Can we not have LinkedIn links on HN
Why do you not want to have LinkedIn links on HN?
Clicking on a LinkedIn link evokes the same "unpredictable behavior" paranoia/stress reaction as a url for a site that peddles game ROMs or guitar tabs.
Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914
31–40 of 315 posts
Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914
#32Growing food has turned into an engineering problem where people think you solve it by investing the least possible resources into it. Whatever the consumer will buy and you can produce as cheaply as possible wins the day. Our tasteless vegetables are like cheap Bose (no highs, no lows, must be Bose) speakers or pressed paper furniture at Walmart. On the surface they look like a vegetable should look, but the taste,…
> Growing food has turned into an engineering problem where people think you solve it by investing the least possible resources into it. Our economic system optimizes for exactly this.
What if we had one world religion where everyone's goal in life was to become infinitely loving and utterly selfless?
Would we grow food for eachother differently? Would we be compensated differently for doing so?
Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914
#33The link got that actual paper is much better than a sentence or two on LinkedIn. The paper’s title isn’t as catchy to put in nicely. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6163803/ From my link: >It is important to note that the USDA mineral content of vegetables and fruits has not been updated since 2000, and perhaps even longer, given that the data for 1992 was not able to be definitively confirmed for this…
> Healthy foods and organics are more readily available now. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that "organic" foods are more nutritious than conventionally farmed foods: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19640946
I’d like to see a study where they actually take crops and determine the mineral content. The one you reference is a paper where they combed other papers until they found data they wanted.
They went through 50k+ studies, found 167 they liked, and only 55 of 167 were of quality.
>No evidence of a difference was detected for the remaining 8 of 11 crop nutrient categories analyzed.
Not sure how to interpret this.
Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914
#34The link got that actual paper is much better than a sentence or two on LinkedIn. The paper’s title isn’t as catchy to put in nicely. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6163803/ From my link: >It is important to note that the USDA mineral content of vegetables and fruits has not been updated since 2000, and perhaps even longer, given that the data for 1992 was not able to be definitively confirmed for this…
Why not just add minerals to our fertilizers? Organics is such a regression after the green revolution (which has saved billions of lives).
Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Presumably, using natural fertilizers would make a difference, as you'd expect a wider range of minerals than in straight haber-process fertilizer. I don't know if natural fertilizers are always a requirement for organic food, though.
If this is actually a problem, I'd much rather someone figure out which minerals need to go into the fertilizer mix (plus some downstream monitoring) than to assume that putting poop on the vegetables makes them wholesome.
Why do you prefer that? I don’t particularly care either way, so blanket-preferring man-made chemical fertilizers strikes me as odd.
Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914
#36Read The Omnivore's Dilemma. Do it now.
not sure why this would get downvoted
Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914
#37The link got that actual paper is much better than a sentence or two on LinkedIn. The paper’s title isn’t as catchy to put in nicely. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6163803/ From my link: >It is important to note that the USDA mineral content of vegetables and fruits has not been updated since 2000, and perhaps even longer, given that the data for 1992 was not able to be definitively confirmed for this…
If organic food actually had a noticeably higher mineral count than nonorganic, I would start eating it. But I don’t see why organic food would actually have more minerals. Organic doesn’t mean healthier it just means that it uses different kinds of pesticides, to my knowledge
Slower growth through less fertilizer (including CO2), leads to a higher mineral rate if I remember correctly
Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914
#38I want to see the study. If we are saying that average mineral content of calcium, magnesium, and iron in cabbage, lettuce, tomatoes, and spinach has dropped 80–90% between 1914 and 2018, where were the subject vegetables taken from? Are we needing to look at farming methods, large agriculture process such as early harvest, soil depletion, delivery method, sun exposure, etc?
And, if we are looking at findings from the USDA, Agricultural Research Service and USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, they really need to update their research. As stated by the study's author, " the USDA mineral content of vegetables and fruits has not been updated since 2000"
Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
If this is actually a problem, I'd much rather someone figure out which minerals need to go into the fertilizer mix (plus some downstream monitoring) than to assume that putting poop on the vegetables makes them wholesome.
Why do you prefer that? I don’t particularly care either way, so blanket-preferring man-made chemical fertilizers strikes me as odd.
Preferring measurability strikes you as odd?
Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914
#40The link got that actual paper is much better than a sentence or two on LinkedIn. The paper’s title isn’t as catchy to put in nicely. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6163803/ From my link: >It is important to note that the USDA mineral content of vegetables and fruits has not been updated since 2000, and perhaps even longer, given that the data for 1992 was not able to be definitively confirmed for this…
If organic food actually had a noticeably higher mineral count than nonorganic, I would start eating it. But I don’t see why organic food would actually have more minerals. Organic doesn’t mean healthier it just means that it uses different kinds of pesticides, to my knowledge
Organic farming includes crop rotation, fertilizer, soil quality, and erosion control standards that would hypothetically affect mineral contents.
Monoculture (conventional corn or soybean for example) uses huge amounts of synthetic fertilizer to increase yields per acre far beyond what the soil can naturally sustain. Wide swaths of American farmland has lost literally feet of topsoil over the past 50 years. The soil is largely sterile, and depleted of minerals. Monoculture also means the ecosystem that can replenish the soil is absent.