Following up Mother Davis’s story from last night: A team of researchers in New York State has evaluated fifty years of information gathered about the vitamin and mineral content of American vegetables. What they found is that, since the 1950s, the amount of nutritious vitamins and minerals in our vegetables has decreased by as much as 38 percent – depending upon the variety.
The trend predates the heavy use of genetically engineered vegetables in America. One possible explanation is that that the richness of our agricultural soil has decreased. It also could be that plant breeders have for generations selected for size, yield, color and suitability for storage, but have not paid much attention to nutritious content. It could be that this focus has led to the inadvertent selection of vegetables that have relatively low nutritional value.
Whatever the cause, the solution is clear. If you want to get truly nutritious vegetables in your diet, grow them yourself. Dig yourself a garden plot and add lots of compost to build up the fertility of the soil. Then, instead of planting the hybrid varieties of seeds you’ll find at big box stores like Wal-Mart, get yourself some heirloom seeds. Heirloom seeds are older varieties that were selected for qualities like taste, texture, and ease of growth. They were created a long time ago, well before the 1950s, so when you plant these seeds you’ll be much more likely to get the kind of nutrition from the resulting vegetables that you expect.
Don’t know where to get heirloom vegetable seeds? That’s okay. A nice fellow by the name of Thomas Mendelson has put together a list of heirloom seed sources. It just so happens that garden seed companies are coming out with their catalogues for 2005 right now, so the time is right.
The cause is right too. Let’s face facts, folks: If you’re not getting many vitamins and minerals with your veggies, what’s the point?
===
Update: If you’re interested in reading more, go straight to the source: the Journal of the American College of Nutrition.
Wow, is science always a problem for you?
“heirloom” seeds, or selective breeding of animals for certain
attributes has been done for years. But it’s done for the same reason as hybriding is: to produce better products. Some hybrids are created for commercial farmers who ship products long distances. Those products need to withstand shipping well and ripen more slowly.
Other hybrids are created for shorter growing seasons.
Many “heirloom” seeds were developed “naturally” for some of the same properties. Taste was not the only one. And taste does not assure the nutrient value, it might just have more sugar for instance.
I agree that many store-sold hybrids were not chosen for values that you might desire if you are growing them and eating them in your own home. But some people need the certain disease resistance or growing season restrictions that are best served by a certain hybrid.
A global endorsement of heirlooms over hybrids ignore the many great hybrids that have excellent flavor and other qualites. The heirloom seeds were developed using genetic engineering too, it was just much cruder. And some of them were developed for pretty red tomatoes too, to look pleasing. Who back in those days was analyzing them for nutritional content??? So much hype, so little analysis.
BTW, how about a link to the article where you got that? It would save time on looking it up, and it wouldn’t cost you much.
Oh, Clark… The article doesn’t call for a global use of heirlooms over hybrids. The big-box supermarkets can do whatever the hell they like. The article merely suggests to people that if they want to get good vitamins out of their veggies, they grow some themselves, using:
1. Rich soil
2. Heirloom varieties of vegetables
Heirloom varieties are, by definition, old. Therefore they predate the decline in mineral and vitamin content reported in the study. The other most likely explanation for the decline in vitamin and mineral content is impoverishment of agricultural soils.
So, the article suggests that people go about growing some of their own vegetables, and doing so in such a way that makes it much more likely that they’ll have good nutritional content. You may criticize the article because its suggestions apply only “if you are growing them and eating them in your own home”, but given that the recommendations were for home gardeners, the criticism seems to miss the point.
The analysis may be simple, but it’s solid. Insult as much as you want, but next time, try to read the article carefully before you launch into an angry tirade.
Whew, dude, what a huge (or is it giagundous?) chip on your shoulder!
When you think that something like “Wow, is science always a problem for you? ” is an example of “an angry tirade”, you must be upset or anxious about something.
So upset that you obviously just forgot to include the link to the article that you referenced from, so that we can check on the validity of your source. That can be useful even for a simple article, since I have some doubt that you have a solid agricultural or nutritional background. Please excuse that assumption if you have some solid credentials.
I merely say, why not grow your own hybrids if they are well suited for you? What’s wrong with that? Some soil testing of your own plot of land can give you an indication of what types of plants can do best in that soil.
A lot of the sites posting heirloom seeds do not offer any real scientific discussions of their seeds characteristics, including how long they have been “heirloomed”. Some might very well have been heirloomed after the 1950′s and thereby have their nutritional data included in the earlier study.
Also many hybrids could have the same or better nutritional value of a given heirloom, but offer more disease resistance, drought resistance, etc. This could be why they were developed in the first place, and might be very essential to success in your home garden, especially if certain diseases are prevalent in your area, or you have certain soil or climate characteristics.
You said this” Heirloom varieties are, by definition, old. Therefore they predate the decline in mineral and vitamin content reported in the study. The other most likely explanation for the decline in vitamin and mineral content is impoverishment of agricultural soils”
Does the article you mention tie the 1950 data into a marked rise in the use of certain hybrids, or soil conditions? I don’t know because you haven’t shown the source of the article. Do you have data showing that all or even most of the heirloom seed varieties sold today by the general sources shown in your post predate the 1950′s? Or is that just a generalized assumption?
I didn’t criticize the article or you because I thought the suggestions apply “only if you are growing them and eating them in your own home”. That’s merely false and untrue.
It can take a little more thinking however than to just suggest for heirlooms grown in organic soil that, “when you plant these seeds you’ll be much more likely to get the kind of nutrition from the resulting vegetables that you expect.”, without some proof of basic science.
If you expect me to believe all the pseudo-science I see on the many political sites without at least asking for some links to the source and some more solid proof, then you are perhaps too certain of your own convincing writing, no insult intended.
Clark — the chip on the shoulder seems to be yours. You’re having some basic problems reading the article, and reading j. clifford’s response, and your critcisms are way out of hand.
“Wow, is science always a problem for you?” is indeed a very rude way to begin your comments, and you did indeed suggest that your criticisms were aimed at people beyond the home gardening market, which is to take the simple suggestions of the article way off base.
The ideas that j. clifford offers here are hardly controversial – unless you’re a breeder for a big commercial seed company. Getting some of the old heirloom varieties and growing them in soil enriched with compost is not some crazy scheme that needs to be backed up by a hundred scientific citations. Why not lighten up, Clark, and go chew on a carrot so that its natural mellowing agents will calm you down?
Neal, I don’t understand the severely negative and insulting tone of your post. Despite any judgements you might have on my first post’s opening, the body of it was polite and suggestive of further explorations.
I think you make some strange assumptions, like the vague suggestion that I’m working for a seed company. Do you believe that all hybrid seeds are only made by large agri-busines? Many of them are offered by the same small shops that also sell the heirlooms.
I have a hard time understanding why some people are so insulted when asked to engage in some reasonable fact exploration and further discussion. It’s almost like you are saying that you aren’t supposed to be allowed to read things and think for yourselves. A link to the article for some more information might be very helpful to those of us that would like to delve deeper into the subject. What is wrong with that? It’s not like there’s something to hide here to someone with a scientific background? That sounds exactly like what you claim that republicans try to do; get people to accept any statements without being allowed to question. A good progressive person likes to read, enjoys learning and discussion, and doesn’t dismiss nor accept anything right out of hand.
Telling me to calm down is rather unnecessary, since I am already quite serene. I’m not asleep or unconscious however, and don’t relish being told basically to sit down, shut up, and don’t ask questions.
Lordy, lordy, Clark. Cut the hissy fit and calm yourself down. This isn’t a wrestling match.
If you’d done a modicum of searching, you’d have found the article for yourself. But here, let me give you a direct link to the research myself:
Journal of the American College of Nutrition, December 2004.
Clark, no one told you to shut up, and I did not say that you work for a seed company!
Your comments are consistently showing an aggressive tendency to exaggerate and distort. People are asking you to be reasonable, and to be polite, not to be quiet.
So, stop exaggerating, stop insulting people, and calm down, Clark!
Testy, testy, testy!
“go chew on a carrot ”
” calm down, Clark! ”
” lighten up, Clark”
“unless you’re a breeder for a big commercial seed company”
“Cut the hissy fit ”
Nothing I said was a personal attack.
I insulted no one.
Quite a barrage back at me tho’ for really nothing but some questions.
Sad to say that one of the authors of that article, MD Hugh Riordan, died last week by a sudden heart attack at his clinic. He was a good friend of Dr. Linus Pauling, of mega-Vitamin-C fame.
His center is a big supporter of holistic medical treatment.
Very sad that he has died.
Oh, come off it, Clark. Your temper tantrum is getting old. This is not about you.
I thought that the article was well done, and interesting. Too bad Clark had to use the opportunity for insults and derision.
Okay, I didn’t read anything other than his first comment here, but it sounds like Clark’s okay, if coming across as a bit angry…
Growing your own vegetables not only costs more, but you’ll have to use some sort of chemicals too or risk the crops not getting very far…
I agree that large businesses are starting to forget the welfare of their customers, but I think that’s mostly money-wise, like with the film industry (who then wonder why piracy’s becoming so popular), not HEALTH wise… Companies for health food probably put a lot of effort into being HEALTHY because of how much trouble they’d get otherwise.
Genetic engineering, although it sounds a little odd, is supposedly not much more than selective breeding done quickly, and most of the other progresses in today’s food DOES sound good…
I know we’re worried about interfering with what works, but science has come a long way, and good tasting, highly-nutritious, vegetables sounds like a realistic target, now.
Besides, on another point; we’re hardly being starved of nutrition. Humans are a lot more durable than most people seem to think,
I don’t understand how growing your own vegetables costs more, HT. Could you elaborate upon that?
I don’t know what part of the country you live in, but a number of vegetables grow in my NC garden from seed every year, with no extra chemicals needed. Compost helps.
haretrinity,
it is absolutely not true that you need to use chemicals to grow your own vegetables, or that growing your own vegetables costs more.
Consider zucchini. Let’s say a zucchini squash costs 50 cents at the grocery store. A package of zucchini seed costs one dollar and 50 cents. That’s three times as much, but…
One zucchini plant will yield a minimum of ten zucchini squash (actually more like 20, but let’s be conservative).
If there are 21 zucchini seeds in a package, and only one third of them germinate and go successfully to fruit (more than this will, but let’s be conservative), then you’ve got at 210 zucchini squash on your hands, minimum. At 50 cents each, that’s 110 dollars worth of zucchini, easy, out of a one dollar and 50 cent investment.
Compare now. 1 and a half dollars versus 110 dollars. Which is more expensive?
Ask any gardener, and they’ll tell you that zucchini is easy to grow, that it doesn’t take a whole lotta work, and that you do indeed get a huge crop. Ditto beans, peas, potatoes… Some veggies, like asparagus, are much more time consuming, but it’s just outrageous to say that growing your own vegetables is more expensive than buying them at the grocery store.
When did Kansas and Texas become a part of New York, I wonder?
Also the team did not really look at 50 years of data, they looked at two particular years, 1950 and 1999. Some years of course, do have different values due to seasonal variances, among others. While what you say is possible, this is somewhat of an over-generalized conclusion. It is very true that it can be much cheaper to raise your own vegetables, whatever variety you choose, although it’s rather difficult for people in apartments to either grow enough food to sustain themselves, or have a compost pile on their deck. One thing HT is saying is very true, we don’t seem to be as a nation, lacking for sources of nutrition. Good food is pretty cheap, on the whole. Processed food is more expensive, but almost a necessity, given many people’s time restraints. Carefully chosen for nutritional value, a given processed food does not have to be lacking in solid nutritional value.
Well, I was under the impression that, starting from scratch, growing your own vegetables would end up costing more… Could be that I’ve got it mixed up with Andy’s point that it costs a LOT more time-wise than buying them along with the other shopping…
I know that I, for one, don’t have the time to grow my own food. I’m not particularly green-fingered and I’ve got enough without worrying about the common garden “pests” and temperatures… Not that I oppose a few fruit trees and/or bushes in the garden in the hope of a treat (such as fresh plums or gooseberries) come Summer, but relying upon my gardening skills for a large proportion of my diet, all year ’round?
Probably best left to those who are already good at it…
I conversed with one of the authors of that survey, Don Davis, Ph.D, at the Biochemical Institute University of Texas at Austin.
He pointed out some useful information that should be taken into account with the above advice. First, variability. N-data was not available for the 1950 data and he would predict considerable variability around the nutrient data.
He found apparent reliable increases in nutrient content in about 1/4 of the individual foods he tested. He thinks that in general there might be an overall trend for an increase in heirloom varieties, but not any kind of guarantee that an individual specimen would be better or worse.
In his report, he cited comparison data for brocolli and wheat. Brocolli was rather unique in that he does not know of any heirloom varieties of it, due to its rather “newness” as a vegetable. He told me that comparisons of this type are not easy to do.
In respect to soil conditions, he didn’t know of any studies that compared old (1950) data to today’s and thought that would be difficult.
Finally, with regard to organic methods, and getting enough overall nutrients, this is what he said:
“There have been many efforts to compare modern vs. organic methods, and many claims. The bottom line for me, so far: under-whelming. This research is difficult to do because of natural variability in both systems, and frequent failure to compare foods on an equal-moisture basis. The best reasons for organic methods, nearly all agree, do not include nutrient contents. There probably are small nutrient differences, but they are hard to document. Some believe that phytochemical differences will prove to be larger.
Remember, too, that the apparent declines we report are small and narrow compared to the losses that most people routinely accept in most of their calories–added sugars, added fats and oils, white flour and white rice, and alcoholic beverages, especially distilled ones.”
His comments are very interesting, and help to bring this whole topic back into perspective.
You see, it’s important to do some valid scientific discussion and research on a topic before you make generalizations. Dr. Davis helped emphasize that.