"Will an apple a day with 40% less vitamin
A, 40% less iron, and 30% less phosphorus still keep the
doctor away?"
Fruit Basket Upset:
The Disappearing Nutrients in America's Orchards
To get the same calcium content from fresh veggies today as
when JFK was president, you'd have to eat twice as much
broccoli. To get the same amount of iron as when the Beatles
were singing "We All Live in a Yellow Submarine," you'd have
to eat four times as many collard greens. To maintain your
vitamin A and C levels under the next administration, it will
take three times as much cauliflower and twice as much
watercress as during the Nixon and Watergate era. These are a
few of the conclusions gleaned from comparing the U.S.
government's food composition tables from the 1960s and 1970s
to the present day.
Despite more food consciousness, the quality of the America's
food supply continues to hemorrhage. Since it was reported
several years ago that the vitamin and mineral content of the
nation's garden vegetables had declined 25 to 50% in the last
generation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has done
nothing to reverse this trend except deny that it could be
connected with the environmental crisis and government
policies supporting chemical agriculture .
Citing my earlier research, Organic Gardening magazine ran an
open letter addressed to the Secretary of Agriculture
demanding an answer to the questions raised by his agency's
own data. "It is true that in many (but not all) cases, the
apparent nutrient content of these vegetables has decreased,"
Phyllis E. Johnson, director of the USDA's Agricultural
Research Service, admitted in a response on behalf of the
Secretary of Agriculture. She listed thirteen variables that
affect nutrient data. In respect to chemical agriculture, she
stated, "We are not aware of specific data showing a linkage
between over application of nitrogen fertilizer and decreases
in food nutrient content. In some cases, nitrogen application
has been found to increase the uptake of trace elements into
the edible portions of plants." She also rejected the theory
that acid rain (which reduces calcium and other mineral
content in forests) could affect cropland in the same way.
Over the last several years, conventional horticulture
magazines, trade journals for the produce industry, and the
mainstream press picked up on the story and brought it to the
attention of millions of their readers. But there still has
been no comprehensive study of the disappearing nutrients in
the nation's food supply or official proposals to remedy it.
In fact, despite the USDA's new user-friendly database on the
Internet, it appears that virtually none of the new nutrient
data is finding its way into reference books or food labels. A
spot check of several popular books on diet and health at
Barnes and Noble found that every one used nutritional data
from a generation ago. Similarly, most food labels appear to
reflect nutritional levels that prevailed during the Cold War
but no longer exist. (What food manufacturer would want to
switch to new labels showing lower vitamin and mineral content
than before?) The implication is that hundreds of millions of
meals that are prepared every day in homes, schools,
hospitals, prisons, the military, nursing homes, and other
institutions are based on obsolete nutrition!
Falling Fruit
Similar studies in Europe have come to the same conclusion,
and calls by scientists and journalists for any follow up data
have inspired me to undertake research and analysis of several
other food groups. For this article, I have investigated the
nutrient loss in fresh fruits over the last 25 years. In a
recent experiment, I compiled a "digital fruit basket" of
twelve common fruits and compared their nutrient content today
with that published in Handbook #8 issued by the USDA in 1975.
Like the sample of twelve random vegetables I investigated
earlier, I found that the fruits have lost a major share of
their vitamins and minerals. Overall, vitamin C levels are off
1.9%, vitamin A levels are down 16.4%, phosphorus has
diminished 23.9%, calcium content has fallen 28.9%, and iron
levels have plunged 47.6% (see charts).
The vitamin A in apples, for example, dropped 41%,
strawberries lost 55%, and that in grapefruit plunged 87.5%.
Vitamin C fared better, with minor losses in a majority of the
fruits, though that in cherries was off a hefty 30% and lemons
dropped 31.2%. Grapefruit, also significantly down in calcium
and iron, has particularly lost its vitality. This may be the
result of pollution in the Everglades (caused primarily by run
off from sugar refining). The vitamin levels in oranges,
Florida's other top crop, remained constant, but its iron
content fell 75%.
Though the vast majority of changes were losses, there were a
few gains. The iron in apricots rose 8%, calcium in watermelon
increased 14.3%, and the vitamin A in cherries soared 94.6%.
New hybrid seeds, variable climatic conditions, and other
factors may account for these increases. Of course,
determining the precise cause of nutrient loss is difficult.
Even environmentalists, organic farmers, and biologists are
deeply divided over whether geographical area, soil type, soil
moisture, soil health (humus content, fertility, microbial
activity, etc.), weather and climatic conditions, or cultural
practices (such as fertilization, composting, seed source,
irrigation, and post-harvest handling) are primary factors.
Then, too, looking only at individual nutrients compared with
the energy of the whole food is also problematic. Still, the
overall downward trend is alarming. Will an apple a day with
40% less vitamin A, 40% less iron, and 30% less phosphorus
still keep the doctor away?
The question also arises whether organically grown foods are
also losing nutrients? The USDA does not distinguish or keep
separate statistics for conventionally and organically grown
foods, but we may assume that most of the data in its food
composition tables is from chemically grown crops. Overall,
the few independent studies that have been done of organic
produce show that they generally contain about 50 percent or
more nutrients than their conventional counterparts. I suspect
that the quality of organic produce has also fallen sharply in
recent years, but studies are needed in this field.
What can be done? Here are several
recommendations:
* The USDA and other federal, state, and local agencies should
be required to monitor the changing nutritional content of the
nation's food supply; analyze to what extent it is caused by
chemical agriculture, air and water pollution, soil erosion
and loss of fertility, decline of seed vitality, the
introduction of new hybrid and genetically altered seeds, the
thinning of the ozone layer, global warming, and other
factors; and develop strategies to protect personal and
planetary health.
* Comprehensive studies of the nutritional content of organic
foods compared to chemically grown foods and genetically
engineered foods should be undertaken, especially given the
introduction of new federal organic food standards and
certification.
* A holistic, sustainable approach, based on natural and
organic agriculture and a plant-centered diet, needs to be
implemented to help preserve the vitality of the nation's food
system and the health of the American people. Loss of
nutrients should not be used as an excuse to promote
genetically engineered foods, chemical agriculture, or
artificial supplementation of the diet.
In early 2005, the U.S. government will release the newest
version of its Dietary Goals, including a revised Food Guide
Pyramid. Reportedly, it will stipulate for the first time that
whole grains (in contrast to refined grains) should constitute
the foundation for a healthy diet, accompanied by abundant
servings of fresh fruits and vegetables. Overall, the U.S.
government dietary recommendations are gradually moving in a
healthier direction. But if the nation's nutrient base
continues to decline, menus and recipes based on these
guidelines will be tragically out of date, and "the fruited
plain," so eloquently described in the song "America the
Beautiful," will grow increasingly barren.
Appendix:
Nutritional Bleak House
In 1998, I first stumbled on official data showing a sharp
decline in the nation's food quality while updating nutrition
charts for a new edition of one of my books. I soon discovered
that the USDA no longer published nutrient data in book form,
but posted it on the Internet (www.nat.usda.gov/fnic/cgi-bin/nut_s.pl).
Not only could new information be made available
instantaneously, but it could also be freely accessed in
seconds.
"Great!" I thought. "This will really simplify my life." But
as I updated vitamin and mineral charts that I'd compiled
fifteen years earlier, I realized that many of the nutrients
had declined. "What's going on here?" I wondered, dimly
glimpsing the research headache that would ensue.
In an experiment, I jotted down twelve common garden
vegetables at random and discovered that on average their
vitamin and mineral had declined 25 to 50% across the board
since the last published edition of the food composition
tables in 1975 (including data going back to 1963 and
earlier).
Alarmed, I called the USDA and was put in touch with Dr. David
Haytowitz, the official in charge of the vegetable sector.
Like the State Department with its China desk, a Middle
Eastern desk, and other divisions that monitor specific
regions, the USDA has experts at the Nutrient Data Laboratory
in Maryland in charge of every possible food group. Dr.
Haytowitz also turned out to be the web master, so he was
familiar with the entire database of over 5000 foods beside
his own specialty.
"Are you aware that the nutrients in the American food supply
appear to have declined sharply from a generation ago?" I
asked.
"This is the first time I've heard of it," he replied
nonchalantly.
"Isn't the USDA concerned that the food the American people
are eating every day is losing its energy and vitality?" I
asked.
"The USDA doesn't monitor or analyze trends," he explained.
"We only gather data."
I felt like a waif in a novel by Charles Dickens populated by
bureaucrats and government functionaries who compile a
mountain of data about the abject conditions around them but
do nothing to avert the impending catastrophe.
"Could the decline be due to a change in testing procedures
over the last several decades?" I inquired.
We had a lengthy discussion about new improved testing
techniques, including colorimetry, atomic absorption, and
inductive coupled plasma (ICP). The scientist was clearly in
his element describing how researchers use ever more
sophisticated methods to reduce piles of food to ash in their
laboratories and calculate grams of edible portion to three
decimal places. However, the bottom line was that new methods
would probably not result in changes of this magnitude, but
only to several further decimal points.
I ventured that the decline might be the result of the
environmental crisis, especially increased use of pesticides
and chemicals on America's farms. Dr. Haytowitz replied that,
on the contrary, farmers a generation ago probably used more
chemical fertilizers, soil supplements, and other additives
than they do now, artificially elevating nutrient levels
compared to more normal samples today!
"Has the USDA tested organic food compared to chemically grown
food to measure such changes?" I asked in reply to this
Alice-in-Wonderland reasoning.
"No, such tests have not been performed," he admitted. "The
USDA presumes that the nutrient content of organic and
conventionally grown food is substantially equivalent."
"And on what scientific research studies have you based that
assumption?" I replied, leaving him temporarily speechless.
Alex Jack is an author,
teacher, and dietary counselor. His books include The Cancer
Prevention Diet (with Michio Kushi), Let Food Be Thy Medicine,
and Amber Waves of Grain: Traditional American Whole Foods
Cooking and Contemporary Vegetarian, Vegan, and Macrobiotic
Cuisine. He lives in western Massachusetts with his wife,
Gale, a cooking teacher, and can be reached by email: shenwa@bcn.net
