Is modern food processing and storage bad for us? (second posting of four)

Posted by on

Fruit and vegetables in supermarkets might look shiny and fresh, but often they were picked several days earlier. Some nutrients, particularly vitamin C and folic acid, begin to oxidise as soon as picking happens, but manufacturers use chilling and packaging techniques to minimise the resulting losses. “Lots of these reactions are driven by enzymes, and if you want to slow an enzyme reaction right down you chill it. However, if you are choosing between organic leeks from a distant country or locally grown,  go for the fruit and vegetables grown locally and subject to the  shortest possible supply chain.    As if to illustrate this, a 2003 study evaluated the nutritional content of broccoli kept in conditions that simulated commercial transport and distribution: film-wrapped and stored for seven days at 1 °C, followed by three days at 15 °C to replicate a retail environment. By the end, the broccoli had lost between 71 and 80 per cent of its glucosinolates – sulphur-containing compounds shown to have cancer-fighting properties – and around 60 per cent of its flavonoid antioxidants.

Many kinds of mass-produced fruit and veg – most famously tomatoes – are picked unripe so that they bruise less easily during transit. They are then sprayed with ethylene to ripen them. Some studies suggest that tomatoes harvested early have lower antioxidant activity and less flavour. If a fruit is left on a plant until the end of its life cycle, it’s able to recycle all the energy from the plant.  If you pick it early you truncate that process and get less sugars into the fruit, which are needed to bind the nutrients.

Similarly, processing has become a maligned word in the context of food, but there are some cases where it enhances a food’s health benefits. In fact, you arguably get more benefits from processed tomatoes, such as in purees, sauces or ready chopped in cans, than fresh.

Processed tomatoes tend to be harvested at a riper stage. In addition, lycopene – a compound tomatoes are rich in, and which has been shown to protect against cancer – is much more readily absorbed by humans from tomato paste than fresh tomatoes. “The more processed a tomato is, the more lycopene is available,” says Collins. “Processed tomatoes are often very concentrated, so you’re actually getting a greater quantity than you would use if you made your own sauce.” However, she adds that the heating used in processing destroys vitamin C.

Although salad leaves that have been picked and stored for several days before being eaten are a bit less nutritious than a freshly harvested lettuce, chilling and using packaging to reduce oxygen exposure may slow the nutrient loss. And any loss of nutrients must be weighed against the fact that these products may encourage people to eat better overall.

The bottom line is that although aspects of today’s food production, processing and storage might make what we eat a bit less nutritious, they are also making foods more available – and this is far more important. The majority of us consume far less fruit and vegetables than we ought to. We eat too much fat, sugar and salt and not enough oily fish.

The most important thing you can do is eat more fruits, vegetables and wholegrains, and cut down on highly refined, human-made foods, vegetable oils and added sugars. If you’re worrying about nutrient losses from cooking or whether your food is straight from the farm – those differences are minor compared to the differences you’d get from eating unprocessed foods.

Is our food less nutricious? (First posting of four)

Posted by on

Have modern intensive farming methods – many of which solved malnutrition problems when they were first introduced –  affected the mineral and vitamin content of what we eat?

In 2011, Donald Davis, a now-retired biochemist at the University of Texas, compared the nutrients in US crops from 1950 and 2009, and found notable declines in five nutrients in various fruits, including tomatoes, eggplants and squash. For example, there was a 43 per cent drop in iron and a 12 per cent decline in calcium. This was in line with his 1999 study – mainly of vegetables – which found a 15 per cent drop in vitamin C and a 38 per cent fall in vitamin B2.

Fruit and vegetables grown in the UK have shown similar depletions. A 1997 comparison of data from the 1930s and 1980s found that calcium in fresh vegetables appeared to drop by 19 per cent, and iron by 22 per cent. A reanalysis of the data in 2005 concluded that 1980s vegetables had less copper, magnesium and sodium, and fruit less copper, iron and potassium. The introduction of semi-dwarf, higher-yielding varieties of wheat in the green revolution of the 1960s means that modern crops contain lower levels of iron and zinc than old-fashioned varieties.

Davis and others blame agricultural practices that emphasise quantity over quality. High-yielding crops produce more food, more rapidly, but they can’t make or absorb nutrients at the same pace, so the nutrition is diluted. “It’s like taking a glass of orange juice and adding an equal amount of water to it. If you do that, the concentration of nutrients that was in the original juice is dropped by half,” says Davis.

Other scientists say that, although some nutrients are declining, the losses aren’t significant enough to warrant  health concerns.  Over the last century, lifespans have become longer, people are bigger and stronger, and a lot of that has to do with the food supply being better.  There is a also problem with comparing cultivars being grown in the 1930s with often quite different strains of plant grown today, the year and the date of harvest.   Methods of measuring nutrition have also changed.

The fact seems to be that differences in nutrient levels are relatively small. Most of us get enough iron, magnesium, and calcium. (adapted from an article in New Scientist by Chloe Lambert).

The problem may become worse with climate change.  Last year, researchers at Harvard University warned that crops grown in the future will have significantly less zinc and iron, owing  to rising levels of carbon dioxide.  The team grew 41 different types of grains and legumes, including wheat, rice, maize, soybeans and field peas, under CO2 levels crops are likely to experience 40 to 60 years from now. They found that under these conditions, wheat had 9 per cent less zinc, 5 per cent less iron and 6 per cent less protein than a crop grown at today’s CO2 levels. Zinc and iron – but not protein – were also lower in legumes grown under elevated CO2. ( There will be three more postings on this important topic, if  access to the internet, interrupted four times during the last few days, allows).

Musings on the Netherlands and Turkey

Posted by on

On Wednesday 15th March, the Netherlands will hold a general election. In the American and British popular imaginations, the Netherlands is a socially progressive nation with a well-functioning democracy, and a high trust in its institutions. Relatively speaking, that perception is largely correct. But the Dutch increasingly believe their values are under threat, not from domestic affairs or even the EU, but from the Islamic world.

Despite its reputation for ethnic homogeneity, the Netherlands is home to a sizeable Turkish minority. Many are Turkish citizens who are entitled to vote in the upcoming Turkish constitutional referendum, which will give the President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, considerably more power, reducing Parliament to a mere scrutiny body. Turkey would effectively become like Russia: an authoritarian executive presidency. The Kemalist traditions of secularism and the separation of powers would be consigned to the history books. Following the failed coup to oust him, Erdogan is understandably nervous. But his style of rule is increasingly dictatorial. Human rights abuses are becoming more common, freedom of speech is in decline, and anti-Western and pro-Russian sentiments are on the rise.

Erdogan enjoys considerable support in Turkey, but due to a lack of accurate polling, no one is sure how the referendum will go. So to ensure the maximum possible support, the government has sent ministers to Turkish diasporas living in Europe. In France, authorities allowed campaign events to go ahead. But in most other countries, most notably the Netherlands, ministers have been prevented from holding rallies. European authorities have cited security concerns, arguing that that bringing in foreign political divisions would be dangerous. Turkish politics is very passionate, so campaigns are likely to result in violence. There’s also the question of whether its appropriate to hold domestic political events abroad. It would be a bit like Benjamin Netanyahu going to America to tell American Israelis to vote for him, only that Erdogan’s ideology is even more extreme that the Israeli right.

In response to the Dutch ban on Turkish political campaigning, Erdogan has labelled Mark Rutte (the Dutch PM) and his government ‘Nazis’ and ‘fascists.’ The governing party in Turkey, the AKP, believes Europe is gripped by endemic Islamophobia, and that this is yet another attempt to restrict the rights of Muslims to their free speech. In particular, many Turks believe Rutte has enforced the ban because of the upcoming Dutch elections, in which Rutte’s liberal VVD party is only narrowly ahead of the anti-Islam PVV. This is despite the fact that the ban is supported across the political spectrum.

There are two worrying trends here. The first is the increasingly reactionary, paranoid and conspiratorial nature of Turkish political dialogue. The Dutch are well within their rights to regulate foreign political campaigning in their own country. No one is preventing  the Turkish Dutch from voting, nor from receiving information about the referendum. All responsible authorities must judge whether an event poses a high security risk, and have the right to cancel such events if they have reason to believe they will. The somewhat violent nature of Turkish protests against the ban, both in Turkey and the Netherlands, shows that the Dutch’s fears may not be unfounded. To suggest that this constitutes fascistic behaviour is hyperbolic and delusional.

The second is the fragile nature of liberalism in the Netherlands. The Dutch, for the most part, are an open and welcoming people. Turkish immigrants solve the labour shortage that exists in the Netherlands’ high-wage, low unemployment economy. They help mitigate the effects of an ageing population. Many Dutch welcome the country’s increasing multiculturalism. But there’s a perfectly legitimate concern about the Turkish’s social and political views. Its clear that a considerable proportion of Turks support the AKP’s increasingly socially conservative and theocratic politics. I personally have a friend of mine who is Turkish, and despite being very culturally Western, supports Erdogan fervently.

The Turkish-Dutch clash must be contextualised in the broader rift between Europe’s increasingly secular and liberal white supermajority, and its growing Muslim population, which is overwhelmingly religious and socially conservative. Many second and third generation Muslims feel disillusioned with the godless hedonism that permeates the country they grew up in. In the most extreme of cases, they become radicalised. But in most instances, they simply feel apathetic and angry. Its important to mention that this disillusionment is not  entirely irrational. Muslims in Europe are much poorer than the general population, and are less likely to be employed. To varying degrees, they also face both institutional and casual discrimination. Western society, with its relentless focus on material wellbeing and instant self-gratification, is far from perfect. Liberals have too often sung the praises of multiculturalism and tolerance, while failing to economically empower the immigrants they purport to love.

However, the problems associated with Islam that the Netherlands faces, does not warrant the support of Geert Wilders and his PVV. Wilders is ideologically opposed to freedom of religion for Muslims. He believes in a complete ban on the burqa, a ban on all mosques, and a ban on the Qur’an. He doesn’t believe Islam can be practised peacefully, instead preferring to compare the Qur’an to Mein Kampf. In the unlikely event of a PVV-led government, Wilders’ policies would only make problems worse. Muslims would quite rightly take to the streets in protest. The Netherlands would lose its reputation as a strong liberal democracy, perhaps forever. I’m not knowledgable enough of Dutch politics to make a firm endorsement, but I would tentatively suggest that Dutch Epicureans vote for the incumbent VVD, simply as a tactical measure to keep out the PVV. Rutte is far from perfect, particularly his stance on the Zwarte Pete controversy, but the Dutch economy is relatively stable and the country remains most socially liberal than most. The authoritarianism, nationalism and populism of the Turkish government must not incline us to respond in kind.

Ayn Rand and President Trump

Posted by on
I don’t know whether this is generally known, but Trump, who inherited a lot of his money, is a fan of the writer Ayn Rand, the author of “Atlas Shrugged” and chief publicist of “objectivism” and libertarianism. He is surrounding himself with other admirers of the notion that there are makers and takers, and that the takers are parasites who get in the way of morally superior innovators.  Worse than that, the latter actually have to pay tax to support the takers (horrors!).   Rand’s attitude was that government is evil and deliberately puts obstacles in the way of those accumulating wealth.  “Man exists for his own sake. The pursuit of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose, not of the happiness of anyone else.  He shouldn’t make sacrifices for others”.
Trump, as is well known now, believes that “winning” is all and that the means justify the ends.  The ends are wealth and power. Women are simply adornments; the poor are “losers”.  ” Be a killer”, Fred Trump (father) reputedly told his son,”then you are a king”.
Among the disciples of this moral-free, inhuman and distasteful philosophy that treats people as commodities are Bannon, of course, Rex Tillerson, new Secretary of State, and Mike Pompeo, head of the CIA.  There are others as well in the threatening new government.  Andrew Pudzer, Secretary of Labor (who opposes the minimum wage and wants to automate fast food) was another admirer, now, blessedly, turned down by Congress.
Not only is libertarianism and objectivism anathema to normal decent people, but Ayn Rand claimed to have taken the bit about happiness being man’s highest moral purpose straight from the writings from Epicurus.  She might well have, but she took it totally out of context. Epicurus would never have recognised this as a humane, thoughtful, approach to human relationships; on the contrary, his approach was that friendship and getting on well with people created happiness – unless you are autistic (which I agree you can’t help) you get no joy out of using and exploiting people and treating them like money machines.  “Objectivism” and libertarianism have nothing to do with Epicureanism and never did.  It’s all part of the “fake news” ethos of the alt-right.

Let us all thank messy eaters

Posted by on

Researchers at the Arizona State University Institute of Human Origins have found that our species’ first ancestors began to climb down from trees to retrieve snacks they had dropped. Anatomical evidence from the 6-million-year-old fossilized remains of Sahelanthropus peinaó—which was unearthed earlier this year in South Africa and is now believed to be the last common ancestor shared by chimpanzees and modern humans—suggests that the animal frequently descended from the jungle canopy to retrieve food that fell from its hands owing to inattention, overeager eating, or a loosening grasp as it dozed off after a meal.

According to the researchers, everything humans have accomplished as a species—from “colonizing every corner of the planet, to building the Colosseum, to walking on the surface of the moon”—can be traced back to that first human forebear “sweating and breathing heavily as it struggled down a tree trunk” to recover a snack .

At some point in the Miocene epoch, one of the hominids realized that if it wished to continue snacking, it would have to come down from the tree, wander out onto the savanna, pick the morsel up, and put it back in its mouth. This was the impetus for several other key adaptations, including the increased brain size and cognitive capabilities that are the hallmarks of Homo sapiens. They began gradually developing the ability to form abstract thoughts—including planning, problem-solving, projecting into the future, and evaluating alternative options—as they grasped the notion that if they did not retrieve the food they would go hungry. Moreover, complex human emotions, from regret to longing to a desire for remediation, are also said to have begun emerging as humans began to reflect on the meals they dropped.

Speech arose from the grumbling about having to climb down the tree. The hominids’ final shift to becoming an exclusively ground-dwelling species is said to have occurred roughly 5 million years ago when, having finished the snacks they had retrieved, they looked at the trees, realized what a hassle it would be to climb all the way back up there, and opted instead to take a nap on the ground.

Does all this really matter? Not really, but it takes your mind for a moment off the world political situation!  That’s what Epicurus would have advised us to do – if possible.