application, and ensure they do it at the correct times, i.e. away from harvest time. They'll apply Bt toxin (yes, the same stuff in the GMOs, just exogenously applied) and neem oil, as well as some soaps with potassium salts. There are some 'dangerous' organic pesticides. As far as I know Rotenone isn't used anymore, but it is dangerous to humans and was once employed as an organic pesticide. Copper sulfate is a fairly big issue. It's definitely toxic to humans and has been found to accumulate in soils. It's a fairly big deal in Napa and the vineyards have moved away from it because of the accumulation. This copper definitely makes it's way to consumers, so the question is how much, and how much is too much? This is an interesting anecdote about brewing beer with fruit, and needing to pay attention to copper levels. http://scottjanish.com/peaches-and-quinoa-sour/ http://scottjanish.com/peaches-and-quinoa-sour/ ______ Ultimately, at the scale of the modern organic industry, you're not always going to get good stuff. There are certainly potential dangers, just as there are with conventional agriculture. I would contend that both are perfectly safe when done appropriately.
      • tropo 9y ago
        Copper is a required micronutrient. You need copper. Copper sulfate used to be used to induce vomiting. It turned out to be more toxic then we'd like in that usage... but that usage was feeding people spoonfuls of it!
  • scott_s 9y ago
    There also have been studies on the nutritional differences between conventional farming and organic farming, and most of the meta-analysis of these studies concludes there is none: https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/new-organic-farming-meta-analysis-what-does-it-really-show/ https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/new-organic-fa...
  • 7sigma 9y ago
    > The Organic Consumers Association cites several other studies with similar findings I would take whatever the OCA says with a huge mound of salt, given their antivax and anti fluoride in the water stance.
    • stevenh 9y ago
      Please enlighten us, what are the health benefits of swallowing sodium silicofluoride and hydrofluorosilicic acid? Edit: Just to be clear, you shouldn't assume that my comment being gray means it was unanimously downvoted. I saw it losing three points for every two gained, meaning roughly 40% of HN shares my curiosity.
      • babygoat 9y ago
        You know what fluoride is for and you’re being obtuse.
        • stevenh 9y ago
          Imagining sinister ulterior motives behind an innocent question seems like something a conspiracy theorist would do.
          • delecti 9y ago
            Replying to the phrase "anti fluoride in the water" with the specific chemicals that are added to the water while pretending to have no clue why they're there is more like something a conspiracy theorist would do.
            • stevenh 9y ago
              It sounds like you know the reason we should swallow those specific chemicals? Perhaps you'll be the first here to answer the question.
      • logfromblammo 9y ago
  • NikolaeVarius 9y ago
    I had to reread a few times to try and separate the authors opinions and whatever the paper was stating. This article was an opinion piece based off a misreading of the original paper
  • Dwolb 9y ago
    Personally I’d like to dig in to know which varieties have the most nutritional content. Sounds like a good opportunity for growers to begin to differentiate among themselves.
    • roel_v 9y ago
      It's not so much the variety, but the way it's grown. If you grow one tomato in circumstances with insufficient light (or light of certain wavelengths) with lots of nitrogen but insufficient minerals, and planted at the wrong time of the year (something to do with the length of the days and radiant heat - so this varies by location), you'll get different nutritional content from that same seed if it were grown under better circumstances. Some say there is a relationship between nutritional value and Brix readings of the juice of a plant/vegetable; Brix is essentially a measure of the amount of solids in a fluid. I can't find reliable literature confirming this, and the soil/plant/nutrition scientists I work with don't know either (but they don't dismiss it quackary either - it just seems there's not enough research). Either way, a Brix meter is cheap from Ali Express, and I can sort of (meaning: not properly verified, not sure how it would look when properly statistically analyzed) detect patterns in Brix readings from cheap supermarket lettuce, farmers market lettuce and home grown lettuce (and some other vegetables). So if this is something you're in to, it's well worth it spending $15 on a refractometer and playing with it yourself. Oh and if you're going to make your own wine, you can use it for that, too :)
  • pratyushag2 9y ago
    Thanks for your well researched comment!
  • chrisseaton 9y ago
    > for example, a lot of so-called organic produce is the product of radiation-induced mutation What's wrong with that? Is mutation not an organic process?
    • emiliobumachar 9y ago
      The chemical definition of "organic" would include pretty much anything edible except water and salt. The term is commonly used to refer to foods made using more natural-ish processes. Irradiating seeds goes very much against that vibe.
      • dekhn 9y ago
        organic rules allow mutation breeding.
    • n4r9 9y ago
      The problem is defining a notion of "organic" which is meaningful, consistent and acceptable to / understandable by the public. Many people are shocked by the idea that radiation-induced genetic changes count as both non-GMO and organic. I was, when I learned about it. It seems absurd that food produced this way should fall into a category that gets pushed as "better for you and the planet", when it's a process that's almost as artificial and surely less controllable than GM.
    • 7sigma 9y ago
      I think he might be referring to the fact that Organic Standards don't allow for transgenic modification of varieties, or what is commonly know as GMOs, due to safety concerns On the other hand, they allow for varieties made by using radiation induced mutations, which is way less precise and much less tested. Basically its an ideological position and not based on the scientific consensus.
      • hackerman12345 9y ago
        They also conveniently ignore that pretty much everything is transgenic, the viruses and such that Monsanto uses have existed for a few million (?) years and love to throw DNA around.
  • zxcb1 9y ago
    Another explanation/hypothesis is rising CO2 levels https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511 https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrie...
    • shawn-butler 9y ago
      This is a much more likely and testable hypothesis than the linked article.
    • joecool1029 9y ago
      Earlier HN discussion about it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15253127 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15253127
  • samirillian 9y ago
    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.
    • true_religion 9y ago
      The human element can serve to add trust in the place of verification, but shouldn't take its place. People lie. Industry "standards" change commonly accepted definitions. People buy what's cheap, and effective even if it may not exactly be what's on the tin (e.g. farmer buys an 'organic' fertilizer which isn't, thus 'contaminating' the organic nature of the goods going to your table). That said, I don't see why higher yield with lower nutrition goods are bad in general. It seems malnutrition is from people not eating enough, not from being stuffed with poorly nourishing food.
      • hashkb 9y ago
        If the farmers at local markets are lying about using conventional methods but still growing smaller, tastier fruits and veggies with shorter shelf lives despite still having dirt and rocks on them... then we're totally fucked anyway.
        • hackerman12345 9y ago
          I've seen personal stories here about those farmers market people stopping by Walmart before hand... probably can get a nice discount on dirty fruit.
          • Reedx 9y ago
            Yep, check out CBC's undercover investigation on that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYwB63YslbA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYwB63YslbA Some don't even bother to take the stickers off!
  • mtgx 9y ago
    > 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.
    • Broken_Hippo 9y ago
      Aren't GMO crops most likely to make that trade-off? No. Like most things, it depends on the desired outcome of the product. In fact, some GMOs are specifically designed to be more nutritional rather than less. See golden rice, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice Additionally, "processing food" isn't actually bad. Humans gained quite a bit with the most common food processing: Cooking. Some foods are more nutritious that way, and it made meat a whole heck of a lot safer to eat. Freezing and various types of drying kept us alive during winters and off-seasons. Some highly processed foods might not be the best things to eat, sure, but processed food itself isn't such a big deal. And that bit about not needing to take vitamins? Yeah, that's true. I personally need to take Vitamin D from September through April, which partially comes from moving to a northern location. The rest of the year I need to get outside in daylight at least 15 minutes a day. No supplements. My diet is pretty balanced: I won't drink smoothies or shakes except as an ice cream dessert. I eat my fruit, I eat fish, eggs, and dairy but no other meats, and cook at home (sometimes freezing for a later date). I have had bloodwork to check for these things. You don't even need to track your daily micronutrients any more than you need to track your daily calories. Balanced doesn't equal perfect, after all, and you don't need to eat every micronutrient every single day. Simply get informed about the sort of things you need, and check that against your local variety of foods. Eat said variety of foods during the day and week. Add in the little extra things that might have healthy stuff. And there you go: A balanced diet.
  • codeulike 9y ago
    a lot of so-called organic produce is the product of radiation-induced mutation Citation needed for that.
    • Symmetry 9y ago
      It's totally true. Efforts to produce shorter stemmed wheat that were also resistant to rust[1] used induced mutations from x-rays in some cases. So if you feel like you want wheat that's been mutated to be a good crop via good old fashioned solar UV rays rather than scary artificial cyclotron x-rays you should look for heirloom crops rather than organics. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_leaf_rust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_leaf_rust
      • codeulike 9y ago
        The article you quote describes how resistance came about via selective breeding and other such mundane techniques and makes no mention of x-rays. Comment above mine was specifically saying that radiation based mutation is widespread in organic agriculture.
        • Symmetry 9y ago
          Sorry, I just put in the link because I figured people might be confused by me saying "rust" without it. I'm basing my comments on reading The Wizard and the Prophet which gets into the nuts and bolts of the Green Revolution and the various research programs involved. I don't have an online source on hand better than what either of us could Google.
    • n4r9 9y ago
      See the cited Wikipedia page, which in turn cites a large number of published papers. It's not a controversial fact.
      • codeulike 9y ago
        The cited page explains about radiation mutation and lists some of the varieties created, apart from noting that organic standards don't forbid their use it doesn't offer much info on how widespread use is in organic agriculture. That's the bit that needs the citation.
  • kakarot 9y ago
    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...
  • andrei_says_ 9y ago
    The nutrients in the fruits and vegetables must come from the soil. Proper care of the soil is expensive and labor intensive. 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.
    • 52-6F-62 9y ago
      I rather wish that subject was approached. As I understand it (coming from rural Ontario—5th largest agri-region), farms and especially large farms (around there) are required to—or at least make it a habit of best practice—strategically rotate crops every n seasons to allow the soil to replenish. It's not so simple as that, but I'm no biologist or farmer—just a former country boy. Maybe somebody more knowledgeable could enlighten or expand.
      • randomdata 9y ago
        As a farmer (also in rural Ontario, coincidentally) that is definitely something we try to do. It is not required by law, but anytime I've watched someone not rotate their crops, it isn't long before they are out of business. To extent that, on my farm, we consider it well worth growing unprofitable crops through that rotation to ensure that the ground will grow something profitable next year. It has also become quite popular to grow a second cover crop over the winter to improve soil health even further. But what concerns me most about modern farming is the separation of animal production from plant production. I'm the sixth generation on my family's farm, and I'm the first generation to not also have animals. I do worry about the long-term effects of that. When I get into ground away from the historic family farm, that hasn't seen animals for decades or longer, you really notice a difference in the quality of soil vs. the home farm that has had animals for centuries as part of that crop rotation. Rotation is important, but rotation with animals seems to give the very best results. It is the model that agriculture grew up on and something we have lost (somewhat) recently.
        • ramphastidae 9y ago
          What are the animals’ role? Fertilization?
  • alisson 9y ago
    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 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.
  • api 9y ago
    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.
  • drdrey 9y ago
    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"
    • delecti 9y ago
      It's not that the pesticides are more likely to end up in the produce, just that more is used while growing.
      • drdrey 9y ago
        Why would you have less pesticides in the end product if more is used when they are growing?
    • halfjoking 9y ago
      I remember reading in the LA Times that there are more antioxidants/polyphenols in organic food[1], and since those types of nutrients have been shown to decrease inflammation and neutralize free radicals[2] I want to increase my intake of them. [1] http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-organic-foods-20140715-story.html http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-organic-foods-20140715... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5055983/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5055983/
  • rmrm 9y ago
    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.
    • bryanlarsen 9y ago
      In my experience, no till farmers tend to use much more herbicides and pesticides than farmers that employ tillage. And they do appear to have healthier soil.
      • rmrm 9y ago
        herbicides I can understand (if they are killing to clear). Pesticides I cant quite see why theyd use any more. What would the rationale be to drive that?
        • HeyLaughingBoy 9y ago
          My guess (and it's only a guess) would be that the crop residue left behind by no-till harbors more pests than the ground that's been tilled.
    • Juggerbot 9y ago
      >In an unhealthy soil environment where bacteria and funghi are depleted, the plants are dependent on being fed soluable forms of all nutrients. I don't think natural soil systems have been able to keep up with the nutrient demands of modern crop production for some decades now.
  • macawfish 9y ago
    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.
    • mistermann 9y ago
      > I can only imagine that the imported tomatoes were grown in depleted soil using less than sustainable methods. This is far from the only explanation. I've bought supposed "heirloom" tomatoes in a high end supermarket before, and they were also disgusting. What you bought probably simply wasn't a proper heirloom tomato.
      • jdmichal 9y ago
        All heirloom means is that it grows true from seed. Any other properties of the plant, including taste, are up in the air.
        • mistermann 9y ago
          Where do non-heirloom tomatoes come from if not seeds?
          • grzm 9y ago
            A key distinction is the "grows true", which I interpret as "breed true", i.e., the seeds are non-hybridized. For a bit more detail, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heirloom_tomato#Seed_collecting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heirloom_tomato#Seed_collectin...
            • 9y ago
  • newnewpdro 9y ago
    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
  • btilly 9y ago
    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-crops-nutrition-climate-change-carbon-dioxide-science/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140507-crop... which showed that rising CO2 levels reduces how nutritious many crops are.
• redsummer 9y ago
  The article mentions organic as possibly more nutritious. Are there any studies which prove this, and give comparative organic / non-organic nutritional values?
  • skjerns 9y ago
    Second this question. Most conclusions I heard so far were "Organic is not healthier", which is contrary to what the author states.
  • criddell 9y ago
    Studies usually find no significant nutritional difference between organic and conventional crops.
• maxerickson 9y ago
  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.
  • gerbilly 9y ago
    Yes but some say the soil may be getting deficient in minerals: zinc, selenium, magnesium etc...
    • maxerickson 9y ago
      Those can be fertilized, but that is only going to happen if they are limiting plant growth. Fertilizing for calcium and magnesium availability is pretty common.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• will_brown 9y ago
  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. 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-modification-2015-8 https://amp.businessinsider.com/foods-before-genetic-modific...
  • microcolonel 9y ago
    One of the major benefits of new vegetables is that people don't hate eating them. Many modern, heavily modified vegetables are plenty good; I've seen too many people give this as an excuse for not bothering. Added: Perhaps somebody could market some varieties specifically for nutritional content, I would not be against that. The biggest problem there is that we still don't really know what "nutritious" even means.
    • dv_dt 9y ago
      I have doubts about people not hating modern vegtables - the modern ag industry has bred almost all the flavor out of tomatoes for example in a quest for ever better transportability.
    • pixl97 9y ago
      An important part of vegetables is fiber. Fiber isn't exactly fun to eat. Removing said fiber from the vegetable may make it more fun to eat, but at the same time will raise its glycemic index making it less healthy for you.
• fortythirteen 9y ago
  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]. [0] https://www.amazon.com/Eating-Wild-Side-Missing-Optimum/dp/0316227935 https://www.amazon.com/Eating-Wild-Side-Missing-Optimum/dp/0...
• stratigos 9y ago
  People need to wake up and realize: organic foods are not just about decreasing one's exposure to pesticides - its about saving the soil so our Earth can produce food! Pesticides and modern industrialized agriculture will render the soil useless for food production.
  • ergothus 9y ago
    > People need to wake up and realize Clearly you have considered their arguments and respectfully disagree... > organic foods are not just about decreasing one's exposure to pesticides - its about saving the soil so our Earth can produce food! Great - I love eating! But do you have any evidence that "organic" as a label actually supports saving the soil? I can find evidence that organic shoppers desire that result, and I can find claims that "natural" fertilizers and pesticides "are believed" to better for the soil, but not much evidence. Like GMOs, the "organic" and "natural" labels are so broad as to be useless if you are trying to talk about common truths. I support sustainability. I oppose animal cruelty. I support consumers being able to make informed buying decisions. I'm not convinced the labels we have now actually promotes those goals.
  • bloby 9y ago
    I completely agree on this. If anyone's interested, consider reading "The One Straw Revolution" which emphasises how all these modern techniques which both disturbs the soil and then makes an effort to remedy it afterwards is completely unnecessary. I wonder why this comment is downvoted so much. Has HN become too intellectual and superficial?
• known 9y ago
  Hope https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borlaug https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borlaug is reborn
• crazygringo 9y ago
  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?
  • fasteo 9y ago
    This is undeniably true, but I understand that the micro-nutrient density is now lower than before, so that to get a given amount of a micro-nutrient you need to eat more calories. It is speculated that this is one of the reasons behind the obesity epidemic of the Western World.
    • JoeAltmaier 9y ago
      Nobody got fat on carrots. This is silly.
      • fasteo 9y ago
        I did not say that. If you eat your vegs and you do not get all the micro-nutrients you used to get 20 years ago, then you brain will drive you to eat more, not necessarily carrots.
    • lucozade 9y ago
      I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the obesity epidemic is not because folk are stuffing more kale down their gullets. 5+ years ago it was very noticeable to me, going from the UK to the US, that almost all shop bought food was bigger and sweeter. From breakfast cereal to drinks to bread. I've also noticed that this trend is fairy pervasive here too. You have to go out of your way to find a burger that's not in a brioche bun, for example. I can't comment on whether we've caught up with the States as I now can't eat most breakfast cereals or drink most soft drinks (including mass market beers) because they're too sweet.
• JackFr 9y ago
  The quality of Scientific American has dropped off significantly in the past 20 years, but this article is astonishingly bad: * 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 9y ago
    I noticed the same thing. 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.
    • Juggerbot 9y ago
      >there's plenty of pristine, hardly used, soil around. Gonna need a [citation needed] on that one.
      • sfotm 9y ago
        Drive through the flyover states and you can see it all for yourself. If you're not on the interstate, you can drive at 80mph without seeing another car for some time. It's actually really beautiful how untouched some parts of the US are. Hopefully they can stay that way for some time.
        • dragonwriter 9y ago
          The Midwest may have a low density of cars, but the arable land is largely farmed; it isn't pristine, untouched wilderness.
          • sfotm 9y ago
            I was born on a farm in rural Ohio, so I can appreciate the difference. I'm thinking more of Wyoming.
• mchannon 9y ago
  This article (and most of this discussion) completely misses the elephant in the room. The reason food crops are less nutritious has nothing to do with their soil and everything to do with their food: CO2. It's widely held and widely accepted that if you give plants a higher concentration of CO2, they will grow faster. They will take up more space in less time. We also know that the CO2 levels on Earth have been skyrocketing. Thanks to CO2, these plants now spend substantially less time in the field before they get harvested, so it stands to reason they'd spend less time taking up minerals and vitamins, or forming them themselves.
  • sol_remmy 9y ago
    Are you going to cite a source that substantiates this? CO2 emissions are a politically charged topic so there's an extra-strong reason to only believe a reliable source
• Confiks 9y ago
  (this was posted as a subcomment, but deserves to be a top-level comment) Another explanation/hypothesis which is rarely talked about is rising CO₂ levels: https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511 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.
• cptskippy 9y ago
  It was my understanding that nutrient absorption took time and the use of fertilizers to rapidly grow multiple crops during a season was the primary factor behind the decline in nutrient density in crops.
• kelukelugames 9y ago
  I hope it's not too late to change the title. A yes/no question is against HN guidelines.
• saosebastiao 9y ago
  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.
  • kaitai 9y ago
    This is why I have found a favorite brand of canned tomatoes and only cook with them unless I can pick my own tomatoes or find them at the farmer's market. Supermarket tomatoes often taste terrible!
• mdtancsa 9y ago
  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.
  • Reedx 9y ago
    Unfortunately true. Farms have a lot of trouble selling "ugly fruit" and a lot of it gets thrown away. Fruit & vegetables have to meet a cosmetic standard to get into the grocery store. Some companies are starting to appear to capitalize on this though: https://www.imperfectproduce.com/ https://www.imperfectproduce.com/
• Stranger43 9y ago
  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.
• artursapek 9y ago
  Solution: 1. buy some land 2. grow your own food 3. learn how to preserve it https://www.amazon.com/New-Complete-Book-Self-Sufficiency-Realists/dp/0751364428 https://www.amazon.com/New-Complete-Book-Self-Sufficiency-Re...
• randomerr 9y ago
  Here is a Christian biblical practice used for soil conversation in Kenya. They line up with what the Scientific American was saying: http://www.arcworld.org/projects.asp?projectID=633 http://www.arcworld.org/projects.asp?projectID=633
• justifier 9y ago
  i assume the article was most interested in discussing 'soil depletion' but another unsettling variable in this is the 'nutrient collapse' wherein elevated CO2 levels in the grow environment correlates negatively with nutrient content of plants https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534702025879 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016953470... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4036122/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4036122/ https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511 https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrie... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15253127 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15253127
• DoubleCribble 9y ago
  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...
• chiefalchemist 9y ago
  The veg version of: You are what you eat eats. 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 9y ago
    ancient wisdom::-If u eat seedless fruit u become "seedless"
  • tfuop 9y ago
    Ancient wisdom-- if u eat seedless fruit u become "seedless" or ur future gen becomes seedless...so all the best at digging ur own graves fellas
• xfactor973 9y ago
  This is exactly why I signed up for a CSA ( know your farmer ) and planted a food forest in my back yard. I know exactly what went into it.
• rymohr 9y ago
  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. [1]: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=3f34f4c22f9aa8e6d9864cc2683cea02&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title07/7cfr205_main_02.tpl https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=3f34f4c22f9... [2]: https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Organic%20Practices%20Factsheet.pdf https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Organic%2...
  • darkstar999 9y ago
    People also seem to conflate "organic" with "healthy". I had past coworkers who thought it was absurd that an energy drink was labeled as organic.
• wcchandler 9y ago
  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.
• sbenitoj 9y ago
  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).” http://suppversity.blogspot.com/2017/10/nahco3-aka-baking-soda-washes-all.html?m=1 http://suppversity.blogspot.com/2017/10/nahco3-aka-baking-so...
• leekyle333 9y ago
  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.
• Dowwie 9y ago
  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. Garden culture for the win.