Eco Gardeners

Organically grown produce provides our families with more nutrition than conventionally grown!

If you’re buying your food from commercial sources, such as a grocery store, take a look at the difference in the quality of conventional versus organic food.

Food	Percentage ofDry Weight		Mill-equivalents per 100 grams Dry Weight				Trace Elements Parts per Million Dry Weight
	Total Ash Mineral	Phosphorus	Calcium	Magnesium	Potassium		Iron	Manganese		Copper
SNAP BEANS
Organic	10.45	0.36	40.5	60	99.7		227	60		69
Commercial	4.04	0.22	15.5	14.8	29.1		10	2
CABBAGE
Organic	10.38	0.38	60	43.6	148.3		94	13
Commercial	6.12	0.18	17.5	13.6	33.7		20	2		0.4	0
LETTUCE
Organic	24.48	0.43	71	49.3	176.5		516	169		60	0.19
Commercial	7.01	0.22	16	13.1	53.7		9	1			0
TOMATOES
Organic	14.2	0.35	23	59.2	148.3		1938	68		53	0.63
Commercial	6.07	0.16	4.5	4.5	58.8		1	1		0	0
SPINACH
Organic	28.56	0.52	96	203.9	23.7		1584	117		32	0.25
Commercial	12.38	0.27	47.5	46.9	24.6		49	1		0.3	0.02

Rutgers University Study Comparing Organic versus Commercially Grown Foods

submitted by Dr. Gary Farr

12 Responses to “Rutgers University Study: Organic vs Conventional Produce”

1. Adam Jones Says:
   May 3rd, 2011 at 1:22 am

   Wow that is a big difference it just shows organic is always best

2. Peter Says:
   November 12th, 2011 at 10:43 am

   Can you provide a link to the actual table used above in this post? I’ve searched Rutger’s website but can’t locate it.

3. Jennifer P. Says:
   November 14th, 2011 at 2:11 pm

   Do you have a link to view the entire chart? It looks like the picture above is only a portion of the information. Would be neat to see all the figures.

   Thanks!

4. Tamara Says:
   November 14th, 2011 at 2:56 pm

   Thanks for this! I’ll pass it along.

5. Amy Says:
   November 14th, 2011 at 4:07 pm

   That looks interesting, but the right side of the table is cut off. Do you have a link that would show the whole thing? and possibly more information about the study itself?

   Thank you!

   Amy

6. admin Says:
   November 14th, 2011 at 5:55 pm

   Yes, the chart seems to have cut off on our site. It has been a while since I posted this chart so I must find the actual study and source I have, however, in the meantime you can see the complete chart at http://www.becomehealthynow.com/article/foodfacts/318. Thanks for following eco-gardeners.com and let me know if you have further questions/comments. -Annette

7. paul Says:
   March 15th, 2012 at 12:01 pm

   the original content has been modified significantly and does not at all resemble the original.
   http://njaes.rutgers.edu/pubs/bearreport/misquotes.asp

8. emily Says:
   March 16th, 2012 at 12:20 pm

   The research was conducted by Firman E. Bear at Rutgers University. You may find a copy of this chart in the Natural Gardener’s Catalog (1995).

9. admin Says:
   March 19th, 2012 at 9:12 am

   Hello All! We have been receiving several comments to this post suggesting that the information from Dr Gary Farr’s study has been recreated incorrectly. If anyone has additional information pertaining to this chart please share. I will do some of my own looking around and will post any findings I come upon. Thank you to everyone for your contributions!

10. sam Says:
    March 21st, 2012 at 9:03 pm

    Admin: See comment #7. The short statement from Rutgers clears everything up and there is a link to the entire study so you can see for yourself. What is posted above is a huge misrepresentation of the data.

    The conclusion of Rutgers can be summed up by a statement from Joseph D. Rosen, emeritus professor of food toxicology at Rutgers. “Any consumers who buy organic food because they believe that it contains more healthful nutrients than conventional food are wasting their money.”

11. Alison Says:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 12:15 am

    Hi everyone! While researching organic health benefits I came across this fantastic chart. Unfortunately after I did some digging and discovered it’s a bit contrived. Please use the following link and look at what Firman was really studying. The study was done in 1945 and was done to study the variation in mineral composition of vegetables based on region.

    The first link is the whole study. Quick and easy read.
    Specifically look at “Misquotes” at the end.
    https://njaes.rutgers.edu/pubs/bearreport/

    The second link is the actual chart where the numbers were taken.
    https://njaes.rutgers.edu/pubs/bearreport/table2.asp

12. Aaron Says:
    March 25th, 2012 at 1:36 am

    The link Paul gives has the actual study, no where in its Conclusion does it even mention the word “organic”.

    Under the section labeled Misquotes in “Variation in Mineral Composition of Vegetables” you can get a quick summary of what the study actually did, and how it is misrepresented.

Leave a Reply