The Disappearing Nutrients in America's Orchards

[Guest guest]

Z

 

 

The Disappearing Nutrients in America's Orchards

Tue, 14 Dec 2004 14:16:02 -0000

 

 

The Disappearing Nutrients in America's Orchards

By Alex Jack

 

" Will an apple a day with 40% less vitamin A, 40% less iron, and

30% less phosphorus still keep the doctor away? "

 

 

Fruit Basket Upset:

The Disappearing Nutrients in America's Orchards

To get the same calcium content from fresh veggies today as when

JFK was president, you'd have to eat twice as much broccoli. To get

the same amount of iron as when the Beatles were singing " We All Live

in a Yellow Submarine, " you'd have to eat four times as many collard

greens. To maintain your vitamin A and C levels under the next

administration, it will take three times as much cauliflower and twice

as much watercress as during the Nixon and Watergate era. These are a

few of the conclusions gleaned from comparing the U.S. government's

food composition tables from the 1960s and 1970s to the present day.

 

Despite more food consciousness, the quality of the America's food

supply continues to hemorrhage. Since it was reported several years

ago that the vitamin and mineral content of the nation's garden

vegetables had declined 25 to 50% in the last generation, the U.S.

Department of Agriculture has done nothing to reverse this trend

except deny that it could be connected with the environmental crisis

and government policies supporting chemical agriculture (see appendix

below).

 

Citing my earlier research, Organic Gardening magazine ran an open

letter addressed to the Secretary of Agriculture demanding an answer

to the questions raised by his agency's own data. " It is true that in

many (but not all) cases, the apparent nutrient content of these

vegetables has decreased, " Phyllis E. Johnson, director of the USDA's

Agricultural Research Service, admitted in a response on behalf of the

secretary of agriculture. She listed thirteen variables that affect

nutrient data. In respect to chemical agriculture, she stated, " We are

not aware of specific data showing a linkage between over application

of nitrogen fertilizer and decreases in food nutrient content. In some

cases, nitrogen application has been found to increase the uptake of

trace elements into the edible portions of plants. " She also rejected

the theory that acid rain (which reduces calcium and other mineral

content in forests) could affect cropland in the same way.

 

Over the last several years, conventional horticulture magazines,

trade journals for the produce industry, and the mainstream press

picked up on the story and brought it to the attention of millions of

their readers. But there still has been no comprehensive study of the

disappearing nutrients in the nation's food supply or official

proposals to remedy it.

 

In fact, despite the USDA's new user-friendly database on the

Internet, it appears that virtually none of the new nutrient data is

finding its way into reference books or food labels. A spot check of

several popular books on diet and health at Barnes and Noble found

that every one used nutritional data from a generation ago. Similarly,

most food labels appear to reflect nutritional levels that prevailed

during the Cold War but no longer exist. (What food manufacturer would

want to switch to new labels showing lower vitamin and mineral content

than before?) The implication is that hundreds of millions of meals

that are prepared every day in homes, schools, hospitals, prisons, the

military, nursing homes, and other institutions are based on obsolete

nutrition!

 

Falling Fruit

 

Similar studies in Europe have come to the same conclusion, and

calls by scientists and journalists for any follow up data have

inspired me to undertake research and analysis of several other food

groups. For this article, I have investigated the nutrient loss in

fresh fruits over the last 25 years. In a recent experiment, I

compiled a " digital fruit basket " of twelve common fruits and compared

their nutrient content today with that published in Handbook #8 issued

by the USDA in 1975. Like the sample of twelve random vegetables I

investigated earlier, I found that the fruits have lost a major share

of their vitamins and minerals. Overall, vitamin C levels are off

1.9%, vitamin A levels are down 16.4%, phosphorus has diminished

23.9%, calcium content has fallen 28.9%, and iron levels have plunged

47.6% (see charts).

 

The vitamin A in apples, for example, dropped 41%, strawberries

lost 55%, and that in grapefruit plunged 87.5%. Vitamin C fared

better, with minor losses in a majority of the fruits, though that in

cherries was off a hefty 30% and lemons dropped 31.2%. Grapefruit,

also significantly down in calcium and iron, has particularly lost its

vitality. This may be the result of pollution in the Everglades

(caused primarily by run off from sugar refining). The vitamin levels

in oranges, Florida's other top crop, remained constant, but its iron

content fell 75%.

 

Though the vast majority of changes were losses, there were a few

gains. The iron in apricots rose 8%, calcium in watermelon increased

14.3%, and the vitamin A in cherries soared 94.6%. New hybrid seeds,

variable climatic conditions, and other factors may account for these

increases. Of course, determining the precise cause of nutrient loss

is difficult. Even environmentalists, organic farmers, and biologists

are deeply divided over whether geographical area, soil type, soil

moisture, soil health (humus content, fertility, microbial activity,

etc.), weather and climatic conditions, or cultural practices (such as

fertilization, composting, seed source, irrigation, and post-harvest

handling) are primary factors. Then, too, looking only at individual

nutrients compared with the energy of the whole food is also

problematic. Still, the overall downward trend is alarming. Will an

apple a day with 40% less vitamin A, 40% less iron, and 30% less

phosphorus still keep the doctor away?

 

The question also arises whether organically grown foods are also

losing nutrients? The USDA does not distinguish or keep separate

statistics for conventionally and organically grown foods, but we may

assume that most of the data in its food composition tables is from

chemically grown crops. Overall, the few independent studies that have

been done of organic produce show that they generally contain about 50

percent or more nutrients than their conventional counterparts. I

suspect that the quality of organic produce has also fallen sharply in

recent years, but studies are needed in this field.

 

What can be done? Here are several recommendations:

 

* The USDA and other federal, state, and local agencies should be

required to monitor the changing nutritional content of the nation's

food supply; analyze to what extent it is caused by chemical

agriculture, air and water pollution, soil erosion and loss of

fertility, decline of seed vitality, the introduction of new hybrid

and genetically altered seeds, the thinning of the ozone layer, global

warming, and other factors; and develop strategies to protect personal

and planetary health.

 

* Comprehensive studies of the nutritional content of organic

foods compared to chemically grown foods and genetically engineered

foods should be undertaken, especially given the introduction of new

federal organic food standards and certification.

 

* A holistic, sustainable approach, based on natural and organic

agriculture and a plant-centered diet, needs to be implemented to help

preserve the vitality of the nation's food system and the health of

the American people. Loss of nutrients should not be used as an excuse

to promote genetically engineered foods, chemical agriculture, or

artificial supplementation of the diet.

 

In early 2005, the U.S. government will release the newest version

of its Dietary Goals, including a revised Food Guide Pyramid.

Reportedly, it will stipulate for the first time that whole grains (in

contrast to refined grains) should constitute the foundation for a

healthy diet, accompanied by abundant servings of fresh fruits and

vegetables. Overall, the U.S. government dietary recommendations are

gradually moving in a healthier direction. But if the nation's

nutrient base continues to decline, menus and recipes based on these

guidelines will be tragically out of date, and " the fruited plain, " so

eloquently described in the song " America the Beautiful, " will grow

increasingly barren.

 

Appendix:

 

Nutritional Bleak House

 

In 1998, I first stumbled on official data showing a sharp decline

in the nation's food quality while updating nutrition charts for a new

edition of one of my books. I soon discovered that the USDA no longer

published nutrient data in book form, but posted it on the Internet

(www.nat.usda.gov/fnic/cgi-bin/nut_s.pl). Not only could new

information be made available instantaneously, but it could also be

freely accessed in seconds.

 

" Great! " I thought. " This will really simplify my life. " But as I

updated vitamin and mineral charts that I'd compiled fifteen years

earlier, I realized that many of the nutrients had declined. " What's

going on here? " I wondered, dimly glimpsing the research headache that

would ensue.

 

In an experiment, I jotted down twelve common garden vegetables at

random and discovered that on average their vitamin and mineral had

declined 25 to 50% across the board since the last published edition

of the food composition tables in 1975 (including data going back to

1963 and earlier).

 

Alarmed, I called the USDA and was put in touch with Dr. David

Haytowitz, the official in charge of the vegetable sector. Like the

State Department with its China desk, a Middle Eastern desk, and other

divisions that monitor specific regions, the USDA has experts at the

Nutrient Data Laboratory in Maryland in charge of every possible food

group. Dr. Haytowitz also turned out to be the web master, so he was

familiar with the entire database of over 5000 foods beside his own

specialty.

 

" Are you aware that the nutrients in the American food supply

appear to have declined sharply from a generation ago? " I asked.

 

" This is the first time I've heard of it, " he replied nonchalantly.

 

" Isn't the USDA concerned that the food the American people are

eating every day is losing its energy and vitality? " I asked.

 

" The USDA doesn't monitor or analyze trends, " he explained. " We

only gather data. "

 

I felt like a waif in a novel by Charles Dickens populated by

bureaucrats and government functionaries who compile a mountain of

data about the abject conditions around them but do nothing to avert

the impending catastrophe.

 

" Could the decline be due to a change in testing procedures over

the last several decades? " I inquired.

 

We had a lengthy discussion about new improved testing techniques,

including colorimetry, atomic absorption, and inductive coupled plasma

(ICP). The scientist was clearly in his element describing how

researchers use ever more sophisticated methods to reduce piles of

food to ash in their laboratories and calculate grams of edible

portion to three decimal places. However, the bottom line was that new

methods would probably not result in changes of this magnitude, but

only to several further decimal points.

 

I ventured that the decline might be the result of the

environmental crisis, especially increased use of pesticides and

chemicals on America's farms. Dr. Haytowitz replied that, on the

contrary, farmers a generation ago probably used more chemical

fertilizers, soil supplements, and other additives than they do now,

artificially elevating nutrient levels compared to more normal samples

today!

 

" Has the USDA tested organic food compared to chemically grown

food to measure such changes? " I asked in reply to this

Alice-in-Wonderland reasoning.

 

" No, such tests have not been performed, " he admitted. " The USDA

presumes that the nutrient content of organic and conventionally grown

food is substantially equivalent. "

 

" And on what scientific research studies have you based that

assumption? " I replied, leaving him temporarily speechless.

 

Alex Jack is an author, teacher, and dietary counselor. His books

include The Cancer Prevention Diet (with Michio Kushi), Let Food Be

Thy Medicine, and Amber Waves of Grain: Traditional American Whole

Foods Cooking and Contemporary Vegetarian, Vegan, and Macrobiotic

Cuisine. He lives in western Massachusetts with his wife, Gale, a

cooking teacher, and can be reached by email: shenwa

 

NUTRIENT CHARTS

 

Table 1. Calcium Content in Selected Fruits*

 

..................1975........2001......Net Change

 

Apples...........7 mg........7 mg.........None

Apricots.........17 mg......14 mg.......Down 17.7%

Bananas........8 mg........6 mg.........Down 25%

Cherries........22 mg......15 mg........Down 31.8%

Grapefruits....16 mg......12 mg........Down 25%

Lemons.........61 mg......26 mg........Down 57.4%

Oranges........41 mg......40 mg........Down 2.4%

Peaches........9 mg........5 mg..........Down 44.4%

Pineapples.....17 mg......7 mg..........Down 58.8%

Strawberries..21 mg......14 mg........Down 33.3%

Tangerines....40 mg......14 mg........Down 65%

Watermelons..7 mg........8 mg.........Up 14.3%

 

Net Change..............................Down 28.9%

 

*Based on 100 Grams, Edible Portion. Source: USDA food composition

tables

 

Table 2. Iron Content in Selected Fruits*

 

.................1975.........2001.......Net Change

 

Apples............0.3 mg....0.18 mg.....Down 40%

Apricots..........0.5 mg....0.54 mg.....Up 8%

Bananas.........0.7 mg....0.31 mg.....Down 55.7%

Cherries.........0.4 mg....0.39 mg.....Down 2.5%

Grapefruits.....0.4 mg....0.06 mg.....Down 85%

Lemons..........0.7 mg....0.6 mg.......Down 14.3%

Oranges.........0.4 mg....0.10 mg.....Down 75%

Peaches.........0.5 mg....0.11 mg.....Down 78%

Pineapples......0.5 mg....0.37 mg.....Down 26%

Strawberries...1.0 mg....0.38 mg.....Down 62%

Tangerines.....0.4 mg.....0.1 mg......Down 75%

Watermelons...0.5 mg....0.17 mg....Down 66%

 

Net Change.............................Down 16.4%

 

*Based on 100 Grams, Edible Portion. Source: USDA food composition

tables

 

Table 4. Vitamin A Content in Selected Fruits*

 

..................1975........2001.....Net Change

 

Apples...........90 IU.......53 IU.......Down 41.1%

Apricots.........2700 IU...2612IU.....Down 3.3%

Bananas........190 IU.....81 IU........Down 57.4%

Cherries........110 IU.....214 IU......Up 94.6%

Grapefruits....80 IU.......10 IU........Down 87.5%

Lemons.........30 IU.......29 IU........Down 3.3%

Oranges........200 IU.....205 IU.......Up 2.5%

Peaches........1330 IU....535 IU......Down 59.8%

Pineapples.....70 IU.......23 IU........Down 55%

Strawberries...60 IU......27 IU........Down 67.1%

Tangerines.....420 IU.....920 IU......Up 119%

Watermelons...590 IU....366 IU......Down 38%

 

Net Change............................Down 16.4%

 

*Based on 100 Grams, Edible Portion. Source: USDA food composition

tables

 

 

Table 5. Vitamin C Content in Selected Fruits*

 

................1975.........2001.......Net Change

 

Apples.............4 mg......5.7 mg......Up 42.5%

Apricots...........10 mg....10 mg.......None

Bananas..........10 mg.....9.1 mg.....Down 9%

Cherries..........10 mg.....7 mg........Down 30%

Grapefruits......38 mg.....33.3 mg....Down 12.4%

Lemons...........77 mg.....53 mg.......Down 31.2%

Oranges..........50 mg.....53.2 mg....Up 6.4%

Peaches...........7 mg......6.6 mg......Down 5.7%

Pineapples.......17 mg....15.4 mg.....Down 9.4%

Strawberries....59 mg....56.7 mg.....Down 3.9%

Tangerines.......31 mg....30.8 mg....Down 7%

Watermelons....7 mg......9.6...........Up 37.1%

 

Net Change..............................Down 1.9%

 

*Based on 100 Grams, Edible Portion. Source: USDA food composition

tables

 

Table 5. Phosphorus Content in Selected Fruits*

 

................1975........ 2001.......Net Change

 

Apples............10 mg.....7 mg........Down 30%

Apricots..........23 mg.....19 mg......Down 17.4%

Bananas.........42 mg......20 mg.....Down 52.4%

Cherries.........19 mg......19 mg.....None

Grapefruits......16 mg......8 mg......Down 50%

Lemons...........15 mg......16 mg.....Up 6.7%

Oranges..........20 mg......14 mg.....Down 30%

Peaches...........19 mg.....12 mg.....Down 36.8%

Pineapples........8 mg.......7 mg......Down 12.5%

Strawberries....21 mg......19 mg.....Down 9.5%

Tangerines......18 mg......10 mg.....Down 44.4%

Watermelons... 10 mg......9 mg......Down 10%

 

Net Change.............................Down 23.9%

 

*Based on 100 Grams, Edible Portion. Source: USDA food composition

tables

 

See also:

 

ANH - " Declining minerals in our food...and fewer minerals in our

supplements? " by David Thomas

 

Hi-tech crops are bad for the brain by Geoffrey Lean, Environment

Correspondent, Independent, April 23, 2000

 

Nutrient decline in garden crops over past 50 years

[Guest guest]

This is one of the most important health issues we have to consider IMO. Just

as the nutrients we injest directly affect our health, the health of our produce

is directly effected by the soil in which it is grown. The produce in the store

is pretty, but empty. Even 'organic' produce isn't much better.

 

Look how sickly we're becoming living in our chemical world. Chemically grown

produce is sickly as well. Artificial chemicals don't support life. They may

mimic it, but they don't add vitality. I guess there was a spurt of growth when

chemical fertilizers were first used on depleted soils, just as there is a spurt

of relief when antibiotics are used on an infection, but soon the resultant

damage is apparent. In the soil, trace nutrients and beneficial organisms are

destroyed as beneficial organisms are destroyed by antibiotics in our bodies.

We simply can't go on this way.

 

Don't let anyone tell you you can get all your nitrients from food. That was

true once, but no more. The stupid FDA etc. knows our food quality is

declining, but they ignore the fact.

 

There's a good book, " The Secrets of the Soil " by Peter Tompkins, if you're

interested. Quiet as it's kept, the truth is that the richer the soil, the

better the produce (duh!!) and the fewer chemicals are necessary. The fewer the

chemicals, the larger the crop yield per acre. Shocking news to our farmers,

huh? That's not what the petrochemical conglomerates told them!

 

In the meantime, I wouldn't live without fulvic acid ionic minerals and sea

salt. Vitamins are useless without the minerals required to assimilate them.

Our food bombards us with inorganic compounds and a paucity of nutrients.

Sometimes I wonder if it's not worse for us than just eating for (artificial)

flavor and gulping down handfuls of supplements and liquid minerals.

 

Then there's our unnaturally fed meat supply. Meat supply. What a way to

discribe sentient beings. Soylent green. Ptooie. Probably in worse condition

than our produce.

 

Starris

-

califpacific

" Isn't the USDA concerned that the food the American people are

eating every day is losing its energy and vitality? " I asked.

 

" Has the USDA tested organic food compared to chemically grown

food to measure such changes? " I asked in reply to this

Alice-in-Wonderland reasoning.

 

" No, such tests have not been performed, " he admitted. " The USDA

presumes that the nutrient content of organic and conventionally grown

food is substantially equivalent. "