5 ms·

The real harm of pesticides is rarely talked about. The impact on human health, while important (particularly in the third world), is minimal compared to the ec

by culi 5y ago

The real harm of pesticides is rarely talked about. The impact on human health, while important (particularly in the third world), is minimal compared to the ecological devastation its done to our soils (and therefore the quality of our food). Today, one would have to eat eight oranges to derive the same amount of Vitamin A as our grandparents would have gotten from one. A study tracking 43 different types of vegetables found "reliable declines" in protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin, and vitamin C in the past half century for all 43 of these vegetables.[0] Estimates say mineral levels in our vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914.[1] Over 90% of all plants rely on mycorrhizal fungi for the MAJORITY of their nutrients. Our obsession with sterile soil has driven countless numbers of these species to extinction and continues to drive one of the largest, and most overlooked, ongoing mass extinctions today. It's not just pesticides either. Artificial phosphorus fertilizers impede the complex plant signaling dance necessary for plants to make this essential connection with these soil fungi Even if you're not worried about the direct implications pesticides have to your risk of cancer or other diseases, you should absolutely be aware of the nutritional impacts they are having on our produce [0] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-and-nutrition-loss/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-an... [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6163803/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6163803/

ajsnigrutin 5y ago
I'm more interested what happens, when we kill of the last of the insects by those pesticides, and the effect goes up the food chain. Considering the history and eg. killing of the sparrows (four pests campaign), the results might be a lot worse than adding checmically produced nutrients to our diet.
- culi 5y ago
  I don't know if you heard the part about the vast majority of plants being dependent on soil fungi for the majority of their nutrients Sure commercial crops still make it to fruit because farmers take care to add the necessary fertilizers and plant hormones to keep them going, but rest assured that this is a major driver of plant extinction as well Plants have the smallest trophic level. Without plants, there's no insects either. There's no way you could care about insect extinction and somehow not care about this issue
joeferraro 5y ago
I'm pretty sure the conclusions from that Scientific American article you reference have been thoroughly debunked[0] [0] https://culinarylore.com/food-science:are-todays-fruits-and-vegetables-less-nutritious-soil-depletion-and-nutrition/ https://culinarylore.com/food-science:are-todays-fruits-and-...
- culi 5y ago
  Thanks for the link. The article you provided debunks a specific explanation for the reason for the decline. It debunks the idea that our soils have simply become depleted of minerals over time (something I myself did not state). However, the claim that nutrition content of our produce has significantly declined is quite well supported. Check out this link showing related papers that cite or are cited by the principle study: https://www.connectedpapers.com/main/65fb8cb3cdc165c416347e84c3ae5d19dbd04ac9/Changes-in-USDA-Food-Composition-Data-for-43-Garden-Crops%2C-1950-to-1999/graph https://www.connectedpapers.com/main/65fb8cb3cdc165c416347e8... I also have issues with the Scientific American article. I hear a lot of speculation that part of the blame is because of breeding for newer varieties that are larger but less nutrient dense. I also think this claim is really unsupported and don't like that it is echoed by the article. However, I think the article you linked is not actually debunking the central claim I'm alluding to, nor my proposed explanation for it
ta988 5y ago
This review disagrees wrt to those mineral amounts: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889157516302113 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S088915751... Highlights • Mineral nutrient composition of vegetables, fruits and grains is not declining. • Allegations of decline due to agricultural soil mineral depletion are unfounded. • Some high-yield varieties show a dilution effect of lower mineral concentrations. • Changes are within natural variation ranges and are not nutritionally significant. • Eating the recommended daily servings provides adequate nutrition. (Note that the author is Senior Scientific Advisor, Bureau of Nutritional Sciences, Food Directorate, Health Canada, so maybe take that one with a grain of salt as well)
- tehdgvtd 5y ago
  this article is the equivalent of "nothing to see here, move along". what is natural variation range? just because barren soils do happen naturally, doesn't mean we have to turn every place in the world barren with pesticides just so we can standardize one combine harvester size.
  - gruez 5y ago
    > this article is the equivalent of "nothing to see here, move along". Is that bad? Given the replication crisis, it seems pretty reasonable to be skeptical of new studies, rather than taking every attention-grabbing headline at face value.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - culi 5y ago
      Sure, but besides the 5 studies the paper reviews, there's quite a few other papers that have covered this topic. And despite difficulties in acquiring high quality data for these types of analyses, none of those studies have found evidence against the claim This isn't like psychology (which is at the heart of the replication crisis) where studies are really expensive (human subjects have a lot of regulation around them) and are usually only done once. This is something that has been replicated, at varying degrees of quality, quite a few times

by culi 5y ago

ajsnigrutin 5y ago

I'm more interested what happens, when we kill of the last of the insects by those pesticides, and the effect goes up the food chain. Considering the history and eg. killing of the sparrows (four pests campaign), the results might be a lot worse than adding checmically produced nutrients to our diet.

culi 5y ago
I don't know if you heard the part about the vast majority of plants being dependent on soil fungi for the majority of their nutrients Sure commercial crops still make it to fruit because farmers take care to add the necessary fertilizers and plant hormones to keep them going, but rest assured that this is a major driver of plant extinction as well Plants have the smallest trophic level. Without plants, there's no insects either. There's no way you could care about insect extinction and somehow not care about this issue

joeferraro 5y ago

I'm pretty sure the conclusions from that Scientific American article you reference have been thoroughly debunked[0] [0] https://culinarylore.com/food-science:are-todays-fruits-and-vegetables-less-nutritious-soil-depletion-and-nutrition/ https://culinarylore.com/food-science:are-todays-fruits-and-...

culi 5y ago
Thanks for the link. The article you provided debunks a specific explanation for the reason for the decline. It debunks the idea that our soils have simply become depleted of minerals over time (something I myself did not state). However, the claim that nutrition content of our produce has significantly declined is quite well supported. Check out this link showing related papers that cite or are cited by the principle study: https://www.connectedpapers.com/main/65fb8cb3cdc165c416347e84c3ae5d19dbd04ac9/Changes-in-USDA-Food-Composition-Data-for-43-Garden-Crops%2C-1950-to-1999/graph https://www.connectedpapers.com/main/65fb8cb3cdc165c416347e8... I also have issues with the Scientific American article. I hear a lot of speculation that part of the blame is because of breeding for newer varieties that are larger but less nutrient dense. I also think this claim is really unsupported and don't like that it is echoed by the article. However, I think the article you linked is not actually debunking the central claim I'm alluding to, nor my proposed explanation for it

ta988 5y ago

This review disagrees wrt to those mineral amounts: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889157516302113 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S088915751... Highlights • Mineral nutrient composition of vegetables, fruits and grains is not declining. • Allegations of decline due to agricultural soil mineral depletion are unfounded. • Some high-yield varieties show a dilution effect of lower mineral concentrations. • Changes are within natural variation ranges and are not nutritionally significant. • Eating the recommended daily servings provides adequate nutrition. (Note that the author is Senior Scientific Advisor, Bureau of Nutritional Sciences, Food Directorate, Health Canada, so maybe take that one with a grain of salt as well)

tehdgvtd 5y ago
this article is the equivalent of "nothing to see here, move along". what is natural variation range? just because barren soils do happen naturally, doesn't mean we have to turn every place in the world barren with pesticides just so we can standardize one combine harvester size.
- gruez 5y ago
  > this article is the equivalent of "nothing to see here, move along". Is that bad? Given the replication crisis, it seems pretty reasonable to be skeptical of new studies, rather than taking every attention-grabbing headline at face value.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - culi 5y ago
    Sure, but besides the 5 studies the paper reviews, there's quite a few other papers that have covered this topic. And despite difficulties in acquiring high quality data for these types of analyses, none of those studies have found evidence against the claim This isn't like psychology (which is at the heart of the replication crisis) where studies are really expensive (human subjects have a lot of regulation around them) and are usually only done once. This is something that has been replicated, at varying degrees of quality, quite a few times