ArticlePDF Available

Historical changes in the mineral content of fruits and vegetables



Implies that a balance of the different essential nutrients is necessary for maintaining health. The eight minerals that are usually analysed are Na, K, Ca, Mg, P, Fe, Cu, Zn. A comparison of the mineral content of 20 fruits and 20 vegetables grown in the 1930s and the 1980s (published in the UK Government’s Composition of Foods tables) shows several marked reductions in mineral content. Shows that there are statistically significant reductions in the levels of Ca, Mg, Cu and Na in vegetables and Mg, Fe, Cu and K in fruit. The only mineral that showed no significant differences over the 50 year period was P. The water content increased significantly and dry matter decreased significantly in fruit. Indicates that a nutritional problem associated with the quality of food has developed over those 50 years. The changes could have been caused by anomalies of measurement or sampling, changes in the food system, changes in the varieties grown or changes in agricultural practice. In conclusion recommends that the causes of the differences in mineral content and their effect on human health be investigated.
[ 207 ]
British Food Journal
99/6 [1997] 207–211
© MCB University Press
[ISSN 0007-070X]
Historical changes in the mineral content of fruits
and vegetables
Anne-Marie Mayer
Independent Researcher, Devon, UK
Implies that a balance of the
different essential nutrients is
necessary for maintaining
health. The eight minerals
that are usually analysed are
Na, K, Ca, Mg, P, Fe, Cu, Zn.
A comparison of the mineral
content of 20 fruits and 20
vegetables grown in the
1930s and the 1980s (pub-
lished in the UK Government’s
Composition of Foods
shows several marked reduc-
tions in mineral content.
Shows that there are statisti-
cally significant reductions in
the levels of Ca, Mg, Cu and
Na in vegetables and Mg, Fe,
Cu and K in fruit. The only
mineral that showed no sig-
nificant differences over the
50 year period was P. The
water content increased
significantly and dry matter
decreased significantly in
fruit. Indicates that a nutri-
tional problem associated
with the quality of food has
developed over those 50
years. The changes could
have been caused by anom-
alies of measurement or
sampling, changes in the food
system, changes in the vari-
eties grown or changes in
agricultural practice. In
conclusion recommends that
the causes of the differences
in mineral content and their
effect on human health be
The purpose of this paper is to address the
question: has the nutritional quality (particu-
larly essential mineral content) of fruits and
vegetables changed this century during the
period of changes in the food system and
modernization in agriculture? The UK Gov-
ernment’s Composition of Foods data provides
a source of data at two time points separated
by approximately 50 years; by comparing this
data I attempt to answer this question.
The composition of foods tables
The first edition of the UK Chemical Composi-
tion of Foods[1] arose from a need to provide
investigators with information for a wide
range of foods consumed in the UK. The data
on fruit and vegetables were compiled from
previous studies of the composition of
foods[2]. Unfortunately, these reports were
destroyed in a fire during the Second World
War and have been out of print ever since.
This means that exact dates or details of the
analyses are not known.
Since the first edition there have been four
subsequent updates of the full Composition of
Foods tables. It wasn’t until the fifth edition,
however, that the tables included substantial
revisions of the original data on fruits and
vegetables that were listed in the first edition.
The fifth edition of The Composition of
Foods[3] addressed a need for updates of the
old data. The introductory section states “The
nutritional value of many of the more tradi-
tional foods has changed. This can happen
when there are new varieties or new sources
of supply for raw materials; with new
farming practices which can affect the nutri-
tional value of both plant and animal
The updated compositions of fruits and
vegetables are based on analytical studies
commissioned by the Ministry of Agricul-
ture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF). The sam-
ples were designed to reflect the usual pattern
of consumption in the UK at the time of analy-
sis. The tables are not designed to provide
comparative historical data – the fruit and
vegetables would not necessarily have been
grown in similar conditions, soils, or times of
year or be of the same varieties. The data
were also provided by mixed sources (see
below). More controlled data would have been
better, but this data nevertheless provides a
good starting point for the comparison.
The updated vegetable analyses were car-
ried out by the Institute for Food Research
between 1984 and 1987 and have been used for
all the vegetable mineral data. The updated
fruit analyses were based largely on data
from the Laboratory of the Government
Chemist (LGC). Most of the twenty fruits
listed, however, include data from other
sources for one or more of the minerals. For
instance, the entry for cooking apples makes
use of data from the LGC for P, Fe, Cu and Zn.
The values for Na, K, Ca, Mg are an average of
LGC data and the old Chemical Composition of
foods data from 1936. Table I lists sources of
data for all the twenty vegetables and fruits
that were selected for the comparison.
In this paper I have examined only raw
fruits and vegetables. This has been done to
exclude differences caused by changes in
methods of processing. The updated analyses
provide an opportunity to compare the
changes in purchased raw food over approxi-
mately a 50-year period.
I analysed twenty vegetables and fruits using
two versions of the Composition of Foods
tables[3,4]. I used the 1960 version for the old
data because it was easily available and
includes the same analyses as the first and
second editions. It also reports the results to
one more significant digit than the fourth
edition. The fruits and vegetables selected
had to meet the following criteria:
The old data had been updated for the fifth
edition of the food tables. Some fruits have
also been included when old and new data
were averaged as outlined in Table I.
The descriptions of the analysed portion of
the food were identical. For example, both
samples were peeled.
Only raw samples were included.
The food was not dried or rehydrated and
dry pulses were not included.
The food was not a condiment (e.g. horse-
radish root).
[ 208 ]
Anne-Marie Mayer
Historical changes in the
mineral content of fruits and
British Food Journal
99/6 [1997] 207–211
A total of 20 fruits and 20 vegetables satisfied
these criteria and these are listed with their
mineral contents at both time points in Table
I calculated the logarithm of the ratios
(new:old) for each mineral for each fruit and
vegetable and from these computed the geo-
metric means. Students t-test was used to test
whether each mean ratio was significantly
different from 1. The logs of the ratios were
used for this test.
The average ratios and results of the t-test
are listed in Table II. A ratio of 0.81 for
Table I
Sources of data for
The Composition of Foods
Fruits Sources and dates of data
Apricots LGC 85-86 except Na: average of literature
Bananas LGC 85-86 except K, Zn: average of literature
Blackberries LGC 85-86
Cherries LGC 85-86
Cooking apples LGC 85-86 except Na, K, Ca, Mg: average of LGC, MW4
Eating apples LGC 85-86 except Na, K, Cu: average of literature
Grapefruit LGC 85-86 except Na, K, Ca: average MW4, USDA 86, literature
Grapes LGC 85-86 except Na, K, Zn: average of literature
Lemons MW4, USDA, literature.
Melon cantaloupe LGC 85-86
Nectarines LGC 85-86 except K, Mg: literature
Oranges LGC 85-86 except K: literature
Passion fruit Literature sources
Peaches LGC 85-86 except K: literature
Pears LGC 90
Pineapple LGC 85-86, MW4, literature
Plums Recalculated from stewed plums
Raspberries LGC 85-86
Rhubarb Average of USDA 81, MW4
Strawberries LGC 85-86
LGC Laboratory of the Government Chemist
McCance and Widdowson’s Composition of Foods
4th edition (1936 data)[6]
USDA United States Department of Agriculture data
First to third editions: The data used in the first four editions of the
Chemical Composition of Foods
were compiled
from the 1936 data[2]
Fourth edition: The data were compiled from the 1936 data with a few additions from the literature. For example Zn
values were added from literature sources
Fifth edition: The data for vegetables in the fifth edition were all taken from the Institute of Food Research between
1984 and 1987. The data for fruits were obtained from mixed sources
Table II
Averagearatio of mineral content (new:old) of 20 vegetables and 20 fruitsb
Ca Mg Fe Cu Na K P Dry matter H
Vegetables ratio 0.81 0.65 0.78 0.19 0.57 0.86 0.94 0.97 1.00
0.014* 0.000* 0.088 0.000** 0.013* 0.090 0.487 0.53 0.872
Fruits ratio 1.00 0.89 0.68 0.64 0.90 0.80 0.99 0.91 1.02
value 0.957 0.016* 0.002** 0.006** 0.561 0.000** 0.903 0.023* 0.006**
Geometric mean, the antilogarithm of the mean of the logarithm of the ratio of 1980s to 1930s values
See text for data sources and Table III for vegetables and fruits included. Analyses of Mn, Se and I were
only added in the 1991 edition. Zn was only added in the 1978 edition. S was omitted from the 1991
tables although it was analysed in previous editions. C1 was not revised in many cases for the 1991
edition. For these reasons comparisons were only possible for the above 7 minerals, water and dry matter.
Probability that average of logarithm of new:old is statistically different from 0 by
-test. (This is
equivalent to the ratios being different from 1)
* = significant at the 5 per cent level
** = significant at the 2 per cent level
[ 209 ]
Anne-Marie Mayer
Historical changes in the
mineral content of fruits and
British Food Journal
99/6 [1997] 207–211
calcium, for example, means that over an
approximate 50-year period the average con-
tent of calcium in vegetables has declined to
81 per cent of the original level.
There were significant reductions in the
levels of Ca, Mg, Cu and Na, in vegetables
and Mg, Fe, Cu and K in fruits. The greatest
change was the reduction of copper levels in
vegetables to less than one-fifth of the old
level. The only mineral that showed no
significant differences over the 50-year
period was P. Water increased significantly
Table III
Mineral content of vegetables and fruit (mg/100mg)
Dry Dry
Ca Ca Mg Mg Fe Fe Cu Cu Na Na K K P P Matter Matter H
O% H
old new old new old new old new old new old new old new old new old new
Beetroot 24.9 20.0 15.0 11.0 0.37 1.0 0.07 0.02 84.0 66.0 303.0 380.0 32.1 51 12.9 12.9 87.1 87.1
Brussels 28.7 26.0 19.6 8.0 0.66 0.7 0.05 0.02 9.6 6.0 515.0 450.0 78.4 77.0 15.7 15.7 84.3 84.3
Cabbage – winter 72.3 68.0 16.8 6.0 1.23 0.6 N 0.02 28.4 3.0 240.0 270.0 64.1 46.0 9.4 10.3 90.6 89.7
Carrots – old 48.0 25.0 12.0 3.0 0.56 0.3 0.08 0.02 95.0 25.0 224.0 170.0 21.0 15.0 10.2 10.2 89.8 89.8
Celery 52.2 41.0 9.60 5.0 0.61 0.4 0.11 0.01 137.0 60.0 278.0 320.0 31.7 21.0 6.5 4.9 93.5 95.1
Lettuce 25.9 28.0 9.7 6.0 0.73 0.70 0.15 0.01 3.1 3.0 208 220 30.2 28.0 4.8 4.9 95.2 95.1
Mushroom 2.9 6.0 13.2 9.0 1.03 0.6 0.64 0.72 9.1 5.0 467.0 320.0 136.0 80.0 8.5 7.4 91.5 92.6
Mustard and cress 65.9 50.0 27.3 22.0 4.54 1.0 0.12 0.01 19.0 19.0 337.0 110.0 65.5 33.0 7.5 4.7 92.5 95.3
Onions 31.2 25.0 7.6 4.0 0.30 0.30 0.08 0.05 10.2 3.0 137.0 160.0 30.0 30.0 7.2 11.0 92.8 89.0
Parsley 325.0 200.0 52.2 23.0 8.00 7.7 0.52 0.03 33.0 33.0 1,080.0760.0 128.0 64.0 21.3 16.9 78.7 83.1
Parsnips 54.8 41.0 22.4 23.0 0.57 0.6 0.10 0.05 16.5 10.0 342.0 450.0 69.0 74.0 17.5 20.7 82.5 79.3
Peas 15.1 21.0 30.2 34.0 1.88 2.8 0.23 0.05 0.5 1.0 342.0 330.0 104.0 130.0 21.5 25.4 78.5 74.6
Potatoes – old 7.7 5.0 24.2 17.0 0.75 0.4 0.15 0.08 6.5 7.0 568.0 360.0 40.3 37.0 24.2 21.0 75.8 79.0
Pumpkin 39.0 29.0 8.2 10.0 0.39 0.4 0.08 0.02 1.3 0.0 309.0 130.0 19.4 19.0 5.3 5.0 94.7 95.0
Runner beans 33.3 33.0 23.0 19.0 0.74 1.2 0.09 0.02 6.5 0.0 276.0 220.0 25.9 34.0 8.4 8.8 91.6 91.2
Radishes 43.7 19.0 11.4 5.0 1.88 0.6 0.13 0.01 59.0 11.0 240.0 240.0 27.1 20.0 6.7 4.6 93.3 95.4
Swedes 56.4 53.0 10.8 9.0 0.35 0.1 0.05 0.01 52.2 15.0 136.0 170.0 19.0 40.0 8.6 8.8 91.4 91.2
Tomatoes 13.3 7.0 11.0 7.0 0.43 0.5 0.10 0.01 2.8 9.0 288.0 250.0 21.3 24.0 6.6 6.9 93.4 93.1
Turnips 58.8 48.0 7.4 8.0 0.37 0.2 0.07 0.01 58.0 15.0 238.0 280.0 27.5 41.0 6.7 8.8 93.3 91.2
Watercress 222.0 170.0 17.0 15.0 1.62 2.2 0.14 0.01 60.0 49.0 314.0 230.0 52.0 52.0 8.9 7.5 91.1 92.5
Apricots 17.2 15.0 12.3 11.0 0.37 0.5 0.12 0.06 N 2.0 320.0 270.0 21.3 20.0 13.4 12.8 86.6 87.2
Bananas 6.8 6.0 41.9 34.0 0.41 0.3 0.16 0.10 1.2 1.0 348.0 400.0 28.1 28.0 29.3 24.9 70.7 75.1
Blackberries 63.3 41.0 29.5 23.0 0.85 0.7 0.12 0.11 3.7 2.0 208.0 160.0 23.8 31.0 18.0 15.0 82.0 85.0
Cherries 15.9 13.0 9.6 10.0 0.38 0.2 0.07 0.07 2.8 1.0 275 210 16.8 21.0 18.5 17.2 81.5 82.8
Cooking apples 3.6 4.0 2.9 3.0 0.29 0.1 0.09 0.02 21.0 2.0 123.0 88.0 16.2 7.0 14.4 12.3 85.6 87.7
Eating apples 3.6 3.0 4.7 3.0 0.29 0.1 0.11 0.02 2.4 3.0 118.0 100.0 7.7 8.0 15.7 14.6 84.3 85.4
Grapes 11.7 13.0 5.3 7.0 0.34 0.3 0.09 0.12 1.7 2.0 283.0 210.0 19.0 18.0 20.0 18.2 80.0 81.8
Grapefruit 17.1 23.0 10.4 9.0 0.26 0.1 0.06 0.02 1.4 3.0 234.0 200.0 15.6 20.0 9.3 11.0 90.7 89.0
Lemons 107.0 85.0 11.6 12.0 0.35 0.5 0.26 0.26 6.0 5.0 163.0 150.0 20.7 18.0 14.8 13.7 85.2 86.3
Melon cantaloupe 19.1 20.0 20.1 11.0 0.81 0.3 0.04 0.00 13.5 8.0 319.0 210.0 30.4 13.0 6.4 7.9 93.6 92.1
Nectarines 3.9 7.0 12.6 10.0 0.46 0.4 0.06 0.06 9.1 1.0 268.0 170.0 23.9 22.0 19.8 11.1 80.2 88.9
Oranges 41.3 47.0 12.9 10.0 0.33 0.1 0.07 0.05 2.9 5.0 197 150 23.7 21.0 13.9 13.9 86.1 86.1
Passion fruit 15.6 11.0 38.6 29.0 1.12 1.3 0.12 N 28.4 19.0 348.0 200.0 54.2 64.0 26.7 25.1 73.3 74.9
Peaches 4.8 7.0 7.9 9.0 0.38 0.4 0.05 0.06 2.7 1.0 259.0 160.0 18.5 22.0 13.8 11.1 86.2 88.9
Pears 7.5 11.0 7.2 7.0 0.21 0.2 0.15 0.06 2.3 3.0 128.0 150.0 9.7 13.0 16.8 16.2 83.2 83.8
Pineapple 12.2 18.0 16.9 16.0 0.42 0.2 0.08 0.11 1.6 2.0 247.0 160.0 7.8 10.0 15.7 13.5 84.3 86.5
Plums 12.4 13.0 7.6 8.0 0.33 0.4 0.10 0.10 1.9 2.0 192.0 240.0 15.4 23.0 15.4 16.1 84.6 83.9
Raspberries 40.7 25.0 21.6 19.0 1.21 0.7 0.21 0.10 2.5 3.0 224.0 170.0 28.7 31.0 16.8 13.0 83.2 87.0
Rhubarb 103.0 93.0 13.6 13.0 0.40 0.3 0.13 0.07 2.2 3.0 425.0 290.0 21.0 17.0 5.8 5.8 94.2 94.2
Strawberries 22.0 16.0 11.7 10.0 0.71 0.4 0.13 0.07 1.5 6.0 161.0 160.0 23.0 24.0 11.1 10.5 88.9 89.5
Notes: Old:
Composition of Foods
3rd edition (1930s data)[4]
Composition of Foods
5th edition (1980s data)[3]
N: No data available
Ca, Mg, Fe, Na, K and P were reported to one fewer significant digits in the 1991 tables.
[ 210 ]
Anne-Marie Mayer
Historical changes in the
mineral content of fruits and
British Food Journal
99/6 [1997] 207–211
and dry matter decreased significantly in
What role do the minerals play in human
Minerals all have several roles in human
biochemistry and physiology and all the
minerals mentioned above are essential in
the diet of humans. Many are co-factors for
different enzymes and we are dependent on
them for energy efficiency, fertility, mental
stability and immunity. Although fruits and
vegetables generally supply a small propor-
tion of total mineral dietary requirements,
the reductions could be important to some
groups so the causes of the reductions need
investigating. It is not clear what is causing
the reductions. There are several possibilities
and these are outlined below.
Are the reductions anomalies of
measurement or sampling?
The earlier analyses of some minerals may
have been inaccurate compared to modern
analytical methods. Elsie Widdowson, how-
ever, notes in the introduction to The Compo-
sition of Foods[3] that “those methods were no
less accurate than the modern automated
ones, but they took a much longer time”. If
this is true, we should be able to rely on the
consistency of the analytical methods. How-
ever, there has been much debate over this
question and no clear conclusion has been
The methods of sampling fruit and vegeta-
bles were designed to reflect the usual choice
of foods at the time of the research. There
could be differences in the methods of sam-
pling. It is not possible to compare the details
of the methods used because the original data
are no longer available. Also, the use of mixed
sources of data for the 1991 edition of The
Composition of Foods[3] is an unknown factor
and possible source of bias. It is not known
whether the first edition of the Chemical
Composition of Foods[1] used similar methods
of data compilation.
Food system changes
In the past sixty years the food supply system
has changed considerably. For instance we
now eat more “out of season” and imported
foods grown on a wide variety of soils from
many different countries. Some of the fruits
and vegetables have always been imported
but many of those previously grown in the
UK are also now imported. Storage and ripen-
ing systems have changed. Greenhouse crops
are “brought on” more quickly now and often
grown in soil-less mixes. Could these prac-
tices have changed the composition of fruits
and vegetables?
The varieties of plants cultivated now has
also changed. Nowadays we practise sophisti-
cated plant breeding and have bred selec-
tively for qualities that will suit the demands
of, for example, high yield, post-harvest
handling qualities and cosmetic appeal. Also
we select varieties that will respond well to
the methods of agriculture currently
employed. Specific breeding to enhance nutri-
tional quality is rare.
Agricultural practices
During the early 1930s agricultural chemicals
were hardly used. Manure and compost were
the main fertilizers used. After the war prac-
tices changed and farmers became more
reliant on the use of fertilizers and other
agrochemicals as well as heavy farm machin-
Agriculture which relies on NPK fertilizers
and pesticides, that adds little organic matter
to the soil and that alternates between soil
compaction and ploughing, could produce
food depleted in minerals. These practices
affect the structure, chemistry and ecology of
the soil in ways that could affect the availabil-
ity of minerals to plants and hence the min-
eral content of crops. For instance, mycor-
rhizal fungi have a symbiotic relationship
with plant roots in which sugars and miner-
als are exchanged. The fungi are reduced by
high levels of available phosphate and nitro-
gen, low pH, waterlogging or excessive
Another factor could be the differing levels
of contamination of crops with residues of
pesticides containing high concentrations of
minerals – for example Bordeaux mixture
contains high levels of copper and was widely
used as a pesticide.
In principle, modern agriculture could be
reducing the mineral content of fruit and
vegetables. We need to find out if this, or any
of the other explanations described above, are
significant factors in practice. Considering
the magnitude of the reductions this matter
deserves urgent attention.
The following questions arise from the
Are the data reliable?
Is the apparent decline caused by dimin-
ished levels of minerals in the soil, poor
availability, the choice of cultivars or other
changes in the food system?
To what extent is the decline in minerals of
importance to human nutrition?
Are other countries experiencing similar
Are there similar reductions in other
crops – such as cereals?
[ 211 ]
Anne-Marie Mayer
Historical changes in the
mineral content of fruits and
British Food Journal
99/6 [1997] 207–211
Are other minerals of equal importance to
human nutrition, such as Se and Cr, also
Are other nutrients – for example, vita-
mins – also reduced?
Are some cultivars producing crops that
are lower in minerals than others?
Does soil contamination – past or present –
affect the mineral content of crops?
To answer these questions existing literature
needs to be reviewed and further research
carried out along the suggested lines;
an analysis of the effect of the latest Com-
position of Foods data on usual diets;
compilation of a database of historical data
from different countries, different time
scales and different crops;
detailed and controlled studies of soils and
the effects of methods of agriculture on
plant nutrition and crop mineral content;
studies of the mineral content of fruit and
vegetables grown using different cultivars
in common use now and 60 years ago;
regular monitoring of food composition
with details on cultivars, methods of grow-
ing and soils.
1 McCance, R.A. and Widdowson, E.M., The
Chemical Composition of Foods, Medical
Research Council Special Report Series No.
235, HMSO, London, 1940.
2 McCance, R.A., Widdowson, E.M. and
Shackleton, L.R.B., The Nutritive Value of
Fruits, Vegetables and Nuts, Medical Research
Council Special Report Series No. 213, HMSO,
London, 1936.
3 Holland, B., Welch, A.A., Unwin, I.D., Buss,
D.H., Paul, A.A. and Southgate, D.A.T.,
McCance and Widdowson’s Composition of
Foods fifth edition, Royal Society of Chemistry
and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Food, HMSO, London, 1991.
4 McCance, R.A. and Widdowson, E.M., The
Composition of Foods third edition, Medical
Research Council Special Report series No.
213, HMSO, London, 1960.
5 Killham, K., Soil Ecology, Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, Cambridge, 1994.
6 Paul, A.A. and Southgate, D.A.T., McCance and
Widdowson’s Composition of Foods fourth
edition, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Food and Medical Research Council, HMSO,
London, 1978.
... Mayer [26] 1997 United Kingdom ...
... Three studies [19,26,35] investigated changes in the food composition of fruits and vegetables between different versions of FCDBs. All three used geometric means of each of the nutrients and compared them using the Student's t-test; however, only Davis et al. [19] adjusted for moisture content. ...
Full-text available
Evidence-based knowledge of the relationship between foods and nutrients is needed to inform dietary-based guidelines and policy. Proper and tailored statistical methods to analyse food composition databases (FCDBs) could assist in this regard. This review aims to collate the existing literature that used any statistical method to analyse FCDBs, to identify key trends and research gaps. The search strategy yielded 4238 references from electronic databases of which 24 fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Information on the objectives, statistical methods, and results was extracted. Statistical methods were mostly applied to group similar food items (37.5%). Other aims and objectives included determining associations between the nutrient content and known food characteristics (25.0%), determining nutrient co-occurrence (20.8%), evaluating nutrient changes over time (16.7%), and addressing the accuracy and completeness of databases (16.7%). Standard statistical tests (33.3%) were the most utilised followed by clustering (29.1%), other methods (16.7%), regression methods (12.5%), and dimension reduction techniques (8.3%). Nutrient data has unique characteristics such as correlated components, natural groupings, and a compositional nature. Statistical methods used for analysis need to account for this data structure. Our summary of the literature provides a reference for researchers looking to expand into this area.
... Specifically, data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) indicate that large portions of the population had total usual intakes (including both food and dietary supplement use) below the estimated average requirement (EAR) for vitamin D (74%), vitamin E (67%), calcium (39%), magnesium (46%), and others [49]. Not only are we consuming unhealthier food as a population, but the food we are consuming is less nutritionally dense than in previous generations [50][51][52][53][54]. A review by Davis and colleagues indicated that the content of six essential nutrients (protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin, and ascorbic acid) in 43 garden crops (primarily vegetables) has declined between 5 and 40% since the 1950s, thus raising another challenge in meeting our Foundational Nutritional needs [50]. ...
Full-text available
Human nutrition, and what can be considered “ideal” nutrition, is a complex, multi-faceted topic which many researchers and practitioners deliberate. While some attest that basic human nutrition is relatively understood, it is undeniable that a global nutritional problem persists. Many countries struggle with malnutrition or caloric deficits, while others encounter difficulties with caloric overconsumption and micronutrient deficiencies. A multitude of factors contribute to this global problem. Limitations to the current scope of the recommended daily allowances (RDAs) and dietary reference intakes (DRIs), changes in soil quality, and reductions in nutrient density are just a few of these factors. In this article, we propose a new, working approach towards human nutrition designated “Foundational Nutrition”. This nutritional lens combines a whole food approach in conjunction with micronutrients and other nutrients critical for optimal human health with special consideration given to the human gut microbiome and overall gut health. Together, this a synergistic approach which addresses vital components in nutrition that enhances the bioavailability of nutrients and to potentiate a bioactive effect.
... En büyük düşüş sebzelerde beşte bir düzeyine düşen bakırdadır. Sonuçlar bu düşüşlerin endüstriyel tarımın gelişmesinden veya çeşitlerin değişmesinden meydana gelebileceği şeklinde yorumlanmıştır (Mayer, 1997). ...
Full-text available
The book is in Turkish. It contains an overview of studies dealing with various aspects of land property in Turkey. Topics are divided as follows: land reform, transformation in land ownership: expropriation and privatization, agriculture and property, urban transformation and forms of ownership, urban rent, natural assets, land rights and resistances, property rights debates, land sales to foreigners
Background: In 1995, Remer and Manz reported potential renal acid load (PRAL) values of various foods, quantifying their estimated impact on acid-base balance. Their estimation considered ionic dissociation, sulphur metabolism and intestinal absorption rates for several micronutrients and proteins. Notably, PRAL values are based on food content data from the early 1990s and may nowadays no longer adequately reflect accurate estimates. Some foods' macronutrient and mineral content has declined over the past three decades due to changes in soil mineral health. Aim: We hypothesize that the 1995 PRAL values no longer adequately reflect reliable estimates of the current acid-base impact of some foods. Methods: Based on specific examples, we argue that these values overestimate the alkalizing effects of various fruits and vegetables. Conclusion: Discussing evidence in favour of (and against) our hypothesis, we conclude that the 1995 PRAL estimates should nowadays rather be used as a relative guidance and reviewed carefully.
We examine the negative child health impacts of soil zinc (Zn) deficiency in Nepal. Soil Zn deficiency limits both crop yields and the Zn concentration in food crops, leading many to speculate that it underlies human Zn deficiency and child stunting, globally and particularly in South Asia. We find strong evidence that soil Zn deficiency does have a causal impact on child stunting in Nepal’s Tarai region, the breadbasket of the country. Using causal bounds, we find that a 1 part per million increase in plant-available soil Zn — achievable with application of Zn-enriched fertilizer — decreases child stunting by between 1 and 7.5 percentage points. Multiple statistical sensitivity tests indicate that this relationship is unlikely to be manufactured by omitted, relevant variables.
Full-text available
У статті визначено хімічний склад досліджуваних білих коренеплодів, розглянуто методи їх зневоднення, визначено їх переваги та недоліки. В якості об'єктів дослідження використано білі коренеплоди селери, петрушки, пастернаку. Проведено аналіз отриманих кривих кінетики та швидкості конвективного сушіння до низької залишкової вологості 6%. На основі результатів теоретичних та експериментальних досліджень було встановлено кінетичні закономірності процесу, обґрунтовано та розроблено енергоефективні низькотемпературні режими зневоднення, відповідно до яких температура сушильного агенту підтримується на рівні 45...65 ºС залежно від виду сировини. Завдяки цьому одержані чипси з селери, пастернаку та петрушки мали високі органолептичні показники та збереження усього спектру біологічно активних речовин сировини, у тому числі ефірної олії та ароматичних сполук.
Food is not just calories; food is information. Food is a complex array of macronutrients, vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals that upgrade or downgrade our biological software with every bite. The standard American diet lacks essential nutrients and is rich in refined flour, sugar, and inflammatory oils that drive dysbiosis, metabolic dysfunction, and chronic disease. Modern medicine focuses on diagnosing and treating disease with drugs, not creating health. Functional medicine organizes the body into a network of interconnected systems. It focuses on correcting the underlying functional imbalances that drive disease while restoring health using personalized diet, lifestyle, and nutrition interventions.
The composition of the environment in which vegetables are grown or their interaction with the applied fertilizer or nutrient solution determines the essential and non-essential element contents of the vegetables. The main purpose of this study is to evaluate variations of essential and non-essential mineral concentrations of lettuce plants (Lactuca sativa L. cv. Sementel) grown under soil and soilless media. The plants were grown in: low calcareous soil (LCS) and high calcareous soil (HCS), or rockwool or cocopeat. The best growth was from plants grown in cocopeat followed by rockwool, LCS, and HCS. Nitrogen, P, and Zn concentrations of rockwool and cocopeat grown plants were higher than in plants grown in the soils. The Ca, Ti, Sr, Al, Zr, and Ba concentrations of soilless grown plants was lower than that of soil-grown plants. Potassium and S concentrations of lettuce plants were higher in HCS, rockwool or cocopeat than for plants grown in LCS. The Mg and Mn concentrations were highest in plants in cocopeat and LCS. Copper concentration of lettuce plants was highest in HCS. Growing media had no effect on Co, As, Pb, W, Hg, Cr, Nb, Cd, In, I, Cs, Ta, Th, Ga, and Ce concentrations. Concentrations of Br, Rb, V, Se was highest in HCS, cocopeat, HCS, LCS and rockwool, respectively. In conclusion, essential element contents and the growth of lettuce plants was better in cocopeat and rockwool medium than the soils. Zirconium, Ba, Ni, Rb, Al and Ti that are not necessary for plants and humans are lower in the lettuce plants growing in rockwool and cocopeat. According to these results, vegetables grown without soil should be considered as an important advantage for human health.
McCance and Widdowson’s Composition of Foods fifth edition
  • B Holland
  • A.A Welch
  • I.D Unwin
  • D.H Buss
  • A.A Paul
  • D.A.T. Southgate
The Composition of Foods third edition
  • R.A McCance
  • E.M. Widdowson