Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

market-farming - RE: [Market-farming] Why Organic is Better and Healthier

market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Market Farming

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Rick Williams" <mrfarm AT frontiernet.net>
  • To: <market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: RE: [Market-farming] Why Organic is Better and Healthier
  • Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 18:09:39 -0600

Dave Lilligren wrote:
> I appreciate your healthy skepticism. I don't know why the
> organic folks at
> the Missouri Ag show couldn't articulate their answer.

Did it ever occur to you that they could not articulate an answer because
they don't really have an answer?

> But, anyway, the bottom line to me is that the soil used for
> organic food is
> healthier, which promotes better plant nutrition.

This is the "hypotheses" of so-called organic farming, but where is the
science to show that? At one time I did accept this as "fact" from sources
such as OG&F, but that goes back well over 30 years now. Being a
scientifically trained person in the fields of biology and chemistry, I
figured it would be easy to show the difference. But thus far it has mostly
eluded science. And science trained people, if they are open minded and fair
minded, do have to start to ask, "Does the Emperor have no clothes?" And
sometimes the painful answer may be ... yes.

> The "normal" food today
> is so much more nutritiously deficient compared to food raised even 100
> years ago under more traditional practices. Food raised in other parts of
> the world today, where people still use traditional methods of
> agriculture,
> has been proven to be more nutritious than food raised using modern
> conventional methods.

Where are you "facts"? Show us some serious current studies that show this
to be true. I think you will be hard pressed to find them.

> Here's an article, with some scientific basis, to get you started:
> http://www.living-foods.com/articles/organicnutritious.html

The problem with this is that it is mostly a testimonial. The references to
Price and Albrecht are no longer very helpful. Some is VERY wrong if you
can not get current science to corroborate their findings in the early to
mid part of the last century. Why is it that people keep going back to these
folks? I submit it is because they don't have any good science.

The studies that I have seen show NO DIFFERENCE in the nutrient content of
most foods. There are some differences since some nutrients, (seems like it
may have been Vitamin A), were lower than in the early part of the last
century. If we can trust the data. But there was at least some nutrient and
I do not recall what it was at the moment that tended to be higher than the
old tests.

I need to try and find this information and will look for it. It is not
welcome by the organic folks though because they want to hear about improved
nutrient levels in their food. But if you notice, again and again, the
spokespersons for organic will always side step that issue and redirect your
attention to the fact that it is not what is IN your food, but rather what
is NOT IN you food. And they have a valid argument there.

Sincerely,

Rick Williams
Misty Ridge Farm
Direct marketed dairy beef and produce
(also dairy heifers and beef stockers)
Viroqua, WI






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page