Subject: Quality: organic and nutrition revisted

From: Ronald Nigh <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 18:36:03 -0500

[ 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)
[email-masked]

To Unsubscribe:  Email [email-masked] with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg".  If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email [email-masked] with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".

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