There are very few scientific studies systematically comparing the quality of crops produced by conventional methods of agriculture, i.e. using chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, and by organic farming which only uses natural methods of fertilization and insect and “weed” control.
An American nutritionist, Virginia Worthington, compared the results of 34 studies done over the past 50 years to try to answer the question: Are organic foods superior to foods produced by conventional methods?
Roughly speaking, she says, all of these studies show a clear trend supporting the idea that organically produced foods have better nutritional value. For example, virtually all studies show a higher percentage of nutrients (dry matter, sugars, ascorbic acid, calcium, phosphorus, etc.) in organic foods. This could be explained, she argues, by the fact that organic foods contain less water than conventional foods.
Regarding nitrates and ascorbate (vitamin C), however, there is enough data to show that organic foods contain more ascorbate and less nitrates. This is important because, when ingested, the nitrates contained in plants can be transformed into carcinogenic (carcinogenic) nitrosamines. The greater percentage of nitrates in foods produced by conventional agriculture is due as much to the use of nitrogenous fertilizers as to the use of herbicides.
Effects on animals and humans
Studies have shown that the wrong proportion of minerals in forage leads to reproductive problems for livestock. Fertilizers with high nitrogen or potassium levels decrease the availability of magnesium in the forage, which leads to fertility problems in the animals that feed on it. Nitrogen fertilizers have also been linked to thyroid abnormalities in sheep. Likewise, phosphorus fertilizers can cause copper deficiency in animals.
Out of fourteen studies that compared the performance of animals fed with organic forages and conventional forages, ten showed favorable results for organic forages. Likewise, the so-called “Haughley” study, named after the English farm where it took place, showed that cows fed with organic fodder produced more milk with less fodder than those fed with fodder which had been chemically fertilized. . Likewise, the offspring of organically fed rabbits gained weight faster and had a better survival rate than those fed chemically fertilized food.
There are no studies that have compared the effects of organic and conventional diets in humans. However, a series of studies quite similar to Haughley’s took place in Germany between 1936 and 1944. The main differences observed were in children who showed faster growth, and higher blood serum beta carotene levels. iron and hematocrit if they consumed foods grown with organic fertilizers and chemical rather than just organic.
Virginia Worthington concludes her study by saying that the available data does not definitively prove the nutritional superiority of organic foods. However, the observable trends are sufficiently conclusive for further study of the relationship between agricultural methods and food quality.
Perhaps policymakers would be more inclined to fund research if they learned of a study by Aehnelt and Hahn showing that the motility of bull sperm drops dramatically when switched from diet to organic forage. on a “conventional” diet. Fortunately their sperm becomes vigorous again if we bring the animals back to organic fodder!
Summary of the study Effect of agricultural methods on nutritional quality: a comparison of organic with conventional crops, by Virginia Worthington, Ms, ScD, published in Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, Vol 4, No 1, January 1998
HealthPassport.net