Thank you for the clarification. It could indeed be the 994th resurrection of an
old story. I had never heard it before. I forwarded questions and comments to the
person who sent it to me. Apologies for posting too quick.
wytze
Loren Muldowney wrote:
> 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.edu
To 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