I was interested to read that scientists have created a super-broccoli which contains up to 40% more anti-oxidants than regular broccoli. 

‘Great!’ I initially thought. Then I considered this, and found myself asking the obvious question: why is that great?

So far $20 million has been invested into developing the super-veg project, which is also looking at boosting the anti-oxidant content of tomatoes, capsicum, cauliflower, onion, carrot and lettuce. The Department of Primary Industries in Victoria (DPI) are responsible for the project, and according to lead scientist Dr Rod Jones, it’s all about improving the health of our population in general ‘by getting people to eat vegetables that we know are very good for them.’

I’m scratching my head because I can’t see the justification at this stage. Vegetables are already ‘very good for us’. Is the idea to encourage people to eat super-vegetables who otherwise wouldn’t eat normal veg? It’s potentially a paradox: surely those who don’t already make the effort to eat vegetables wouldn’t be swayed to do so just because vegies have become healthier? (Oh, and no doubt more expensive?) Wouldn’t those who don’t eat vegies not eat them because of cost/time/taste/availability etc? 

It’s all about making everything easier, I suppose. More vitamins in one veg, therefore you can eat less veg. You can still eat your McDonalds guilt-free because you’ve eaten 2 pieces of super-broccoli.

Rather than trying to improve foods that are already healthy, could money be spent preventing foods that aren’t from entering the market, or education, or campaigns against obesity?

Until I know more, I’ll be happy with my regular, natural broccoli.

Filed under: Food & Nutrition, Health News, blog