Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:

> An eye-opener for such theories is at:
> http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/spotquack.html
> Excerpts:
> "Twenty-Five Ways to Spot Quacks and Vitamin Pushers
> By Stephen Barrett, M.D.   Victor Herbert, M.D., J.D.

I don't know what you are trying to prove with a quote from the silliest
site on the web, but if we're voting for pure junk, this is my personal
favorite...

"8. They [evidently "quacks"] Claim That Soil Depletion and the Use of
Pesticides and "Chemical" Fertilizers Result in Food That Is Less Safe and
Less Nourishing."

"These claims are used to promote the sale of so-called "organically grown"
foods. If an essential nutrient is missing from the soil, a plant simply
doesn't grow. Chemical fertilizers counteract the effects of soil depletion.
Quacks also lie when they claim that plants grown with natural fertilizers
(such as manure) are nutritionally superior to those grown with synthetic
fertilizers. Before they can use them, plants convert natural fertilizers
into the same chemicals that synthetic fertilizers supply. The vitamin content of
a food is determined by its genetic makeup. Fertilizers can influence the levels of
certain minerals in plants, but this is not a significant factor in the
American diet. The pesticide residue of our food supply is extremely small
and poses no health threat. Foods "certified" as "organic" are not safer or
more nutritious than other foods. In fact, except for their high price, they
are not significantly different."

Yes, this passage may be the silliest word-salad on the net.  If Barrett and
Herbert had to run a farm, with real plants, and real animals, they would be
out of business in 3 years or less.

So, what are you trying to prove?

Regards,
Rex Harrill