Our food is becoming more nutrient depleated overall

Discussion in 'Health News' started by Not dead yet!, Sep 21, 2017.


Do you keep a garden?

  1. Yes, always.

    2 vote(s)
  2. No, never.

    0 vote(s)
  3. I keep thinking about it but not getting around to it.

    0 vote(s)
  4. Not anymore, but I did keep one years ago.

    2 vote(s)
  1. Not dead yet!

    Not dead yet! Well-Known Member

    This is a fascinating article on the nutritive value of modern foods and how it is changing, and why.


    Apparently, as CO2 rises in the atmosphere, plants make more sugar, but nutrient content goes down. It literally turns fruits and veggies into carby junk food. Well that hasn't happened yet, but there is a measurable decrease in minerals. Two reasons are given in the article:

    1. We select varieties that produce more sugar.

    2. Global CO2 in ambient air is rising.

    And I would add:

    3. If organic farmers are not required to use volcanic or rock dust soil amendments (they're not, at least not by the USDA), the poverty of the depleted soils is likely to add to the problem.

    When I grow veggies at home, the one expensive amendment I never compromise on is volcanic topsoil, even volcanic ash. If it's horribly expensive one year, I might use rock dust. For more on how to remineralize soil: https://www.growingagreenerworld.com/rock-minerals-as-soil-amendments/

    It might be interesting to come up with a "how to grow your own veggies" guide/resource. I realize many people don't have the energy, but gardens tend to pull in outside help, neighborhood kids, and such. In my experience, people love a garden. The heavy work like turning the soil in the spring, has to be paid labor, though. :)
  2. GG

    GG Well-Known Member

    Is there anything Global Warming does Not cause, ugh! So tired of the nonsense :(

    isabellaa and Not dead yet! like this.
  3. Not dead yet!

    Not dead yet! Well-Known Member

    Well I'd call this more of an ecosystem issue. CO2 is the food of plants, plants are the food of animals and people, and any changes in the abundance or scarcity of things is going to have effects. "Global warming" isn't really the issue in this case. We don't usually think of CO2 as a "food" but, it is to plants.

    In the same way that we need vitamins, minerals and macronutrients from food... plants need sunshine, air and water, plus decent soil. Change the vitamins we take and we have changes in humans (even genetic expression changes)... change the sunshine, air, water or soil and there are changes in plants.

    Ecology is really more to the point. Webs of life are notoriously difficult to successfully manipulate by humans. Much of the changes we make to ecosystems are accidental (dams and fish, runoff and algae, monoculture forestry and tree disease, even fire prevention leading to more dangerous brushfires, etc.). Ecology is perhaps my second love in biology, after viruses. Fun stuff. :cool:

    That's what had me walking in the woods all my young adult life. Probably exposed me to all those nasty tick germs. Finding a tick on myself was a yawn-making event when I was a young woman. I was good at knowing exactly where chiggers were likely to hide and avoiding it, even in a relatively unfamiliar forest. I miss that so much. When I moved to "the South" I took up firearms training so that I could possibly go hunting. But, pretty soon I had no energy to even think of that anymore. I still cherish a dream of going Boar hunting in Texas. I'm 100% outdoorsy.

    I have to admit I found some of what he NRA classes said to be privately funny. Like when they claim hunters have never caused any extinction. I'll agree that they have not caused any recent extinctions after the bonanza of destruction during the colonial era up through the 1890s. But we hardly have any hunters with that kind of wilderness tamer attitude today, so there was no reason to call them on it.

    I did keep having the urge to ask a lot of questions about why we can't buy the skin and organs from other hunters at the skinning station. Waste not is my attitude. Even religiously I feel it's an offense to the animal,and the abundance of nature, to toss that stuff out. But my energy level now precludes much of this. In my mind there was never a distinction between religion and science. I think, when you study biology, you study the Creator (whatever form that creator takes for you). We can never fully understand the Creator, but we appreciate the design when we study it.

    I might have the energy to go fishing though, as long as it's in a group and not too far from medical facilities in case of emergency. I'm one of those crazies who loves catfish and carp, and mackerel, yummy! :wacky: I'm tuna addicted now that I'm sedentary. My cats and I agree, it's the best food around. lol

    See? Even that one change made a change in me.
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2017
    GG and Abrin like this.
  4. GG

    GG Well-Known Member

    Great write up, like it! I try not to read Politico, I know there bias and agenda. Looks like it could be a good read though, but sure those are well versed on this would find their writing to lead you in a certain direction.

  5. Not dead yet!

    Not dead yet! Well-Known Member

    Yeah the press lately has been very skewed. You know Fox has an agenda, Huff Post another agenda, etc etc. Around 2003, a bunch of news aggregate sites sprung up , but not like today, they'd just give you links to newspapers from nearly every country in the world that had an online newspaper, and they attached a translation service to it. You could follow a story all over the world and see how different journalists wrote about the same event. Since it's harder to do that now, I lost a lot of interest in news.

    This one still exists: http://www.onlinenewspapers.com/

    But one of the things I learned was how it's almost impossible to keep your opinion of an article to yourself, even if you're writing it. So I decided it was just a human frailty and moved on. I guess our teachers were right in school... use your critical thinking because everyone has an axe to grind. It's getting so I even have to scan the science I read for political agenda, many ME/CFS sufferers have had to face that unhappy fact. Oh well, I was warned when I was a kid that I'd have to use my own head to decide things. For me, news isn't about the bias of the source, it's about the biased using their news turf to bury relevant, but inconvenient facts.

    Trust but verify, thoroughness too.
    isabellaa, GG and (deleted member) like this.
  6. Abrin

    Abrin Well-Known Member

  7. Not dead yet!

    Not dead yet! Well-Known Member

    I hadn't heard of golden rice before, a GMO rice that produces more vitamin A. Thanks for the link. It's interesting how nutrition in food is so different from our usual assumptions. Vitamin A is not the same in all sources....


    On several fronts, I remain suspicious of the motives of corporations when applying GMO technology. But the concept is not inherently wrong, in my opinion. This center of the road attitude of mine already cost me several jobs, including one at Greenpeace that I was a shoo-in for. And I've had a Monsanto employee slam the phone down when I was doing research for my final project. (back then you could "slam" phones still) Radicals can't see that technology is neutral, and that vigilance against corp greed can't be accomplished by throwing away tools.

    It is funny though how neither side sees any middle ground, but it's staring them in the face.

    If you ask any mom, what do you want your food to contain? The answer is never "roundup ready corn with extra herbicide in it." Until corporations can grasp that simple concept, their profits will not be satisfied by happy customers. Just look at the "pasture fed" meat, the organic produce... people are more than happy to pay for nutritious food. But they keep giving us chemicals and bland hard produce that's better for shipping than it is for eating.

    As for golden rice, I think it has an inherent image problem. People love to act like they're being charitable to "the poor." But then they do slimy things like fail to inform "the poor" that they're being given GMO rice. This is a colonial autocratic attitude that has to stop. Poverty =/= dumb. Poverty == lost potential in human ingenuity. Kind of like..... ME/CFS sufferers... loss in production, loss in human ingenuity, loss in wages, loss in GNP...

    We have the technology to make plants produce essential vitamins. Why aren't we busy making a superfood rice that contains as much vitamins as an off the shelf multivitamin? A designer rice, not just "for the poor" but for everyone. They should think about what they wish was in their rice,and do it. No holds barred. And we have to consider who might profit from the absence of such a food. What does that person or group want?

    A classic book about global food security and poverty: https://www.amazon.com/Diet-Small-Planet-20th-Anniversary/dp/0345321200

    That was the book that convinced me many years ago to become a vegetarian (my health forced a reversal, but that's not the fault of the book). Not all of those ideas have held up to the test of time, in my mind. But many of them are just as valid now as they were. Not the least of the ideas... the one that says each culture has delicious food and ingenious ideas about how to eat. That book mixes very well with loving kindness meditation.


    These were formative concepts for me when I was young. I haven't outgrown them yet, I don't think I should. I think my garden grows better this way. :hungry:
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2017
    isabellaa and Abrin like this.