Heirloom Organic vs. Conventional Produce

by WiredBerries Editors — November 7, 2007

Don't you hate it when those big, red tomatoes that look so juicy in the supermarket turn out to be tasteless? Turns out taste isn't the only thing missing. Dr. Donald Davis, research associate at the Biochemical Institute at the University of Texas and colleagues analyzed over 40 fruit and vegetable crops for over two decades. Specifically, they analyzed the nutritional data taken from "selectively bred high yield conventionally grown produce." Their study yielded some disappointing results.

What the researchers found were declines in average concentrations of six key nutrients. The results of 20 years showed declines in: protein of - 6%, calcium:   -16%, phosphorus: - 9%, iron: -15%, riboflavin: - 38%, and vitamin C: - 20%.

So why doesn't the USDA come out and say something about it? Chief scientist and sustainable agriculture expert for The Organic Center, Charles Benbrook claims it's because the USDA has a "tacit policy to avoid discussions of differences in food quality and safety that may be a function of how food is grown and processed. The Department (USDA) made a political decision when they finalized the national organic rule. They declared that organic food was not nutritionally superior or safer than conventional food, even though there is solid evidence suggesting otherwise. Organic production systems which use slow-release forms of nitrogen produce foods that usually yield denser concentrations of nutrients and deliver consumers a better nutritional bargain per calorie consumed."

According to researchers like Benbrook and Davis, the only way to

combat the current system of poor quality produce is to "vote" at the supermarket. The good news is that while heirloom organic varieties may be a bit more expensive than conventional, you're getting more "bang for your buck" in terms of complete nutrients, without the added worry of synthetic fertilizers, genetic modifications, and pesticides.