At the supermarket, organic fruits and vegetables are king. The market takes extra special care of them, they cost a lot more, but it's okay because they are so much healthier for you, right? Stanford says that this may not be the case.
"There is not much difference between organic and conventional foods , if you are an adult and make a decision based solely on your health ," said Dena bravado , MD , MS, lead author of an article comparing the nutritional value of organic foods and non - organic, published in the Sept. 4 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine.
A team led by bravado, a subsidiary of height with the Stanford Center for Health Policy , and Crystal Smith - Spangler , MD , MS , a division general disciplines Instructor School of Medicine and a physician - care system researcher VA Palo Alto health , was the most comprehensive to date of existing studies comparing organic and conventional foods meta-analysis. They found strong evidence that organic foods are more nutritious or carry fewer health risks than conventional solutions , the consumption of organic foods can reduce the risk of exposure to pesticides.
The popularity of organic products generally grown without pesticides or synthetic fertilizers or routine use of antibiotics or the use of growth hormone has skyrocketed in the United States . Between 1997 and 2011, organic food sales in the U.S. increased by $ 3.6 to $ 24.4 billion , and many consumers are willing to pay a premium for these products. Organic foods are often twice as expensive than their conventionally grown counterparts.
Although there is a common perception - perhaps based on price alone - that organic foods are better for you than non - organic, remains an open question whether the health benefits . In fact , the study patients bravado Stanford has asked again and again about the benefits of organic products. She did not know how to advise them .
So bravado , who is also medical director of the transparency of the health of the business of health care in light, documentary research , the discovery of what she called a " confusing body of studies, including some that are not very strict , appearing in trade publications. "It is not a comprehensive summary of the evidence , which included both pros and cons , he said .
" It was an area ripe for a systematic review ," said the author Smith - Spangler , who jumped on board to conduct a meta-analysis of bravado and his colleagues at Stanford.
For their study, the researchers sifted through thousands of articles and identified 237 more relevant to analyze . 17 studies were included in populations consuming organic and conventional diets, and 223 studies comparing nutrient levels or contamination of various products of organic and conventional bacterial, fungal or pesticide culture. There was no long-term study of the health of people who consume organic compared to conventionally produced food , the duration of studies in humans varies from two days to two years .
After analyzing the data, researchers found little significant difference in health benefits between organic and conventional foods. Phosphorus - was significantly higher in organic produce grown conventionally before ( and researchers note that because some people are deficient in phosphorus, which have no consistent differences in the composition of organic products , vitamins, and single nutrient were observed shortly ) clinical significance. There was no difference in protein or fat between organic and conventional milk , if the evidence of a limited number of studies have suggested that organic milk may contain significantly higher levels of omega- 3 fatty acids.
The researchers were also able to identify specific fruits and vegetables were always healthier choice , despite the implementation of this bravado called " tons of analysis. "
" Some believe that organic food is always healthier and more nutritious ," said Smith - Spangler , who is also an instructor of medicine at the Faculty of Medicine "We were a little surprised that we did not find .. "
The review gave little evidence that higher medical devices biohazard conventional foods. While the researchers found that organic produce had a risk 30 percent less pesticide contamination than conventional fruits and vegetables, organic foods are not necessarily 100 percent free of pesticides. In addition, the researchers found that levels of all foods of pesticides have generally fallen within the limits of safety. Two studies of children consuming organic and conventional diets have found low levels of pesticide residues in the urine of children with organic diets , although the importance of these results on the health of the child is not clear. In addition , chicken and beef and organic pork seem to reduce exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria , but the clinical significance of this is uncertain.
In terms of what the results mean for consumers , the researchers say that their goal is to educate people, not to discourage them from making organic purchases. "If you look beyond health effects , there are many other reasons to buy organic instead of conventional ," said bravado. He listed the preferences and concerns about the effects of traditional farming practices on the environment and the taste of animal welfare , as some of the reasons why people choose organic products.
"Our goal was to shed light on what the evidence is ," said Smith - . Spangler " This is the information that people can use to make their own decisions based on their level of concern about pesticides , their budget and other considerations . "
He also said that people should try to achieve a healthy diet. He stressed the importance of eating fruits and vegetables, " but are grown ," noting that most Americans do not consume the recommended amount.
In discussing the limitations of their work, the researchers observed the heterogeneity of the studies reviewed due to differences in test methods, physical factors affecting food , such as climate and soil type , and a large variation in the methods of organic farming. Regarding the latter, there may be specific organic practices (eg , how the manure fertilizer , the risk of bacterial contamination , is used and handled ) that could provide a safer nutritional quality superior product.
Spangler - " What I learned is that there is much variation between agricultural practices ," said Smith. "It seems that there are many different factors that are important in predicting nutritional quality and damage. "
No comments:
Post a Comment