Download declining nutrient value in food 7 impacts of `super foods` on health

DECLINING NUTRIENT VALUE IN FOOD 7
IMPACTS OF ‘SUPER FOODS’ ON HEALTH
December 12, 2004
The Disappearing Nutrients in America's
Orchards
Categories
Latest HFM News
By Alex Jack
"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 (see appendix below).
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 plantcentered 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: [email protected]
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.....17 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 ...2612IU.....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...........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%
Net Change.............................Down 23.9%
*Based on 100 Grams, Edible Portion. Source: USDA food composition tables
See also:
Nutrient decline in garden crops over past 50 years
Study suggests nutrient decline in garden crops over past 50 years
02 Dec 2004
A recent study of 43 garden crops led by a University of Texas at Austin biochemist suggests that their nutrient value has declined in recent decades while farmers
have been planting crops designed to improve other traits.
The study was designed to investigate the effects of modern agricultural methods on the nutrient content of foods. The researchers chose garden crops, mostly
vegetables, but also melons and strawberries, for which nutritional data were available from both 1950 and 1999 and compared them both individually and as a
group.
The study, based on U.S. Department of Agriculture data, will appear in the December issue of the Journal of the American College of Nutrition. Its lead author is
Dr. Donald Davis of the university's Biochemical Institute in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry. His coauthors are Drs. Melvin Epp and Hugh Riordan
of the Bio-Communications Research Institute in Wichita, Kan., where Davis is a research consultant.
According to Davis, establishing meaningful changes in nutrient content over a 50-year time interval was a significant challenge. The researchers had to
compensate for variations in moisture content that affect nutrient measurements, and could not rule out the possibility that changes in analytical techniques may
have affected results for some nutrients.
"It is much more reliable to look at average changes in the group rather than in individual foods, due to uncertainties in the 1950 and 1999 values," Davis said.
"Considered as a group, we found that six out of 13 nutrients showed apparently reliable declines between 1950 and 1999."
These nutrients included protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin and ascorbic acid. The declines, which ranged from 6 percent for protein to 38 percent for
riboflavin, raise significant questions about how modern agriculture practices are affecting food crops.
"We conclude that the most likely explanation was changes in cultivated varieties used today compared to 50 years ago," Davis said. "During those 50 years, there
have been intensive efforts to breed new varieties that have greater yield, or resistance to pests, or adaptability to different climates. But the dominant effort is for
higher yields. Emerging evidence suggests that when you select for yield, crops grow bigger and faster, but they don't necessarily have the ability to make or
uptake nutrients at the same, faster rate."
According to Davis, these results suggest a need for research into other important nutrients and foods that provide significant dietary calories, such as grains,
legumes, meat, milk and eggs.
"Perhaps more worrisome would be declines in nutrients we could not study because they were not reported in 1950 -- magnesium, zinc, vitamin B-6, vitamin E
and dietary fiber, not to mention phytochemicals," Davis said. "I hope our paper will encourage additional studies in which old and new crop varieties are studied
side-by-side and measured by modern methods."
NOTE: For a color photo of Dr. Davis, contact Barbra Rodriguez at [email protected], or 512-232-0675.
Contact: Barbra Rodriguez
[email protected]
512-232-0675
University of Texas at Austin
URL of this article:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/emma_holister/2004/12/12/the_disappearing_nutrients
_in_americas.htm
ANH - "Declining minerals in our food...and fewer minerals in our supplements?" by
David Thomas
Declining minerals in our food...and fewer minerals in our
supplements?
David Thomas of Mineral Resources International (UK), a supporter of ANH, reveals his
findings on declining mineral content of foods. See ANH comment which follows.
It’s not the fruit it used to be. . .
The Sunday Times
8 February 2004
Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor
BRITAIN’S fruit is becoming sweeter and its vegetables less healthy. A study has shown
that modern farming methods and plant breeding are stripping produce of many of the
nutrients essential for human health.
Over the past 60 years the levels of iron, magnesium and other minerals important for the
body’s biochemical balance have declined by between a quarter and three-quarters in
fruit and vegetables. The proportion of sugar has doubled in fruit such as apples and pears
over the same period — partly to satisfy modern tastes.
The study comes amid increasing government concern at the degradation of the British
diet and a surge in nutrition- related diseases such as obesity and diabetes, which some
fear will overwhelm the National Health Service.
“What we found is that since 1940 the minerals and other nutrients that help to make fruit
and vegetables good for you have been in startling decline,” said David Thomas, the
author of the paper.
He investigated how amounts of essential minerals such as iron, magnesium, potassium
and copper had changed in 64 fruits and vegetables — and found that in almost every
case they had fallen.
His research compared modern data with records taken from 1940, when government
scientists began systematically analysing hundreds of foodstuffs, initially to work out the
best diets for people with nutrition-related diseases such as diabetes.
It showed that, on average, vegetables had lost about half of their sodium and calcium
content, a quarter of their iron and 76% of their copper content. The nutrient levels of
fruits had also declined significantly with iron, copper and zinc all falling by up to 27%.
Thomas emphasised that fruit and vegetables were still far better than processed foods
but warned that continued falls in nutrient levels — and rises in sugar — would be a
problem.
Researchers have long suspected that dramatic changes in agriculture over the past 60
years could be changing the quality of the produce. However, the short-term benefits for
farmers such as greater productivity, consistent quality and a wider range of varieties
meant that these concerns attracted little attention.
Thomas, a mineralogist and fellow of the Geological Society, believed that the problem
could be more serious because many essential nutrients such as selenium and
molybdenum were not measured until quite recently.
His findings are supported by a study in the British Food Journal by Anne-Marie Mayer,
a nutrition researcher at Cornell University, who found similar changes in the nutritional
content of 20 fruits and 20 vegetables grown in Britain between the late 1930s and the
1990s.
“There were significant reductions in the levels of calcium, magnesium, copper and
sodium in vegetables and in magnesium, iron, copper and potassium in fruits,” Mayer
said.
“The greatest change was the reduction in copper in vegetables to less than one-fifth of
the old level.”
Both researchers link the decline to the intensification of farming. They suggest that
agricultural chemicals and techniques could be depriving plants of the minerals.
Further evidence for the rising sweetness of fruit is provided by American government
research, which found that apples can now comprise up to 15% sugar compared with 8%10% three decades ago. Similar increases have been reported in a variety of other species
including pineapples, pears and bananas.
Tom Sanders, professor of nutrition at King’s College London, said farming techniques
had changed to meet consumer demand. “For example, in apples this is partly due to new
varieties and partly to how they are picked and stored — so that they retain more sugar,”
he said. “As a rule, most fruit juice provides about 10 grams of sugar per 100 grams —
about the same as Coca-Cola.”
Such trends have prompted the British Dental Association to reverse its health advice on
apples. For years people were told that eating an apple was as good as brushing their
teeth — until research found that fruit acids softened tooth enamel and the accompanying
sugars promoted bacteria. Now dentists warn that consuming fruit and juice is a leading
cause of tooth decay in adults.
The findings follow Food Standards Agency (FSA) research which shows that Britons are
refusing to switch from diets high in fat, sugar and salt to more simple and natural foods.
The low levels of fruit and vegetables eaten by most British people make it all the more
important that such foods should be as nutritious as possible, said Thomas.
The effects of poor diet were illustrated last week when the FSA published research into
blood levels of vital nutrients.
Its National Diet and Nutrition Survey showed that the blood plasma of a quarter of
British men and a third of women was iron-deficient and that many people may also be
deficient in nutrients such as selenium and vitamins C and B12.
However, the FSA warns against drawing rapid conclusions on declining nutrient levels
or on the need to take supplements. It suspects that figures collected 50 years ago cannot
necessarily be compared with those of today because modern analytical techniques are
different. It is about to conduct its own nutrient research.
An FSA spokesman said: “Fruits and vegetables would not necessarily have been grown
in similar conditions, soils or times of the year, or be the same varieties.
“A varied and balanced diet, with plenty of fruit and vegetables and starchy foods, will
still provide all of the nutrients that a healthy individual requires.”
Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-993250,00.html
ANH Comment
David Thomas' research based on the collation of data in successive editions of
McCance and Widdowson's venerable 'Composition of Foods' show a fascinating
trend that is echoed in similar statistics derived from other parts of the world, most
notably in US Department of Agriculture data from the United States.
We are equally fascinated by the UK Food Standards Agency's approach to the
problem. It's all very well to say that detection methods will have changed over the
years, but generally they will have become more sensitive, so that very low
concentrations of nutrients many years ago may not have been able to be detected. This
means that any trend that shows a decline in nutrients (which is the case), is probably
an underestimate of the actual rate of decline!
Furthermore, to say, as the FSA does, that these declines might be associated with
different growing conditions or crop types is again a peculiar way of deflecting the
issue. It is of coursethe changes in growing condition and crop type that we perceive to
be at the heart of the problem, together with the effect of intensive cultivation over
many years. The shift to intensive cultivation, the use of narrow spectrum synthetic
fertilizers (rich primarily in nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, but devoid of many
of the trace elements) undoubtedly has contributed to the serious depletion that is
evident.
And, how to deal with it? Well the FSA seems very cautious about recommending
supplements despite its discovery of the poor micronutritional status of large sectors of
our population. We all appreciate that we need to see wide-scale agricultural reform
whereby organic and others forms of sustainable agriculture become the norm rather
than a fringe activity.
However, the Food Supplements Directive could lead to a ban of more than 50 of the
trace and ultra-trace elements that we know were present in the most fertile soils of
yesteryear.
ANH's legal challenge to the Directive, now referred to the European Court of Justice
following our victory in the High Court on 30 January 2004, will be essential to allow
access to these minerals and other innovative supplements.
For those outside of Europe, please appreciate that the EU Food Supplements
Directive is the likely template for global harmonisation of dietary supplements under
Codex Alimentarius. For those in the US, remember that the US will have only a single
vote while the EU will effectively be able to cast 25 votes in a single block vote. And we
know where the European Commission wants to go with this...
Please act now and help us raise the funds required for us to bring our top EU lawyers
to the European Court of Justice where they can plead thepowerful case we have
developed over the last year. Please help usbring another major victory for health
freedom - this time with global consequences.We estimate that the cost of this next
action will be £200,000 (€293,000 or US$374,000).
Thank you in anticipation of your continued support.
Date: 09-Feb-04
Hi-tech crops are bad for the brain by Geoffrey Lean, Environment Correspondent,
Independent, April 23, 2000
"Hi-tech crops are bad for the brain"
Geoffrey Lean
Environment Correspondent
Independent
April 23, 2000
"Miracle" crops, hailed as the answer to global famine, are contributing to
widespread brain impairment in the developing world, a new report concludes. It
says that the high-yielding rice and wheat varieties that brought about the muchheralded "Green Revolution" are among a range of environmental factors
undermining human intelligence.
The study, which looks at environmental threats to human intelligence, is part of the
£15m Global Environmental Change Programme, financed by Britain's Economic
and Social Research Council. It is published tomorrow. It concludes that a deadly
combination of soil erosion, pollution and inadequate diet is affecting the intelligence
of millions of people, with effects ranging from severe intellectual disabilities to
"sub-clinical decline" in whole populations.
The Green Revolution crops, introduced in the late 1960s and early 1970s, produce
several times as much grain as the traditional varieties they replaced, and they
spread rapidly. They enabled India to double its wheat crop in seven years,
dramatically increasing food supplies and averting widely predicted famine.
But the report says that the new crops, unlike their predecessors, fail to take up
minerals such as iron and zinc from the soil. So even as people consumed more
calories, their intake of these key "micronutrients" fell. "High-yielding Green
Revolution crops were introduced in poorer countries to overcome famine," the
report says. "But these are now blamed for causing intellectual deficits, because they
do not take up essential micronutrients." The report is written by Dr Christopher
Williams, a research fellow with the Global Environmental Change Programme.
Using already published UN data he has calculated that 1.5 billion people one
quarter of the earth's population are affected by "Green Revolution iron
deficiency". He claims the condition impairs the learning ability of more than half of
India's schoolchildren. He concludes that, eventually, the evolution of the brain
could go into reverse as humans develop more extensive digestive systems to cope
with the lack of nutrients sacrificing intelligence in the process.
The professor's sources include the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United
Nations which has compiled evidence that the amount of the metal in people's diets
fell throughout most of the Third World in the 1970s and 1980s, making iron
deficiency the only form of malnutrition to increase over the two decades. The
greatest drops in the intake of iron took place in South and South East Asia, the very
areas where the Green Revolution was most successful. Other UN figures show that
half the world's pregnant women are anaemic, because they have too little iron,
putting both them and their babies at risk. The condition is thought to be responsible
for 200,000 deaths a year. And the World Bank reckons that deficiencies of iron,
iodine, and vitamin A together wipe out some 5 per cent of the GDP of developing
countries, a crippling blow to poor economies.
** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed for research and educational purposes only. **