There’s a new trope in town, a common mantra on webpages critical conventional agriculture: today’s fruits and veggies aren’t like grandma’s. They’ve all been wrecked by genetic breeding and pesticide use, and all the nutrition and taste are gone, gone, gone.
It’s another overwrought claim in the quiver of contemporary anti-ag sentiments.
The term “nutrient density” is a screaming alarm bell in social media, especially in discourse about the dangers of ‘industrial’ food and farming. According to the finest nutrition experts that YouTube U and the Poison Ivy League can graduate, our fruits and vegetables are killing us all, loaded with death while being simultaneously devoid of nutrition. It’s GMOs, GMOs, GMOs.
Except the organic ones, of course.
There is some truth to these claims, but not what the detractors of modern agriculture believe. Supermarket fresh food staples are now huge and look luscious, but nutrition has not grown apace. It’s gone down slightly since the late 1940s, because of tradeoffs; farmers have changed what they cultivate to address a graver issue: hunger.
During the last three-quarters of a century, farm production has tripled. Only one in 20 people suffer from severe food insecurity, a tiny fraction of what it was after World War II. Thank you Big Ag.
In a world where 35,000 people die each day from malnutrition, complaining about cheap and abundant access to safe food has become a national pastime.
Those with full bellies, tickling the keyboards of social and traditional media, annually celebrate the spring arrival of The Dirty Dozen — a groundhog day distortion in which willful misinterpretation of government data is weaponized to fuel suspicion and contempt for the fruits and vegetables most associated with long-term health.
But most folks know these foods are cornerstones of a healthy diet. The risk from trace fractions of a speck of farm chemicals is insignificant compared to the benefit from abundant nutrients in fruits and vegetables.
It is widely accepted that vegetables and fruits are concentrated plant-borne capsules of the vitamins, minerals, fiber, and secondary metabolites that contribute to a healthy diet. This means agriculture’s critics must conjure up new demons.
The internet swells with claims that modern crop varieties and farming practices have stripped our most nutritious foods of their intrinsic value, leaving contemporary fruits and vegetables as empty vessels, wall-to-wall with the aforementioned toxins and misery. These sentiments are shared widely by those whose last harvest was from the produce aisle shelf into a shopping cart.
Are foods today just ghosts of their previous selves? How much does nutrient density actually matter? Maybe it’s time to revise our thinking.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.
SIGN UP
Does nutrient density translate into better nutrition?
What is nutrient density? It is typically defined as the quantity of vitamins and minerals per dietary calorie.
Let’s talk about some hypothetical strawberries. The first is high in sugars with 500 mg of vitamin C. Another strawberry has 500 mg of vitamin C and low sugar. Both deliver the same amount of vitamin C. The consumer that tastes the sweeter strawberry is more likely to eat two, three, four… increasing the effective amount of vitamin C delivered from the less nutrient dense fruit. It looks and tastes better.
Density is also a function of mass against volume. Consumers and farmers demanded larger fruits and vegetables, and breeders were happy to oblige. Fruit size increases from greater expansion, meaning the difference is due to more water. More water means bigger size and less nutrient density. But each piece of fruit has the same amount of nutrients, and the consumer is more likely to choose the larger, more attractive fruit. Again, the less nutrient dense fruit delivers available nutrition better.
Which strawberry would you prefer? Which one is most likely to deliver its nutrition? Fruits of days gone by typically are smaller versions of modern improved varieties. Yes, nutrient density is usually higher, but does that mean it is more nutritious? Does it mean it is more likely to be eaten?
And there is no question that the amount of protein, oils, carbohydrates and other important compounds have increased significantly in our major agronomic crops. Corn is a great example. For instance, today’s hybrids contain 30% more protein, which translates into superior animal feed in animals bred for greater feed conversion into lean tissue. All of this decreases the cost of food.
Flavor, color and size matter
The most nutrient dense food doesn’t matter unless it is consumed, and more consumption comes from sensory appeal. A colleague of mine is an esteemed strawberry breeder. At a conference he was excited to tell me about his newest variety—a strawberry with 15% more antioxidants. It took about 20 years to create, but he waxed on proudly about his creation, and how it may have great impacts on human health.
And here comes the wet blanket.
“My lab identified two genes that play a significant role in flavors and aromas that consumers like,” I said, “They will eat five of mine for every one of yours, that’s about 500% more antioxidants!”
He co*cked his head to the side like my dog does when I give him the “sit” command in Spanish.
Because I was correct. The flavors, aromas, colors, and fruit size created by modern plant breeders can help ensure consumers actually enjoy the nutrition within.
Shelf-life matters
Some of the most profound advances in produce access have come from studies in post-harvest fruit physiology. In other words, what happens after that fruit or vegetable is picked? A nutrient dense fruit or vegetable that can’t be shipped or that breaks down before the consumer delivers zero nutrition. A less dense product of modern genetic improvement may have superior attributes for shipping and postharvest decay or spoilage.
Any new potential commercial variety is carefully evaluated for how to get it to the consumer in attractive condition, and last long upon storage. These attributes help increase the likelihood that nutrition will find its consumer, expanding geographical access, decreasing price, and limiting food waste.
Many nutrients decrease rapidly upon harvest as part of metabolism. For instance, folate levels drop precipitously in tomatoes or strawberries after harvest. Practices that decrease the time in the supply chain and new technologies that monitor logistics and produce quality during shipping help deliver better nutrition to the consumer.
Access and price matter
There’s a certain hubris in demeaning nutrient density when many don’t enjoy access to any fresh fruits and vegetables at all. In many parts of rural America or city food deserts, the closest thing to fresh produce might be an aging banana or weird onion in a convenience store, languishing in a basket near the register next to the moon pies.
If it is not available, and affordable, then nutrient density does not matter.
Innovation matters
Critics can certainly point to the obvious downfalls of contemporary size, shelf life, and supply chains. From the weird pink tomatoes on a fast-food sub sandwich to the sometimes-bland berries in the plastic clamshell, there is room for improvement. However, consumer-oriented priorities have led modern plant breeders to focus on making fruits and vegetables more desirable, and the new tools of gene editing, genomic selection, and other techniques promise to make improvement even faster, leading to the next generation of outstanding produce.
Modern breeding priorities already have achieved improvements in flavor, aroma, yield, and post-harvest quality that brings quality produce to the consumer at an affordable price.
Nutrition in public health matters
The best exercise activity is the one we are most likely to do; the best “superfoods” are the fresh fruits, vegetables, eggs, dairy and meat products that you actually want to eat and are available and affordable when you want to eat them.
No necessary tension between modern ag and nutrition
If nutrient density was so critical to human health, we would be on a strict diet of kale, watercress, and turnip greens. The real discussion should not be about nutrient density but nutrient diversity. Instead of trashing modern ag as producers of nutrient-free poison, those really concerned about consumer health should recommend eating a broad array of diverse fruits and vegetables, as close to fresh as they can get. The focus should be to attract consumers to the best offerings from the safest, most abundant food supply in human history. The goals should be working to expand access and affordability, supporting local production, and encouraging less food waste.
Imagine if critics of modern agricultural production stopped focusing on nutrient density and turned their energies to increasing food production that actually gets nutrients into people. That’s where nutrition matters. Imagine the impact on human health if social media promoted the Delicious Dozen?
Kevin M. Folta is a professor, keynote speaker, and podcast host. Follow Professor Folta on X@kevinfolta
