Angela
Elite member
- Messages
- 21,823
- Reaction score
- 12,329
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
I'm not at all surprised. They select for shelf life or size or fast growth or whatever, and in the process they're breeding out some essential nutrients, although not all.
So, it's not enough to buy "organic". You should buy, or grow "heirloom" varieties. I'm starting to do that with tomatoes. I'm going to investigate if there are any sellers of older varietals of vegetables in my area.
This is something which could be done in southern Europe, although if my relatives are any indication putting your hands in the dirt and growing something is déclassé
See:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15637215
"[h=3]Abstract[/h][h=4]OBJECTIVES:[/h]To evaluate possible changes in USDA nutrient content data for 43 garden crops between 1950 and 1999 and consider their potential causes.
[h=4]METHODS:[/h]We compare USDA nutrient content data published in 1950 and 1999 for 13 nutrients and water in 43 garden crops, mostly vegetables. After adjusting for differences in moisture content, we calculate ratios of nutrient contents, R (1999/1950), for each food and nutrient. To evaluate the foods as a group, we calculate median and geometric mean R-values for the 13 nutrients and water. To evaluate R-values for individual foods and nutrients, with hypothetical confidence intervals, we use USDA's standard errors (SEs) of the 1999 values, from which we generate 2 estimates for the SEs of the 1950 values.
[h=4]RESULTS:[/h]As a group, the 43 foods show apparent, statistically reliable declines (R < 1) for 6 nutrients (protein, Ca, P, Fe, riboflavin and ascorbic acid), but no statistically reliable changes for 7 other nutrients. Declines in the medians range from 6% for protein to 38% for riboflavin. When evaluated for individual foods and nutrients, R-values are usually not distinguishable from 1 with current data. Depending on whether we use low or high estimates of the 1950 SEs, respectively 33% or 20% of the apparent R-values differ reliably from 1. Significantly, about 28% of these R-values exceed 1.
[h=4]CONCLUSIONS:[/h]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."
So, it's not enough to buy "organic". You should buy, or grow "heirloom" varieties. I'm starting to do that with tomatoes. I'm going to investigate if there are any sellers of older varietals of vegetables in my area.
This is something which could be done in southern Europe, although if my relatives are any indication putting your hands in the dirt and growing something is déclassé
See:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15637215
"[h=3]Abstract[/h][h=4]OBJECTIVES:[/h]To evaluate possible changes in USDA nutrient content data for 43 garden crops between 1950 and 1999 and consider their potential causes.
[h=4]METHODS:[/h]We compare USDA nutrient content data published in 1950 and 1999 for 13 nutrients and water in 43 garden crops, mostly vegetables. After adjusting for differences in moisture content, we calculate ratios of nutrient contents, R (1999/1950), for each food and nutrient. To evaluate the foods as a group, we calculate median and geometric mean R-values for the 13 nutrients and water. To evaluate R-values for individual foods and nutrients, with hypothetical confidence intervals, we use USDA's standard errors (SEs) of the 1999 values, from which we generate 2 estimates for the SEs of the 1950 values.
[h=4]RESULTS:[/h]As a group, the 43 foods show apparent, statistically reliable declines (R < 1) for 6 nutrients (protein, Ca, P, Fe, riboflavin and ascorbic acid), but no statistically reliable changes for 7 other nutrients. Declines in the medians range from 6% for protein to 38% for riboflavin. When evaluated for individual foods and nutrients, R-values are usually not distinguishable from 1 with current data. Depending on whether we use low or high estimates of the 1950 SEs, respectively 33% or 20% of the apparent R-values differ reliably from 1. Significantly, about 28% of these R-values exceed 1.
[h=4]CONCLUSIONS:[/h]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."