Internet articles in the popular press frequently state that the mineral nutrient composition

of crops has been declining over the last 50 years with titles like The Great Nutrient

Collapse, blamed in part on the purported nutrient depletion of the soil.

This narrative is touted by the leading dietary supplement trade association,

but is it true?

This is probably the most cited study, comparing the nutrient content of U.S. fruits and vegetables between 1950 and 1999.

At about half, seven of the 13 nutrients tested showed no significant decline, and the

sixth that did only decline by about 15 percent on average.

A similar study in the UK looking at mineral content and similar findings, with

declines in about half.

Of course, the drop in sodium doesn't matter.

We get too much of it as it is. Most people get more than enough copper. The 10 the drop in sodium doesn't matter. We get too much of it as it is, and most people get more than enough copper.

The 10% drop in magnesium is significant, and though the drop in iron looks precipitous,

the absolute drop is tiny since fruits and vegetables have so little to begin with.

Australian researchers had similar findings, a halving of iron and fruit for the last few decades,

but the absolute drop is like 0.2 milligrams per serving, which is about 150th of the recommended

daily allowance for most people, and the same with zinc.

And there was actually an increase in grains.

As you can see, there was just a few milligrams difference in calcium or magnesium, where the RDAs and the hundreds of milligrams.

So with such small absolute differences, any true decrease in mineral content

is unlikely to have a large impact on nutritional intake.

It's not clear if these changes are even real.

...