Chemical fertilizers usage became common use after WWII, when surplus Nitrogen, Phospurus and Potasium from bomb making factories needed a new home, somebody quickly realised that tomatoes grew bigger and crops where more abundant with the use of this chemicals, unfortunately decades later whe are suffering the consequences via chronic-degenerarive diseases , people who eat mostly organic and excersice in moderation are rarely sick, for the real world supplementation with quality vitamins makes up for the poor nutrition of todays fruits and vegetables, USANA Health Sciences (www.corenutrition.usana.com ) is a company devoted to pharmaceutical grade supplements, is the supplement of choice of many athletes including Olympians and its also widely used by many physicians as preventive medicine.
03/19/2010 - 2:03am
Go in the fields of each...the organic is an Eden full of life. Go in a conventional field (if you dare) the "soil" is dirt, the air smells, it is a ghost town and the plants look like mutants (and probably are-gmo's).
03/18/2010 - 11:10pm
As a follow-up, consider that in a 20/20 interview with John Stossel, Katherine DiMatteo of the Organic Trade Association was twice asked if organic food is more nutritional than conventional crops. She twice answered, "It's as nutritious as any other food." Not exactly supportive of the "more nutritious" myth.
Also, Joseph D. Rosen, Ph.D. (emeritus professor of Food Toxicology at Rutgers University and a scientific advisor to the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH)) analyzed a pro-organic report by Charles Benbrook and colleagues at the Organic Trade Association's Organic Center. Dr. Rosen found the data was selectively chosen and presented to "prove" the "more nutritious" point. Not surprising, considering the OTA is a trade organization with a dog in the fight.
What's the big picture here? Citing a few meaningless counterpoints doesn't disprove the Hygiene and Tropical Medicine study. I have reason to believe TOC plays up studies to its advantage while disregarding contrary evidence (always check the credibility of the source). After all, they have a dog in this fight. Besides, I've read more articles debunking the organic-as-more-nutritious myth than supporting it.
As a nutritionist, have you done a quantiative analysis?
03/18/2010 - 8:57pm
The bottom line is less about nutrional values of organic vs non-organic and more about the simple question of why eat pesticides when you don't have to.
Bobbie Rich, Norwalk, CT
09/01/2009 - 11:52am
Thanks Nicci for your article. I am a Dietitian living in California and I often get this exact question. I believe that most (not all) studies conducted on organic vs conventional only look at the macro/micro/phyto nutrient content of the food and not the larger web of health organic produce promotes. Pesticide content, impact to the environment are often not considered within these studies. Health is more than just nutrients.