My last post was a graph showcasing the difference between organic vs. conventional. It came to me via Facebook and was posted by a few different people. I did not think it over. I sent it to farmer Dad, who was already familiar with the misuse of that study.
These highest and lowest values have been misrepresented as vegetables grown organically and inorganically, respectively, in various organic farming and healthfood newsletters, which cite the report (copies of the misquotes are available on request).–Rutgers
The study was not to compare either. It analyzed mineral composition between the north vs. the south and the east vs. the west. It did not collect data referring to organic or chemical fertilizers. If you think about, it was 1948. How much interest do you suppose there was at that time exploring organic vs. conventional? The concept had barely surfaced.
Read more on the misquotes in “Variation in Mineral Composition of Vegetables” at Rutgers
I found this website about healing from diseases containing the full Firman E. Bear report as a PDF. This chart is dropped into the PDF and cited from a website in Australia, even though it was not part of the original 1948 report.
Conspiracy? I don’t know, what do you think? Surely organic is better for you and better for the planet but this is not the chart.