Organic
food is not healthier, finds study
New Delhi: Hooked to organic food
for its supposed health benefits? Here’s some food for thought. In the largest
analysis of studies till date on organic food, researchers from Stanford
University have said there is “little evidence of healthier benefits from organic
food over those grown conventionally”.
The researchers found no difference in protein or fat content between organic and conventional milk. No consistent differences were also seen in the vitamin content of organic products. Only one nutrient—phosphorus—was significantly higher in organic food as compared to conventionally grown produce.
The only benefit, found the study published on Tuesday in the medical journal Annals of Internal Medicine, was that consumption of organic food can reduce the risk of pesticide exposure.
MYTH BUSTED
Stanford Univ researchers find no difference in nutritional value between organic food and conventionally grown food. ‘Little evidence of healthier benefits’ too
No difference in protein, fat, vitamin content in organic and conventional milk. Only more phosphorus in organic foods
Organic foods are 30% less likely to be contaminated with pesticides but they are not 100% pesticide free
The researchers found no difference in protein or fat content between organic and conventional milk. No consistent differences were also seen in the vitamin content of organic products. Only one nutrient—phosphorus—was significantly higher in organic food as compared to conventionally grown produce.
The only benefit, found the study published on Tuesday in the medical journal Annals of Internal Medicine, was that consumption of organic food can reduce the risk of pesticide exposure.
MYTH BUSTED
Stanford Univ researchers find no difference in nutritional value between organic food and conventionally grown food. ‘Little evidence of healthier benefits’ too
No difference in protein, fat, vitamin content in organic and conventional milk. Only more phosphorus in organic foods
Organic foods are 30% less likely to be contaminated with pesticides but they are not 100% pesticide free
‘Only aim to educate, not discourage
people’
New Delhi: A team of researchers from Stanford University found only one benefit in consuming organic food. “Organic produce was 30% less likely to be contaminated with pesticides than conventional fruits and vegetables,” said the study published in Annals of Internal Medicine. It however, added that organic foods are not necessarily 100% free of pesticides.
Also, organic chicken and pork appeared to reduce exposure to antibioticresistant bacteria. “There isn’t much difference between organic and conventional foods if you’re an adult and making a decision based solely on your health,” said Dena Bravata, senior author of the study.
Dr Ritika Samaddar, chief dietician at Max Hospital, agreed with the finding but said cost was a big factor behind organic food still not being that popular.
Bravata, a senior affiliate with Stanford’s Center for Health Policy, and Crystal Smith-Spangler, an instructor in the school’s division of general medical disciplines, did the comprehensive meta-analysis. The researchers said their aim was to educate people, not to discourage them from making organic purchases.
New Delhi: A team of researchers from Stanford University found only one benefit in consuming organic food. “Organic produce was 30% less likely to be contaminated with pesticides than conventional fruits and vegetables,” said the study published in Annals of Internal Medicine. It however, added that organic foods are not necessarily 100% free of pesticides.
Also, organic chicken and pork appeared to reduce exposure to antibioticresistant bacteria. “There isn’t much difference between organic and conventional foods if you’re an adult and making a decision based solely on your health,” said Dena Bravata, senior author of the study.
Dr Ritika Samaddar, chief dietician at Max Hospital, agreed with the finding but said cost was a big factor behind organic food still not being that popular.
Bravata, a senior affiliate with Stanford’s Center for Health Policy, and Crystal Smith-Spangler, an instructor in the school’s division of general medical disciplines, did the comprehensive meta-analysis. The researchers said their aim was to educate people, not to discourage them from making organic purchases.
Times View: Need India-specific
study T his study obviously must be taken
very seriously given both its scale and the credibility of the institution that
has undertaken it. However, it would be dangerous to rush to extrapolate from
this to the Indian situation. Patterns of both fertiliser and pesticide
consumption in India are entirely different from those in the US or other parts
of the developed world. Given the relatively low use of chemicals, it might
seem that the one benefit the study has found in the case of organic foods may
not apply to India. On the other hand, given the poor regulatory environment
here, the risks could actually be higher. Rather than speculating about which
of these two possibilities actually is true, it would be best if a similar
study were done for food in India.
Kounteya
Sinha TOI120905
No comments:
Post a Comment