There is a persistent story which looks a lot like this post, and since
this post is completely undated and unreferenced, I suspect that this is
yet another incarnation of a much repeated, completely inaccurate
story. There was indeed a study done by Soil Scientist Firman Bear at
Rutgers, many decades ago, comparing minerals in vegetables grown
differently. The final conclusions were basically the rather
unsurprising result that mineral levels are more dependent on soil type
than vegetable type, but because of the differing levels of organic
matter in the soils compared in the study, somebody morphed the story
into "organic" vs. "commercial" and it has been repeated that way ever
since. It's the misinterpreted and misunderstood result that will not
die.
Unless there is good reason to believe (names, dates, publication
reference) that this post is not the 994th reincarnation of the old
F.E. Bear study still being distorted, it would be best NOT to pass it
along. Please bounce this back to the site from which it came. If you
come up with actual references, I would be very interested in seeing
them, but I don't believe that any such study was ever done or indeed
that any research team here at Rutgers has such proof as a research
goal.
One personal addendum: I also do not see much merit in pursuing the
line of inquiry. In particular, in considering the experimental design
necessary to actually demonstrate conclusively such a result, I cannot
imagine being able to isolate a change to just one variable, since many
soil quality variables change together with different management
regimes. If anybody can suggest a workable experimental design which
would put this question to rest if it were done, I would be interested
in your thoughts.
Loren Muldowney
on the Banks of the Old Raritan at
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
Dept. of Environmental Sciences
wytze wrote:
> "Jan M.J. Storms" wrote:
> > SCIENTISTS PROVE SUPERIOR NUTRITIVE VALUE OF ORGANIC FOOD
> >
> > Researchers at Rutgers University set-out to disprove the claim that
> > 'Organic Is Better'. They purchased selections of produce at supermarkets
> > and healthfood stores and analyzed for mineral content. Organic foods
> > were those grown without the use of chemical pesticides or artificial
> > fertilizers. Non-organic foods, referred to here as 'commercial,' were
> > grown with a variety of chemicals that enhance growth or destroy pests,
> > many of which are known or suspected carcinogens (cancer-causing) and
> > which cause greater erosion to the environment and wildlife. The idea
> > that organic crops are nutritionally superior has been accepted largely
> > on faith. There has been very little hard evidence to support this
> > supposition. Rutgers researchers expected the organic produce to be maybe
> > slightly higher in comparison, but the results were astounding! The
> > amount of iron in the organic spinach was 97% more than the commercial
> > spinach, and the manganese was 99% greater in the organic. Many essential
-- Loren Muldowney loscott@envsci.rutgers.eduTo Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 06 2000 - 12:00:24 EST