Herbal Health Solutions

The Disappearing Nutrients in America's Orchards
By Alex Jack
December 14, 2004



"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

NUTRIENT CHARTS

Table 1. Calcium Content in Selected Fruits*
...........................1975...........2001.........Net Change

Apples.............. 7 mg..........7 mg...........None

Apricots...........17 mg........14 mg..........Down 17.7%

Bananas............8 mg...........6 mg..........Down 25%

Cherries...........22 mg........15 mg..........Down 31.8%

Grapefruits.......16 mg........12 mg..........Down 25%

Lemons............61 mg........26 mg...........Down 57.4%

Oranges...........41 mg........40 mg...........Down 2.4%

Peaches.............9 mg..........5 mg...........Down 44.4%

Pineapples.........7 mg..........7 mg...........Down 58.8%

Strawberries....21 mg........14 mg...........Down 33.3%

Tangerines.......40 mg........14 mg...........Down 65%

Watermelons......7 mg..........8 mg...........Up 14.3%

Net Change.............................................Down 28.9%

*Based on 100 Grams, Edible Portion. Source: USDA food composition tables

Table 2. Iron Content in Selected Fruits*
..............................1975..............2001..........Net Change

Apples................0.3 mg.........0.18 mg.........Down 40%

Apricots..............0.5 mg.........0.54 mg.........Up 8%

Bananas.............0.7 mg.........0.31 mg.........Down 55.7%

Cherries.............0.4 mg..........0.39 mg.........Down 2.5%

Grapefruits.........0.4 mg..........0.06 mg.........Down 85%

Lemons...............0.7 mg...........0.6 mg..........Down 14.3%

Oranges..............0.4 mg.........0.10 mg..........Down 75%

Peaches.............0.5 mg..........0.11 mg.........Down 78%

Pineapples.........0.5 mg..........0.37 mg.........Down 26%

Strawberries......1.0 mg..........0.38 mg..........Down 62%

Tangerines.........0.4 mg...........0.1 mg...........Down 75%

Watermelons.....0.5 mg..........0.17 mg...........Down 66%

Net Change.....................................................Down 16.4%

*Based on 100 Grams, Edible Portion. Source: USDA food composition tables

Table 4. Vitamin A Content in Selected Fruits*
................................1975.........2001........Net Change

Apples...................90 IU..........53 IU........Down 41.1%

Apricots.............2700 IU.....2612 IU........Down 3.3%

Bananas..............190 IU..........81 IU........Down 57.4%

Cherries...............110 IU.......214 IU........Up 94.6%

Grapefruits.............80 IU.........10 IU.........Down 87.5%

Lemons..................30 IU.........29 IU.........Down 3.3%

Oranges...............200 IU.......205 IU.........Up 2.5%

Peaches............1330 IU.......535 IU.........Down 59.8%

Pineapples............70 IU.........23 IU..........Down 55%

Strawberries.........60 IU..........27 IU..........Down 67.1%

Tangerines.........420 IU........920 IU...........Up 119%

Watermelons......590 IU.......366 IU...........Down 38%

Net Change................................................Down 16.4%

*Based on 100 Grams, Edible Portion. Source: USDA food composition tables

Table 5. Vitamin C Content in Selected Fruits*
............................1975..........2001...........Net Change

Apples................4 mg........5.7 mg..........Up 42.5%

Apricots............10 mg.........10 mg..........None

Bananas...........10 mg........9.1 mg..........Down 9%

Cherries............10 mg...........7 mg..........Down 30%

Grapefruits........38 mg......33.3 mg.........Down 12.4%

Lemons.............77 mg.........53 mg..........Down 31.2%

Oranges............50 mg......53.2 mg..........Up 6.4%

Peaches..............7 mg........6.6 mg..........Down 5.7%

Pineapples.......17 mg......15.4 mg...........Down 9.4%

Strawberries.....59 mg......56.7 mg...........Down 3.9%

Tangerines.......31 mg.......30.8 mg...........Down 7%

Watermelons......7 mg.........9.6 mg...........Up 37.1%

Net Change................................................Down 1.9%

*Based on 100 Grams, Edible Portion. Source: USDA food composition tables

Table 5. Phosphorus Content in Selected Fruits*
.............................1975....... 2001......Net Change

Apples...............10 mg........7 mg.......Down 30%

Apricots.............23 mg......19 mg.......Down 17.4%

Bananas............42 mg......20 mg.......Down 52.4%

Cherries............19 mg......19 mg.......None

Grapefruits........16 mg........8 mg.......Down 50%

Lemons.............15 mg......16 mg.......Up 6.7%

Oranges............20 mg......14 mg.......Down 30%

Peaches............19 mg.....12 mg........Down 36.8%

Pineapples..........8 mg.......7 mg.........Down 12.5%

Strawberries.....21 mg......19 mg........Down 9.5%

Tangerines........18 mg......10 mg........Down 44.4%

Watermelons... 10 mg.........9 mg........Down 10%