>However, it is important to point out that this table does not indicate a
>comparison between organic and conventional produce. It talks about changes
>in some crops over time. In the context of the discussion, I understoond
>Bart to imply that this table indicated a decrease in the mineral content
>of organic foods. This is not the case (and this is not, apparently, what
No, I *did* mean to say that this table indicates a decrease in the
mineral content of organic food. Using a 20% decline in 'X' from
1963-1993 as an example ...
a) X in conventional produce declined by 20% from 1963 to 1993.
b) Comparisons of organic and conventional produce in the late '80s
(and since) have shown no consistent or statistical superiority in the
levels of X found in organic produce. In other words, X is currently
the same in organic and conventional produce.
c) Therefore, X in organic produce *has* declined at roughly the same
rate as it has in conventional produce.
The only way it could be otherwise is if the mineral quality of organic
produce in 1963 had been lower than that for conventional. Since even
the earliest organic:conventional comparisons were inconclusive, I
doubt this was the case.
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: