Absolutely, and something that has been known for probably at least 20 years, although it is strongly denied by those that think "conventional" farming is the only way to go.

Here's a live link...the program won't let you insert a link until you get to the preview, so as to discourage spammers.

All that forced growth makes them more attractive to pests too, requiring yet MORE chemical input...

Here is a link that might be useful: veg nutrition

Yup, not new at all. Just another article in a long line. A good chunk of the reason why farmer's markets are popular.

Dan

Didn't we just recently see a thread in this forum revolving around a study showing organic veg's contained no more nutrition than any others? As I recall the reaction here was not to deny it but to cite other advantages of organic gardening. Which study are we to believe?

Which study to believe? The one conducted by your taste buds. It only stands to reason that plants grown in rich, active soil will produce food that is also richer in nutrients. When my non-gardening, non-health food-eating friends come to dinner, they rave over the simplest things, as if it were ambrosia! The look on a 'newbie's' face when I encourage him/her to eat a raw green bean, just picked ... PRICELESS!

It all depends on your definition of organic. It's not the bold green print on the label proudly proclaiming it's organic status that makes it healthy. Greenwashed corporate "organic" grown in depleted soil isn't going to be more nutritious than non-organic grown in the same soil, although it may be possibly less toxic.

Long term small farms and gardens will careful attention to soil health and nutrition? I agree with Barb. There are many nutrients plants will uptake from the soil and incorporate in their tissue even when they don't need them for their own health or reproduction.