Organic produce and meat typically isn't any better for you than
conventional food when it comes to vitamin and nutrient content,
although it does generally reduce exposure to pesticides and
antibiotic-resistant bacteria, according to a US study.
"People
choose to buy organic foods for many different reasons. One of them is
perceived health benefits," said Crystal Smith-Spangler, who led a team
of researchers from Stanford University and the Veterans Affairs Palo
Alto Health Care.
"Our patients, our families ask about, 'Well,
are there health reasons to choose organic food in terms of nutritional
content or human health outcomes?'"
She and her colleagues reviewed more than 200 studies that compared
either the health of people who ate organic or conventional foods or,
more commonly, nutrient and contaminant levels in the foods themselves.
The foods included organic and non-organic fruits, vegetables, grains, meat, poultry eggs and milk.
According
to US Department of Agriculture standards, organic farms have to avoid
the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, hormones and
antibiotics. Organic livestock must also have access to pastures during
grazing season.
Many of the studies used, though, didn't specify
their standards for what constituted "organic" food, which can cost as
much as twice what conventional food costs, the researchers wrote in the
Annals of Internal Medicine.
Anecdotal evidence
Smith-Spangler and her colleagues found
there was no difference in the amount of vitamins in plant or animal
products produced organically and conventionally - and the only nutrient
difference was slightly more phosphorous in the organic products.
Organic milk and chicken may also contain more omega-3 fatty acids, but that was based on only a few studies.
More
than one third of conventional produce had detectable pesticide
residues, compared with 7 per cent of organic produce samples.
Organic
pork and chicken were 33 per cent less likely to carry bacteria
resistant to three or more antibiotics than conventionally produced
meat.
Smith-Spangler told Reuters Health it was uncommon for
either organic or conventional foods to exceed the allowable limits for
pesticides, so it was not clear whether a difference in residues would
have an effect on health.
But others said more research is needed
to fully explore the potential health and safety differences between
organic and conventional foods, and it was premature to say organic
foods aren't any healthier than non-organic versions.
"Right now I
think it's all based on anecdotal evidence,"said Chensheng Lu, who
studies environmental health and exposure at the Harvard School of
Public Health.
No comments:
Post a Comment