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

Fruits and vegetables are less nutritious than they used to be

nationalgeographic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 173 posts

Re: Fruits and vegetables are less nutritious than they used to be

#151

Post by hansel_der »

fsflover wrote: post #123
hansel_der wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

probably because "GMO crops without tradeoffs" are a contradiction

Could you elaborate? GMO crops possess no safety risk (if that's what you mean): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_crops .

your overly generous assumption about the safety risk aside, imagine a genetic modification and subsequent introduction of that modified organism into the ecosphere like a big leap of faith.

genetic mutation occuring in nature is of smaller scale (a few differences, a few individuals) and not subject to contradicting incentives that politics and markets are prone to.

Re: Fruits and vegetables are less nutritious than they used to be

#152

Post by antris »

giantg2 wrote: post #114
antris wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an ecofascist adjacent argument, and is not based on reality. Not much land is needed to feed people, most of it is being used to produce meat and dairy, which is a waste. https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets

Well, you'd have to resort to fascism to force all people to become vegan.

Who suggested forcing all people to become vegan?

Also, by the same logic seatbelt laws would be "resorting to fascism" because it's forcing all people to use seatbelts. It's not fascism to have laws.

Re: Fruits and vegetables are less nutritious than they used to be

#153

Post by somenameforme »

pessimizer wrote: post #89
somenameforme wrote: post #57

This is the conclusion of the paper [1] that this article is based upon: "We suggest that any real declines are generally most easily explained by changes in cultivated varieties between 1950 and 1999, in which there may be trade-offs between yield and nutrient content." What National Geographic says scientists say, "Scientists say that the root of the problem lies in modern agricultural processes that increase crop…

There are at least four other papers directly referenced and linked in the article. You picked the first one.

I'm sure you'd agree that what they claim scientists say gives absolutely no mention to the conclusion of the first paper they chose to reference. How do you interpret this? Let's check out the 2nd paper [1]. It seems in many ways even worse than the first.

It not only also offers significant weighting to breeds, but ultimately even rejects the idea of a temporal decline in nutritional value! "Based on the available limited data, and due to variations in sampling, analytical techniques and likely differences in growing location and season, no definitive temporal trends could be established."

Basically the observed differences could be easily explained by other simple factors than a mysterious decline, including breed selection. Grow less nutritious crops, get less nutritious food.

[1] - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8750575/

Re: Fruits and vegetables are less nutritious than they used to be

#154

Post by blingscramble »

lil_dispaches wrote: post #56
gregwebs wrote: post #17

This article mentions that regenerative agriculture as the solution. There is a lot of concern now about the potential for a global food shortage at the end of this year because of rising fertilizer prices (leading to less planting). Regenerative agriculture can help solve this as well by focusing on restoring the biome of the soil, thereby harnessing nitrogen from the air and minerals from the soil.

Why are fertilizer prices rising? Could it be that fertilizer is the same stuff as gunpowder?

I would suggest that fertilizer prices are higher due to cost increases to manufacture them but also because grain prices are higher. There seems to be a relationship between the 2 which is independent of actual costs to manufacture the inputs. As grain prices increase input costs increase, likewise with the inverse, grain prices decrease input prices decrease. Supply and demand for sure but there seems to be market forces outside of simply supply vs demand.

Re: Fruits and vegetables are less nutritious than they used to be

#155

Post by fsflover »

hansel_der wrote: post #151
fsflover wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you elaborate? GMO crops possess no safety risk (if that's what you mean): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_crops .

your overly generous assumption about the safety risk aside, imagine a genetic modification and subsequent introduction of that modified organism into the ecosphere like a big leap of faith. genetic mutation occuring in nature is of smaller scale (a few differences, a few individuals) and not subject to contradicting incentives that politics and markets are prone to.

> your overly generous assumption about the safety risk

This is not my assumption, this is scientific consensus, see the linked page.

> subsequent introduction of that modified organism into the ecosphere

This is not how the ecosphere works. The new mutation will only survive if it provides some benefits for the survival. If more nutritious fruits are like this, I see no problem here at all.

Re: Fruits and vegetables are less nutritious than they used to be

#156

Post by Angostura »

somenameforme wrote: post #57

This is the conclusion of the paper [1] that this article is based upon: "We suggest that any real declines are generally most easily explained by changes in cultivated varieties between 1950 and 1999, in which there may be trade-offs between yield and nutrient content." What National Geographic says scientists say, "Scientists say that the root of the problem lies in modern agricultural processes that increase crop…

Paragraph 2, line 1:

> Mounting evidence from multiple scientific studies

It's not based on a single paper. The article may have been prompted by the publication of that paperm, but it is not limited to it.

Modern reading comprehension in a nutshell?

Re: Fruits and vegetables are less nutritious than they used to be

#157

Post by giantg2 »

nyokodo wrote: post #59
saurik wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If my food isn't nutritious I either wither away or am forced to eat more food, which comes with more calories. So, no: it seems like it is better to make do with seasonal foods than to live in a world where I can technically experience a tomato but... is it really a tomato if it just tastes like a tomato but otherwise confers none of the value of a tomato? (If you are saying the alternative is NO food, then sure; bu…

> If my food isn't nutritious I either wither away or am forced to eat more food Less nutrition doesn’t mean no nutrition. The vegetables are still plenty nutritious.

I believe the argument they are making is that if the vegetable contains less magnesium, then you have to eat more of it to satisfy that dietary requirement (or your body's craving for it). So the vegetable still has a lot of the other macronutrients but now you have to eat "too many" of the macronutrients to satisfy your micronutrient needs.

Re: Fruits and vegetables are less nutritious than they used to be

#158

Post by somenameforme »

jjoonathan wrote: post #147
api wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Virtually all modern media exists to push a narrative, usually a Right Wing(tm) or Left Wing(tm) narrative. I'm not convinced you can get to the truth by "triangulating" since this assumes at least one party is actually saying something valid.

Blanket cynicism is really easy to manipulate: you don't have to do a good job yourself, you just have to convince the cynic that the other guy is just as bad, which is easy. "Both Sides" cynicism feels centrist but it actually kills centrism because it turns centrism into a losing media strategy. Listening to both sides is important to avoid selective information bias, but refusing to pick a winner or, worse, always…

Imagine you were tasked with deciding the greatest film of all time. And after some opaque process over which you have no meaningful influence, you were presented with your choices, the "sides:" "Generic Superhero Movie #1" or "Generic Superhero Movie #2".

Of course you are right that one may be objectively better than the other, but I'm also right in that such a choice ought be rejected on principle because neither deserves the validation of participation in such a charade.

Re: Fruits and vegetables are less nutritious than they used to be

#159

Post by myshpa »

specialist wrote: post #132
myshpa wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pressure is here from us doing bad things. We're killing the soil, bugs, forests, wildlife, sea, mainly by purchasing the wrong things in the supermarket. [1] We could use just 25% of our current agriculture land and still feed the population. There is nothing in the beef & dairy, which we could not get from other sources (preferably plant-based). The problem are agriculture subsidies. We're heavily subsidizing p…

> ...mainly by purchasing the wrong things in the supermarket. I doubt that blaming the consumer is helpful. Stuff like fat shaming usually backfires. And leads to us-vs-them polarization. Plus, are consumers really to blame when choices are constrained by others? Plus, it absolves the actual villains. No different than the industry funded rhetoric around plastic recycling and carbon footprint. As though Big Ag is on…

> I doubt that blaming the consumer is helpful. Stuff like fat shaming usually backfires. And leads to us-vs-them polarization.

I'm not blaming the customer. I'm simply pointing out that we can do a lot for the meaningful change by "voting with our wallet".

[https://www.grocerygazette.co.uk/2022/01/25/43-of-brits-plan... - 43% of Brits plan to reduce meat consumption in 2022] [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58831636 - UK public now eating significantly less meat] [https://www.plantproteins.co/vegan-plant-based-diet-statisti... - As many as 6% of U.S. consumers say they are vegan — a 6x (500%) increase compared to just 1% in 2014.1]

> Plus, it absolves the actual villains. No different than the industry funded rhetoric around plastic recycling and carbon footprint. As though Big Ag is only responding to consumer demand, and is other wise powerless to effect change. > As though Big Ag is only responding to consumer demand, and is other wise powerless to effect change.

Plastic recycling is a ruse brought up by plastic manufacturers. It delayed meaningful action for decades.

The current situation with meat/dairy production is caused by BigAg lobying for subsidies, cementing its position with laws & institutions. They won't change on their own. They would like to seem like they do, but it's just a play we've already seen with cigatette manufactures, banks and oil/plastic producers. They are in it for the money. We need to remove that money.

I agree that we need to change the rules, but I've lost trust in our govermental systems long time ago.

> Our current food pyramid is the result of industrial policy choices. Perhaps we can make other choices. Perhaps by demanding a seat at the table.

Be the change you want to see in the world. If enough of us can change, the world will change.

Re: Fruits and vegetables are less nutritious than they used to be

#160

Post by giantg2 »

antris wrote: post #152
giantg2 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, you'd have to resort to fascism to force all people to become vegan.

Who suggested forcing all people to become vegan? Also, by the same logic seatbelt laws would be "resorting to fascism" because it's forcing all people to use seatbelts. It's not fascism to have laws.

"Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy"

Nothing is truly fascist with a dictatorship, but you were the one to start throwing around that term. That said, regimentation of one's diet and control over the agricultural industry, likely with the supression of opposition in the name of what's good for society, would reasonably fit the rest of that definition.

The linked article talks about global adoption of dietary habits, mainly refraining from meat consumption or switching to other meat types. The only reasonable assumption for that happening is that some level of force would end up being applied.

On top of all this, the article linked (and your comments) fail to address the question in my comment about sustainably supporting an increasing population. The article you linked promotes intensive alternative such as farmed poultry, fish, and shrimp. To do those sustainably, we would have to look at massive changes in the crowding, low nutrient feed, and pharmaceutical use rampant in those. It also doesn't address the potential demand for land for other uses such as industrial or residential, nor for the anticipated increase in industrial use of crops for things like plant based plastics, nor does it seem to account for land classification and suitability, such as what could be grown on specific pieces of land and the economic labor models of the crops.

It's easy to say theoretically how we can just adopt another nation's food practices (not preferences). It's another to determine the geopolitical feasibility of it. I point out preferences here because we see that many nation's have a high demand for animal products as they develop.

Post reply on HN