Once again about the uselessness of organic products
The benefits of organic food are questioned
Copper news based on EurekAlert! – Little evidence of health benefits from organic foods, Stanford study findsOrganic food is no more useful and safe for human health than ordinary food.
Experts from Stanford University (USA) came to this conclusion after analyzing 240 publications on food products that have appeared in the scientific literature since 1966. The work of the group led by Dena Bravata, which is the most extensive study in this area, was published on September 4 in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine (Smith-Spangler et al., Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives?: A Systematic Review).
The so–called organic food – grown without the use of pesticides, hormones, antibiotics and so on - is positioned by manufacturers as more useful and safe for health than usual, since it is cleaner and contains more vitamins, minerals and other nutrients. Organic products are often twice as expensive as products grown by traditional methods, but despite this, their popularity among the population of developed countries has increased enormously in recent decades. So, in the USA from 1997 to 2011, the organic food market grew from 3.6 to 24.4 billion dollars.
In order to confirm or refute the thesis about the significant advantage of one type of food over another, the authors conducted a systematic analysis of the results of 240 studies, 223 of which were devoted to comparing fruits, vegetables, cereals, meat, milk and eggs grown by organic or conventional methods in terms of trace elements, bacterial and fungal contamination and pesticide content. The remaining 17 publications concerned the health indicators of the population in the light of food consumed. The entire array of analyzed data has been published in the scientific literature since January 1966.
The only revealed significant advantage of organic products over conventional ones in terms of the presence of vitamins and minerals in them turned out to be a relatively higher content of phosphorus in them, which, as the authors note, may be useful for people suffering from a deficiency of this trace element.
As for vitamins, as well as other useful substances, here, contrary to popular beliefs, there were no clinically significant differences for human health. In particular, the authors note, the protein and fat composition of organic and regular milk turned out to be approximately the same, although several publications suggest that organic milk may contain a higher level of unsaturated fatty acids.
The authors also found no convincing evidence that conventional products are more harmful to human health than organic ones. Although the latter are 30 percent less likely to be contaminated with pesticides than conventional ones, however, they cannot be called one hundred percent pure from pesticides, in addition, this difference is practically erased when the shelf life of products is exceeded. As for bacterial contamination, the indicators are approximately equal here. The authors, however, suggest that the consumption of organic pork and chicken reduces the risk of developing antibiotic resistance, but at the same time note that there is no clinical confirmation of this assumption.
Commenting on the results obtained, the authors note that they could have been influenced by the heterogeneity of scientific methods used in the studies on the basis of which the analysis was carried out, as well as other various factors affecting the quality and safety of products, such as weather, soil, farming methods, and so on.
It is worth noting that the conclusions reached by experts from Stanford University, in general, coincide with the results of a study conducted by scientists from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in 2009.
Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru05.09.2012