I have no doubt that the 'pursuit of food security' has reduced both the nutritional value of foods over thousands of years of domestication and manipulation (e.g. breeding for cool storage, transportation etc. at the expense of taste). Such breeding of vegetables and other foods have probably reduced micro nutrients and essential amino acids (protein) that are 'linked' to characteristic that have been bred out together with perceived 'less favourable' characteristics.
However, if these characteristic can be bred out, they can also bred back in (together with even better characteristics)...if it is thought desirable by people. The problem is, such manipulation as Genetic Modification has now got a 'bad press'. This gets to the point I wish to make, and this is, scientists can not 'run ahead' of public opinion without incurring some substantiate penalties and costs to their credibility and running the risk of 'good work' being labelled 'dangerous' and rendering it impotent.
I have no doubt that the 'pursuit of food security' has reduced both the nutritional value of foods over thousands of years of domestication and manipulation (e.g. breeding for cool storage, transportation etc. at the expense of taste). Such breeding of vegetables and other foods have probably reduced micro nutrients and essential amino acids (protein) that are 'linked' to characteristic that have been bred out together with perceived 'less favourable' characteristics.
However, if these characteristic can be bred out, they can also bred back in (together with even better characteristics)...if it is thought desirable by people. The problem is, such manipulation as Genetic Modification has now got a 'bad press'. This gets to the point I wish to make, and this is, scientists can not 'run ahead' of public opinion without incurring some substantiate penalties and costs to their credibility and running the risk of 'good work' being labelled 'dangerous' and rendering it impotent.