Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Alternative / June 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Study Shows More Vitamin C In Organic Oranges Than Conventional Oranges

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Jim - 29 Jun 2005 00:54 GMT
American Chemical Society

http://www.rawfoodinfo.com/home/home_a.html

Research At Great Lakes Meeting Shows More Vitamin C In Organic Oranges

Than Conventional Oranges

MINNEAPOLIS, June 2 - Organically-grown oranges contain up to 30%
more
vitamin C than those grown conventionally, it was reported today at a
Great Lakes Regional meeting of the American Chemical Society, the
world's largest scientific society. The Great Lakes meeting is being
held at the Radisson Hotel Metrodome June 2-4 and more than 400
scientists and students are expected to attend. This research paper is
being presented in Memorial Hall of the McNamara Alumni Center at the
University of Minnesota. Theo Clark, a visiting chemistry professor at
Truman State University (Kirksville, Mo), reported the finding based on

work done by him and a group of undergraduate students. He said he
decided to conduct the analysis because of a lack of analytical
information about the nutritional content of organically-grown produce.

"Quite often, organic goods come from smaller farms that market their
goods with provocative labels such as 'healthy,' 'delicious,' or
'natural'," he said. "These statements are generally made without
reference to any comparable standards." Clark added that he chose
oranges to begin the assessment because they are high-profile fruits.
"The orange is the traditional source of vitamin C, and it is highly
commercialized, but no one to our knowledge has thought to compare the
organic and conventionally-grown oranges."

Conventional oranges are larger than organically-grown oranges, and
they
have a deeper orange color. Because of their size, "we were expecting
twice as much vitamin C in the conventional oranges," said Clark. But
to
his surprise, chemical isolation combined with nuclear magnetic
resonance (NMR) spectroscopy revealed that the organically-grown
oranges
contained 30% more vitamin C than the conventionally-grown fruits -
even
though they were only about half the size.

Clark said the reason for the added nutritional punch isn't clear, but
"we speculate that with conventional oranges, (farmers) use nitrogen
fertilizers that cause an uptake of more water, so it sort of dilutes
the orange. You get a great big orange but it is full of water and
doesn't have as much nutritional value," said Clark. "However, we can
only speculate. Other factors such as maturity, climate, processing
factors, packaging, and storage conditions require consideration."

In addition to the chemical analysis, Clark and his team conducted a
survey of 27 households (approximately 71 individuals) in the rural
town
of Miller, Mo., to gauge their expectations of organic oranges. Eighty
five percent of respondents believed that organic oranges would have a
higher nutritional content than their conventionally-grown
counterparts,
and Clark's research shows that "they were right on." However, 65%
believed that there was little or no price difference between the two
types of oranges. In fact, Clark's team found that organic oranges cost

an average of twice as much.

Clark says these issues are important because consumers have a right to

know the real nutritional content of organic produce, and hard numbers
such as the vitamin C content can validate the claims of the burgeoning

organic industry. On the other hand, farmers considering a change from
conventional to organic farming methods need to know what consumers
expect, and what they are willing to pay for it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued for
journalists and other members of the public.
If you wish to quote any part of this story, please credit American
Chemical Society as the original source.
You may also wish to include the following link in any citation:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020603071017.htm
cathyb - 29 Jun 2005 04:24 GMT
> American Chemical Society
>
[quoted text clipped - 79 lines]
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020603071017.htm

I looked for the actual published article that this guy presented, and
I couldn't find it anywhere, PubMed or the ACS site.

Can you help; I'm interested because I've always tended to the belief
that organic food was a waste of money, but this indicates that
although it may be expensive, it may also have benefits.

Unfortunately, the only sources I can find are the one you gave and
various organic food proselytisers, salespeople and/or alternative
medicine sites.

Cathy
Rich - 29 Jun 2005 19:32 GMT
>> American Chemical Society
>>
[quoted text clipped - 92 lines]
>
> Cathy

I'm guessing that this study has not been published, but just presented at
the meeting. It's interesting that a search on Theo Clark reveals no other
published studies, either. I suspect he's just another evangelist for the
organic food crowd.

--Rich
Tim Campbell - 29 Jun 2005 22:09 GMT
> Can you help; I'm interested because I've always tended to the belief
> that organic food was a waste of money, but this indicates that
> although it may be expensive, it may also have benefits.

You're making this harder than it needs to be Cathy. If you ever find
yourself driving through agriculture country just stop in at a farm
supply store. Go in and ask the clerk to see a container of any
pesticide or insecticide that is commonly used on a crop in that area.
Take a look at the label, you'll probably need a magnifying glass, read
the warnings and then you decide for yourself, right then and there, on
the wisdom of consuming or not consuming that product.

Or you cd just stop eating chemical produce for a week or two and just
see for yourself if you notice any difference in how you feel.
cathyb - 29 Jun 2005 23:14 GMT
> > Can you help; I'm interested because I've always tended to the belief
> > that organic food was a waste of money, but this indicates that
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> the warnings and then you decide for yourself, right then and there, on
> the wisdom of consuming or not consuming that product.

Alternatively, I can just wash the fruit I buy.

We're actually talking about a piece of research that allegedly showed
more vitamin C in organic otranges.

> Or you cd just stop eating chemical produce

Chemical produce?!

>for a week or two and just
> see for yourself if you notice any difference in how you feel.

Oh, I went through an eating organic phase a few years ago. Made no
difference at all.

Cathy
Tim Campbell - 30 Jun 2005 00:22 GMT
> Alternatively, I can just wash the fruit I buy.

Sure you can, and that should do it. Because afterall we all know that
as organic substances, plants and animals, grow, their uptake and
assimilation of biochemical elements, nutrients is limited...( ! )
(sorry to be facetious)

> We're actually talking about a piece of research that allegedly showed
> more vitamin C in organic otranges.

You were the one who questioned the credibility/value of organic foods.

> > Or you cd just stop eating chemical produce
>
> Chemical produce?!

That's what it is...

>I went through an eating organic phase a few years ago. Made no
> difference at all.

When I shift to eating exclusively organic foods I note a significant
improvement in health. (but I do notice it pretty much has to be 100%
organic for me to notice a significant effect.)

Tim
cathyb - 30 Jun 2005 01:02 GMT
> > Alternatively, I can just wash the fruit I buy.
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> That's what it is...

Don't be silly.

Of course everything we eat and are is chemical, so in that sense you
are correct.

And the pesticides allowed for use on certified organic farms are also
chemicals.

However you seem to be using the term chemical in the whole 'chemical
is bad, natural is good' sense, which as you must know is nonsense.

> >I went through an eating organic phase a few years ago. Made no
> > difference at all.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>  
> Tim
Tim Campbell - 30 Jun 2005 02:05 GMT
> Of course everything we eat and are is chemical, so in that sense
you
> are correct.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> However you seem to be using the term chemical in the whole 'chemical
> is bad, natural is good' sense, which as you must know is nonsense.

Yes, that is nonsense. I fully understand that there are chemicals that
will not be shown to be teratogenic, mutagenic or carcinogenic
regardless of the amount administered, injested. There is also a
sizable class of chemicals that are confirmed teratogens, mutagens and
carcinogens. And there are many that are on the govt's GRAS list that
are in the nether zone in between. The problem arises when chems that
are either confirmed or strongly suspected terato-, muta- or
carcinogens are nonetheless allowed to remain in our food supply.

It's really very simple...just read the labels on the products in
agriculture supply stores...the fine print.
Eric Bohlman - 29 Jun 2005 05:51 GMT
"Jim" <willcoxjim@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1120002867.513763.82910
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Conventional oranges are larger than organically-grown oranges, and
> they
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> even
> though they were only about half the size.

[snip]

> and Clark's research shows that "they were right on." However, 65%
> believed that there was little or no price difference between the two
> types of oranges. In fact, Clark's team found that organic oranges cost
> an average of twice as much.

An at-most 30% increase in Vitamin C content for a 100% increase in the
price?  Doesn't sound like all that good a deal to me.
cathyb - 29 Jun 2005 06:03 GMT
> "Jim" <willcoxjim@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1120002867.513763.82910
> @g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> [snip]

> > and Clark's research shows that "they were right on." However, 65%
> > believed that there was little or no price difference between the two
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> An at-most 30% increase in Vitamin C content for a 100% increase in the
> price?  Doesn't sound like all that good a deal to me.

No, me either, especially since the kids might still be hungry after a
half-size orange. They might want another--then they'd get 160% more
vitamin C than if they'd eaten the bigger orange, but it would have
cost me 4 times as much; do I love them that much?:)

However, I would like to look at the original research if it's out
there.

Cathy
Eric Bohlman - 29 Jun 2005 06:54 GMT
>> An at-most 30% increase in Vitamin C content for a 100% increase in
>> the price?  Doesn't sound like all that good a deal to me.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> vitamin C than if they'd eaten the bigger orange, but it would have
> cost me 4 times as much; do I love them that much?:)

Further calculations reveal that organic oranges are at least 55% more
expensive as a source of Vitamin C than regular oranges.  If the author's
hypothesis about water content is correct, then organic oranges ought to
also be higher in sugar, so you'd end up consuming more calories per unit
of Vitamin C.
cathyb - 29 Jun 2005 07:03 GMT
> >> An at-most 30% increase in Vitamin C content for a 100% increase in
> >> the price?  Doesn't sound like all that good a deal to me.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> also be higher in sugar, so you'd end up consuming more calories per unit
> of Vitamin C.

But the study ain't there to verify the numbers--unless anyone else can
find it?

Cathy
xyzer@hotmail.com - 30 Jun 2005 02:18 GMT
> > "Jim" <willcoxjim@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1120002867.513763.82910
> > @g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
> Cathy

Also consider that if it is in fact true that Vitamin C is 30% higher,
then it's likely that other nutrients are probably also higher.  Of
course, it may not be true they're higher, but I would bet on it.
PeterB - 29 Jun 2005 19:45 GMT
> "Jim" <willcoxjim@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1120002867.513763.82910
> @g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> An at-most 30% increase in Vitamin C content for a 100% increase in the
> price?  Doesn't sound like all that good a deal to me.

Do you err on the side of caution when it comes to buying a car and
adhere to quality, while erring on the side of thrift when it comes to
your health and eat whatever looks good?  Then you're a bonehead.

PeterB
PeterB - 29 Jun 2005 19:46 GMT
> "Jim" <willcoxjim@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1120002867.513763.82910
> @g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> An at-most 30% increase in Vitamin C content for a 100% increase in the
> price?  Doesn't sound like all that good a deal to me.

Do you err on the side of caution when it comes to buying a car and
adhere to quality, while erring on the side of thrift when it comes to
your health and eat whatever looks good?  Then you're a bonehead.

PeterB
Mark Probert - 29 Jun 2005 21:32 GMT
>>"Jim" <willcoxjim@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1120002867.513763.82910
>>@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> adhere to quality, while erring on the side of thrift when it comes to
> your health and eat whatever looks good?  Then you're a bonehead.

Firstly, it is not a question of "looks" but of cost effectiveness.

When buying a car, safety is a very important consideration. Thus,
buying one which provides for a safer ride, etc. is worth money and I
would be willing to pay more. I recently purchased a new van and safety,
along with the ability to make it wheelchair accessible was important.
Sadly, the vans which can be made wheelchair accessible are not the
safest, and, complicating this, the installation of a lift or ramp can
further compromise safety. I would have gladly paid more for a safer van
and easier accessibility.

With regard to the organic oranges, one can get sufficient vitamin C by
using a supplement, etc. which is much cheaper in cost that the organic
oranges.
cathyb - 29 Jun 2005 23:21 GMT
> >>"Jim" <willcoxjim@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1120002867.513763.82910
> >>@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
> using a supplement, etc. which is much cheaper in cost that the organic
> oranges.

Where has the post gone that this was a reply to?

Cathy
Eric Bohlman - 30 Jun 2005 01:25 GMT
[sorry to have to quote the whole thing]

>> >>"Jim" <willcoxjim@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1120002867.513763.82910
>> >>@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
>
> Where has the post gone that this was a reply to?

If you mean PeterB's reply to my reply to Jim's post, its Message-ID is  
<1120070770.330677.57300@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> and it's sitting
there on my news server (individual.net), as are all the posts in the
thread so far.
cathyb - 30 Jun 2005 01:29 GMT
> [sorry to have to quote the whole thing]
>
[quoted text clipped - 49 lines]
> there on my news server (individual.net), as are all the posts in the
> thread so far.

Do you know why I shouldn't be able to see it reading at Google groups?

Cheers,

Cathy
Eric Bohlman - 30 Jun 2005 01:42 GMT
>> If you mean PeterB's reply to my reply to Jim's post, its Message-ID is
>> <1120070770.330677.57300@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> and it's sitting
>> there on my news server (individual.net), as are all the posts in the
>> thread so far.
>
> Do you know why I shouldn't be able to see it reading at Google groups?

Google must be having some hiccups, as it doesn't claim to have anything by
that Message-ID.  I seem to recall that they were making some changes to
their interface recently, so it may be a temporary thing.

May I put in a plug for using individual.net as a news server (costs 10
euros per year) along with a proper newsreader program (many good ones
available for free)?  Google's great as a Usenet *archive*, but as a
general reading and posting interface it leaves a lot to be desired.
cathyb - 30 Jun 2005 01:48 GMT
> >> If you mean PeterB's reply to my reply to Jim's post, its Message-ID is
> >> <1120070770.330677.57300@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> and it's sitting
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> available for free)?  Google's great as a Usenet *archive*, but as a
> general reading and posting interface it leaves a lot to be desired.

Cheers, and thanks for the advice.

Cathy
Peter Bowditch - 30 Jun 2005 03:28 GMT
>> >> If you mean PeterB's reply to my reply to Jim's post, its Message-ID is
>> >> <1120070770.330677.57300@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> and it's sitting
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
>Cathy

Check with Optus - they are almost certain to have a news feed. (Go in
through the special web site for Optus users.) Then get a newsreader
like Agent (www.forteinc.com) and hook up.

Signature

Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

cathyb - 30 Jun 2005 05:05 GMT
> >> >> If you mean PeterB's reply to my reply to Jim's post, its Message-ID is
> >> >> <1120070770.330677.57300@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> and it's sitting
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> through the special web site for Optus users.) Then get a newsreader
> like Agent (www.forteinc.com) and hook up.

Ta, Peter. I might actually get  'round to doing it this time:)

Cathy

> --
> Peter Bowditch
> The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
> Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
> Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
> To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
Sdores - 30 Jun 2005 11:52 GMT
Cathy, I would recommend the individual.net too.  I used it for years until
my IP started making groups available.  I never had any problems.  I
couldn't stand using Google for this.  I have the link and info if you want
more info, email me.  UM MOM Susan

>> >> If you mean PeterB's reply to my reply to Jim's post, its Message-ID
>> >> is
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> Cathy
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.