From danamex@mail.internet.com.mx Mon Oct 11 22:32:22 1999
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 18:36:03 -0500
From: Ronald Nigh <danamex@mail.internet.com.mx>
To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
Cc: kentlee.lnk@ispi.net
Subject: Quality: organic and nutrition revisted

    [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
    [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set.  ]
    [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

On Oct 6 Steve Driver wrote:

>"The Healing Power of Minerals, Special Nutrients and Trace Elements"
>by Paul Bergner (1997, Prima Publishing, Rocklin, CA) includes USDA 
>figures that show a decline in mineral and vitamin content of several 
>fruits and vegetables between 1914, 1963, and 1992.  Table 1 is a 
>summary of mineral decreases in fruits and vegetables over a 30-year 
>period, adapted from Bergner's book.
>
>Table 1.  Average changes in the mineral content of some fruits and
>vegetables*, 1963-1992
>
>Mineral			Average % Change
>
>Calcium			-29.82
>Iron				-32.00
>Magnesium			-21.08
>Phosphorus			-11.09
>Potassium			  -6.48
>
>* Fruits and vegetables measured:  oranges, apples, bananas, 
>carrots, potatoes, corn, tomatoes, celery, romaine lettuce, broccoli, 
>iceberg lettuce, collard greens, and chard
>
>

Bart later repeated this table and wrote:

>Given these declines. Given organic vs. conventional studies from the
>late '80s that were (at best) inconclusive. Given the high dedication
>to organic production principles at the time (ie, money was not the
>motive as it so often is these days) ... the organic
>movement/community/industry should go into a corner and hide from
>embarassment.
>

However, it is important to point out that this table does not indicate a
comparison between organic and conventional produce. It talks about changes
in some crops over time.  In the context of the discussion, I understoond
Bart to imply that this table indicated a decrease in the mineral content
of organic foods. This is not the case (and this is not, apparently, what
Bart meant).

It is not clear what this table means at all, in fact. Since it reports
percentage changes only, then the question is if these minerals decreased,
what were they replaced with in the total 100%?  If the figures are dry
weight (no indication in the table if the measurements are based on dry
weight or wet) then we know that it is not due to the "bulking up with
water" that Bart referred to. It could be due to the increase in
carbohydrates (at the expense of ash content) associated with the shift to
"high-yielding varieties" that respond to chemical fertilizer.  If this is
the case then these figures would not be applicable to organic products at
all.

Also, ash content is almost always expressed on a dry weight basis, which
means the higher ash content of organic foods (also referred to by Bart) is
not due to water content of conventionals but probably due to loss of
minerals at the expense of carbohydrates. This is the best indication I can
think of that organic foods might be of higher quality than conventional
(of course it depends on which minerals and their proportions.)  

As my freind Kent Anderson pointed out, if grain were seriously classified
in the US in terms of quality (protein content and mineral content and
balance, for example) then most of the obscene grain surpluses Ann Clark
referred to the other day would disappear overnight. Much of this grain is
now dumped on other countries at subsidized rates.

In Mexico the tortilla industry now (since 1994) uses mostly US pig corn to
make tortilla flour, putting the Mexican farmer with his high quality
tortilla corn out of business. This leads to misery in the countryside and
the loss of rural culture and crop diversity (more folks heading North).
We're eating junk down here because NAFTA says the two are "substantially
equivalent" and therefore Mexico has to buy it because its cheaper. That's
free trade for you. The movement for an organic tortilla in Mexico is
mostly not about pesticides but about quality and the rights of people to
demand quality of the food system.



Ronald Nigh
Dana, A.C.
Mexico, D.F. & San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas
Tel. y FAX  525-666-73-66 (DF)
	  529-678-72-15 (Chiapas)
danamex@mail.internet.com.mx
       

To Unsubscribe:  Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg".  If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail

From williamevans@home.com Wed Dec 22 13:03:50 1999
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 08:39:10 -0800
From: William Evans <williamevans@home.com>
To: "sanet-mg-digest@ces.ncsu.edu" <sanet-mg-digest@ces.ncsu.edu>
Subject: mineral content- organic is better


>Can anyone point me toward references on the mineral and vitamin content
> of vegetables since 1900 or so?

The Sanet archives contain a number of posts relating to the 
nutritional quality of organic foods. 
In addition to references previously posted, here are three more 
sources: 

1. 
"The Healing Power of Minerals, Special Nutrients and Trace Elements" 
by Paul Bergner (1997, Prima Publishing, Rocklin, CA) includes USDA 
figures that show a decline in mineral and vitamin content of several 
fruits and vegetables between 1914, 1963, and 1992.  Table 1 is a 
summary of mineral decreases in fruits and vegetables over a 30-year 
period, adapted from Bergner's book. 

Table 1.  Average changes in the mineral content of some fruits and 
vegetables*, 1963-1992 

Mineral                 Average % Change 

Calcium                 -29.82 
Iron                            -32.00 
Magnesium                       -21.08 
Phosphorus                      -11.09 
Potassium                         -6.48 

* Fruits and vegetables measured:  oranges, apples, bananas, 
carrots, potatoes, corn, tomatoes, celery, romaine lettuce, broccoli, 
iceberg lettuce, collard greens, and chard 

2. 
In England, Anne Marie-Mayer compared food composition over a 50-year 
period using data from the UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and 
Food (MAFF).  Her study,  "Historical Changes in the Mineral 
Content of Fruits and Vegetables" was presented at the Agricultural 
Production and Nutrition conference held at Tufts University School of 
Nutrition Science and Policy on March 19-21, 1997. 

Table 2, adapted from Marie-Mayer's paper, summarizes the average 
ratio of nutrient content and dry matter of 20 vegetables and 20 
fruits.  A ratio of 0.81 for Ca, for example, means that over an 
approximately 50-year period the average content of calcium in 
vegetables has declined to 81% of the original level. 

Table 2.  Average ratio of mineral content and dry matter (new/old) 
for vegetables and 20 fruits* 

                          Ca    Mg      Fe      Cu      Na      K      
P       D.M. 
Vegetable ratio 0.81*   0.65*   0.78    0.19*   0.57*   0.86    0.94   
0.97 

Fruit ratio             1.00    0.89*   0.68*   0.64*   0.90    0.80*  
0.99    0.91 

The symbol * indicates a statistical difference 

3. 
In 1997 an extensive literature review was published: 

"A comparison of organically and conventionally grown foods -- 
results of a review of the relevant literature" by Katrin 
Woese, Dirk Lange, Christian Boess, and Klaus Werner Bogl. 
1997.  J. Sci. Food Agric.  Vol. 74, 281-293. 

The authors are with: 

Federal Institute for Health Protection of Consumers and 
Veterinary Medicine, Division 2, Chemistry and Technology 
of Foods and Commodities, PO Box 330013, D-14191, Berlin, 
Germany. 

The review summarizes and evaluates the results of more than 150 
investigations (published between 1926 and 1994) comparing the 
quality of conventionally and organically produced food, or of foods 
produced by different fertilization systems. 

The review is particularly noteworthy to those of us readers here in 
the United States, because it looks like better than 90% of the 
citations are from German-language journals and literature. 

This article does a good job of addressing the parameters used 
to evaluate differences item by item. 

One passage worth noting: 

"Only the more or less correlative results of the feed selection 
tests permit a general conclusion:  animals distinguish between the 
foods on offer from the various agricultural systems and almost 
exclusively prefer organic produce." 

============================================= 
As an aside, this is what Dr. William Albrecht emphasized in his work 
as a soil scientist at the University of Missouri; i.e., animal 
feeding trials to ascertain the true quality of feedstuffs, writing: 

"cows are capable chemists" 

"as a chemist by experience and survival, not by academic training, 
the cow led the nomad over fertile soils" 

"we need to start observing and judging the cow as she is a chemist 
on the hoof guiding her own nutrition" 
============================================== 

Other findings: 

*Lower nitrates in organically produced or fertilised vegetables. 
*Lower pesticide residues in organic fruit and vegetables 
*Higher dry matter content in organic products 
*Feed experiments showed animals preferentially selected organic 
produce, but where fertility parameters and rearing performance were 
determined the results were contradictory

To Unsubscribe:  Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg".  If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail

