[refurb]

National Geographic has really gone to crap.

”One of the largest scientific studies to draw attention to this issue was published in the December 2004 issue of the Journal of the American College of Nutrition.”

And what did that paper conclude?

“Conclusion: We suggest that any real declines are generally most easily explained by changes in cultivated varieties between 1950 and 1999, in which there may be trade-offs between yield and nutrient content.”

Nothing about “loss of mother earth’s soil nutrients”. But that wouldn’t sell ads would it?

[andbberger]

not like they had to reach for straws to write that story anyway - there is an interesting, nuanced narrative to be told on the haber-bosch processes influence on food prices and the practices of industrial agriculture, particularly tilling. we used to grow food in soil, now we grow it in dirt.

[pessimizer]

That was the first study mentioned, solely for the purpose of confirming nutrition loss and not for the authors' speculations about causes. The next study was the Australian one cited to confirm protein loss.

If you want to know where they drew the statements about causes from, you might check the next three studies which, like the first two, are directly cited and linked within the text of the article.

But that probably wouldn't make a good comment, though.

[refurb]

"and not for the authors' speculations about causes"

I'm sorry? You're taking NatGeo's word over the people who did the research because, "the authors were just speculating?"

That's not how research works. That's not how any of this works.