Ну что вы, "британские учёные" не относится к источнику, а к стилю и типа заметки полностью исследование не знаю как скачать но вот почитайте хотя бы коротко оригинал http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685 а не бред журнализдский: ------- Background: The health benefits of organic foods are unclear.
Purpose: To review evidence comparing the health effects of organic and conventional foods.
Data Sources: MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2011), EMBASE, CAB Direct, Agricola, TOXNET, Cochrane Library (January 1966 to May 2009), and bibliographies of retrieved articles.
Study Selection: English-language reports of comparisons of organically and conventionally grown food or of populations consuming these foods.
Data Extraction: 2 independent investigators extracted data on methods, health outcomes, and nutrient and contaminant levels.
Data Synthesis: 17 studies in humans and 223 studies of nutrient and contaminant levels in foods met inclusion criteria. Only 3 of the human studies examined clinical outcomes, finding no significant differences between populations by food type for allergic outcomes (eczema, wheeze, atopic sensitization) or symptomatic Campylobacter infection. Two studies reported significantly lower urinary pesticide levels among children consuming organic versus conventional diets, but studies of biomarker and nutrient levels in serum, urine, breast milk, and semen in adults did not identify clinically meaningful differences. All estimates of differences in nutrient and contaminant levels in foods were highly heterogeneous except for the estimate for phosphorus; phosphorus levels were significantly higher than in conventional produce, although this difference is not clinically significant. The risk for contamination with detectable pesticide residues was lower among organic than conventional produce (risk difference, 30% [CI, −37% to −23%]), but differences in risk for exceeding maximum allowed limits were small. Escherichia coli contamination risk did not differ between organic and conventional produce. Bacterial contamination of retail chicken and pork was common but unrelated to farming method. However, the risk for isolating bacteria resistant to 3 or more antibiotics was higher in conventional than in organic chicken and pork (risk difference, 33% [CI, 21% to 45%]).
ну да, промышленные продукты нечасто превышают максимальные допустимые нормы, для них эти нормы и создавались. Чего они ожидали? Чтобы у органики было в разы больше чего-то полезного и в разы меньше чего-то вредного? Учитывая технологию совершенно нормально что разница в районе 5-10% Чтобы было понятно, мне абсолютно пофиг органические продукты. Я горов жрать перемолотый пластик, если он будет вкусным.
Ну, так я вообще за ГМО - не будет и этих 10%. Проблемма в том - что на все вешается ярлык - ГМО - вредно, а органика - полезна, а обычная "химия" - между. Это бред, а сним надо бороться, в меру сил
полностью исследование не знаю как скачать но вот почитайте хотя бы коротко оригинал http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685 а не бред журнализдский:
-------
Background: The health benefits of organic foods are unclear.
Purpose: To review evidence comparing the health effects of organic and conventional foods.
Data Sources: MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2011), EMBASE, CAB Direct, Agricola, TOXNET, Cochrane Library (January 1966 to May 2009), and bibliographies of retrieved articles.
Study Selection: English-language reports of comparisons of organically and conventionally grown food or of populations consuming these foods.
Data Extraction: 2 independent investigators extracted data on methods, health outcomes, and nutrient and contaminant levels.
Data Synthesis: 17 studies in humans and 223 studies of nutrient and contaminant levels in foods met inclusion criteria. Only 3 of the human studies examined clinical outcomes, finding no significant differences between populations by food type for allergic outcomes (eczema, wheeze, atopic sensitization) or symptomatic Campylobacter infection. Two studies reported significantly lower urinary pesticide levels among children consuming organic versus conventional diets, but studies of biomarker and nutrient levels in serum, urine, breast milk, and semen in adults did not identify clinically meaningful differences. All estimates of differences in nutrient and contaminant levels in foods were highly heterogeneous except for the estimate for phosphorus; phosphorus levels were significantly higher than in conventional produce, although this difference is not clinically significant. The risk for contamination with detectable pesticide residues was lower among organic than conventional produce (risk difference, 30% [CI, −37% to −23%]), but differences in risk for exceeding maximum allowed limits were small. Escherichia coli contamination risk did not differ between organic and conventional produce. Bacterial contamination of retail chicken and pork was common but unrelated to farming method. However, the risk for isolating bacteria resistant to 3 or more antibiotics was higher in conventional than in organic chicken and pork (risk difference, 33% [CI, 21% to 45%]).
---------------
есть разница???
Reply
Reply
Чего они ожидали? Чтобы у органики было в разы больше чего-то полезного и в разы меньше чего-то вредного? Учитывая технологию совершенно нормально что разница в районе 5-10%
Чтобы было понятно, мне абсолютно пофиг органические продукты. Я горов жрать перемолотый пластик, если он будет вкусным.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment