| https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/environment-and-conserv... "Mounting evidence from multiple scientific studies shows that many fruits, vegetables, and grains grown today carry less protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin, and vitamin C than those that were grown decades ago." "Nutrient decline “is going to leave our bodies with fewer of the components they need to mount defences against chronic diseases—it’s going to undercut the value of food as preventive medicine,” says David R. Montgomery, a professor of geomorphology at the University of Washington in Seattle and co-author with Anne Biklé of What Your Food Ate." "Even for people who avoid processed foods and prioritise fresh produce, this trend means that “what our grandparents ate was healthier than what we’re eating today,” says Kristie Ebi, an expert in climate change and health at the University of Washington in Seattle." A study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15637215/ "Objectives: To evaluate possible changes in USDA nutrient content data for 43 garden crops between 1950 and 1999 and consider their potential causes." "Results: As a group, the 43 foods show apparent, statistically reliable declines (R < 1) for 6 nutrients (protein, Ca, P, Fe, riboflavin and ascorbic acid) [...] Declines in the medians range from 6% for protein to 38% for riboflavin." "Conclusions: 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." |
When plants have higher CO2 they increase the synthesis of carbohydrates, sugars and starches, and they decrease concentrations of protein and nutrients.
This details someone of these details, including references to some of the studies you linked.
Worth noting is that if GMO varieties had stark differences in nutrient content, it would be noted at the time and likely common knowledge by now. It doesn't seem to fill the nutrient gap though, and some varieties have improved nutrition profiles (though not sufficient to close the gap).
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/vanishing-...
I'm not particularly pro-GMO; I think we'd be better off investing more in farming and our food in the first place. There are some things we think should be cheap in life, and food is one. We went from spending our days finding, processing, and eating food to expecting 20lb of potatoes to cost a few dollars, or less than an hour of work. There's something wrong with that picture in my mind. Even if we don't want to be farming in our day-to-day lives, I think this requires a greater investment than we're giving it.
I'd say the same about education. I think it simply costs more and deserves more than we give it, and we pay the price for skimping. Totally different topic, but, we want to have the best things in life for less all the time when maybe we should want to invest correspondingly to its importance. Perhaps farmers (and teachers) should still be some of the most important people in society. In the case of farmers, GMOs might boost yields and they might be a good investment, but they can't actually replace the farmers.
Edit: There is a decent summary from Veritasium on YouTube as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yl_K2Ata6XY (This link contains some good sources in the description as well)