News

I realize thye said it's due to CO2, but I can't help but think it also has to do with selectively breeding crops for mass production- and stupid things like being shiny red (as in certain apples) or other qualities that might make them more marketable instead of nutritious.

Small farmer here. Devoid the soil of nutrients by tilling. Kill all the soil biology by spraying chemicals. Grow only fast yield cash crops. Grow the same crop year after year for decades or more. Breed crops for appearance and yield over nutrition. What the fuck do you expect?

First the taste got lost, now they turn into the nutritious equivalent of card board. The nutrition supplements industry: "Hell, yeah!" But you have to give it to them, every vegetable and every fruit looks perfect now and keeps that look for a long time. What can be better than that?

My neighbor has a balcony and has tomato plants on it every year, and they are the ugliest tomatoes I have ever seen and have the best taste of any I have ever eaten. I want a balcony or a garden so badly.

Sure: bring down CO2 levels. So probably not for a while.

Also, we breed for size and taste. That will also lead to lower nutrient density.

There are many things that are unsupported in this article

First off, the laboratory methodology changed for testing food. Modern testing techniques much more accurate than the ones in the 50's and 70's. They did not run the older methodologies on modern food. So basically the entire premise is comparing apples to oranges. We don't know if the changes are due to reality or procedure changes.

The second study on rice had me smiling. From somebody who knows nothing about breeding cereal grain it would seem to be a slam dunk, however reality is more complicated. All cereal breeders struggle with the tradeoff between maximizing yield and lodging resistance. Lodging is when the stalk falls over. When it falls over major yield losses can occur (50%+ depending on the stage). It also causes major difficulties with harvesting on equipment and time. Extra CO2 increases plant size and kernal size. A taller plant with a heavier seed head that a slight breeze will knock over. Breeders will select genetically smaller kernals and smaler stature plants to compensate for increasing CO2. This is the major reason that all hybrid wheat attempts have failed. It makes a huge plant that falls over.

Some basics on nutritional density of vegetables.

Fruit size: in general the larger the fruit lower the nutritional density. The plant only has so much it can create or pull from the soil.

Nutrient density is affected by position on the plant where it is grown. Earlier set fruit tend to have higher nutritional density than later set fruit. You can look up more on this on source/sink studies.

Nutrient availability: plants that are slightly nutritionally deficient will produce smaller fruits/seeds. The smaller size will make the fruit more nutrient dense.

The weather is the single largest determining factor. When a plant is happy with ideal conditions the nutrient density is lower. When the plant is stressed and grows more slowly, it produces less yield with higher density food.

Genetics: Sometimes plant breeders select for higher nutritional density like watermelons. Sometimes they select for lower density like strawberries. It all depends on the market requirements.

I met a Christian capitalist that runs a major tomato farm in Washington and that guy cares about nothing but money. I have met a lot of people who run companies who are like that.

We are in a lot of trouble if we don’t control companies with our wallets and get our government to do their jobs.

eats a multivitamin pill and some green beans

Can the decline be reversed?

Yes, through genetic engineering. But people are afraid of that solution.

I started getting random muscle spasms and headaches. Finding out my magnesium levels were low. I saw in decade over decade it has drastically reduced in our food. Being how important it is to daily function it is scary what natural levels have dropped to.

Enshitification_IRL

It's odd to me that we keep doing the same broken shit year in and year put. Shouldn't we be running many different experiments across the nation to find a better way to live our lives?

I guess that was meant to be the states, each running things their way. Or the freedom of association to self select a commune that best reflects our values?

So why are we only trying different flavors of capitalism? Power. Inertia is a hell of a drug. The status quo persists, despite both mainstream political parties running on change (MAGA is basically rebranded change, just change to a worse time)

Are yall really arrogant enough to believe that we have developed the perfect economic system? The perfect government? That advanced aliens with light speed technology come and visit our world to study our highly developed way of life?

I don't, I think perhaps we haven't developed this better way yet. I don't know what it is, but it's definitely not what we are doing right now. Let's try new things out.

Step 1 is getting our hands on the wheel. This means electoral reform so third parties can exist without a spoiler effect. This would benefit people of all political beliefs. Perhaps there are a good portion of conservatives not happy with the Republican (MAGA) party, but First Past The Post voting handcuffs them to these shitters. Something Luke Ranked Chouce voting would allow them to vote for a more reasonable conservative party (rebranded democrats basically).

Switching away from first past the post voting allows people to vote for who represents them best while still counting their vote against those they dont want to win. Just search for videos on FPTP voting if you want an explanation on how and why the spoiler effect exists.

Electoral reform is possible in each individual state (for now), we dont need federal reform! Maine and Alaska have already passed electoral reform.

So what’s the hold up with the rest of the states? Consider starting a campaign to change how we vote in your own state! Force our representatives to compete with fresh outside ideas. We deserve the best representation, not excuses.

Ok how concerning should this be? Because nutritional science can be very counterintuitive. Is eating one green bean today worth like half as many as ten years ago or is it like eating 99% of one from ten years ago?

The article reads as advertisement for a seed nutrient fortification company, and a chemical nutrient fortification company.

There was no mention of what I see as a major problem, that is the access to local produce. Mass production and monopolization/centralization of produce and its distribution methods, means longer times from harvest to table, which is likely a major source of nutrient loss.

Here's a journal article talking about it from 1977: Effect of Storage of Nutritive Value of Food