Blarg
06-05-2005, 03:16 AM
Taken from a site that sells vitamins, but has lots of legit info nevertheless. Here's an introduction to the story, which is a few years old but still interesting, and which can be found complete, with a couple charts'n'stuff, at:
http://search.lef.org/src-cgi-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=19&EXTRA_ARG=&CFGNAME=MssFind%2E cfg&host_id=42&page_id=5178624&query=thiamin&hiwor d=thiamin+
[ QUOTE ]
Imagine the surprise of going online and discovering that the vitamin and mineral content of vegetables has drastically dropped.
That’s what happened to nutritionist, Alex Jack, when he went to check out the latest US Department of Agriculture food tables. The stunning revelation came after Jack compared recently published nutrient values with an old USDA handbook he had lying around. Some of the differences in vitamin and mineral content were enormous-a 50% drop in the amount of calcium in broccoli, for example. Watercress down 88% in iron content; cauliflower down 40% in vitamin C content-all since 1975.
Jack took his findings to the USDA, hoping for a reasonable explanation. That was two years ago. He’s still waiting. So is Organic Gardening magazine, which published an open letter, seeking an explanation from Dan Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture. Glickman didn’t respond, but USDA employee, Phyllis E. Johnson did. Johnson (who is head of the Beltsville area office), suggested to Organic Gardening that the nutrient drain should be put in context. According to her, the 78% decrease in calcium content of corn is not significant because no one eats corn for calcium. She further explains that the problem may not even exist at all; that the apparent nutrient dips could be due to the testing procedures. For example, “changes in the public’s perception of what the edible portion is may determine what parts have been analyzed over time.” In other words, back when the old food tables were made up, people may have been eating the cobb too, so they got more nutrients.
[/ QUOTE ]
I always appreciate a bit of humor thrown in . /images/graemlins/wink.gif
Here's how it ends(hey, it's not a thriller, so this isn't e exactly a spoiler!):
[ QUOTE ]
The USDA is apparently unconcerned and not interested in the vitamin drain, despite its mandate to ensure high quality safe foods. In her letter to Organic Gardening, Ms. Johnson said that the nutritional content of produce is not as important as things like appearance and big yield. In other words, Ms. Johnson espouses the view of commercial growers that food is a product in the same way that running shoes are a product. Looks are more important than substance. That view of vegetables and fruits reduces your spinach salad to pretty roughage, and your chances of meeting RDAs to slim.
[/ QUOTE ]
Kind of interesting. I hadn't really thought about vegetables losing their nutrients due to industrial farming much. I knew they lose lots of their sugars, and that some enzymes are fairly fragile and can convert out of their original form after fruits and vegetables are picked, but mostly thought about flavor, not much more.
I'm putting this thread up because of the recent extended talk here about the value of vegetables and how difficult it might be to supply yourself with what you need from a substantially vegetarian or entirely vegetarian diet. I imagine that it could be the case that things like the amount of protein available from mass-produced vegetables has declined over time, too.
http://search.lef.org/src-cgi-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=19&EXTRA_ARG=&CFGNAME=MssFind%2E cfg&host_id=42&page_id=5178624&query=thiamin&hiwor d=thiamin+
[ QUOTE ]
Imagine the surprise of going online and discovering that the vitamin and mineral content of vegetables has drastically dropped.
That’s what happened to nutritionist, Alex Jack, when he went to check out the latest US Department of Agriculture food tables. The stunning revelation came after Jack compared recently published nutrient values with an old USDA handbook he had lying around. Some of the differences in vitamin and mineral content were enormous-a 50% drop in the amount of calcium in broccoli, for example. Watercress down 88% in iron content; cauliflower down 40% in vitamin C content-all since 1975.
Jack took his findings to the USDA, hoping for a reasonable explanation. That was two years ago. He’s still waiting. So is Organic Gardening magazine, which published an open letter, seeking an explanation from Dan Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture. Glickman didn’t respond, but USDA employee, Phyllis E. Johnson did. Johnson (who is head of the Beltsville area office), suggested to Organic Gardening that the nutrient drain should be put in context. According to her, the 78% decrease in calcium content of corn is not significant because no one eats corn for calcium. She further explains that the problem may not even exist at all; that the apparent nutrient dips could be due to the testing procedures. For example, “changes in the public’s perception of what the edible portion is may determine what parts have been analyzed over time.” In other words, back when the old food tables were made up, people may have been eating the cobb too, so they got more nutrients.
[/ QUOTE ]
I always appreciate a bit of humor thrown in . /images/graemlins/wink.gif
Here's how it ends(hey, it's not a thriller, so this isn't e exactly a spoiler!):
[ QUOTE ]
The USDA is apparently unconcerned and not interested in the vitamin drain, despite its mandate to ensure high quality safe foods. In her letter to Organic Gardening, Ms. Johnson said that the nutritional content of produce is not as important as things like appearance and big yield. In other words, Ms. Johnson espouses the view of commercial growers that food is a product in the same way that running shoes are a product. Looks are more important than substance. That view of vegetables and fruits reduces your spinach salad to pretty roughage, and your chances of meeting RDAs to slim.
[/ QUOTE ]
Kind of interesting. I hadn't really thought about vegetables losing their nutrients due to industrial farming much. I knew they lose lots of their sugars, and that some enzymes are fairly fragile and can convert out of their original form after fruits and vegetables are picked, but mostly thought about flavor, not much more.
I'm putting this thread up because of the recent extended talk here about the value of vegetables and how difficult it might be to supply yourself with what you need from a substantially vegetarian or entirely vegetarian diet. I imagine that it could be the case that things like the amount of protein available from mass-produced vegetables has declined over time, too.