Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - Re: [Livingontheland] Uproar over study on organic food

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Pete Vukovich <pvukovic1@yahoo.com>
  • To: Healthy soil and sustainable growing <livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Livingontheland] Uproar over study on organic food
  • Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 12:55:39 -0700 (PDT)

So once again I'm missing something. It seems hard to believe that reviewing previous studies is likely to produce much comprehensive information. The USDA has just begun to admit that conventionally grown hybrids are losing their mineral nutritional content although from what I've read this was known for several decades.

Whats missing here seems to be whether open pollinated varieties are losing their minerals nutritional content as well, and whether conventional fertilizers really maintain mineral balances of the soil. I doubt but have no study to back me up that growing hybrid varieties on organically maintained soil is going to improve their nutritional content much (except perhaps for trace minerals), or that growing open pollinated varieties on conventional soil is going to disrupt their ability to produce good nutritional content (again except for trace mineral content). Don't really see how either of these studies are taking these things into account in a nutrition only model. As a production model goes its pretty hard to separate hybrid crops from conventional farming models, just as its difficult (but not impossible) to separate open pollinated crops from organic ones. I realize there's nothing in the definition of either that precludes one from being used in the other, but it is certainly cultural. Also it seems a wider point is missed and that is whether organic caloric inputs are rising the same way conventional caloric inputs are. Anything short of this just seems to be a centuries old rehash of plant physiology.



--- On Thu, 8/6/09, Tradingpost <tradingpost@lobo.net> wrote:

From: Tradingpost <tradingpost@lobo.net>
Subject: [Livingontheland] Uproar over study on organic food
To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 10:38 AM





Uproar over study on organic food
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009599887_organicstudy05m.html
ugust 5, 2009


Health-food advocates are up in arms after a new comprehensive British study concluded that organic food isn't more nutritious than conventionally grown food. Many say it's not so much about what's in the food; it's about what isn't.


For years, healthful-food advocates have said organic food is more nutritious than conventionally grown.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page