The Disappearing Nutrients in America's Orchards

[Guest guest]

The Disappearing Nutrients in America's Orchards JoAnn Guest Mar 15, 2005

13:47 PST

 

 

http://www.thenhf.com/articles_56.htm

by Alex Jack

December 14, 2004

 

 

 

 

 

" 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 .

 

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: she-

 

 

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.........7 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.....2612 IU........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 mg...........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

 

 

 

Article provided by Zeus Information Service

 

www.zeusinfoservice.com

 

 

 

 

AIM Barleygreen

" Wisdom of the Past, Food of the Future "

 

http://www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/Diets.html