Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 315 posts

Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914

#71

Post by jacobwilliamroy »

opportune wrote: post #12
wil421 wrote: post #2

The 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 particularly means "no roundup". Non-organic crops tend to be round-up resistant strains. If the seed engineers for said strains weren't being careful, they could have affected other aspects of the seed's physiology while selecting for round-up resistance.

One concrete example is how certain modern strains of apple seeds have weaker dormancy, causing imbibing and radicand emergence to occur prematurely, usually before the apple is even eaten. Such changes are an unintended consequence of human selection for size. It's possible that the tinkering required to increase plant vigor in the presence of non-organic pesticides has a greater adverse effect on mineral content. Though there are lots of other variables to consider as well such as soils, fertilizers, storage and transportation, the positioning of plants, whether they are able to share nutrients.

Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914

#72

Post by rm_-rf_slash »

NickM wrote: post #55

Something that has puzzled me recently: how is anyone supposed to get the daily recommended amount of potassium? If you look at foods like bananas that are supposed to be good sources of it, you still need to eat something like eleven bananas a day to get enough (according to US recommended daily intakes, anyway). At least with the minerals mentioned in this posting, you can fall back on supplements if you need to...…

I eat potassium chloride (usually sold as salt substitute for people on low sodium diets) on occasion, like when fasting or working out. It has this awful, stingy metallic taste, but I’ve noticed I tend to have less fatigue and soreness from strength training afterwards. Might be placebo but YMMV.

Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914

#73

Post by citiguy »

behringer wrote: post #58
graeme wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you mean to link something else? That page doesn't appear to mention kidneys.

It was more supplemental than citation. Maybe they won't affect your kidneys. That's just something I heard when the NIH study broke in the news. Consult your doctor, etc.

The last time I saw my doctor she mentioned Calcium supplements can cause kidney stones(1). They can also be bad for your heart(2). Also, it often is not clear how pure supplements are. She advised me to get as many nutrients as I could from my regular food.

1 - https://www.webmd.com/kidney-stones/news/20151013/calcium-su... 2 - https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/heart-attack/...

Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914

#74

Post by colechristensen »

all_usernames wrote: post #54
all_usernames wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Can't imagine why this was downvoted.

Because it is inaccurate.

Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914

#75

Post by AlanYx »

opportune wrote: post #12
wil421 wrote: post #2

The 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

"But I don’t see why organic food would actually have more minerals."

It could be the opposite too. There's some evidence that, in some cases, purely hydroponic greenhouse-grown produce, which often qualifies and is sold as "organic", has fewer nutrients than soil-grown produce.

Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914

#76

Post by Mathnerd314 »

wil421 wrote: post #2

The 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…

Did you miss the graph? It looks like \___. But then they have asterisks because the historical measurement methods are probably not accurate.

I like one of their references, suggesting it's due to modern farming practices: https://journals.ashs.org/hortsci/view/journals/hortsci/44/1...

Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914

#77

Post by throwaway66920 »

bluGill wrote: post #44
LamaOfRuin wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.ams.usda.gov/publications/content/introduction-o... >Soil Fertility: Crops more easily resist disease, survive drought, and tolerate insects when grown in good soil. Organic crop producers build soil quality by adding compost, animal manures, or green manures. As soil organisms break down these inputs, they convert nutrients into forms plants can absorb and create humus that sustains soil quality. Organic…

There is nothing about organic that means it builds soil. Conventional farmers are adapting the same practices. In many cases conventional farming with "chemicals" does better: because of roundup a cover crop can be applied much easier - you can kill it when you are done vs having to plow it up (plowing is a horrible thing to do to soil). I find it amusing they separate "sewage sludge" from manure as if they are not…

They are not the same thing. Manure is animal poop. Sewage sludge is the output of our sewers. Despite our best efforts to filter this, there is a lot more than poop in there. Heavy metals, drugs, etc.

Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914

#78

Post by jws »

NickM wrote: post #55

Something that has puzzled me recently: how is anyone supposed to get the daily recommended amount of potassium? If you look at foods like bananas that are supposed to be good sources of it, you still need to eat something like eleven bananas a day to get enough (according to US recommended daily intakes, anyway). At least with the minerals mentioned in this posting, you can fall back on supplements if you need to...…

the max dosage you can get over the counter is 99mg

This is an FDA limit on potassium chloride supplements. Too much potassium can cause heart rhythm problems and cardiac arrest.

Some organizations propose 3500 to 4500mg as a daily potassium intake, and 98% of people do not eat this much potassium, and unless you are living on beans and beats you probably aren’t. Yet there isn’t a huge “get more potassium” movement. I wonder if those targets need reassessment.

Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914

#79

Post by pasabagi »

jjoonathan wrote: post #23
pasabagi wrote: post #16

Earlier 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.

For what it's worth, I totally agree. Without artificial fertilizer, half the world would starve. I don't think that kind of process makes sense within the context of capitalism, though. One obvious driver in the downward nutritional trend is the fact that faster-growing, larger, longer-lasting vegetables are better products, even if they taste worse and do less for the body. The problem with products is they're optimized for sale, not for use. Adding in extra nutrients is unlikely to improve the product, since it would increase costs.

Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914

#80

Post by khawkins »

mshroyer wrote: post #21
wil421 wrote: post #2

The 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

If the soil has been depleted of nutrients like magnesium, I'd bet that practices which largely shun fertilizers are going to exacerbate any problem in this regard.
Post reply on HN