Thanks to decades of breeding for yield over nutrient density, fertilizer regimes that boost biomass faster than mineral uptake, and continued soil degradation, crop nutrient density has been steadily declining, says a new report.
Image credit: istock/piyaset
Could the rise of GLP-1 drugs finally give food companies—and ultimately farmers and plant breeders—the incentive to tackle a problem that has largely flown under the radar but is now causing serious alarm: the steady decline in crop nutrient density?
Thanks to decades of breeding for yield over nutrient density, fertilizer regimes that boost biomass faster than mineral uptake, and continued soil degradation, we’re getting less nutritional bang for our farming bucks, notes a new report from VC firm Deep Science Ventures (DSV).
The historic challenge, says DSV, has been creating incentives for breeders to prioritize nutrient density, farmers to adopt practices that improve it, and food companies and supermarkets to pay for it.
To some extent the issue has been masked by an increase in global calorie supply. “However, we may be approaching a tipping point that requires urgent attention,” predicts DSV, which has conducted new scenario modelling showing that if GLP-1 penetration hits 15% of UK adults, driving a significant drop in calorie intake, and crop nutrient density declines a further 15%, around 5 million working-age adults could fall below safe levels of selenium, potassium and iron.
Add to this the fact that elevated carbon dioxide could cut wheat protein by up to 12.7% and zinc by 36.5% by 2050; a third of the world’s soils are already degraded; and heat and drought threaten access to nutrient-rich produce, meat and dairy while increasing reliance on starchy staples, and we’re facing a significant problem, says DSV senior associate Will Summers, PhD.
“The pathway to a future where growers see an ROI on nutrient density itself will take time,” he predicts.
But thanks to GLP-1s and concerns over ultra-processed foods, food companies are “having to think about how they compete on ‘nutrition per calorie’ basis for an increasingly large market segment, in a way that hasn’t been the case before.”
Fortification can only go so far
According to Summers, there is no silver bullet for declining crop nutrient density, which will require a combination of approaches.
Improving crop nutrient density is certainly not “the fix for all the world’s nutritional problems,” he tells AgFunderNews. Stepping up food fortification by adding vitamins and minerals to more staples may also be an important part of the strategy, he adds.
“What I would love to see is a coherent framework that recognizes how nutrients pass all the way from soil through to human consumption and use this knowledge to guide where the most meaningful levers for intervention are for any given problem.”
Put it this way, he says: “The best solution for zinc deficiency in teenage girls may look quite different from the best solution for vitamin C deficiency in men over 60.”
The challenge is that by focusing purely on dietary choices, we “miss a whole load of upstream and downstream factors that limit the effectiveness of those interventions and therefore deserve much more attention.”
Meanwhile, fortification with individual nutrients cannot plug all the nutritional gaps that come from decreased consumption of whole foods, he points out.
“As we increasingly uncover the chemical complexity of our food and its associated health effects… an example I like to give is there are thousands of chemicals in garlic yet the the USDA only characterizes 68… it will be impossible to plug the gaps with fortification alone.”
Can GLP-1s create a market for nutrient density?
When it comes to commercial incentives for producing more nutrient-dense crops, food processors and retailers may end up driving the conversation, predicts Summers.
“I think that the first steps will be formulations.” With the rise of GLP-1s and increased concern about ultra processed foods (UPFs), he says, “We are already seeing supermarkets develop ranges specifically framed around nutrient density. Every UK supermarket is worried about losing business due to the drop in demand for hyper-palatable UPFs and is thinking about how to create new markets to fill the void.
“I think we are going to see a huge segment grow here with people willing to spend more on food that is nutrient-dense rather than indexing for volume. While this is the starting point, once food companies start competing on nutritional quality and density, innovations that deliver the appropriate measurement infrastructure will enable the density of ingredients to become a differentiator, thereby moving the value and demand upstream.
“I think eventually where this takes us in the long term is the scope to start valuing food in ways that haven’t been possible in the past, very much chiming with the view of groups like The First Thirty on agrihealth.”
Should nutrient density become a breeding target?
If declining nutrient density is to be tackled atmers. But most breeders are still focused on yield, disease resistance, drought tolerance and other agronomic traits. So what would make nutrient density a more important breeding target?
Policy may have a role to play, he says: “Researchers in this area are increasingly making the case that we need to better track the nutrient density of the foods we produce. Many UK policies for nutritional security such as the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/healthy-start” rel=”nofollow noopener” target=”_blank”>Healthy Start initiative are constrained in their ability to deliver maximum public good if the reward someone receives for making the right dietary choice – eating whole food – is diminished by reduced nutrient density.
“Groups like HarvestPlus [developing biofortified, climate-smart crops] have already shown in some crop groups how you can set baseline breeding targets for nutrient density, and that these can easily be achieved without compromising yield. I would love to see the government simply say a variety will not be approved for market unless it reaches this necessary baseline level, which provides a starting point.”
Soil health may matter more than the farming label
When it comes to farming practices that improve soil health, meanwhile, is there enough evidence that they might have a predictable and measurable impact on crop nutrient status?
It’s a complex topic, acknowledges Summers. “We need to separate out organic and regenerative ag here. There have been good reviews, especially some of Alan Dangour’s work, that show organic production does not correlate with nutritional quality. The evidence for regenerative practices appears to be stronger, but the key thing is soil health, regardless of what practices best deliver it.
“Increased biological activity aiding with nutrient bioavailability, as well as links between higher soil organic matter (SOM) content and improved retention and effectiveness of fertilizer inputs, helps support increased nutrient density. There are some nice paired farm trials that help control for crop and environmental variables that found improved soil health gave 10-35% uplifts in density across a set of nutrients, for example.
“The challenge though is that nutrient density is dictated by a complex set of interacting factors to do with climate, soil, management practices and crop genetics. Meanwhile, the benefits of a healthy soil with ideal SOM levels can easily be undone by genetics or fertilizer practices that constrain nutrient density.”
Nevertheless, enhancing soil organic matter is likely valuable “because of the sheer extent of degraded soils globally” and the fact that it already delivers benefits such as yield resilience, he points out. “The agricultural system is already set up to value these things, while then nutrient density sneaks in as a co-benefit.
The next challenge is proving and measuring that value consistently enough to create a market for it.
“I think the key first step will be solving measurement gaps that enable food products to be differentiated on nutrient density and linked to production methods.
“This is what companies like Edacious [a startup developing a rapid testing and data insights platform to measure and map nutrient density in whole foods from meat and milk to fresh produce] are looking to solve and I think such data will help create new incentives that break from a pure yield focus.”
Measuring and validating nutrient density
As to how far are we from being able to measure and verify nutrient density routinely enough for buyers to specify it and growers to be paid for it, he says, “I don’t think we’re far off. Things like hyperspectral imaging for veg and antibody based approaches for cereals are making measurement much more scalable and low-cost.
“If GLP-1s provide that activation energy for competing on nutrition per calorie, and companies like Edacious start drawing the links between nutrition and how a food was produced, I think we could suddenly see the incentives come into place that some food companies leverage these technologies to provide them with product differentiation.
“Things then potentially start to proliferate from there. On the consumer side, when we think a bit more sci-fi, I also don’t think it is beyond imagination to also picture future generations of products like meta-glasses having hyperspectral imaging included, which would unlock the scope to build embedded apps that literally enable you to look at fresh veg in the supermarket a pick out the ones that are best for you.”
🎥 What is agrihealth—and can it become an investable category? The First Thirty makes the case
Edacious raises $8.1m to ‘break the cycle of commoditization’ by measuring nutrient density in whole foods
Edacious and Regenerative Organic Alliance launch project showcasing the nutritional value of regen ag
