This is according to a study by a group of researchers at Stanford University
You are in the supermarket, looking at juicy and sweet plums. Side by side you see regular plums, and next to them organic plums that cost much more. Perhaps many of you felt that you made a healthier choice by choosing the organic products - but new findings from Stanford University cast doubt on that.
"There is no big difference between organic food and regular food, as far as a decision based solely on health aspects is concerned, says Dr. Dina Brabata, the lead researcher in an article comparing the nutritional value of organic and non-organic food products, published on September 4 in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.
A team led by Bravata, a senior fellow at the Center for Health Policy and Crystal Smith-Spangler, a lecturer in the Division of General Medicine at Stanford and a physician researcher in the health system in Palo Alto, performed the most comprehensive analysis of the existing studies (Meta Analysis) and compared organic and conventional food products. They did not find a strong correlation that organic foods are nutritionally valuable or have fewer health risks than consuming conventional products, although consuming organic products can reduce exposure to pesticides.
The popularity of organic products, which are usually grown without the use of synthetic pesticides or fertilizers or in the case of beef and poultry - grown without antibiotics and growth hormones is gaining momentum in the US (and I assume in Israel as well).
Within 15 years, Americans' spending on organic food products rose from $3.6 billion to $24.4 billion. Many consumers are willing to pay a premium for these products. On average, organic food products cost twice as much as their regular counterparts.
Brabatta, who also serves as the chief medical officer at the medical transparency company Castlight Health, conducted a literature review and uncovered what she calls "a confusing body of research that includes non-serious studies that appeared in commercial publications." There was no comprehensive synthesis of evidence that includes both the benefits and the harms," she said.
"It was virgin ground in terms of systematic research," says Smith-Spangler, who joined Rabata in the comprehensive analysis.
The researchers went through thousands of articles and identified 237 most relevant to the analysis. These articles include the results of 17 studies (of which 6 were randomized clinical trials) of populations that consumed organic and conventional diets, and 223 studies that compared the nutritional value, the amount of bacteria, fungi and pesticides in a variety of products - fruits, vegetables, grains, meats, milk, Poultry and eggs.
No long-term studies were found on the health outcomes of people who consume organic products compared to conventional food. The duration of the studies in which humans were involved ranged from two days to two years.
After analyzing the data, the researchers found very few differences in the medical benefits between organic food products and conventional food products. No consistent difference was found in the vitamin content of the organic products, and only one important food component - phosphorus - was significantly higher in organic products compared to conventionally grown products. Since only very few people are deficient in phosphorus, this has no clinical effect.
Also, there were no differences in the protein or fat content between organic milk and regular milk, although few studies suggest that organic milk may have higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids.
The researchers also failed to identify a single fruit or vegetable where the organic product had consistently better health properties, despite performing what Rabata calls "tons of analysis."
"Some believe that organic products are always healthier and have a higher nutritional value," says Smith-Spanger. "We were not surprised that we found no evidence of this."
27 תגובות
Beorganic - organic materials are very good for those who sell them. They make you rich. And besides, I deleted the ad. Free advertising - please advertise on YNET, everyone advertises with them for a fee and they want free gifts from me.
Best regards
Avi Blizovsky
There is no way there is no difference, the difference is huge,
It's never too late to start living healthy
beorganic120@gmail.com
Noam Leibovitz If you saw this then you were wrong!!!!!!
In order to know which food is healthier, a long-term and multi-user study that includes a studied group and a control group cannot be dispensed with.
Unfortunately, we often see that there is an ability of certain parties with interest and power to change the results of supposedly scientific studies in the direction they want.
One of the most notable cases that happened recently here in Israel is the measurement of unemployment rates. A measurement that was not accepted in other countries.
The error in this measurement was of the order of about 30% error! This is a huge measurement error!
cedar
The relationship of taste and smell to the form of growth is very loose, what determines is the sorting of fruits and vegetables before they are marketed. Therefore you cannot reach conclusions based on your personal experience.
In detail. All the fruits and vegetables are sorted before they are sold, usually the beautiful and juicy fruits-vegetables are sold *at higher prices*, because fruits *marked* as organic are sold at higher prices, the Hillel fruits-vegetables are also juicier. On the other hand, organic fruits and vegetables that don't look good are probably *not marked at all* and are sold at the cheap stalls.
incidentally. In Israel, many cases of counterfeiting were discovered (olive oil that is not olive oil, organic eggs that are not organic, and more). I don't believe all these markings at all. I only buy based on appearance and price (in the market I only buy the cheapest fruits and vegetables provided they look good).
I happened to be in many countries in the world where people grow their fruits and vegetables at home.
Obviously there is no spraying and there is no high agricultural awareness,
But this is a but that no one addressed:
The organic vegetables and fruits are simply tastier, meatier and have a strong flavor and aroma (at least the ones I have eaten and not the ones served at Eden Teva Market).
Healthy or unhealthy - I don't know.
Tastier? Unequivocally yes and yes! From the large carrots, through apricots, pears, bananas - I tasted everything...another world of flavors!
The exploded title... but empty of content.
In the fine print (of the study, it's not in this article for some reason...) it says that the (huge) difference found regarding pesticides is 30% more pesticides in non-organic food...
To me, this says everything and completely contradicts the conclusion of the study, but let's continue:
Regarding the quality of this meta-analysis - it is based on existing studies and therefore depends on the quality of the studies on which it is based.
Those who enter the details can read the opinion of the researchers about the quality of the studies they worked with:
Limitation: Studies were heterogeneous and limited in number, and publication bias may be present.
And here is a sample of the problem - "the duration of the studies in which humans were involved ranged from two days to two years"
two days?? If it was a study that would have declared the opposite conclusions - ZA which claims that organic food is healthier - then you would tear this study and its conclusions to shreds just based on this line...
In short - a lot (a lot) of fuss about nothing.
And because the uproar is so great - I think there is a great suspicion of foreign interests here.
In response to the sparrow, but why would the body absorb toxins, if there is an alternative not to. The question is if there is an alternative, because if it is proven that there are no other types of toxins in organics, then in my opinion the slightly larger investment is preferable. The question is not whether there are more vitamins or whether it is a little more expensive, but whether it really has fewer toxins.
It says in the article: "No long-term studies were found on the health outcomes of people who consume organic products compared to regular food" (about 10 lines from the end).
So what's new? Conduct 5-6 such long-term studies and then we'll talk. The human body can absorb quite a few toxins and continue to function. Look at the people who consume nicotine and ethanol in quantities and stay alive.
On the other hand, precisely because of this endurance, there may not be enough benefit in the organic food relative to the investment. I am more interested in which food is more sustainable and requires less resources to grow.
It is less relevant for downstream analysis, where no experiments are performed.
An important rule in conducting scientific research is that the results of the research do not depend on the researchers!
That means everyone who does the research will get the same results.
I wonder if this rule is followed in this study.
That is :
Has another group done the same research and reached the same conclusions?
This is a broad study of the meta-analysis type, which reviews the conclusions of many previous studies.
For an explanation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis
The explanation includes weaknesses and advantages of this research method.
The study did not deal at all with the question of taste, shelf life, external shape, and many other marketing elements, but focused on the nutritional value and the negative health effects resulting from the consumption of organic nutrition compared to the consumption of non-organic nutrition.
It was very strange for me to read about how the research was conducted.
It is written that this is a "second" study. They did not conduct their own studies on organic food, but analyzed other studies... I can't explain why yet, but it feels to me like a method that has many "holes" in relation to the standards of reliable scientific research.
A simple question is: did they even try to taste the organic food compared to the normal food?
As someone who consumes both organic and non-organic food, I know that in many cases (not all) there is a really different quality to organic products. They have a much more "alive" taste. I don't have the knowledge of what causes this and how much effect it has on health, but the difference in taste is as tangible as the difference between salty and sweet.
First it should be noted that the research, according to the publication in the annals, was not funded by interested parties.
Second, the company where the main researcher is employed, castlight health, is engaged in the most important field (in the US) of comparing costs and benefits of medical treatment and drugs.
At the same time, I am disturbed (and annoyed!) by the combination of two arguments:
1. The short duration of the study (up to two years), especially in children, does not allow monitoring the development of side effects, such as allergies.
2. The researchers found that there is a significant difference in the presence of pesticides in non-organic food, but claim that this has no clinical significance.
Especially regarding the second argument, I would like to refer to extensive literature that deals with the (clinically proven) damage of pesticides in food, to which all population groups are exposed, and risk groups are especially vulnerable to them.
An example of such a study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2984095/
The study cites neurological damage (in direct proportion to the intensity of exposure), damage to the heart, blood vessels and respiratory tract, an increase in the incidence of diabetes, and more.
The researchers write that in both cultivation methods the pesticide content was below the standard, but I did not see any reference to the differences in standards between different countries (and there are some).
Also, I have not seen any reference to the use of pesticides in agricultural input products, which eventually turn into many food products.
In conclusion, the charge in the study, in my opinion, lies in the overpricing of organic agricultural produce, due to its positioning as a premium product.
The weakness of the study is the avoidance of the analysis of the health and environmental effects of using pesticides in agriculture.
Another proof that the left is destroying the country.
Once again - what the majority believe turned out to be wrong... 🙂
But they will continue to believe because that's what they were told in kindergarten
I am not a fan of organic food, but as far as I understand, people who buy organic food do not buy it because it has more vitamins, but because it is not sprayed or injected with hormones and pesticides...
This study does not refer at all to possible damages (perhaps cumulative and long-term) of pesticides and hormones, therefore the conclusion that organic food is not healthier is not appropriate (except in terms of vitamins)...
It is upsetting that all the big money, the researchers invested only to check a question that is not relevant. No one buys organic because it has more vitamins, etc. There are enough vitamins in food, and the Western obsession with getting more and more vitamins (to the point of consuming them in supplements) influenced the thinkers of this study. Those who consider whether to invest their money in organic, do so mainly for one reason - to reduce their exposure to spray and pesticide toxins. Meaning not to get more of something good, but to get less of something bad. It's a shame that the funds for the research weren't invested in just checking whether organic is really less toxic, compared to conventional crops.
And it's a shame they didn't investigate more in-depth more burning issues regarding organic, to know the bottom line, Bennett Effect, if it's better.
What 3 issues regarding organic
1. That organics are irrigated with the same water full of hormone disruptors and other VOC'S and more
2. Organic may be more vulnerable to molds, because it receives less anti-fungal substances
3. That organic crops, if they are under attack from pests, and have not received sufficient external protection from pesticides, raise by themselves the expression of genes for anti-pesticides (alkaloids of various kinds, etc.), and then we consume built-in pesticides.
On the other hand, even in conventional crops, it is impossible to remove the pesticide by washing, etc., because those substances are the taint of the water, and in the soil. The whole earth is poisoned.
In short, there are pros and cons regarding the 2 breeding methods - organic and conventional, and it was necessary to compare with real relevant parameters, and not "if there are more vitamins", then give an answer to the public, weighing all the parameters, which is the least bad.
B.
To grow your own food without pesticides you have to work in your garden full time to chase away insects and pests. Do you think only you want to eat the tomato you grew? Chutsamza, a tomato bush that sprouted in my garden produced something like 10 or 15 tomatoes. That's enough for a week. I need 52 such bushes. Where are the other products?
As for the use of concrete... I don't know where you came up with that. The use of concrete is caused because people want to live close to employment, entertainment and shopping centers and this causes the construction to be high. Not the reluctance of people in gardens.
http://simania.co.il/bookdetails.php?item_id=366303
Recommended to read!
Things are explained there in a simple and clear way!
Dear B.
1. Regarding the variety, because everyone was growing what they wanted, the variety was probably small because everyone wants a cucumber and a tomato
2. Saving energy, bullshit! From a global point of view, it's really nonsense, creating for the masses is always more economical.
3. Use of pesticides, maybe you are right but then the argument of saving energy went
4. The use of concrete, exactly the opposite... If people lived in private and less crowded houses, the efficiency of the hostel is small and therefore the amount of concrete increases....
5. Travel by car, very undefined... everyone will be farmers?!
The utopia you describe has already been…. My wife's grandfather had a household... everyone's standard of living was lower...
I would appreciate it if you elaborated more on good and bad because I could not understand the evil in crowded cities.
B - I loved it! Girls soccer words!!!! Every sentence is a shell. I see that you understand the field!!! I wish it was like that with all of us. At least basic literacy.
If instead of picking pears at the supermarket, each person had their own pear tree.
So the food was much healthier and much cheaper.
also :
1) The variety was much greater. Because everyone would grow the strain they wanted.
2) The savings in the use of energy for the needs of agricultural crops was very large.
3) The use of pesticides was very small.
4) The use of concrete and its products would decrease because they would build less for height.
5) The amount of car trips would decrease because most people would work for a living around the house.
in brief:
Population concentration in dense cities is bad for humanity!
By the way, we talked to a group of researchers from Stanford, from the biology department. We were told that talc is sprinkled on the fruits and vegetables so that insects do not feed on them. And talc, as we know, contains asbestos. So, not only is there no culinary difference, there is a health difference, sometimes.. not always... and by the way, the organic fields are irrigated with the same water that the normal fields are irrigated with. And what about the water?! - that we don't know. They contain EDC= Endocrine Disruptive Compounds that change all kinds of things in our body. Responsible, among other things, for sex change among certain species of fish, responsible for fertility problems...etc... So, the vegetables and fruits absorb this water into their tissues, from which we feed. These substances don't always break down in natural processes... so.. they are there... sometimes they cause cancers in us and sometimes (and we see this more and more nowadays), diseases in the crop itself. What a shame there is plastic on the planet. A byproduct of the oil industry. We ruined a lot of good plots. Now we need someone to teach us all how to recycle plastic. It can save us but, for us to be saved, we definitely need education. For modesty, less consumption, less garbage generation. Dreams in aspemia. Maybe the generation after the next generation... when the chemicals run out to make gadgets...
Funny study, the main difference between organic and non-organic fruits is the use (or the amount of use) of pesticides, maybe you should have compared the amount of pesticides in fruits or pesticide residues in people's bodies.
It surprises me to learn that some people think that organic food has better nutritional values. This is of course not true. I don't understand why so much time and money had to be spent to prove it. Organic food is food that supposedly has no intervention that is not natural or biological (such as the use of weed killer chemicals, which by the way also kill a little bit of humans). There is no reason for this food to have more vitamins, minerals, or any other nutritional value. A tomato is a tomato. The correct solution to these problems is of course genetic engineering of plants. It is also the safest, can also increase the produce (as opposed to organic, where the produce per area is small, and the price increases accordingly), and can really improve nutritional values. That's where the money should be invested, and not for studies that prove the obvious.