I don’t blame them. Activists for a this idea insist the evidence is on their side. So who should one believe?
To help you out, here’s why we know that evidence is poor & not all evidence is equal!
Without a time machine, how do you compare crops across decades?
Well one way is to compare tables of nutritional data from the 1930s w those of today.
Some of these studies found some falls in some crops.
But here’s the REAL problem...
As crop varieties, measuring techniques, harvest & cooking methods have all dramatically changed since the 1930s. It’s really, really unreliable to compare these two sets of stats.
This means many early stats for iron are FAR higher than they should be.
Funny how activists (who make a living from this narrative) skim over this, right?
It’s still an impt research area tho & I for 1 can’t wait to see what else the geeks uncover.
But for now these bold claims just don’t hold water.
If you read activists quoting a single study from 20yrs ago, holding it up as incontrovertible ‘proof’, there’s a problem.
To do so would be to ignore everything else to the contrary, even in that same study.
That’s not science.