More nutrients in your food. Look to the past, not the future. As any kid knows, most food that is “good” for you generally doesn’t taste that good. Brussel sprouts come to mind. I was reluctant as a kid to taste them, but put a little mayonnaise on them and they are palatable. (Kind of defeats the purpose). Farmers have tended to follow consumer trends, so they have planted produce that sells well, or they have modified plants to get more yield per acre. Nutrients have kind of been an afterthought. Part of that is not their fault. Only recently have scientists been able to measure nutrient levels in food. Ancient soybeans, for example had five times more omega-3s than modern varieties. Wild dandelions, a favorite of North American Indian tribes, have seven times more phytonutrients than spinach. A purple potato native to Peru has nearly thirtyfold more flavonoids than russet potatoes. But making a profit has relegated these foods to the history books, or just to a few limited consumers.
But what about the future? Scientists as early as 2002, began measuring the impact of elevated CO2 content on plants. In theory, an elevated CO2 content should be beneficial, leading plants to grow faster as they convert CO2 to oxygen. The problem is, it also caused the plants to accumulate more carbohydrates like glucose – leaving less room for nutrients and minerals to develop, like protein. This is known as the “Junk food” effect. Grains, such as wheat and rice that sustain a vast percentage of the population will see the zinc, iron and protein content will decline by 3 to as much as 17 percent as we continue to throw CO2 in the atmosphere. This will make nutrients even scarcer.
Already about 65 percent of the U.S. population eats less than two servings of fresh produce a day. It is not a coincidence that the bulk of food that is thrown out of American households is, or was, fresh produce. Americans are not throwing away tater tots. Nearly 25 million Americans live in so-called food desert, or neighborhoods with limited access to healthy and affordable food, and more than half of this population is below the poverty line. Wonder why this country has a health problem? It is tied to the food. But there is a growing interest in more nutrients and less chemicals. Can the desire to change be also profitable?