Just going back to your previous comment. "This would tend to discredit the idea that a fruit was wonderfully made by God and has the same nutrient levels grown on poor ground as on rich ground."
Well, even in Bible times they knew it was good to "dung" the soil.
In earlier days when people used to eat more largely of local produce, certain areas were known for their soil deficientcies with the associated health problems they caused.
We are certainly fearfully and wonderfully made, but we suffer when we have a poor diet, would it not be the same for plants?
Why should we require that plants should be able to produce a perfect product under deficient conditions?

As to your last comment, certainly 100 years ago that would have been all that was necessary for health. Many years ago The Soil Association in England ran a trial growing five generations of barley on organic and chemically fertilised soil. They then planted the organic seed on the chemical plot and it produced a healthy plant. But the 5th generation seed from the chemical plot, still produced a poor crop even when grown on the organically fertilised soil. So there are other factors as well.

Doesn't your point about Arsenic indicate that if certain other nutrients were not in the soil, they would not appear in the plant?
Some of the major nutrients in the soil manifest their deficiency by the plants having yellow leaves etc. So would it not be possible for many of the trace elements to be deficient without necessarliy showing outwardly?

Then some speak of the ministry of weeds, that they able to synthesize elements that are deficient and so build up the soil.

I am wondering if we are getting a bit away from the topic? Do we
need to start a different thread?

Yes, it produces more.
But not related to my point.

Nice thought. But is it true? Show me.

Yes. Poor crop. Less.
But not related to my point.
And could be other factors such as epigenetic. Which is same as comparing different varieties or plants and about comparing non-related things.

Yes, that was my point.
Perhaps there's a misunderstanding of what elements are and molecules are (plant manufactured carbon compounds, specifically)? And if there is less or more. Which produces less or more crop.
But I was speaking of quality, not quantity.

Could be that it just produced more, but equally could be it produced better quality. It is well known that well fed plants don't just produce more fruit, but that fruit is also firmer and keep better, and are less prone to pests and disease.

We used to grow apples organically fifty years ago. The neighbours laughed and said you could not get a good crop without the sprays and super fertilizers. Yet when the agent came out from England, he phoned and asked why our fruit arrived in so much better condition than the other fruit they received.

The barley test was not only about quantity of yield, but also the health of the plant. There were several indicators for this, color, pest resistance, stem strength, and maybe others which I have forgotten. The test was certainly not about unrelated items.

"Nice thought" No, not just a thought, but life experience. I grew up in Tasmania where we tended to have a higher rate of tooth decay than the mainland. We were taught this was because Tasmanian soils were deficient in some minerals, I do not remember specifically which ones.

The fact that our produce does not contain anything like the nutrient levels that it used to is widely acknowledged and easily proven. I did not think it would still be questioned. As I mentioned before, I see that as no bad reflection on how good God made the plants in the beginning, but a natural result of how we are mis-treating the soil.

Where modern agricultural methods have dominated for decades there is a drastic reduction in topsoil depth and quality. Little organic matter to support microbial life, buffer amendments, etc. Blown away, washed into the rivers & seas. Rebuilding topsoil is beyond reason on a large commercial farm scale.

Plants, like people, are both dependent upon soil health, among other factors. People of today bear little resemblance to our original ancestors who lived for centuries. We are 'sickly and dwarfed', though often claim to be beautiful with superior intellect.

It's logical the plants, trees and animals have likewise degenerated.

As Geoff mentioned, quality differences may not be immediately apparent. But conservation (keeping quality), flavour, pest & disease resistance, and esp. important - viability of future generations - may all be affected.

Perhaps some soil can still produce apples, but instead of 100 varieties, maybe only ten. Few consumers consider the importance of maintaining plant diversity.

GMOs and the increasing radioactive pollution (Depleted Uranium weaponry, accidents like Fukushima) of soils are other concerns.

Many have destroyed the earth which waxes old like a garment.

____________________

Wouldn't you thinks, nice thoughts, consider ifs, speculations, assumed premises, and widely acknowledges aside, I'd be willing to read some research presenting facts. Because otherwise, it comes across as attempting to sell product. If the facts support the thoughts, imagine what that would do for backing up the claims!

I don't think we need scientific reports (facts) to tell us something is wrong with the food chain. But here is an interesting one that has just come to my notice.

In 1995 the recommended daily allowance for fruit and vegies was
5-7 serves.
Today, the figure is 7-13 serves.

Why should we have to consume nearly twice as many serves of fruit and vegies if their nutrient level is unchanged?

I did quote one factual report, but it was quite old, but why should we think things have got better instead of worse since then?
I remember one farmer telling me that in ten years they had to increase the amount of Super phosphate fertilizer used by 500%
to produce the same amount of crop. The farmer said the soil was dead and the fruit was not worth eating. That farm has since
changed to organic methods. But the greater part of our food supply still comes from chemical methods.

Recently my brother told me that whereas a few years ago the fish farms were using a few kilos of anti-biotics, now they are using tons of it.

If you prefer to believe that our produce still provides the same level of nutrients that it did a hundred years ago, maybe you could find some facts to sustain that belief. I think most of us have seen enough, that there is no doubt in our minds as to where the truth is. Is your belief based on evidence, or an assumed understanding.

As Sis. White says, we should never be afraid to discuss a different point of view. If we have the truth, it will stand any test. And if we don't have the truth, the sooner we find out the better.

I am just a little concerned that the topic has come to a point where it is not throwing any light on the question as to why veganism causes premature death. To this point my earlier remarks, at least to me, do seem to offer a plausible explanation. I am not saying that is the only possible explanation, or that it is necessarily correct, only that in the light of recent science, it does make some sense.

I have just come across another report released about ten years ago. Things may be worse than we think.

"In 1951 two peaches would supply a woman's RDA of vit. A.
Today (1999)she would have to consume 53 peaches."
Christian J Charts. Nutrient Changes in Vegetables and Fruits,
1951 - 1999. CTV News 2002.

Google: "In 1951 two peaches would supply a woman's RDA of vit. A."

What do you find? Mannatech. Are we to believe that we are all dying because we do not eat Mannatech products?

One Glycobiologist's work I am familiar with is Ajit Varki, M.D., from UCSD, and his work on neuraminic acid. What his work shows so very clearly, is that the advise giving to Adventists on diet from the Spirit of Prophesy is SPOT ON.

Quoting:
The opinion of independent glycobiologists is that the body cannot digest Ambrotose, as it lacks the enzymes needed.[10] Prominent glycobiologist Dr. Ronald Schnaar, PhD of Johns Hopkins School of Medicine[12] told 20/20 in a June 1, 2007 interview, "All of the sugar building blocks that we need in our body are made from the most common foods we eat."[13]

Hudson Freeze, PhD, leading glycobiologist at the Sanford-Burnham Medical Research Institute[14] said this about glyconutrients: "There are authentic, scientific studies that have looked at people drinking these kinds of materials, and it doesn't really do anything except increase flatulence."[13] Dr. Freeze is a member of the editorial board of Glycobiology, whose current editor-in-chief is Dr. Schnaar.[15] Schnaar and Freeze published a critique of Mannatech's products in Glycobiology in 2008, describing the lack of published clinical benefits of the "partially purified polydisperse plant polysaccharides" found in "Ambrotose Complex."[16]

In Glycobiology, another article described the potential for the public to be misled about the science of glycobiology by the nebulous "glyconutrient" term.[17] The authors' concern was that the public would be susceptible to the "scientific-sounding label" of glyconutrient, which may "generate a feeling of security and credibility...despite the lack of acceptance among many glycobiologists of the term." In November 2007, Science published an article in its "News Focus" section detailing the scientific controversy surrounding Mannatech.[18] It included criticisms and comments from glycobiologists, including Ajit Varki, Raymond Dwek, Gerald Hart, James Paulson, Hudson Freeze, and Ronald Schnaar.

[10]Sataline, Suzanne (May 11, 2007). "True Believers: Health Claims by Sales Force Boost Supplement Firm; Mannatech's Products Attract the Gravely Ill; Disclaimers on Labels". Wall Street Journal / Dow Jones & Company, Inc.. Retrieved July 8, 2007. Note that full article is available only to WSJ subscribers. "Some researchers say they doubt that Ambrotose offers any health benefits. Dr. Hudson Freeze, who studies complex carbohydrates as a professor of glycobiology at the Burnham Institute for Medical Research in La Jolla, Calif., contends the body can't digest Ambrotose because humans lack the enzymes necessary to break down the plant fibers it contains into simple sugars."
[12]"Ronald L. Schnaar, PhD". Johns Hopkins University. Retrieved May 21, 2010.
[13]Avila, Jim; Geoff Martz, and Andrew Paparella (June 1, 2007). "Cure for Your Disease or Empty Promise?". ABCNews Internet Ventures. Retrieved July 8, 2007.
[14]"Hudson Freeze, PhD". Sanford-Burnham Medical Research Institute. Retrieved May 21, 2010.[dead link]
[15]"Editorial Board". Glycobiology. Retrieved May 21, 2010.
[16]Schnaar RL, Freeze HH (2008). "A "Glyconutrient Sham"". Glycobiology 18 (9): 652–657. DOI:10.1093/glycob/cwm098. PMID 17855741.
[17]Torok CB, Murray TH (2008). "Wielding the sword of professional ethics against misleading dietary supplement claims". Glycobiology 18 (9): 660–663. DOI:10.1093/glycob/cwn060.
[18]Jocelyn Kaiser (2007). "Who Owns Glycobiology?". Science 318 (5851): 734–737. DOI:10.1126/science.318.5851.734. PMID 17975043.

Isn't that interesting. For years these types of claims have been made against Mannatech. Yet scientists who have been doing clinical trials for years have a different answer. So who do you believe, the ones who state their opinions, or the ones who are doing the clinical trials?
Actually you don't have to worry about either one, just ask some of the people around the world who are experiencing incredible changes to their health. Try telling them that Ambrotose cannot be digested and does nothing for their health. And if that is true, why is that not being shown in the clinical trials?

Mannatech were only quoting someone else's research about the peaches. They gave the source, it was not their own research.

Have you found any evidence yet, to repudiate the notion that nutrient levels in our food have decreased significantly in the last 100 years?

Have you seen the article in the Atlanta Voice (sometime in 2010,
you can get reprints from Mannatech), "Glyconutrients; The Most Controversial discovery in Modern Health Care." Written by Dr. John Rollins, discussing the science, validation and controversy surrounding Glyco Nutrients.

Mannatech is right on with the S of P in saying that we we should get what we need from plant sources, not synthetic nutrients and toxic drugs.

Mannatech is simply making it easier for many people to access these nutrients in a powder form. As being processed without high temperature, many of the vitamins and enzymes that would be lost in transit or cooking, are preserved.