Re: Are Organic Foods Really Better for You?

vernon wrote:

"Peter Moran" <pmoranATbordernet.com.au> wrote in message news:43dab6ad$0$9291$afc38c87@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"vernon" <here@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:43da9405$0$28870$9a6e19ea@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"PeterB" <pkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1138397241.374419.96160@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Yes.  See Nutritional Quality of Organic Versus Conventional Fruits,
Vegetables, and Grains, published in The Journal of Alternative and
Complimentary Medicine, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2001, 161-173. V. Worthington,
2001.  Nutrient levels in both organic and conventionally-grown foods
were evaluated by reviewing data from 41 comparative studies on crops
produced with organic matter and inorganic fertilisers.  The study
showed that organic crops yield higher average levels of some 21
nutrients analysed. The results were most statistically significant for
Vitamin C (27% more), magnesium (29%), iron (21%) and phosphorus (14%).


Scientific evidence supports the view that organically grown
agriculture is more nutrient dense.  in fact, organic produce is
usually heavier per unit of mass than conventional grown foods, meaning
you aren't really paying 15% more to buy organic, as those foods can be
more filling.

PeterB


Proven again and again.

? Including the "heavier per unit of mass"? That's truly ground breaking!.

Peter Moran


Yes proven.
Of course it helps to have raised almost all vegetables and ground fruits on a tiny truck farm in the black soil of Minnesota, using manure for fertilizer. Much denser, even potatoes.

Oh boy, first the definition PH goes over your head, and now you consider "heavier per unit of mass" to be proven. Dude, whatever you do, keep posting. You're hilarious! And I thought that Jehovah's Witness telling me that there are non-biological lifeforms was the funniest I ever saw! You beat him hands down.
.

Relevant Pages