Fyi, the data from this post is terribly convoluted and incorrect.
I have the frequently mis-printed table in front of me, and
the version below is incomprehensible by comparison.
It most certainly is from the "morphed" Rutgers data
compiled by Firman Bear.
Sanet has addressed this issue several times. Firman
Bear was a famous soil scientist. His work is fantastic
and you will find plenty of good stuff as an organic farmer
or lover of the soil by reading his books and bulletins.
But Firman Bear never published on the nutritional quality of
organic vs conventional.
Years and years ago, somebody switched the data to Organic vs
Conventional and published it in an organic foods newsletter. It
continues to circulate, and re-circulate, as an Urban Enviro-Legend.
Soil type made a difference as to mineral composition of vegetables,
that's what Firman Bear found out in his study.
> Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 17:48:39 +0100
> From: wytze <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: SCIENTISTS PROVE SUPERIOR NUTRITIVE VALUE OF ORGANIC FOOD
> I do not know if this already has been on the list, since I was disconnected
> for a few weeks.
> Wytze de Lange
> "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
> > trace elements were completely absent in the commercial produce whereas
> > they were abundant, comparatively, in their organically grown
> > counterparts.
> > MAJOR MINERALS Milliequivalents per 100 Grams Dry Weight: Trace Elements,
> > Parts per Million Dry Matter
> > MINERAL: PHOSPHOROUS MAGNESIUM
> > SNAP BEANS ORGANIC 10.45 0.36 COMMERCIAL 4.04 0.22
> > CABBAGE ORGANIC 10.38 0.38 COMMERCIAL 6.12 0.18
> > LETTUCE ORGANIC 24.48 0.43 COMMERCIAL 7.01 0.22
> > TOMATOES ORGANIC 14.2 0.35 COMMERCIAL 6.07 0.16
> > SPINACH ORGANIC 28.56 0.52 COMMERCIAL 12.38 0.27
etc... stuff deleted...
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:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 06 2000 - 12:00:26 EST