4.6 Review

Mineral nutrient composition of vegetables, fruits and grains: The context of reports of apparent historical declines

Journal

JOURNAL OF FOOD COMPOSITION AND ANALYSIS
Volume 56, Issue -, Pages 93-103

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfca.2016.11.012

Keywords

Vegetables; Fruit; Grains; Mineral nutrients; Nutrient composition; Nutrient historical decline; Food analysis; Food composition

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Reports of apparent historical declines in mineral nutrients of vegetables, fruits and grains, allegedly due to soil mineral depletion by agriculture, triggered this critical review. Comparisons of food composition data published decades apart are not reliable. Over time changes in data sources, crop varieties, geographic origin, ripeness, sample size, sampling methods, laboratory analysis and statistical treatment affect reported nutrient levels. Comparisons with matching archived soil samples show soil mineral content has not declined in locations cultivated intensively with various fertilizer treatments. Contemporaneous analyses of modern versus old crop varieties grown side-by-side, and archived samples, show lower mineral concentrations in varieties bred for higher yields where increased carbohydrate is not accompanied by proportional increases in minerals - a dilution effect. Apparent declines, e.g., the extreme case of copper from -34% to -81%, represent small absolute changes: per 100 g dry weight vegetables have 0.11-1.71 mg (1555% natural range of variation), fruit 01-2.06 mg (20,600% range), and grains 0.1-1.4 mg (1400% range); copper composition is strongly subject to the dilution effect. The benefits of increased yield to supply food for expanding populations outweigh small nutrient dilution effects addressed by eating the recommended daily servings of vegetables, fruits and whole grains. Crown Copyright (C) 2016 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available