Ursana's claims (fwd)
beatrice.rogers at tufts.edu
Mon Jan 10 12:20:29 PST 2000
Perhaps you are referring to the International Conference on Regulatory Issues in
Crop Production and Their Implications for the Food Supply that was held at Tufts
University in February, 1997. The three day Conference was sponsored by the
Foundation for Nutritional Advancement, a private, non-profit foundation based in
Boston. Participants were drawn from academic institutions, governments, and
industry in the US, Europe, and Japan. The edited proceedings of that conference are
available from The Foundation for Nutritional Advancement, 192 South Street, Suite
500, Boston, Mass 02111. The email contact is kskikaku at aol.com
School of Nutrition
Science and Policy
phnutr-l at u.washington.edu wrote:
> Dear David:
> Please acquaint me with the 1997 Tufts study. I'd also like to know who
> funded the study. Academic objectivity is often a function of who funds the
> study and sets its research direction.
> Please check the Price-Pottenger findings favoring better nutrient content
> in organic crops. Call them on 1 800 366 3748; study by Virginia
> Worthington, Sc.D. Summary points: "organically grown crops may have, on
> average, a higher nutrient content than crops grown with chemical
> fertilizers and pesticides. In addition, animal evidence supports the
> thesis that organically produced foodstuffs can produce a better health
> outcome over the long term, particularly in the area of reproduction."
> The Doctor's Data Lab (Chicago) 1993 study was published in the "Journal of
> Applied Nutrition," Vol. 45, Issue #1. For 2 years researchers collected
> specimens of similar variety and sizes of apples, peas, potatoes, corn, etc.
> from Chicago area organic food stores and supermarkets, just as would a
> local shopper. Results: organic produce had TWICE the nutritional element
> content of regular supermarket produce (and far less of the heavy metal
> resides of aluminum, lead, and mercury).
> May I also point you to the 1993 book "Super Nutrition Gardening" by William
> Peary and Dr. William Peavy. Among other references and data is this quote
> by Doctors S. Davies and A. Stewart, "the quality of (regular commercial)
> food is often so poor that the actual nutrient intake in terms of vitamins
> and minerals is inadequate and can produce disease."
> As to the specific claim about spinach...I'd guess it depends on who
> measured what crops when and where. However, in light of the above, I would
> not be surprised if modern commercially grown spinach is less nutritious
> than "good old" spinach grown prior to the 1930s, or modern organic spinach.
> You may also find my article "Organic Food IS More Nutritious" in the Nov.
> 1997 issue of "The Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients." I believe it
> can also be found under "articles" at www.living-foods.com.
> I have received favorable comments on this article from around the world,
> and, so far, no refutation of its position. At a conference 2 years ago,
> one professor who reviewed my article commented, "Nature should be taken as
> the right position, and anybody with a modern chemically based approach
> should have to prove their approach is better than nature...not the other
> way around."
> We certainly agree on not appreciating pesticides and the need for more,
> smaller, organic farms. You might enjoy the inexpensive and absorbing
> monthly ACRES USA published by Charles Walters. Call 1 800 355 5313 for a
> free edition and subscribing information. Walters grew up in the Kansas
> area and fully witnessed federal policies and the subsequent destruction of
> smaller farms.
> Non-subscriber & Independent Scholar, Bob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PHNUTR-L-owner at u.washington.edu
> [mailto:PHNUTR-L-owner at u.washington.edu]On Behalf Of Laura Larsson
> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2000 11:21 AM
> To: Public Health Nutrition Discussion and Information Group
> Subject: Re: Ursana's claims (fwd)
> I'm forwarding some comments from a non-subscriber on this topic for your
> Laura Larsson
> Health Services, University of Washington
> listowner: PHNUTR-L, PHNURSES, PNWHEALTH, PHSW, HSR-L +
> "The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and
> write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn. " Alvin Toffler
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 11:21:09 -0500
> To: phnutr-l at u.washington.edu
> From: David Leonard <David.Leonard at unh.edu>
> Subject: Ursana's claims
> Ursana's claim about mineral depleted soils causing deteriorating crop
> nutritional quality is flawed on several grounds:
> 1. Most of the minerals mentioned by Ursana's promoters (namely calcium,
> magnesium, iron, copper, molybdenum, zinc, boron) are also essential
> nutrients for good crop yields (so are manganese and sulfur). Conventional
> growers don't use only NPK fertilizers but also an array of secondary and
> trace minerals based on soil test results.
> 2. The claim that a 1948 bowl of spinach used to contain 150 mg of iron
> but now has just 2 mg is baseless. A crop's nutritional quality varies
> widely with growing conditions including soils, weather, and fertilization
> practices as well as with storage time and conditions.
> I would also disagree with Robert Heltman's response citing a study
> claiming that organic produce has twice the nutritional content of regular
> supermarket produce. Indeed, studies presented at a 1997 Tufts University
> conference revealed that there were little or no significant nutritional
> differences between organically and chemically grown produce. Even the
> Henry Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture agrees that the jury is
> still out on nutritional differences.
> As for Robert's claim that overuse of nitrogen fertilizers crowds out trace
> element uptake, that may be true to some extent. However, the incidence
> of overuse of nitrogen is becoming much less common due to high costs,
> the monitoring of agricultural runoff (as well as the monitoring of nitrate
> levels in vegetables), and the adverse effects on yields (due to secondary
> and trace element deficiencies).
> I fully support the purchase of organic produce but not on its supposedly
> superior nutritional quality. Rather, the proven benefits are fewer
> pesticide residues (both in food and in soil and runoff), the support of
> smaller, family-owned farms, and the preservation of varietal biodiversity.
> David Leonard, M.Ag. (agricultural sciences)
> 98 Portland Ave.
> Dover, NH 03820
> (Book indexing and information research in
> nutrition and health sciences)
> For low-carbo diet reviews (Atkins, Zone, Protein Power, SugarBusters!)
> fully supported by
> journal citations see
Beatrice Lorge Rogers, Ph.D.
Dean for Academic Affairs
School of Nutrition Science and Policy
132 Curtis Street
Medford, Mass. 02155
Phone: 617 627 2292
Fax: 617 627 3688
Email: Beatrice.Rogers at tufts.edu
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 373 bytes
Desc: Card for Bea Rogers
Url : http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/pipermail/phnutr-l/attachments/20000110/dea97150/beatrice.rogers-0001.vcf
More information about the PHNUTR-L