Tuesday, December 13, 2011

As We've suspected: Our Nutritional Sources Have Been Diluted

In a previous blog:


I showed how there is an entrenched "anti-vitamin" industry in this country, based on phoney medical or statistical tests, that has been trying for decades to convince people not to "waste money on vitamins", arguing that the only result is "very expensive urine". Well, now research shows this is so much codswallop, and that those of us who are diehard vitamin takers have been vindicated in spades. (Of course, this will never stop the anti-vitamin propagandizers from making their appointed rounds every year or so!)

As illustrated by the graphic (for cornmeal, as an example of one commonly used foodstuff), there has been a dramatic decline in conventional cornmeal vs. the version in red (more typical of what we received back in the 60s). What happened? Basically corporate agricultural, mass farming methods and "cheap food" - which as we see underscored the c-word in more ways than one, translating into cheapening of nutrients as well.

The chemical-biological basis? As agricultural breeders developed "improved varieties" that generated higher yields (to feed an ever expanding global population that's now reached 7 billion) they inadvertently incepted declining crop nutrient values. Or, if you want to put it another way: they succeeded in getting more quantity to feed the world's growing numbers, but at the expense of quality. This is something the faux physicians who lead phoney anti-vitamin studies will never tell you.

Indeed, as far back as 1980, Durk Pearson - then doing most of the vitamin research especially on supplements (such as choline, lecithin) that boost brain power, warned on numerous network appearances (I recall seeing one on ABC's 'Good Morning America' in August) that an "anti-vitamin backlash" would soon be underway. He argued that they would unleash a barrage of pseudo -statistical studies to try to show the "uselessness" of taking vitamins to supplement normal meals.

But the evidence today supports his take that every manjack in the country, who isn't a rich bastard or member of the 1%, needs to be taking vitamin supplements to ensure they're getting all the proper nutrients in adequate amounts. (The 1% don't have to worry, since they needn't depend upon the cheap crops, foods emanating from corporate agri-business and genetically modified crap. Like tomatoes that are "preserved" by splicing them with mouse genes)

Take the calcium content of broccoli. Widely grown varieties in 1950 had about 13 mg/g of calcium but today's varieties provide only about 4.4 mg/g of calcium. Similar proportionate declines have been documented in meat, eggs, and dairy products. Prominent biochemist Bruce Ames argues that many Americans are not getting enough essential vitamins and minerals and that the health consequences of this lack include nutritional deficiencies, increased cancer risks, and accelerated aging.

In his paper: 'Increasing Longevity By Tuning Up Metabolism' Ames points out that the 25% of Americans who eat the least veggies and fruits -or obtain the least nutrients peculiar to them - have twice the cancer rates of the quarter of Americans that eats the most.

Bottom line conclusions from the most recent work, such as by Ames:

- Over the last 50 years, the amounts of protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin, and vitamin C in conventionally grown fresh fruits and vegetables has declined by 50% or more.

- Wheat grown 100 years ago had twice as much protein as modern versions.

- Most of our agri-food crops, from lettuce, to broccoli, tomatoes, cauliflower, beans, peas, cabbage, etc. are so diluted that one would have to eat two to three times the amount daily to obtain an equal nutrient value to what one had in the 1960s. Thus, to do totally without vitamins, get set to eat four cauliflowers, three whole broccoli heads, eight oranges, five bananas (for potassium), ten tomatoes and three pounds of peas or beans!

The most often cited reason for the declines is the increased use of fertilizers and genetically modified crops to boost yields to feed larger world population. The problem is this has come at the expense of the nutrient density of the crops. The added fertilizers have also caused other problems, namely de-oxygenation of the oceans near continental margins, as I already indicated in a recent blog, e.g.


Can we feed ten billion as the pro-population growth idiots claim? Probably. But the nutrient value of our food supply by then is likely to be so low...so absurdly below what's needed, that most of those additional people will die from cancer or some other malady predicated on major nutrient loss. (Assuming they don't take plenty of vitamin supplements). If they don't die of outright malnutrition, even as they fill their bellies with hollow corporate foods.

No comments: