[somenameforme]

I'm sure you'd agree that what they claim scientists say gives absolutely no mention to the conclusion of the first paper they chose to reference. How do you interpret this? Let's check out the 2nd paper [1]. It seems in many ways even worse than the first.

It not only also offers significant weighting to breeds, but ultimately even rejects the idea of a temporal decline in nutritional value! "Based on the available limited data, and due to variations in sampling, analytical techniques and likely differences in growing location and season, no definitive temporal trends could be established."

Basically the observed differences could be easily explained by other simple factors than a mysterious decline, including breed selection. Grow less nutritious crops, get less nutritious food.

[1] - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8750575/