Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Walter Tschinkel's avatar

This subject deserves careful discussion because I have heard similar narratives multiple times. I am going to sound a bit cranky, but I find this approach to food (aka Nutritionism) less than satisfying. “Nutritionism” considers particular foods as mere vehicles for “nutrients”, and is a piecemeal rather than holistic view of why we eat what we eat. To a greater or lesser degree, it plays fast and loose with science in the service of what amounts to an ideology (or belief system). We eat to stay alive and grow, eating many classes of materials in varying amounts. In human diets through most of evolutionary time, some essential compounds have been needed only in very small amounts and have been so reliably present in our food that our bodies have lost the ability to synthesize them, instead getting them from our food. We call these vitamins, and above a certain minimum, getting more of them does not improve our health. Therefore, in the context of this essay, the relevant question is, do the fruits and veggies of Big Ag, when part of a reasonable diet, lead to vitamin or mineral deficiencies? I would also add that many of our foods are fortified with vitamins and minerals, so a second question would be, does it matter where the vitamins (or minerals) come from? In other words, is a vitamin from a tomato different from the same vitamin in a pill? I think these are topics worth consideration.

I was curious about the data behind this essay, so I read the references and looked at the data. From my reading of these sources, I am skeptical about the subsequent interpretation in the articles that followed. Indeed, even the authors of the original articles seem skeptical. For example, in the article about iron in Australian veggies, the abstract states, “The majority of vegetables had similar iron content between two or more timepoints. … no definitive conclusions could be established.” In the British wheat study, after 1950 both the yield and grain size approximately doubled over pre-1950 values, largely because the starch content increased. Therefore, protein and mineral concentrations (not necessarily amounts) decreased as the grain size and yield increased. For the USDA study of 43 veggies between 1999-1950: the abstract reports decline for 6 nutrients but no decline for 7 others, and states, “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.” The derivative articles do not mention the skepticism expressed in the original research articles, nor the possible complexities of meaningful interpretation.

I have gardened in the past and loved it. I also understand that the scale and methods of big agriculture are off-putting in many ways. But it seems to me that the success of Big Ag has been to bring production up and prices down. I doubt that the family farm, as pleasing as it seems, can replace that for most Americans.

Call me a curmudgeon if you must, but why add “nutrient anxiety” to an activity that can be about pleasure and life in full. In describing a reasonable diet, Michael Pollan said it well: eat a variety of foods, eat moderately, and eat largely plants. I say, do that and you won’t have to give much thought to how much of vitamin x is in food y.

I wish you better gardening success next year!

Expand full comment
The Earthmonk's avatar

Because we have lost our connection to the land. The food has become disassociated by planes, trains and trucks. Ask a kid in an urban setting where food comes from- their answer will shock you - McDonald’s

Expand full comment
13 more comments...

No posts