Have We Bred the Nutrition Out of Our Food?

Nutrition Diva: Quick and Dirty Tips for Eating Well and Feeling Fabulous

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Scientific American presents Nutrition Diva by Quick & Dirty Tips. Scientific American and Quick & Dirty Tips are both Macmillan companies.

Several Nutrition Diva fans have asked me to comment on the article entitled “Breeding the Nutrition Out of Our Food,” which appeared recently in TheNew York Times. The author, Jo Robinson, observes that humans naturally prefer fruits and vegetables with more sugar and starch and that the varieties we’ve cultivated over the millennia reflect those tastes. But, she points out, these tastier varieties tend to be lower in phytonutrients, which often impart a bitter taste to foods. She suggests that eating your veggies isn’t going to keep you healthy if you’re eating modern cultivars.

This anxiety that fruits and vegetables are less nutritious than they used to be is not new, and I’ve addressed it in a previous podcast. But a high profile article like this is sure to breathe new life into this anxiety. While Robinson has gathered interesting data to support her argument, some of her reasoning doesn’t seem logical to me, and I don’t agree with all of her conclusions.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


It’s Only Nutritious If You Eat It
For example, Robinson points out that today’s apples contain less than half the phytonutrients found in the wild crab apples from which modern apples descended. But is this really a fair comparison? Have you ever tried to eat a crab apple that hadn’t been cooked in sugar syrup? They’re barely edible! How many crab apples do you think your kids are going to eat? I would argue that the cultivation of the modern apple—palatable, portable, and ubiquitous—has probably vastly increased the average human’s intake of apple polyphenols and not the opposite.

Robinson also lauds the nutritional superiority of purple carrots and potatoes, but glosses over the fact that the ones you’re likely to find at your grocer are brand new varieties that have been specifically cultivated for their color and nutritional content. I don’t think it’s fair to accuse modern agriculture of systematically stripping the nutrients from our food supply. In some cases, it is actively engaged in breeding more nutrition in.

 

Continue reading on QuickAndDirtyTips.com

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe