tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post1577741312800261779..comments2024-02-03T07:12:06.620-05:00Comments on U.S. Food Policy: Evidence on declining fruit and vegetable nutrient compositionusfoodpolicyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-47806809016217025612012-11-30T08:13:29.700-05:002012-11-30T08:13:29.700-05:00Good article and good comments all around. To a gr...Good article and good comments all around. To a great degree, the available mineral content of the soil determines the nutrients in the plant. Adding plant available minerals, coupled with increasing the soil biology to facilitate the availability of those minerals will go a long way to ensuring that plants have the building blocks needed to produce the vitamins we expect from our fruits and vegetables. Without minerals, the plants CANNOT make the nutrients you want nor will they be able to take up the minerals you need to maintain your body. Michael LaBellehttp://www.mightygrow.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-72950686648573143822009-05-10T23:04:00.000-04:002009-05-10T23:04:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Amanda Crowehttp://www.asiarooms.com/thailand/chiang_mai.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-6449154535708587282009-02-16T23:08:00.000-05:002009-02-16T23:08:00.000-05:00Extramsg may be right that, in a straightforward w...Extramsg may be right that, in a straightforward way, the lower cost/yield ratio may mean that it still costs less to raise x% of your RDA of vitamin C in the form of broccoli now than it did in 1850. His/her point that there's a economy of scale with getting more fruit from a single plant is especially insightful. But, I think there are a number of factors that may make this fact irrelevant. <BR/><BR/>First, America is currently producing too much food. Vast storehouses of food, especially grains, are destroyed or left to rot every year. (Observe <A HREF="http://www.acga.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=49&Itemid=42" REL="nofollow">the American Corn Growers</A> task Washington with the task of, in their words, "curbing overproduction".) The overproduction that doesn't go to waste is often used to flood foreign markets and <A HREF="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JQP/is_2003_Jan-Feb/ai_97872837" REL="nofollow">put local farmers out of business</A>, actually <I>decreasing</I> global arable land. (See also <A HREF="http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/34517.php" REL="nofollow">BMJ</A> and <A HREF="http://www.care.org/newsroom/publications/whitepapers/food_aid_whitepaper.pdf" REL="nofollow">CARE's whitepaper on food aid</A>.) A lot of people are going to warn me that, even though food is being overproduced now, in 10 or 20 years we might be in a "food crisis" due to climate change or overpopulation. The real crisis will come when our production is centered on only a few major crops in only a few major areas, when overproduction muscles out global agricultural diversity. Then, a small climate change, a new pest, or a new disease could swiftly wreak havoc. Not to mention - the ridiculous amount of pesticides and fertilizers we use to sustain these hyperproductive monocultures are demonstrably causing environmental harm. We're borrowing capacity from the future, when we may need it much more.<BR/><BR/>Apologies - I'm rambling. My point is, we probably don't need all the extra production we have. We could cut production and still exceed demand.<BR/><BR/>The second factor is that it's a little naive to expect eating more food to make up for lost nutrient density. First, it's often not possible or reasonable to expect a person to eat enough of the food to make up for lost nutrients. How would you feel about eating twice as much broccoli? Few people in America get anywhere near enough produce as it is, and that's assuming they're eating nutrient-rich varieties. Besides, your system can only handle so much roughage, heh heh. Second, it can actually be <I>damaging</I> to expect people to eat more food to get the same number of nutrients - we're in the midst of an obesity crisis the last time I heard. I doubt anyone in America is fat from doubling up on broccoli, but wheat? Sure. <BR/><BR/>(I remember reading someplace about a study showing that cravings for high-fat and high-sugar foods were much worse in malnourished people, but I'm having trouble finding a decent source. But, o brutal irony!, your appetite is not all that discerning. If plants aren't supplying your nutritional needs, you may find yourself eating extra chocolate and french fries as well as extra wheat.)<BR/><BR/>At any rate, the very last thing America needs is to eat <A HREF="http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2005/10/evidence-of-chronic-nutrient.html" REL="nofollow">more nutrient-light food</A> (nice summary - follow through to the NHANES report).Nadahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06049648666810652439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-18421668472598271282009-02-16T20:35:00.000-05:002009-02-16T20:35:00.000-05:00Cost, size, and flavor seem less important on the ...Cost, size, and flavor seem less important on the topic of sustenance and nourishment. I understand that consumers want more flavor and lower cost; however, most methods may be doing more harm to each person than good in the long run. Perhaps we need our palates to become more sensitive to flavors, distinctions, textures, and to listen to our body. There is pleasure in eating; however, the point is growth, health, and nutrition. <BR/><BR/>To each his own preference and yet we're affecting people who have little awareness and less choice until messages are more widespread and practices changed. <BR/><BR/>Each vegetable, fruit, nut, seed growing from the earth has specific chemical make up and the nutrients impact people differently, at various stages in their life. Eating for the sake of eating or for communal practices while popular makes less sense than eating for health and letting food be a natural healer, medicine, as people have directed for ages.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-24594863912121817132009-02-03T22:16:00.000-05:002009-02-03T22:16:00.000-05:00By yield, do they mean per plant/acre or per fruit...By yield, do they mean per plant/acre or per fruit? If the latter, it seems reasonable to assume that larger fruits would usually result in a lower concentration of nutrients per gram. Most things have diminishing marginal returns. I guess the question, though, is how you maximize nutrients overall for the consumer. Sure, per pound they may be purchasing fewer nutrients, but does it keep the cost lower overall by using less acreage/plants/resources, and does this result in cheaper nutrients and an easier way to distribute nutrients to consumers than lower yielding plants with smaller fruits that are more highly concentrated?<BR/><BR/>Those with a garden know that you often starve your plants as they're fruiting to concetrate the flavors. Tomatoes and other berries are best when they get as little water as necessary once they start producing. <BR/><BR/>But this also results in much fewer pounds of fruit per plant. Trade-offs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com