I don't know if posting Twitter threads counts as a source, but this morning I saw this one on modern agriculture:
https://twitter.com/wrathofgnon/status/955647499120726016
During the thread, it makes the following claim about the varieties of wheat used by farmers:
Around 1960 all this changed. Revolutionary new dwarf varieties were introduced, shorter in length (there goes its use in construction) that gave bigger yields but were far less nutritious (great for businesses terrible for consumers).
And later:
Luckily there are a few commercial growers of thatching wheat and more are returning every year. The grains are excellent for animal feed as well, superbly rich in protein.
And later still:
As for lower yields, they first of all needed less - it was between 1.5-2 as nutritious as modern wheat
The implication seems clearly to be that modern wheat varieties were developed and chosen specifically because they both increased yield and were less filling when eaten. This meant farmers could grow more and at the same time consumers would need to buy more.
I know that modern mechanised agriculture and supermarket retail have had many negative impacts on the food choices we have. Hard varietals of fruits are now the norm, for example, because they transport and keep better. But even in light of that, this strikes me as an extraordinary claim: a purposeful attempt to literally starve customers in an effort to get them to buy more.
It's not that hard to verify that there are problems with the nutritional content of modern wheat. But it's a step further to claim this was a deliberate choice on the part of breeders and farmers. Is it true?
