2011 nutrient guide

8/13/2019 2011 Nutrient Guide

1/34

1


2/34

IntroductionThe following tables list the nutritional composition of foods from around the world. They are based primarily on the latest data of theU.S. Department of Agriculture, Japan Ministry of ducation, !ulture, Sports, Science, and Technology, the "ational #ood $nstitute ofDenmar%, #ood !omposition Tables for #oods in the Middle ast, and other national and international sources, including data fromtrade associations and producers. Most of the material from the U.S. go&ernment and other agencies is now posted on the $nternetand no longer a&ailable in printed form. 'See below for web resources.(

#oods are listed in alphabetic order within the following food groups)

1. *hole !ereal +rains and +rain roducts-. eans and ean roducts/. 0egetables. Sea 0egetables2. Starches3. Sweeteners4. #at and 5ils6. Seasonings and !ondiments7. #ruit18. "uts

11. Seeds1-. #ish1/. Seafood1. e&erages12. Meat13. oultry14. Dairy

"ote that soy products are all listed together under Soybeans in the eans group. Similarly, flour, fla%es, and other forms of a foodare often listed together. Unless otherwise indicated, all food &alues are based on 188 grams 'about / 19- ounces(, edible portion, in

-


3/34

raw 'i.e., uncoo%ed( form. The &ariables included are) water or moisture content, calories, protein, lipid or fat content, carbohydrate,fiber, ash, calcium, iron, phosphorus, sodium, potassium, &itamin A, 0itamin 1 'thiamine(. 0itamin - 'ribofla&in(, 0itamin /'niacin(, and 0itamin !. $n the tables, please note that dashes denote information is una&ailable. There are scores of other nutrientsand components, such as indi&idual amino acids, that are a&ailable in the web:based databases online.

The ;D$s ';ecommended Daily $nta%es( for persons o&er years old eating an a&erage diet of -888 calories per day are as follows)

Recommended Daily Intakes

!alories -888 'standard a&erage(rotein 28 gramsample,an organic apple from traditional, open:pollinated seed grown in 0ermont may be significantly different than one chemically grownfrom hybrid seed in *ashington State. $t will differ from one that originates in "ew ?ampshire or Massachusetts, or one grown on a

/


4/34

neighboring farm, or e&en one grown on the same farm in a different season or year. The tables are based on a&erages from differentregions, but practically spea%ing, especially for plant =uality foods, they are often based on only a handful of specimens and, in somecases, e&en a single one.

Also %eep in mind that national and international agencies do not distinguish between organic and con&entionally grown food. Smallindependent studies suggest that organic food may contain up to 28 percent more nutrients than chemically grown food.

#urther, it should be noted that the =uality of modern food is rapidly declining as a result of using hybrid seeds 'including both organic

and nonorganic(, the loss of topsoil, air and water pollution, global warming, and other forms of climate change. 'See section on@"utrient


5/34

Nutrient Loss

Do you intuiti&ely feel that food today is losing its energy, &itality, and sweetnessH Apples, broccoli, carrots, and other commongarden produce Cust donGt taste as fresh and delicious as they once did. Depending on the item, their natural sweetness, tartness,crunchiness, and other characteristics may ha&e worsened.

The latest analysis of the official U.S. #ood !omposition tables conducted by lanetary ?ealth, $nc., the parent organiation ofAmberwa&es, shows that the &itamin and mineral content of ordinary &egetables and fruits in the national food supply, continues to

decline. $n earlier studies in 1776, $ reported that &itamin A, &itamin , calcium, iron, and other nutrients in 1- randomly selectedordinary garden &egetables had declined on a&erage -2 to 28I since 1742.1

#rom this sampling, $ tentati&ely concluded that &egetables were indeed losing their &itamin and mineral content. *hether this was areal trend, and uniform across the entire spectrum of items in the American food supply, $ could not yet say. The apparent changecould be methodological. #or e>ample, the differences in the figures published by the USDA in 1742 and those on its $nternet site inthe late 1778s could be the result of limited sampling, different classification methods, impro&ed testing procedures, or other technicalconsiderations.

To find out, $ contacted the USDA "utrient Data t se&eral decimal points, but not result in alterations of this magnitudeF-2 to 28I.

2


6/34

!ould the nutrient loss then be the result of en&ironmental influences, especially the increased use of pesticides and chemicals onAmericaGs farmsH 5n the contrary, he replied, farmers in the 1728s and 1738s probably used more chemical fertiliers, soilsupplements, and other additi&es than they don now, artificially ele&ating nutrient le&els compared to more recent samples from the1768s and 1778s.

The food composition tables do not distinguish between food grown con&entionally with chemical pesticides and fertiliers andorganically grown food. $ as%ed whether the USDA had e&er tested the nutrients in organic food and compared them with chemically

grown crops. Dr. ?aytowit replied that such e>periments had ne&er been conducted because the agency assumed that the nutrientcontent in organic and con&entionally grown food is substantially e=ui&alent. $ as%ed on the basis of what scientific or nutritionalstudies had the U.S. go&ernment made this assumption. ?e had no answer and agreed that in the future such testing would ma%e aninteresting comparati&e study.

5ur most recent analysis, described in this report, based on the U.S. go&ernmentGs current online nutritional database, shows that thenutrient content of common foods has continued to erode o&er the last decade.

*hat is the cause of this lossH Soil erosion, air and water pollution, a decline in seed =uality, +M5 contamination, global warmingand other types of climate change immediately come to mind. There is a strong suspicion that the spread of fast food, microwa&e andelectric coo%ing, food irradiation, the largely corporate ta%eo&er of organic farming, and other new agricultural and food processingand preparation methods and trends are fundamentally altering the composition of the foods we eat.

Another factor is agingFnot of the food but of the obser&er #ood may taste differently today because we loo% bac% and romanticiethe way things were in our youth. All of these factors may be contributing to the decline in personal and planetary health.

The Previous Studies

The original study of 1- garden &egetables selected at random from the U.S. #ood !omposition Tables spar%ed a nationalcontro&ersy. Since its publication in 1776, newspapers, magaines, and web sites across the country ha&e pic%ed up on theresearch. Organi !ardening, the nationGs maCor organic publication, wrote an open letter to the U.S. Secretary of Agriculturedemanding to %now what his agency was doing to protect the American food supply. !ardening Design, T"e #le$eland %lain Dealer,T"e &ational 'egetale !roers* +againe, T"e -ondon Times,and other publications ha&e also published articles about the

3


7/34

findings. The U.S,. Secretary of Agriculture subse=uently confirmed the loss of nutrients reported in my original study, but =uestionedwhether it was the result of the en&ironmental crisis, as generally concluded by supporters of organic farming and en&ironmentalists.;ather, the USDA contended that natural en&ironmental influences, as well as impro&ed testing methods, may be responsible for thediscrepancies. A subse=uent study $ did in -881 of 1- common fruits showed a similar decline.

$n -88, the ournal o/ t"e Amerian #ollege o/ &utritionin -88 confirmed that there ha&e been statistically reliable declines in si>maCor nutrients 'protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, ribofla&in, and ascorbic acid( in forty:three garden &egetables.-!omparingessentially the same data that was used in my initial study from the USDA, the researchers charted lower le&els of %ey nutrients o&er

the past half century but said they were uncertain as to the causes. $n their &iew, the primary reason for the difference is theintroduction of new strains that produce higher yields, growth rates, and pest resistance, but select for lower le&els of nutrients.Unpredictable genetic &ariability among seeds was also cited as a factor, as well as substantially higher moisture content in producetoday. #actoring this into the e=uation, they asserted, the actual percentage of &itamins and minerals in the dry matter of most cropsremains the same. 'The moisture content of the - &egetables and fruits in my study increased slightly in 14 instancesFabout 1percent on a&erageFdeclined in 3 cases, and remained the same in 1 case, and does not appear to ha&e made any significantdifference.( $n brief, the researchers, associated with academic departments largely funded by agribusiness, too% issue with myconclusion that there was @an alarming decline in food =uality and found no e&idence that it could be due to a decrease in soil=uality, water =uality, air =uality, or other en&ironmental factors.

The Latest Nutritional Data

This winter, in updating the food classification tables for a new edition of T"e Book o/ +aroiotisco:authored with Michio Bushi

'S=uare 5ne, -811(, $ recalculated the nutritional &alues for the same 1- &egetables and 1- fruits. The results and net changes arelisted in the following tables, along with earlier measurements from 1742 and 1774 or -881 respecti&ely.

4


8/34

1. BroccoliNutritional Chanes 1!"#$%&1&'per 188 grams raw edible portion(

1!"# 1!!" %&1& Chane1!"#$1!!"

Chane1!!"$%&1&

Chane1!"#$%&1&

Calcium 18/ mg 6 mg 4 mg Down 2/.I Down -.1I Down 2.IIron 1.1 mg 8.66 mg 8.4/ mg Down -8I Down 14.8I Down //.3I'itamin ( -288 $U 12- $U 3-/ $U Down /6./I Down 27.3I Down 42.1I

'itamin C 11/ mg 7/.- mg 67.- mg Down 14.2I Down ./I Down -1.1IThiamin 8.18 mg 8.84 mg 8.84 mg Down /2I "o change Down /2IRi)o*lavin 8.-/ mg 8.1- mg 8.1- mg Down 4.6I "o change Down 4.6INiacin 8.7 mg 8.3 mg 8.3 mg Down -6.7I "o change Down -6.7ISource) %lanetar Healt", n., 2011 (ased on USDA &ational &utrient Dataase)

%. Chane in Calcium Levels in 'eeta)les 1!"#$%&1&'mg9188 grams raw edible portion(

1!"# 1!!" %&1& Chane1!"#$1!!"

Chane1!!"$%&1&

Chane1!"#$%&1&

Broccoli 18/ mg 6 mg 4 mg Down 2/.I Down -.1I Down 2.ICa))ae 7 mg 4 mg 8 mg Down .1I Down 1.7I Down16.ICarrots /4 mg -4 mg // mg Down -4I Up --.8I Down18.6ICauli*lo+er -2 mg -- mg -- mg Down 1-I "o change Down 1-ICollard

reens

-8/ mg 12 mg 12 mg Down -6.3I "o change Down -6.3I

Daikon /2 mg -4 mg -4 mg Down --.7I "o change Down --.7I,ale 147 mg 1/2 mg 1/2 mg Down -.3I "o change Down -.3I-ustardreens

6/ mg 18/ mg 18/ mg Down /.4I "o change Down /.4I

nions -4 mg -8 mg -/ mg Down -2.7I "o change Down -2.7IParsley -8/ mg 1/6 mg 1/6 mg Down /-I "o change Down /-ITurni/reens

-3 mg 178 mg 178 mg Down --.6I "o change Down --.6I

0atercress 121 mg 1-8 mg 1-8 mg Down -8.2I "o change Down -8.2INet Chane Down -3.2I Up 8.1I Down -3.ISource) %lanetar Healt", n., 2011 (ased on USDA &ational &utrient Dataase)

6


9/34

. Chane in Iron Levels in 'eeta)les 1!"#$%&1&'per 188 grams raw edible portion(

1!"# 1!!" %&1& Chane1!"#$1!!"

Chane1!!"$%&1&

Chane1!"#$%&1&

Broccoli 1.1 mg 8.66 mg 8.4/ mg Down -8I Down 14I Down //.3ICa))ae 8. mg 8.27 mg 8.4 mg Up 4.2I Down -8./I Up 14.2I

Carrots 8.4 mg 8.28 mg 8./8 mg Down -6.3I Down 8I Down -.7ICauli*lo+er 1.1 mg 8. mg 8.- mg Down 38I "o change Down 31.6ICollardreens

1.8 mg 8.17 mg 8.17 mg Down 61I Down .2I Down 61I

Daikon 8.3 mg 8.8 mg 8.8 mg Down //./I "o change Down //./I,ale -.- mg 1.48 mg 1.48 mg Down --.4I "o change Down --.4I-ustardreens

/.8 mg 1.3 mg 1.3 mg Down 21./I "o change Down 21./I

nions 8.2 mg 8.-- mg 8.-1 mg Down 23I Down 1.2I Down 26IParsley 3.- mg 3.-8 mg 3.-8 mg "o change "o change "o changeTurni/reens

1.6 mg 1.18 mg 1.18 mg Down /6.7I "o change Down /6.7I

0atercress 1.4 mg 8.-8 mg 8.-8 mg Down 66.-I "o change Down 66.-INet Chane Down /3.1I Down 6.1I Down .-ISource) %lanetar Healt", n., 2011 (ased on USDA &ational &utrient Dataase)

2. Chane in 'itamin ( Levels in 'eeta)les 1!"#$%&1&'per 188 grams raw edible portion(

1!"# 1!!" %&1& Chane1!"#$1!!"

Chane1!!"$%&1&

Chane1!"#$%&1&

Broccoli -288 $U 12/ $U 3-/ $U Down /6./I Down 27.3I Down 42.1ICa))ae 1/8 $U 1// $U 76 $U Up -./I Down -3./I Down -.3ICarrots 11,888

$U-6,1-7$U

13,483$U

Up 122.4I Down 27.I Up 21.7I

Cauli*lo+er 38 $U 17 $U 8 Down 36./I Down 188I Down 188ICollardreens

3288 $U /6- $U 3336 $U Down 1.-I Up 4.I Up -.3I

7


10/34

Daikon 18 $U 8 8 Down 188I "o change Down 188I,ale 6788 $U 6788 $U 12/43 $U "o change Up 4-.6I Up 4-.6I-ustardreens

4888 $U 2/88 $U 18288 $U Down -./I Up 76I Up 28I

nions 8 $U 8 - $U Down 188I Down 72I Down 72IParsley 6288 $U 2-88 $U 6-2 $U Down /6.6I Up 3-I Down 6.6ITurni/reens

4388 $U 4388 $U 11264 $U "o change Up 2-.2I Up 2-.2I

0atercress 788 $U 488 $U /171 $U Down .1I Down /-.1I Down /.2I

Net Chane Down -1.I Up I Down 14.ISource) %lanetar Healt", n., 2011 (ased on USDA &ational &utrient Dataase)

#. Chane in 'itamin C Levels in 'eeta)les 1!"#$%&1&'per 188 grams raw edible portion(

1!"# 1!!" %&1& Chane1!"#$1!!"

Chane1!!"$%&1&

Chane1!"#$%&1&

Broccoli 11/ mg 7/.- mg 67.- mg Down 14.2I Down ./I Down -1.1ICa))ae 4 mg /-.- mg /3.3 mg Down /1.7I Up 1/.4I Down --.1ICarrots 6 mg 7./ mg 2.7 mg Up 13./I Down /3.3I Down -3./ICauli*lo+er 46 mg 3. mg 6.- mg Down 8.2I Up /.6I Down /6.-Collardreens

7- mg /2./ mg /2./ mg Down 31.3I "o change Down 31.3I

Daikon /- mg -- mg --.8 mg Down /1./I "o change Down /1./I,ale 1-2 mg 1-8 mg 1-8 mg Down I "o change Down I-ustardreens

74 mg 48 mg 48 mg Down -4.6I "o change Down -4.6I

nions 18 mg 3. mg 4. mg Down /3I Up 12.3I Down -3IParsley 14- mg 1// mg 1// mg Down --.4I "o change Down --.4ITurni/reens

1/7 mg 38 mg 38 mg Down 23.6I "o change Down 23.6I

0atercress 47 mg / mg / mg Down 2.3I "o change Down 2.3INet Chane Down -7.7I Down /.1I Down /-ISource) %lanetar Healt", n., 2011 (ased on USDA &ational &utrient Dataase)

18


11/34

3. Chane in Calcium Levels in 4ruits 1!"#$%&1&'per 188 grams raw edible portion(

1!"# %&&1 %&1& Chane1!"#$%&&1

Chane%&&1$%&1&

Chane1!"#$%&1&

(//les 4 mg 4 mg 3 mg "o change Down 1./I Down 1./I(/ricots 14 mg 1 mg 1/ mg Down 14.4I Down 4.1I Down -/.2IBananas 6 mg 3 mg 2 mg Down -2I Down 13.4I Down /4.2I

Cherries -- mg 12 mg 1- mg Down /1.6I Down -8I Down 2.2I5ra/e*ruits 13 mg 1- mg 1- mg Down -2I "o change Down -2ILemons 31 mg -3 mg -3 mg Down 24.I "o change Down 24.Iranes 1 mg 8 mg / mg Down -.I Up 4.2I Up .7IPeaches 7 mg 2 mg 3 mg Down .I Up -8I Down //./IPinea//les 14 mg 4 mg 16.7 mg Down 26.6I Up 148I Up 11.-IStra+)erry -1 mg 1 mg 13 mg Down //./I Up 1./I Down -/.6ITanerines 8 mg 1 mg /4 mg Down 32I Up 13./I Down 4.2I0atermelon 4 mg 6 mg 4 mg Up 1./I Down 1-.2I "o changeNet Chane Down -6.7I Up 7.6I Down 17.1ISource) %lanetar Healt", n., 2011 (ased on USDA &ational &utrient Dataase)

". Chane in Iron Levels in 4ruits 1!"#$%&1&'per 188 grams raw edible portion(

1!"# %&&1 %&1& Chane1!"#$%&&1

Chane%&&1$%&1&

Chane1!"#$%&1&

(//les 8./ mg 8.16 mg 8.1- mg Down 8I Down //./I Down 38I(/ricots 8.2 mg 8.2 mg 8./7 mg Up 6I Down -4.4I Down --IBananas 8.4 mg 8./1 mg 8.-3 mg Down 22.4I Down 13.1I Down 3-.7ICherries 8. mg 8./7 mg 8.-8 mg Down -.2I Down 6.4I Down 28I5ra/e*ruits 8. mg 8.83 mg 8.83 mg Down 62I "o change Down 62ILemons 8.4 mg 8.3 mg 8.38 mg Down 1./I "o change Down 1./Iranes 8. mg 8.18 mg 8.18 mg Down 42I "o change Down 42IPeaches 8.2 mg 8.11 mg 8.-2 mg Down 46I Up 1-4I Down 28IPinea//les 8.2 mg 8./4 mg 8.-7 mg Down -3I Down -1.3I Down -IStra+)erry 1.8 mg 8./6 mg 8.1 mg Down 3-I Up 4.7I Down 27I

11


12/34

Tanerines 8. mg 8.1 mg 8.12 mg Down 42I Up 28I Down 3-.2I0atermelon 8.2 mg 8.14 mg 8.- mg Down 33I Up 1./I Down 6INet Chane Down 4.3I Down 2I Down 2-.3ISource) %lanetar Healt", n., 2011 (ased on USDA &ational &utrient Dataase)

6. Chane in 'itamin ( Levels in 4ruits 1!"#$%&1&'per 188 grams raw edible portion(

1!"# %&&1 %&1& Chane1!"#$%&&1

Chane%&&1$%&1&

Chane1!"#$%&1&

(//les 78 $U 2/ $U 2 $U Down 1.1I Up 1.7I Down 8I(/ricots -488 $U -31-$U 17-3 $U Down /./I Down -3./I Down -6.4IBananas 178 $U 61 $U 14 $U Down 24.I Up 61.-I Down --.3ICherries 118 $U -1 $U 42 $U U 7.3I Down 32I Down /1.6I5ra/e*ruits 68 $U 18 $U // $U Down 64.2I Up -/8I Down 26.6ILemons /8 $U -7 $U -- $U Downs /./I Down -.1I Down -3.4Iranes -88 $U -82 $U 8/ $U Up -.2I Up 73.3I Up 181.2IPeaches 1//8 $U 2/2 $U /-3 $U Down 27.6I Down /7I Down 42.2IPinea//les 48 $U -/ $U 26 $U Down 22I Up 12-I Down 14.1IStra+)erry 38 $U -4 $U 1- $U Down 34.1I Down 22.3I Down 68ITanerines -8 $U 7-8 $U 361 $U Up 117I Down -3I Up 3-.1I0atermelon 278 $U /33 $U 237 $U Down /6I Up 22.2I Down /.3INet Chane Down 13.I Down -I Down 16.ISource) %lanetar Healt", n., 2011 (ased on USDA &ational &utrient Dataase)

7. Chane in 'itamin C Levels in 4ruits 1!"#$%&1&'per 188 grams raw edible portion(

1!"# %&&1 %&1& Chane1!"#$%&&1

Chane%&&1$%&1&

Chane1!"#$%&1&

(//les mg 2.4 mg .3 mg Up -.2I Down 17./I Up 12I(/ricots 18 mg 18 mg 18.8 mg "o change "o change "o changeBananas 18 mg 7.1 mg 6.4 mg Down 7I Down .I Down 1/ICherries 18 mg 4 mg 18.8 mg Down /8I Up -.7I "o change5ra/e*ruits /6 mg //./ mg /. mg Down 1-.I Up /./I Down 7.2I

1-


13/34

Lemons 44 mg 2/ mg 2/ mg Down /1.-I "o change Down /1.-Iranes 28 mg 2/.- mg 2 mg Up 3.I Down 12I Down 18IPeaches 4 mg 3.3 mg 3.3 mg Down 2.4I "o change Down 2.4IPinea//les 14 mg 12. mg -2 mg Down 7.I Up 3.7I Up 4IStra+)erry 27 mg 23.4 mg 26.7 mg Down /.7I Up /.7I "o changeTanerines /1 mg /8.6 mg -3.4 mg Down 4I Down 1/./I Down 1/.6I0atermelon 4 mg 7.3 mg 6.1 mg Up /4.1I Down 12.3I Up 12.4INet Chane Down 1.7I Up 1.I Down 8.2ISource) %lanetar Healt", n., 2011 (ased on USDA &ational &utrient Dataase)

1&. Chane in Phos/horus Levels in 4ruits 1!"#$%&1&'per 188 grams raw edible portion(

1!"# %&&1 %&1& Chane1!"#$%&&1

Chane%&&1$%&1&

Chane1!"#$%&1&

(//les 18 mg 4 mg 11 mg Down /8I Up 24.1I Up 18I(/ricots -/ mg 17 mg -/ mg Down 14.I Up -1.1I "o changeBananas - mg -8 mg -- mg Down 2-.I Up 18I Down 4.3ICherries 17 mg 17 mg 11 mg "o change Down -I Down -I5ra/e*ruits 13 mg 6 mg 6 mg Down 28I "o change Down 28ILemons 12 mg 13 mg 13 mg Up 3.4I "o change Up 3.4Iranes -8 mg 1 mg 1- mg Down /8I Down 1./I Down 8IPeaches 17 mg 1- mg -8 mg Down /3.6I Up 33.4I Up 2./IPinea//les 6 mg 4 mg 1/.7 mg Down 1-.2I Up 66.3I Up 4/.6IStra+)erry -1 mg 17 mg - mg Down 7.2I Up -3./I Up 1./I

Tanerines 16 mg 18 mg -8 mg Down .I Up 188I Up 11.1I0atermelon 18 mg 7 mg 11 mg Down 18I Up --.-I Up 18.8INet Chane Down -/.7I Up 14.1I Down ISource) %lanetar Healt", n., 2011 (ased on USDA &ational &utrient Dataase)

This sampling suggests that the nutrients in the American food supply are continuing to decline, though at a slower rate thanpre&iously. roccoli, the &egetable, originally selected as the signature food for the study, has continued to wilt. $ts calcium contentdropped -.1I in the last thirteen years, iron fell another 14I, &itamin A plunged 27.3I, and &itamin ! dropped .4I. There was no

1/


14/34

change in &itamins, suggesting that the data ha&e not been updated during this period. Altogether, o&er the last /2 years, broccolihas lost 2.I of its calcium, //.3I of its iron, 42.1I of its &itamin A, -1.1I of its &itamin !, /2I of its thiamin, 4.6I of itsribofla&in, and -6.7I of its niacin. $n sum, you would ha&e to eat twice as much broccoli today to get the same nutrients as ageneration ago

$ron le&els in the test mar%et bas%et of 1- &egetables dropped .-I on a&erage since 1742. !alcium declined -3.I, &itamin A isdown 14.I, and &itamin ! is off /-I. Among fruits, calcium is down 17.1I, iron has plummeted a whopping 2-.3I, &itamin A isdown 16.I, &itamin ! is down 8.2I, and phosphorus is down I. Among the 186 indi&idual measurements, 6- declined, -8 rose,

and 3 remained the same. The loss may be e&en greater, because the reported &itamin and mineral content of two:thirds of the&egetables ha&e not been updated in o&er a decade and in some cases for /2 years. Monitoring the =uality of the nationGs produce isclearly not a priority of the USDA. $n contrast to the small and irregular number of studies of plant:=uality foods, there are hundreds ofnutritional studies of meat, poultry, and dairy products.

The steepest declines are in iron =ualityFa measure of the strength, &itality, and o&erall yang =uality of garden produce. The greatestgains are in &itamin A, which increased I since the last sur&ey. !ollard greens lost half of their iron between 1742 and 1774 butsince then ha&e made up their loss. The &itamin A in carrots is up 21.7I since 1742, though they lost nearly 38I since 1774. The Ain %ale is up by three:=uarters, and that in mustard greens and turnip greens has doubled. The increased popularity of green leafy&egetables in recent years may ha&e led to the culti&ation of more nutritious strains. 5r perhaps more samples were included in therecent data. 0itamin ! le&els ha&e not appreciably changed o&er the last decade, though o&erall they are substantially down from ageneration ago.

*e ha&e not done a comparable sur&ey of grains, beans, and other food groups. Spot chec%s suggest that there is a decline inselected nutrients, but that it is not as sharp as with &egetables and fruits. $n the future, we hope to e>tend our analysis.

Im/lications

The findings of our sur&ey suggest)

K The health of the American people may be declining because of a sharp loss of food =uality. #ruits and &egetables are high in&itamins, minerals, antio>idants, fla&inoids, phytoestrogens, and other compounds that are protecti&e against heart disease,certain cancers, arthritis, diabetes, womenGs health problems, childhood ailments, and other disorders

1


15/34

K The worldwide en&ironmental crisisFincluding increased use of chemical pesticides and fertiliers, the introduction ofgenetically engineered food, increased air and water pollution, rising soil infertility, loss of seed &itality, global warming, thinningof the oone layer, and other factorsFappears to be the primary cause of the nutrient decline. 5ther causes include theincreasing use of high:yielding hybrid seeds that multiply yields, gi&e stronger colors, better taste, and more uniformity of foodbut pro&ide less &itality and nutrients

K $t appears that a significant portion of the nutritional data used by go&ernment agencies, medical associations, restaurants, and

other institutions is still based on data collected in 1742 or earlier. The U.S. dietary guidelines that accompany the #ood +uideyramid and the ;ecommended Daily $nta%es ';D$Gs( for essential nutrients are the basis for tens of millions of meals ser&eddaily in public schools, hospitals, prisons, the military, nursing homes, and other institutions. $n the 1778s, the USDA stoppedpublishing nutritional data in printed form and switched to an online database. *hile this allowed for con&enient access andcontinuous updating, it was relati&ely difficult for indi&iduals and organiations to obtain a comparati&e range of foods. $tappears that the USDAGs classic 1742 Handook 3, which is still a&ailable ine>pensi&ely from commercial publishers, remainsthe de facto standard in many =uarters, though its data is long obsolete

K Similarly, the labels on many U.S. foods appear to be based on out:of:date printed food composition tables, creating a distortedprofile of the nutritional &alue of many common foods

K Since the U.S. is the worldGs largest e>porter of food, the decline in its food =uality has global conse=uences. "ot only AmericaGshealth, but also planetary health is at ris%. Se&eral indpendent studies in urope indicate a comparable decline in nutritionalcontent, especially among &egetables and fruits

#or whate&er reasonFen&ironmental, genetic, or simply the fact that it is grown from seed with inferior nutritional traitsFtodayGs foodin the United States is -2 to 28 percent lower in nutrients than it was a half century ago. This decline does not appear to be reflectedin current go&ernment or medical guidelines, coo%boo%s, popular health and diet boo%s, and menu plans. They continue to rely onobsolete, misleading figures from decades ago that are significantly higher than the food that people are actually consuming today.

A related issue is whether organic food contains higher le&els of nutrients than con&entionally grown food. *ith the introduction of theUSDA organic certification program in -88-, there was a widespread e>pectation that such studies would finally be underta%en. Eetthey ha&e not because of strong opposition by con&entional growers. $ndependent studies ha&e shown what organic consumersintuiti&ely %now, namely, that organically grown food is substantially higher in &itamins and minerals than chemically grown food. #ore>ample, the second annual State of Science ;e&iew reported that cancer:fighting antio>idant le&els are, on a&erage, /8 percenthigher in organic produce &s. con&entionally grown fruits and &egetables./The cause for this, the scientists concluded, is that

12


16/34

antio>idant chemicals are created within a plant grown organically or in the wild when the plant triggers internal defensemechanisms. ?owe&er, these beneficial mechanisms are rarely triggered in plants that are raised with synthetic fertiliers andpesticides. A doen other studies ha&e come to similar conclusions.

y all indications, the decline in the modern way of eating begins in the soil, the air, the water, and other aspects of the en&ironment.The U.S. go&ernment is doing &irtually nothing to address this issue, nor is agribusiness, the food industry, the medical profession, oracademia. Eet there is no more important issue than food =uality, food safety, and the relation of diet and health. $t is time torecognie that the threats that &anishing nutrients pose to homeland security and world peace are as real as those we face from

international terrorism, global warming, and nuclear war or accident. The sooner we address this issue with a sustainable, naturaland organically:based agriculture and food policy, the sooner we will reclaim our health and &itality.

4urther Research

There were se&eral doen healthful foods for which nutritional data are not a&ailable. These include se&eral &arieties of s=uash'buttercup, delicata, etc.(, #ar astern &inegars 'brown rice, sweet brown rice, and umeboshi(, se&eral sea &egetables, %onnya%u 'agelatinous Asian food(, and schiandra berry 'the !hinese @2 energies fruit(. There also are many foods from Africa, the Middle ast,perience, and de&eloping your own intuition. ut they are part of abroad approach to personal and planetary health and ideally are maintained as comprehensi&ely and up to date as possible.

13


17/34

0e) Resources

U.S. "utrient Database for Standard ;eference, ;elease -/http)99www.nal.usda.go&9fnic9foodcomp9search9

Japan #ood !omposition Tableshttp)99database.food.sugiyama:u.ac.Cp9inde>asia.php

"ational #ood $nstitute of Denmar%

http)99www.foodcomp.d%

Amberwa&eshttp)99www.amberwa&es.org

14


18/34

Food 0ater 6nery Protein 4at Car)s 4i)er (sh C( Iron Phos N( , 'ita(

'itaB1

'itaB%

Niacin 'itaC

7 Calories !rams 5rams 5rams 5rams 5rams -. -. - -. -. I.8. -. -. -. -.

1. 09L6 C6R6(L 5R(INS : 5R(IN PRD8CTSAmaranth 11.7 /41 1/,3 4.8 32./ 3.4 -.7 127 4.3 224 286 - 8.1- 8.- 8.7- .-arley *hole 1.8 //2 18.8 1.7 41.4 2.- -. 8 .2 /-8 : 8 : : : 8 earled 18.1 /2- 7.7 1.- 44.4 12.3 1.1 -7 -.2 --1 7 -68 -- 8.17 8.11 .38 8

uc%wheat +roats 7.42 // 1/./ /. 41.2 18.8 -.1 16 -.- /4 1 38 8 8.18 8./ 4.8- 8 #lour 1-.3 //2 3.3 -.8 43.1 1.7 8.7 3 -.1 178 : -88 : 8.2 8.11 -.14 8ulghur 7.8 /- 1-./ 1./ 42.7 16./ 1.2 /2 -.2 /88 14 18 7 8.-/ 8.1- 2.11 8!orn *hole 18./4 /32 7. .4 4./ 4./ 1.- 4 -.4 -18 /2 -64 8 8./7 8.-8 /.3/ -1opcorn -.6 288 7.8 -6.1 24.- 18.8 -.7 18 -.6 -28 66 --2 11 8.1/ 8.1 1.22 8./

!ornmeal 18./ /3- 6.1 /.3 43.7 4./ 1.1 3 /.2 -1 /2 -64 8 8./7 8.-8 /.3/ -1 #lour, blue 18.6/ /3 6.6 2.1 4/.7 6. 1. 2 1.4 -3/ 2 /61 8 8.13 8.-/ -.38 8!ouscous 6.23 /43 1-.4 8.3 44. 2.8 8.3 - 1.1 148 18 133 8 8.13 8.86 /.7 8#u 38.8 13/ 1-.4 8.- -3.- 8.2 8./ 1/ 1./ 38 4 /8 8 .86 8.8/ 8.28 8?ato mugi 1/.8 /68 1/./ 1./ 4-.- 8.3 8.- 3 8. -8 1 62 8 8.8- 8.82 8.3 8Bamut 11.8 //4 1.4 -.- 48. 7.1 1.6 - . /63 3 3 18 8.27 8.16 3./2 8Millet Eellow 6.4 /46 11.8 .- 4-.7 6.2 /./ 6 /.8 -62 2 172 8 8.- 8.-7 .4- 8 +lutinous 1.8 /33 18.3 1.4 4-.1 1.4 8.3 7 -.1 138 - 148 8 8.12 8.82 -.8 8 #lour 18.4 /4/ 18,.6 ./ 4/.1 /.2 1.- 1 /.7 -62 -- 8 8.1 8.84 3.8- 8"oodles

Soba 3.4 //6 1. 8.4 4.3 : /. /2 -.4 -2 47- -2- 8 8.6 8.1/ /.-1 8 Somen 7.- /23 11. 8.6 4.1 ./ .2 -/ 1./ 68 168 13 8 8.18 8.8/ 8.66 8 Udon /8.2 -48 3.1 8.3 23.6 1.- /.8 16 8./ 7 1888 78 8 8.87 8.86 8.38 8 ;amen .7 /3 18.2 12.3 3/. -./ 2.3 -7. .8 --8 -8/3 147 1- 1.8/ 8.-3 .87 8./ ;ice 11.7 /3 /. 8.3 6/.- 1.3 8.7 16 8.4 12/ 16- /8 8 8.8/ 8.8- 8.-- 8 Spaghetti 4./ /6 1.3 1. 42.8 1.3 8 /.3 -26 6 -12 8 8.7 8.1 2.1/ 85ats 6.- /67 13.7 3.7 33./ 18.3 1.4 2 .4 2-/ - -7 8 8.43 8.1 8.73 85atmeal 18.8 /68 1/.4 2.4 37.1 7. 1.2 4 /.7 /48 / -68 8 8.-8 8.86 1.18 8Nuinoa 1/./ /36 1.1 3.1 3.- 4.8 -. 4 .3 24 2 23/ 8 8./3 8./- 1.2- 8;ice rown 1-. /3- 4.2 -.4 43.- /. 1./ // 1.6 -3 -36 8 8.1 8.8 ./8 8 *hite 11.3 /32 4.1 8.4 68.8 1./ 8.3 -6 8.6 112 2 112 8 8.84 8.82 1.38 8

16


19/34


'itaB1

'itaB%

Niacin 'itaC

5R(INS 7 Calories !rams 5rams 5rams 5rams 5rams -. -. - -. -. I.8. -. -. -. -.

#lour 1-.8 /3/ 4.- -.6 43.2 .3 1.2 11 -.8 //4 6 -67 8 8. 8.86 3./ 8 BoCi //.8 -72 2.6 1.4 27.- 1. 8./ 2 8./ 6/ / 31 8 8.11 8.1/ 1.2 8 Mochi .2 -/2 .- 8.6 28./ 8.6 8.- 4 8.- 46 - 33 8 8.82 8.8- 8.28 8 Sweet 11.1 /44 4.8 1.3 47.7 8.7 8. 1 8.4 27 - // 8 8.83 8.8- 8.38 8 *ild 4.6 /24 1.4 1.1 4.7 3.- 1.2 -1 -.8 // 4 -4 17 8.1- 8.-3 3.4/ 8;ye 18.3 //6 18./ 1.3 42.7 12.1 1.3 - -.3 //- - 218 11 8./- 8.-2 .-4 8 #lour 18.6 /-2 12.7 -.- 36.3 -/.6 -.2 /4 2.8 77 - 414 11 8./- 8.-2 .-4 8Sorghum 7.- //7 11./ /./ 4.3 3./ 1.3 -6 . -64 3 /28 8 8.- 8.1 -.7/ 8Teff 6.6 /34 1/./ -. 4/.1 6.8 -. 168 4.3 -7 1- -4 7 8./7 8.-4 /./3 8*heat ran 6.- -13 13.- 2./ -.7 8.- 2. 4.4 17.8 1822 -6 1/8 : 8.67 8./3 /.2 8 ?ard red

spring1-.4 /-7 12. 1.7 36.8 1-.- 1.7 -2 /.3 //- - /8 7 8.28 8.11 2.41 8

?ard redwinter

1/.1 /-4 1-.3 1.2 41.- 1-.- 1.3 -7 /.- -66 - /3/ 7 8./6 8.1- 2.3 8

*holewheatflour

18.4 /8 1/.- -.2 4-.8 18.4 1.3 / /.3 /24 - /3/ 7 8.28 8.14 .73 8

*hiteflour

11.7 /3 18./ 1.8 43./ -.4 8.2 12 .3 186 - 184 - 8.47 8.7 2.78 8

Seitan 43.8 3 -8.8 -.8 1.6 8. 8.- 1 1.6 2 /3 6 8 8.8- 8.81 1.- 8 Semolina 11.3 /38 7.- 1.- 42.8 -.4 8./ 13.4 8.3 36.1 1. 114 : 8.-1 8.82 1.6/ 8


'itaB1

'itaB%

Niacin 'itaC

7 Calories 5rams !rams 5rams 5rams 5rams -. -. - -. -. I.8. -. -. -. -.

%. B6(NS : B6(N PRD8CTSA%u%i 1/. /-7 17.7 8.2 3-.7 1-.4 /./ 33 2.8 /61 2 1-2 14 8.3 8.-- -.3/ 8lac% bean 11.8 /1 -1.3 1. 3-./ 12.- /.3 1-/ 2.8 /2- 2 16/ 8 8.78 8.17 1.73 8!hic%pea eans 11.2 /3 17./ 3.8 38.3 14. -.2 182 3.- /33 - 642 8 8.6 o.-1 1.2 #lour 18./ /64 --. 3.4 24.6 18.6 -.6 2 .7 /16 3 63 1 8.7 8.11 1.43 8 #alafel /.3 /// 1/./ 14.6 /1.6 : -. 2 /. 17- -7 262 1/ 8.12 8.14 1.8 1.3 ?ummus 3.7 144 .7 6.3 13.1 .8 1.3 7 13 118 -- 14/ : 8.1 8.1 8. 4.7Bidney 11.6 /// -/.3 8.6 38.1 -.7 /.6 1/ 6.- 84 - 183 8 8.2/ 8.-- -.1 1

17


20/34


'itaB1

'itaB%

Niacin 'itaC

B6(NS 7 Calories 5rams !rams 5rams 5rams 5rams -. -. - -. -. I.8. -. -. -. -.


21/34

Food 0at$er

6nery Protein 4at Car)s 4i)er (sh C( Iron Phos N( , 'ita ( 'itaB1

'itaB%

Nia$cin

'itaC

7 Calories 5rams 5r 5rams 5rams 5rams -. -. - -. -. I.8. -. -. -. -.

. '656T(BL6SAlfalfa 7-.6 -/ .8 8.4 -.1 1.7 8. /- 1.8 48 3 47 122 8.86 8.1/ 8.6 6.-Arugula 71.4 -2 -.3 8.4 /.4 1.3 1. 138 1.2 2- -4 /37 -/4/ 8.8 8.87 8./1 12.8Asparagus 7/.- -8 -.- 8.1 /.7 -.1 8.3 - -.1 2- - -8- 423 8.1 8.1 8.76 2.3ambooShoots

71 -4 -.3 8./ 2.- -.- 8.7 1/ 8.2 27 2// -8 8.12 8.84 8.3 .8

eets 64.3 / 1.3 8.- 7.3 -.6 1.1 13 8.6 8 46 /-2 // 8.8/ 8.8 8.// .7eet greens 71.- -- -.- 8.1 ./ /.4 -./ 114 -.3 1 --3 43- 3/-3 8.18 8.-- 8. /8.8itter gourd 7. 41 1.8 8.1 /.8 -.3 8.3 1 8. /1 1 -38 :8.82 8.84 8./8 43road eans 11.8 /1 -3.1 1.2 26./ -2.8 /.1 18/ 3.4 -1 1/ 183- 2/ 8.23 8.// -.6/ 1.roccoli 67./ / -.6 8. 3.3 -.3 8.7 4 8.4 33 // /13 3-/ 8.84 8.1- 8.3 67.-roccoli raab 7-.3 -- /.- 8.2 -.7 -.4 8.7 186 -.1 4/ // 173 -3-- 8.13 8.1/ 1.-- -8.-russelsSprouts

63 / /.7 8./ 7.8 /.6 1. - 1. 37 -2 /67 42 8.1 8.87 8.42 62

urdoc% 68.1 4- 1.2 8.- 14./ /./ 8.7 O 8.6 21 2 /86 8 8.81 8.8/ 8./8 /.8!abbage

!hinese 72./ 1/ 1.2 8.- -.- 1.8 8.6 182 8.6 /4 32 -2- 36 8.8 8.84 8.28 2 ;ed 78. /1 1. 8.3 4. -.1 8.3 2 8.6 /8 -4 -/ 1113 8.83 8.84 8.- 24 *hite 7-.- -2 1./ 8.1 2.6 -.2 8.3 8 8.2 -3 16 148 76 8.83 8.8 8.-/ /3.3 Sa&oy 71 -4 -.8 8.1 3.1 /.1 8.6 /2 8. - -6 -/8 1888 8.84 8.8/ 8./8 /1!arrots 66./ 1 8.7 8.- 7.3 -.6 1.8 // 8./ /2 37 /-8 13483 8.84 8.83 8.76 2.7!auliflower 7-.1 -2 1.7 8./ 2.8 -.8 8.6 -- 8. /8 -77 8 8.82 8.83 8.21 6.-!eleriac 66.4 - 1.6 8./ ./ /.7 1.8 1.2 8.6 4 -8 - : 8.82 8.1 1.-2 11!elery 72. 13 8.4 8.- /.8 1.3 8.6 8 8.- - 68 -38 7 8.8- 8.83 8./- /.1!ollard

+reens

78.3 /8 -.2 8. 2.3 /.3 8.7 12 8.- 18 -8 137 3336 8.82 8.1/ 8.4 /2./

!ucumber 72.- 12 8.4 8.1 /.3 8.2 8. 13 8./ - - 14 182 8.8/ 8.8/ 8.18 -.6Dai%on +reens /8.3 -2 -.- 8.1 2.- .8 1.3 -38 /.1 2- 6 88 : :.8/ 8.13 8.68 2/ ;oot 7.3 16 8.3 8.1 .1 1.3 8.3 -4 8. -/ -1 --4 8 8.8- 8.8- 8.-8 --.8 Ta%uan 6/.2 // -.6 8.- 4.8 . 3.2 128 -.4 / -/88 28 : 8.84 8.1 8.28 /8Dandelion+reens

62.3 2 -.4 8.4 7.- /.2 1.6 164 /.1 33 43 /74 18131 8.17 8.-3 8.61 /2.8

Dill 63.8 / /.2 1.1 .7 -.1 -.2 -8- 2.2 21.7 -4 34 : 8.17 :./ /.2 48ggplant 7-. - 1.8 8.- 2.4 /. 8.4 7 8.- -2 - -/8 -4 8.8 8.8 8.32 -.-ndi&e 7/. 14 1./ 8.- /. /.1 1. 2- 8.6 -6 -- /1 -134 8.86 8.86 8.8 3.2

-1


22/34

Food 0at$er


'itaB%

Nia$cin

'itaC

'656T(BL6S 7 Calories 5rams 5r 5rams 5rams 5rams -. -. - -. -. I.8. -. -. -. -.

#ennel 78.- /1 1.- 8.- 4./ /.1 1.1 7 8.4 28 2- 1 1/ 8.81 8.8/ 8.3 1-.8+arlic 26.3 17 3. 8.2 //.1 -.1 1.2 161 1.4 12/ 14 8O 7 8.-8 8.11 8.48 /1.-+ingerroot 46.7 68 1.6 8.6 14.6 -.8 8.6 13 8.3 / 1/ 12 8 8.8/ 8.8/ 8.42 2.8+rape lea&es 4/./ 7/ 2.3 -.1 14./ 11.8 1.4 /3/ -.3 71 7 -4- -42-1 8.8 8./2 -. 11.1+reen beans 78./ /1 1.6 8.- 4.8 -.4 8.4 /4 1.8 /6 3 -11 378 8.86 8.18 8.4/ 1-.-?orseradish 66.- /4 -.1 8.- 6.2 /.- 1.8 /8 8. 28 - 31 4 8.82 8.84 8.3- 11Jerusalemarticho%e

6-.1 : -.1 8.3 11.2 -.3 1.- -6.8 8.3 4-./ / 231 : 8.84 8.83 1.2/ 3

Bale 6.2 28 /./ 8.4 18.8 -.8 1.2 1/2 1.4 23 / 4 12/43 8.11 8.1/ 1.88 1-8Bampyo 17.6 -61 4.1 8.- 34.7 /8.1 2.8 -28 -.7 18 / 1688 : 8 8.8 -.4 8Bohlrabi 71.8 -4 1.4 8.1 3.- /.3 1.8 - 8. 3 -8 /28 /3 8.82 8.8- 8.8 3-.8

Leeks 6/.8 31 1.2 8./ 1.- 1.6 1.1 27 -.1 /2 -8 168 1334 8.83 8.8/ 8.8 1-.8


23/34

Food 0at$er


'itaB%

Nia$cin

'itaC

'656T(BL6S 7 Calories 5rams 5r 5rams 5rams 5rams -. -. - -. -. I.8. -. -. -. -.

arsnips 47.2 42 1.- 8./ 16.8 .7 1.8 /3 8.3 41 18 /42 8 8.87 8.82 8.48 14eas dible pods 66.7 - -.6 8.- 4.3 -.3 8.3 / -.1 2/ -88 1864 8.12 8.86 8.38 38.8 +reen 46.7 61 2. 8. 1.2 2.1 1.2 -2 1.2 186 2 - 432 8.-4 8.1/ -.87 8.8eppers +reen 7/. -8 8.7 8.- .3 1.4 8. 18 8./ -8 / 142 /48 8.83 8.8/ 8.6 68. ;ed 7-.- /1 1.8 8./ 3.8 -.1 8.2 4 8. -3 -11 /1/1 8.82 8.87 8.76 1-4 ?ot chili 66.8 8 1.7 8. 6.61 1.2 8.7 1 1.8 / 7 /-- 72- 8.84 8.87 1.- 1 Jalapeno 71.- -7 8.7 8. 3.2 -.6 8.2 1- 8./ -3 / -6 1846 8.8 8.84 1.-6 117ump%in 71.3 -3 1.8 8.1 3.2 8.2 8.6 -1 8.6 1 /8 4/6 8.82 8.11 8.38 7.8;adish, red 72./ 13 8.4 8.1 /. 1.3 8.3 -2 8./ -8 /7 -// 4 8.81 8.8 8.-2 1.6;utabaga 67.4 /3 1.- 8.- 6.1 -.2 8.6 4 8.2 26 -8 //4 - 8.87 8.8 8.48 -2.8Salsify 44.8 6/ /./ 8.- 16.3 /./ 8.7 38 8.4 42 -8 /68 8 8.86 8.-- 8.28 6.8Scallion 67.6 /- 1.6 8.- 4./ -.3 8.6 4- 1.2 /4 13 -43 774 8.83 8.86 8.2/ 16.6Soybeansprouts

63./ -8 3.- 1. .2 8.6 8.6 34 -.1 13 /8 /3 : 8./ 8.1- -. 12./

Spinach 71. -/ -.7 8. /.3 -.- 1.4 77 -.4 7 47 226 7/44 8.86 8.17 8.4- -6.1S=uash Acorn 64.6 8 8.6 8.1 18. 1.2 8.7 // 8l.4 /3 / /4 /34 8.1 8.81 8.48 11.8 utternut 63. 2 1.8 8.1 11.4 -.8 8.6 6 8.4 // /2- 183/8 8.18 8.8- 1.- -1.8 ?ubbard 66.8 8 -.8 8.2 6.4 : 8.6 1 8. -1 4 /-8 1/34 8.84 8.8 8.28 11.8 ?o%%aido 43.- /61 1.7 8./ -8.3 /.2 1.8 12 8.2 / 1 28 : 8.84 8.87 1.28 / Spaghetti 71.3 /1 8.3 8.3 3.7 : 8./ -/ 8./ 1- 14 186 28 8.8 8.8- 8.72 -.1 Summer 7.3 13 1.- 8.- /. 1.1 8.3 12 8. /6 - -3- -88 8.82 8.1 8.7 14.8Swiss chard 7-.4 17 1.6 8.- /.4 1.3 1.3 21 1.6 3 -1/ /47 3113 8.8 8.87 8.8 /8.8

Tomato #resh 7.2 16 8.7 8.- /.7 1.- 8.2 18 8./ - 2 -/4 6// 8.8 8.8- 8.27 1/.4 Sun:dried 1.3 -26 1.1 /.8 22.6 1-./ 1-.3 /23 7.1 /23 -872 /-4 64 8.2/ 8.7 7.82 /7.-Turnips 71.7 -6 8.7 8.1 3. 1.6 8.4 /8 8./ -4 34 171 8 8.8 8.8/ 8.8 -1.8Turnip greens 67.4 /- 1.2 8./ 4.1 /.- 1. 178 1.1 - 8 -73 11264 8.84 8.18 8.38 38.8*atercress 7.1 11 -./ 8.1 1./ 8.2 1.- 1-8 8.- 38 1 //8 /171 8.87 8.1- 8.-8 /Eellow or wa>beans

78./ /1 1.6 8.1 4.1 /. 8.4 /4 1.8 /6 3 -87 186 8.86 8.11 8.42 13./

Pucchini 7.6 14 1.- 8./ /.1 1.8 8.3 13 8. /6 6 -31 -88 8.82 8.87 8.2 14.7

-/


24/34

Food 0at$er


'itaB%

Nia$$cin

'itaC

7 Calories 5rams 5r 5rams 5rams 5rams -. -. - -. -. I.8. -. -. -. -.

2. S6( '656T(BL6SAgar agar 71./ -3 8.2 8.8

/3.6 8.2 1. 2 1.7 2 7 --3 8 8.81 8.8- 8.83 8

Arame 13.4 18 1-. 8.4 23.- 6.8 1.8 478 /.2 -28 -/88 /-88 : 8.18 8.-3 -./ 8Dulse 13.3 : : /.8 : 8.4 /.4 234 3./ -- : : : : : : :?ii%i 1/.3 1/7 18.3 1./ 23.- /./ 16./ 188 22.8 188 188 88 : 8./3 1.18 -.7 8$rish moss 61./ 7 1.2 8.- 1-./ 1./ .4 4- 6.7 124 34 3/ 116 8.8- 8.4 8.27 /.8Belp 61.3 / 1.4 8.3 7.3 1./ 3.3 136 -.7 - -// 67 113 8.82 8.12 8.4 /.8Bombu 18.8 18 /./ 1.2 2/.2 /3.6 -1.4 /8 /.8 /-8 /888 2-88 : 8.17 8.1 -.1 -8"ori 62.8 /2 2.6 8./ 2.1 8./ /.6 48 1.6 26 6 /23 2-8- 8.18 8.2 1.4 /7.8Sea alm : -24 Q18:11 : 24.1 Q18:11 : 11- 12. : -877 : : : : : 14.1Spirulina 78.4 -3 2.7 8. -. : 8.3 1- -.6 11 76 1-4 23 8.-- 8./ 1.-8 8.7*a%ame 68.8 2 /.8 8.3 7.1 8.2 4.- 128 -.- 68 64- 28 /38 8.83 8.-/ 1.3 /.8

Food 0ater 6nery Protein 4at Car)s 4i)er (sh C( Iron Phos N( , 'ita ( 'itaB1

'itaB%

Niacin 'itaC

7 Calories 5rams 5rams 5rams 5rams 5rams -. -. - -. -. I.8. -. -. -. -.

#. ST(RC96SArrowroot 11. /24 8./ 8.1 66.- /. 8.1 8 8./ 2 - 11 8 8 8 8 8!assa&a 27.4 -3/ 1.1 8./ /6.1 1.6 8.3 13 8./ 1-4 1 -41 : 8.87 8.82 1.14 -83!ornstarch 6./ /61 8./ 8.1 71./ 8.7 8.1 - 8.2 1/ 7 / 8 8 8 8 8JinenCo 36.6 1-1 -.6 8.4 -3.4 -.8 1.8 18 8.6 /1 3 228 : 8.11 8.8 : 12Buu Dried 1/.3 : 1/./ -.- /-1 /1. 4. : : : : : : : : : :

owder 13.2 //3 8.- 8.1 6/.1 8 8.1 14 -.8 18 - : 8 8 8 8 8otato *hite 47./ 44 -.8 8.1 14.2 -.- 1.1 1- 8.6 24 3 -1 - 8.86 8.8/ 1.82 17.4 Sweet 44./ 63 1.3 8.1 -8.1 /.8 1.8 /8 8.3 4 22 //4 1164 8.86 8.83 8.23 -.Taro 61. 34 1./ 8.1 13./ : 8.6 -3 8. / 1/ 16 8.18 8.8- 8.6 -.3Eam 37.3 116 1.2 8.- -4.7 .1 8.6 14 8.2 22 7 613 1/6 8.11 8.8/ 8.22 14.1

-


25/34


26/34


27/34


'itaB%

Nia$cin

'itaC

7 Calorie 5rams 5rms 5rams 5rams 5rams -. -. - -. -. I.8. -. -. -. -.

!. 4R8ITSAcai, freee:

dried/. 2//.7 6.1 /-2 2-.- .- /.6 -38 . : /8. : 188- : : : 8.1

Apple 62.3 2- 8./ 8.- 1/.6 -. 8.- 3 8.1 11 1 184 2 8.8- 8.8/ 8.87 .3Apricot 63. 6 1. 8. 11.1 -.8 8.6 1/ 8. -/ 1 -27 17-3 8.8/ 8.8 8.38 18.8A&ocado 4-./ 134 -.8 12. 6.3 3.6 1.4 1/ 8.3 2 6 284 14 8.86 8.1 1.71 6.6anana 4.7 67 1.1 8./ --.6 -.3 8.6 2 8./ -- 1 /26 3 8.8/ 8.84 8.34 6.4

lac%berry 66.- / 1. 8.2 7.3 2./ 8. -7 8.3 -- 1 13- -1 8.8- 8.8/ 8.32 -1.8lueberry 6.- 24 8.4 8./ 1.2 -. 8.- 3 8./ 1- 1 44 2 8.8 8.8 8.- 7.4!antaloupe 78.- / 8.6 8.- 6.- 8.7 8.4 7 8.- 12 13 -34 //6- 8.8 8.8- 8.4/ /3.4!asaba 71.7 -6 1.1 8.1 3.3 8.7 8. 11 8./ 2 7 16- 8 8.8- 8.8/ 8.-/ -1.6!herry 71. /- 8. 8./ 4.4 1.1 8.- 1- 8- 11 4 13 42 8.8- 8.83 8.8 18!ranberry 64.1 3 8. 8.1 1-.- .3 8.- 6 8./ 1/ - 62 38 8.81 8.8- 8.18 1/./!urrant 6.8 23 1. 8.- 1/.6 ./ 8.4 // 1.8 1 -42 - 8.8 8.82 8.18 1.8Date -1./ -44 1.6 8.- 42.8 3.4 1.4 3 8.7 3- 1 373 17 8.82 8.83 1.31 8lderberry 47.6 : 8.4 8.2 11. 4.8 8.3 4. 8.7 22.6 6 /-.1 : 8.84 8.83 1.7- -7.8#ig 47.1 4 8.6 8./ 17.- -.7 8.4 /2 8. 1 1 -/- 1- 8.83 8.82 8.8 -.8+oCi berry : 11- 18.3 : -1.8 4.4 : 11- 6. : : : : 8.12 : : 16.+ooseberry 64.7 31 8.7 8.3 3.7 /.- 8. -3.2 8. -/.3 - 143 : 8.81 8.8/ 8.8 //+rapefruit 78.7 /- 8.3 8.1 6.1 1.1 8./ 1- 8.1 6 8 1/7 // 8.8 8.8- 8.-6 /.+rape 6./ 24 8.6 8.2 1/.7 /.7 8.2 /4 8./ - 1 -8/ 34 8.82 8.:/ 8.8/ +ua&a 68.6 36 -.3 1.8 1./ 2. 1. 16 8./ 8 - 14 3- 8.84 8.8 1.86 --6?oneydew 67.6 /3 8.2 8.1 7.1 8.6 8. 3 8.- 11 13 --6 28 8.8 8.81 8.13 16.8Biwi 6/.- 38 1.- 8.3 1.- -.8 8.6 -8 8./ -7 / /13 4- 8.8- 8.82 8.-6 182Bum=uat 68.7 41 1.7 8.7 12.7 3.2 8.2 3- 8.7 17 18 163 -78 8.8 8.87 8./ /.7


28/34


'itaB%

Nia$cin

'itaC

4R8ITS 7 Calorie 5rams 5rms 5rams 5rams 5rams -. -. - -. -. I.8. -. -. -. -.

ear 6/.4 26 8. 8.1 12.2 /.1 8./ 7 8.- 11 1 117 -/ 8.8- 8.8/ 8.13 .-ersimmon 3. 1-4 8.6 8. //.2 : 8.7 -4 -.2 -3 1 /18 : : : : 33.8ineapple 62.4 28 8.2 8. 11.3 1. 8. 16.7 8.- 1/.7 14 : 8.:6 8.8- 8.8- -2lum 64.- 3 8.4 8./ 11. 1. 8. 3 8.- 13 8 124 /2 8.8/ 8.8/ 8.- 7.2ric%ly pear 64.3 1 8.4 8.2 3 /.3 1.3 23 8./ - 2 --8 : 8.81 8.83 8.3 1.8Nuince 6/.6 24 8. 8.1 12./ 1.7 8. 11 8.4 14 174 8 8.8- 8.8/ 8.-8 12.8;aisin 13.3 -73 -.2 8.2 46.2 3.6 1.7 -6 -.3 42 -6 6-2 8 8.11 8.16 1.11 2.

;aspberry 62.4 2- 1.- 8.4 11.7 3.2 8.2 -2 8.4 -7 1 121 // 8.8/ 8.8 8.38 -3.-;hubarb 7/.3 -1 8.7 8.- .2 1.6 8,6 63 8.- 1 -66 18- 8.8- 8.8/ 8./8 6.8;ose hips 6/. 13- 8.3 8.2 6.3 3.1 8.7 16 8.- /2.8 - 18 : :.83 8.84 8.28 68Strawberry 71.8 /- 8.4 8./ 4.4 -.8 8. 13 8. - 1 12/ 1- 8.8- 8.8- 8./7 26.7Tangerine 62.- 2/ 8.6 8./ 1/./ 1.6 8. /4 8.- -8 - 133 361 8.83 8.8 8./6 -3.4*atermelon 71.2 /8 8.3 8.- 4.3 8. 8./ 4 8.- 11 1 11- 237 8.8/ 8.8- 8.16 6.1


'itaB1

'itaB%

Niacin 'itaC


1&. N8TS

Acorn -4.7 /64 3.- -/.7 8.6 : 1. 1 .6 47 8 2/7 /7 8.11 8.1- 1.6 8Almond .4 242 -1.- 7.- -1.4 1-.- /.8 -3 /.4 6 1 482 1 8.-1 1.81 /./7 8rail /.2 323 1./ 33. 1-./ 4.2 /.2 138 -. 4-2 / 327 8 8.3- 8.8 8./8 8.4!ashew 2.- 22/ 16.- /.7 /8.- /./ -.2 /4 3.4 27/ 1- 338 8 8.- 8.83 1.83 8.2!hestnut #resh 2- 173 1.3 1./ .- : 1.8 17 8.7 /6 - 6 -3 8.1 8.8- 1.18 8.-

Dried 7.2 /4 3. .2 44./ 11.4 -. 34 -. 142 /4 763 8 8./8 8./3 8.62 12.8!oconut 4.8 /2 /./ //.2 12.- 7.8 1.8 1 -. 11/ -8 /23 8 8.84 8,- 8.2 /./?aelnut 2./ 3-6 12.8 38.6 13.4 7.4 -./ 11 .4 -78 8 368 -8 8.3 8.11 1.68 3./Macadamia 1. 416 4.7 42.6 1/.6 6.3 1.1 62 /.4 166 2 /36 8 1.-8 8.13 -.4 1.-eanut eanut 3.2 234 -2.6 7.- 13.1 6.2 -./ 7- .3 /43 16 482 8 8.3 8.1 1-.84 8 utter 1.1 267 -.1 28.8 -1.3 6.8 /./ 2 1.7 /17 14 42 8 8.11 8.11 1/.48 8ecan /.2 371 7.1 41.6 1/.7 7.3 1.2 48 -.2 -44 8 18 23 8.33 8.1/ 1.14 1.1ine -./ 34/ 1/.4 36. 1/.1 /.4 -.3 13 2.2 242 - 274 -7 8./3 8.-/ ./7 8.6istachio /.7 23- -8./ 2. -4.2 18./ -.7 182 /.7 78 1 18-2 12 8.64 8.13 1./8 2.3*alnut .1 32 12.- 32.- 1/.4 3.4 1.6 76 -.7 /3 - 1 -8 8./ 8.12 1.12 1./

-6


29/34


'itaB1

'itaB%

Niacin 'itaC


11. S66DS!hia, dried .7 78 12.3 /8.6 /.7 /4.4 .7 3/1 : 76 17 138 : : : : :#la>seed 4.8 2/ 16./ -.- -6.7 -4./ /.4 -22 2.4 3- /8 61/ 8 1.3 8.13 /.86 8.3


30/34


'itaB1

'itaB%

Niacin 'itaC

4IS9 7 Calories 5rams 5rams 5rams 5rams 5rams -. -. - -. -. I.8. -. -. -. -.

Swordfish 4/. 1 17.4 3.4 8 8 1. 2 8. -22 61 16 1-8 8.86 8.82 4.43 8Tilapia 46.1 73 -8.1 1.4 8 8 8.7 18 8.3 148 2- /8- 8 8.8 8.83 /.78 8Trout 41.- 117 -8.2 /.2 8 8 1./ 34 8.4 -41 /1 6O 3- 8.1- 8.18 2./6 -.Tuna 4.8 187 -. 8.2 8 8 1.3 8.6 -46 2 1 38 8.1- 8.1- 16.2 8*hitefish 4-./ 1/ 17.1 2.7 8 8 1.1 -3 8. /14 21 /14 1-8 8.1 8.1- /.88 8

1. S6(4DAbalone 4.3 182 14.1 8.6 3.8 8 1.3 /1 /.- 178 /81 -28 4 8.17 8.18 1.28 -!lam 47.8 63 1.4 1.8 /.3 8 1.6 /7 1.3 176 381 3 /88 8.8- 8.8 8./2 8


31/34

Food 0at$er


'itaB%

Nia$cin

'itaC

B6'6R(56S 7 Calories 5rams 5r 5rams 5rams 5rams -. -. - -. -. I.8. -. -. -. -.

!arrot 66.7 8 1.8 8.- 7./ 8.6 8.6 - 8.2 - -7 -7- 171- 8.87 8.83 8./7 6.2 !elery 7.1 16 8.6 8.- 1.3 : - 8. -2 71 -6 : 8.82 8.1 8./- 3.1 !ranberry 64.1 3 8. 8.1 1-.- 8.1 8.- 6 8./ 1/ - 44 2 8.81 8.8- 8.87 7./ +rape 6.2 38 8. 8.1 1.6 8.- 8.- 11 8./ 1 2 18 6 8.8- 8.8- 8.1/ 8.1 +rapefruit 78.- /7 8.2 8.1 7.- : 8.- 7 8.- 12 1 13- 8 8.8 8.8- 8.- /6.8


32/34


'itaB1

'itaB%

Niacin 'itaC

7 Calories 5rams 5rams

5rams 5rams 5rams -. -. - -. -. I.8. -. -. -. -.

1#. -6(Teef ?amburger 26.- -7/ 12.6 -2.8 8 8 8.6 -1 1.6 12 34 - 8 8.8 8.1 /.6 8 Stea% 3.2 -1 17.7 1./ 8 8 1.8 -2 1.2 161 21 /87 8 8.82 8.86 3./ 8


33/34


'itaB1

'itaB%

Niacin 'itaC

D(IR< 7 Calories 5rams 5rams

5rams 5rams 5rams -. -. - -. -. I.8. -. -. -. -.

*hipped 31./ -24 /.- --.- 1-.2 8 8.6 181 8.1 67 1/8 14 362 8.8 8.84 8.84 8$ce cream 31 -84 /.2 11 -/.3 8.4 8.7 1-6 8.1 182 68 177 1- 8.8 8.- 8.1- 8.3Mil% Buttermilk 78.1 8 /./ 8.7 .6 8 8.7 113 8.1 67 182 121 4 8.8/ 8.12 8.83 1 Condensed -4.- /-1 4.7 6.4 2. 8 1.6 -6 8.- -2/ 1-4 /41 -34 8.87 8.- 8.-1 -.3 +oat 64.8 37 /.3 .1 .2 8 8.6 1/ 8.1 111 28 -7 176 8.82 8.1 8.-6 1./

?uman 64.2 48 1.8 . 3.7 8 8.- /- 8.8/ 1 14 21 -1- 8.1 8.8 8.16 2.8


34/34

1Alex Jack, Nutrition Under Siege, One Peaceful World Journal, Spring, 1998, pp. 1. 7, 8. Alex Jack,AmericasVanishing Nutrients, Amberwaves, 2002.2Donald R. David, Melvin D. Epp, and Hugh D. Riordan, Changes in USDA Food Composition Data for 43 GardenCrops, 1950 to 1999,Journal of the American College of Nutrition23(6):669682, 2004.3Cited by Robert J. Davis, Is Organic More Nutritious?, Wall Street Journal, February 15, 2005.

2011 nutrient guide

Documents