They had a set of criteria that they defined as "organically grown" in the study. Nevertheless, the results show that pesticides generally inhibit mineral absorbtion, which is pretty common knowledge in some circles. Minerals account for a much larger percentage of chemical reactions in the body than do vitamins.

I've seen compelling studies of remote cultures that intake many-times the mineral content that we do and they are nearly disease free (hence, the reason the study was conducted) and they live much longer.

Severe crop mineral deficiency statements were made by the U.S.D.A. as early as the 50s.

Also, I wonder what type of plants were used when determining that vitamin quantity in plants is low compared to supplements. Maybe it's just that: Modern crops are vitamin deficient.

You have to be cautious when considering this type of "evidence" stating that we take too many vitamins. In nearly all of the cases I've looked into, these statements were made in the interest of the pharmaceutical companies. Why? Keeping the masses sick—in part by discouraging the use of supplements—will keep the pharmaceuticals profitable. Hence CODEX.

Food for thought <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />