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 / March 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Organic Really is Better for You

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
PeterB - 25 Mar 2008 03:16 GMT
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%).  Ref:  "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.

These findings are consistent with those presented in the Soil
Association's 2001 Report. 'Organic farming, food quality & human
health, a review of the evidence', which covered many of the same
issues and background data the Food Commission cite.

"Data from the Department for the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
shows that between 1940 and 1991, trace mineral in UK fruits and
vegetables fell by up to 76%, and United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) figures show similar declines.

"A 1998 review of over 60 research papers 'comparing nutrient contents
and animal health examined 1,230 individual nutrient comparisons. 56%
showed better nutrient levels in organically grown crops... Data
averaged 10 -20% in favour of organic; concluded there was a 'pattern
of better nutrient composition and better health in animals consuming
organic food.

"The available valid scientific evidence reviewed here demonstrates a
clear trend toward organically grown fruit and vegetables having
higher levels of desirable components such as dry matter, essential
minerals and Vitamin C than non-organically produced fruit and
vegetables.

"Although it is generally accepted that all nutrients removed from the
soil in crops should be replaced, modern non-organic agriculture
usually only replaces the elements required for plant growth -
nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium (these three being commonly referred
to as 'NPK') and hence there is a continuing tendency in non-organic
systems for trace nutrient deficiencies to develop and increase."

The Living Soil, published in 1943, laid the foundations for the
formation of the Soil Association in 1946.  Lady Eve Balfour cited
research comparing arable fields treated with animal manures or
chemical fertiliser, observing that "...both plots had good crops with
strong straw and well-filled heads, the seeds were kept separate and
again two groups of rats from the same family were divided in equal
halves -- the one group fed from the chemically fertilised plot showed
every evidence of malnutrition -- those fed from the farmyard manured
plot had a perfectly normal healthy growth."

"On average, antioxidant levels increased by about 30 percent in
carefully designed comparative trials," said Davis. "Organically grown
produce offers significantly enhanced health-promoting qualities,
contributing to the achievement of important national public health
goals."  - Donald Davis, Biochemist, University of Texas

The World Bank warns that poor nutrition is a major cause of economic
impoverishment and that children suffer the most when society's
nutritional needs are not met.  Rather than relying on expensive drugs
that deplete the resources of world governments and fail to address
our most basic needs, it is time for health policy makers to divest
themselves of pharmaceutical interests in favor of meaningful
healthcare reform, aimed at improving access to nutrition and moving
these cultures forward.

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTHEALTHNUTRITIONANDPOPULATION/
0,,contentMDK:20838753~menuPK:282547~pagePK:64020865~piPK:149114~theSitePK:28251
1,00.html

drceephd@insightbb.com - 26 Mar 2008 02:07 GMT
I agree with you 100%.  However,...

What we really must understand is that when you continually grow crops
on a plot of land, the mineral content of the land is depleted.

In order to continually grow crops on a plot of land we must replace
the minerals that are being absorbed and lost with the plants.  The
ash content of the plants tells the tale.

This is why I favor "permaculture".  Permaculture is organic gardening
where you not only do not use chemicals but you also act to replace
the lost minerals with ground rock or "rock flour".  The soil bacteria
will then act to release the needed minerals from the rock flour,
provided that humus and the needed bacteria are present.  If we do
this, we can maintain the fertility of the soil. If we do not, the
soil becomes as barren as a desert. And, the animals eating the food,
humans included, will become mineral deficient, sickly, short lived,
and looking at extinction.

DrCee
You cannot secure nor maintain health with pus or poisons.
PeterB - 26 Mar 2008 03:50 GMT
On Mar 25, 9:07 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:

> I agree with you 100%.  However,...
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> DrCee
> You cannot secure nor maintain health with pus or poisons.

I think that organic farms re-mineralize their soils using a similar
method, but I'm not really sure.  What's interesting about your point
is the fact that a plant can *look* perfectly healthy but be minerally
deficient.  Non-organic produce OFTEN looks more robust but is, in
fact, less dense and nutritionally lacking.
D. C. Sessions - 26 Mar 2008 05:03 GMT
> What we really must understand is that when you continually grow crops
> on a plot of land, the mineral content of the land is depleted.

> In order to continually grow crops on a plot of land we must replace
> the minerals that are being absorbed and lost with the plants.  The
> ash content of the plants tells the tale.

Absolutely -- Plants growing on soil are horribly destructive
and the land can only tolerate them for a short time.  Look
at the total desert that the Amazon Basin became before the
Portugese came to the area and reforested it by careful
application of rock flour etc.

| The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" |
|    The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?"    |
+---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+
 
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



©2008 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.