View Single Post
  #4  
Old 29 July 2009, 07:26 PM
A Turtle Named Mack's Avatar
A Turtle Named Mack A Turtle Named Mack is offline
 
Join Date: 21 June 2007
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 21,451
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan With a 'Y' View Post
This looks like a huge exercise in missing the point.



I've never heard of anyone choosing organic because they thought it had nigher nutrient content. I've always heard concerns about traces of endocrine-disrupting chemicals and pesticides which could have very long-term effects on metabolism and/or reproduction. EDCs, since they mimic messengers in the body that turn metabolic processes on and off, can act at tiny concentrations, contrary to the notion of a toxic threshold.
Actually I have often heard 'organic' advocates claim that organics were much higher than non-organic foods in nutritional content.

I could believe that both flavor and nutritional content is substantially affected by being allowed to remain on the plant longer, and being in transit and on the shelf a shorter period of time. I would also suspect that organic produce is better about this than the average non-organic produce. However, it would not be a function of being organic but of supplying premium produce to market. If you'll pay for the special handling, you'll get it.

I went to a 'pick it yourself' blueberry farm a few years ago and was talking with the owner. They used nothing on the crop but a mineral fertilizer to supply minerals missing from the local soil. It was merely mined and powdered, then the owner would spread the minerals along the bases of the bushes. They did not even take measures aaginst insects or birds, basically allowing the critters to eat everything too high or hard to reach for customers to pick. However, they were legally not allowed to use the word 'organic' because of the mineral supplement because it did not come from an 'organic' source. I know, it's a FOAF tale, but there you have it.
Reply With Quote