m*g
2 楼
对着干啊。
z*n
3 楼
哈哈,这个周末电视台,电台老听到大家在讲这个最新的study,
结论是:科学无法验证有机蔬菜比普通蔬菜对人更好
最多可能农药残余更小,但是这个差别也无证据显示有啥重要影响
最后一个法宝,就是全人类的角度了,organic gardening,对环境影响比较小,run
off农药化肥比较少,对周围的大江大河有好处...
所以,农友们,改用化肥就用吧,哈哈哈,特别责任感强的,关注全人类的,少用点吧
:D
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/09/04/160395259/why-organ
Yes, organics is a $29 billion industry and still growing. Something is
pulling us toward those organic veggies that are grown without synthetic
pesticides or fertilizers.
But if you're thinking that organic produce will help you stay healthier, a
new finding may come as a surprise. A new study published in the Annals of
Internal Medicine finds scant evidence of health benefits from organic foods.
"There's a definite lack of evidence," says researcher Crystal Smith-
Spangler at Stanford University School of Medicine, especially when it comes
to studies of people.
She and her colleagues collected 200 peer-reviewed studies that examined
differences between organic and conventional food, or the people who eat it.
A few of these studies followed people who were eating either organic or
conventional food and looked for evidence that the choice made a difference
in their health.
One study, for instance, looked at whether eating organic food while
pregnant would influence the likelihood of eczema and other allergic
conditions among children, and another looked at whether eating organic meat
would influence the risk of a Campylobacter infection, a bacterial food-
borne illness. When the researchers looked at the body of evidence, they
found no clear benefits. But they say more research is needed.
It's important to note, though, that such studies have a really hard time
uncovering subtle effects of our environment, or what we eat, on our health.
Too many other powerful influences get in the way. Also, these studies only
followed people for a very short time — about two years or less. That's
hardly enough time to document any particular health benefit.
Most of the studies included in this collection looked at the food itself —
the nutrients that it contained as well as levels of pesticide residues or
harmful bacteria.
As you might expect, there was less pesticide contamination on organic
produce. But does that matter? The authors of the new study say probably not
. They found that the vast majority of conventionally grown food did not
exceed allowable limits of pesticide residue set by federal regulations.
Some previous studies have looked at specific organic foods and found that
they contain higher levels of important nutrients, such as vitamins and
minerals. We've reported on one particularly ambitious experiment, which is
supposed to go on for a hundred years, comparing plots of organic and
conventional tomatoes. After 10 years, the researchers found that tomatoes
raised in the organic plots contained significantly higher levels of certain
antioxidant compounds.
But this is one study of one vegetable in one field. And when the Stanford
researchers looked at their broad array of studies, which included lots of
different crops in different situations, they found no such broad pattern.
Here's the basic reason: When it comes to their nutritional quality,
vegetables vary enormously, and that's true whether they are organic or
conventional. One carrot in the grocery store, for instance, may have two or
three times more beta carotene (which gives us vitamin A) than its neighbor
. That's due to all kinds of things: differences in the genetic makeup of
different varieties, the ripeness of the produce when it was picked, even
the weather.
So there really are vegetables that are more nutritious than others, but the
dividing line between them isn't whether or not they are organic. "You can'
t use organic as your sole criteria for judging nutritional quality," says
Smith-Spangler.
Of course, people may have other reasons for buying organic food. It's a
different style of agriculture. Organic farmers often control pests by
growing a greater variety of crops. They increase the fertility of their
fields through nitrogen-fixing plants, or by adding compost instead of
applying synthetic fertilizer.
That can bring environmental benefits, such as more diverse insect life in
the field or less fertilizer runoff into neighboring streams. But such
methods also cost money. That's part of what you are buying when you buy
organic.
So if you really want to find the most nutritious vegetables, and the
organic label won't take you there, what will?
At the moment, unfortunately, there isn't a good guide. But a lot of
scientists are working on it.
They're measuring nutrient levels in all kinds of crops, and discovering
some surprising things, as The Salt reported last week — such as
supernutritious microgreens. They're trying to breed new varieties of crops
that yield not a bigger harvest but a more nutrient-rich harvest.
The problem is, farmers still get paid by the pound, not by the vitamin. And
consumers buy their food the same way. What this really requires is a whole
new food system that can track those extra-nutritious crops from farmer's
field to consumer's shopping basket.
Maybe, down the road, you will actually see signs in the supermarket that
advertise, for instance, iron-rich beans. Maybe they'd be organic, or maybe
not.
结论是:科学无法验证有机蔬菜比普通蔬菜对人更好
最多可能农药残余更小,但是这个差别也无证据显示有啥重要影响
最后一个法宝,就是全人类的角度了,organic gardening,对环境影响比较小,run
off农药化肥比较少,对周围的大江大河有好处...
所以,农友们,改用化肥就用吧,哈哈哈,特别责任感强的,关注全人类的,少用点吧
:D
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/09/04/160395259/why-organ
Yes, organics is a $29 billion industry and still growing. Something is
pulling us toward those organic veggies that are grown without synthetic
pesticides or fertilizers.
But if you're thinking that organic produce will help you stay healthier, a
new finding may come as a surprise. A new study published in the Annals of
Internal Medicine finds scant evidence of health benefits from organic foods.
"There's a definite lack of evidence," says researcher Crystal Smith-
Spangler at Stanford University School of Medicine, especially when it comes
to studies of people.
She and her colleagues collected 200 peer-reviewed studies that examined
differences between organic and conventional food, or the people who eat it.
A few of these studies followed people who were eating either organic or
conventional food and looked for evidence that the choice made a difference
in their health.
One study, for instance, looked at whether eating organic food while
pregnant would influence the likelihood of eczema and other allergic
conditions among children, and another looked at whether eating organic meat
would influence the risk of a Campylobacter infection, a bacterial food-
borne illness. When the researchers looked at the body of evidence, they
found no clear benefits. But they say more research is needed.
It's important to note, though, that such studies have a really hard time
uncovering subtle effects of our environment, or what we eat, on our health.
Too many other powerful influences get in the way. Also, these studies only
followed people for a very short time — about two years or less. That's
hardly enough time to document any particular health benefit.
Most of the studies included in this collection looked at the food itself —
the nutrients that it contained as well as levels of pesticide residues or
harmful bacteria.
As you might expect, there was less pesticide contamination on organic
produce. But does that matter? The authors of the new study say probably not
. They found that the vast majority of conventionally grown food did not
exceed allowable limits of pesticide residue set by federal regulations.
Some previous studies have looked at specific organic foods and found that
they contain higher levels of important nutrients, such as vitamins and
minerals. We've reported on one particularly ambitious experiment, which is
supposed to go on for a hundred years, comparing plots of organic and
conventional tomatoes. After 10 years, the researchers found that tomatoes
raised in the organic plots contained significantly higher levels of certain
antioxidant compounds.
But this is one study of one vegetable in one field. And when the Stanford
researchers looked at their broad array of studies, which included lots of
different crops in different situations, they found no such broad pattern.
Here's the basic reason: When it comes to their nutritional quality,
vegetables vary enormously, and that's true whether they are organic or
conventional. One carrot in the grocery store, for instance, may have two or
three times more beta carotene (which gives us vitamin A) than its neighbor
. That's due to all kinds of things: differences in the genetic makeup of
different varieties, the ripeness of the produce when it was picked, even
the weather.
So there really are vegetables that are more nutritious than others, but the
dividing line between them isn't whether or not they are organic. "You can'
t use organic as your sole criteria for judging nutritional quality," says
Smith-Spangler.
Of course, people may have other reasons for buying organic food. It's a
different style of agriculture. Organic farmers often control pests by
growing a greater variety of crops. They increase the fertility of their
fields through nitrogen-fixing plants, or by adding compost instead of
applying synthetic fertilizer.
That can bring environmental benefits, such as more diverse insect life in
the field or less fertilizer runoff into neighboring streams. But such
methods also cost money. That's part of what you are buying when you buy
organic.
So if you really want to find the most nutritious vegetables, and the
organic label won't take you there, what will?
At the moment, unfortunately, there isn't a good guide. But a lot of
scientists are working on it.
They're measuring nutrient levels in all kinds of crops, and discovering
some surprising things, as The Salt reported last week — such as
supernutritious microgreens. They're trying to breed new varieties of crops
that yield not a bigger harvest but a more nutrient-rich harvest.
The problem is, farmers still get paid by the pound, not by the vitamin. And
consumers buy their food the same way. What this really requires is a whole
new food system that can track those extra-nutritious crops from farmer's
field to consumer's shopping basket.
Maybe, down the road, you will actually see signs in the supermarket that
advertise, for instance, iron-rich beans. Maybe they'd be organic, or maybe
not.
y*n
5 楼
顶我的帖子呀:
http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/EB23/31487597.html
【在 m******g 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png)
: 对着干啊。
http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/EB23/31487597.html
【在 m******g 的大作中提到】
![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png)
: 对着干啊。
g*e
6 楼
太长了。老三归纳一下?
s*k
7 楼
很多学校不是刚刚开始review材料吗?
g*o
8 楼
本来就很少人说自己种菜营养价值高吧,都是说农药阿,口味阿,新鲜不新鲜,什么的
吧
吧
l*0
9 楼
应该还在review中,才开始收到据信,:(
z*n
10 楼
农药也被提到了啊
As you might expect, there was less pesticide contamination on organic
produce. But does that matter? The authors of the new study say probably not
. They found that the vast majority of conventionally grown food did not
exceed allowable limits of pesticide residue set by federal regulations.
口味也有点心理作用,
新鲜嘛,现摘的肯定新鲜
【在 g*********o 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png)
: 本来就很少人说自己种菜营养价值高吧,都是说农药阿,口味阿,新鲜不新鲜,什么的
: 吧
As you might expect, there was less pesticide contamination on organic
produce. But does that matter? The authors of the new study say probably not
. They found that the vast majority of conventionally grown food did not
exceed allowable limits of pesticide residue set by federal regulations.
口味也有点心理作用,
新鲜嘛,现摘的肯定新鲜
【在 g*********o 的大作中提到】
![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png)
: 本来就很少人说自己种菜营养价值高吧,都是说农药阿,口味阿,新鲜不新鲜,什么的
: 吧
s*e
11 楼
我们系好像才开始review。昨天看见他们笑嘻嘻地开会。
l*z
15 楼
早上刚听NPR讲这个,说是有机/无机区别在农药,但是无机的少量农药对人体没有影响
g*o
16 楼
口味有心理作用?自己从树上摘下来的西红柿能跟石头一样的放熟的西红柿比吗,这得
多强的心理作用才会觉得一样啊
not
【在 z*********n 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png)
: 农药也被提到了啊
: As you might expect, there was less pesticide contamination on organic
: produce. But does that matter? The authors of the new study say probably not
: . They found that the vast majority of conventionally grown food did not
: exceed allowable limits of pesticide residue set by federal regulations.
: 口味也有点心理作用,
: 新鲜嘛,现摘的肯定新鲜
多强的心理作用才会觉得一样啊
not
【在 z*********n 的大作中提到】
![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png)
: 农药也被提到了啊
: As you might expect, there was less pesticide contamination on organic
: produce. But does that matter? The authors of the new study say probably not
: . They found that the vast majority of conventionally grown food did not
: exceed allowable limits of pesticide residue set by federal regulations.
: 口味也有点心理作用,
: 新鲜嘛,现摘的肯定新鲜
m*i
17 楼
俺就是想省钱, 少买化肥。
g*o
29 楼
oo
Organic foods are foods that are produced using methods that do not involve
modern synthetic inputs such as synthetic pesticides and chemical
fertilizers. Organic foods are not processed using irradiation, industrial
solvents, or chemical food additives.
【在 g*********o 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png)
: 不是说有机无机主要在农药上吗?肥料上也有定义?
Organic foods are foods that are produced using methods that do not involve
modern synthetic inputs such as synthetic pesticides and chemical
fertilizers. Organic foods are not processed using irradiation, industrial
solvents, or chemical food additives.
【在 g*********o 的大作中提到】
![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png)
: 不是说有机无机主要在农药上吗?肥料上也有定义?
z*n
30 楼
释然了,是吧,原来一直吃的就不是“有机蔬菜”,哈哈
involve
【在 g*********o 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png)
: oo
: Organic foods are foods that are produced using methods that do not involve
: modern synthetic inputs such as synthetic pesticides and chemical
: fertilizers. Organic foods are not processed using irradiation, industrial
: solvents, or chemical food additives.
involve
【在 g*********o 的大作中提到】
![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png)
: oo
: Organic foods are foods that are produced using methods that do not involve
: modern synthetic inputs such as synthetic pesticides and chemical
: fertilizers. Organic foods are not processed using irradiation, industrial
: solvents, or chemical food additives.
y*8
36 楼
周末的确看到电视上的这个鼓嘈的
牛奶有机和无机的口味上有差别
蔬菜真心吃不出来差别何在
牛奶有机和无机的口味上有差别
蔬菜真心吃不出来差别何在
x*n
38 楼
这里说西红柿还是有区别的。
We've reported on one particularly ambitious experiment, which is
supposed to go on for a hundred years, comparing plots of organic and
conventional tomatoes. After 10 years, the researchers found that tomatoes
raised in the organic plots contained significantly higher levels of certain
antioxidant compounds.
We've reported on one particularly ambitious experiment, which is
supposed to go on for a hundred years, comparing plots of organic and
conventional tomatoes. After 10 years, the researchers found that tomatoes
raised in the organic plots contained significantly higher levels of certain
antioxidant compounds.
i*e
68 楼
以后老三的帖子能跟尽量跟, 看花你们的眼
l*n
71 楼
我从来没能买到过鸡粪,所以只能用miracle grow的化肥配上一些低肥力的compost和
牛粪。
不过尽量还是不用non-organic的农药,目的就是吃新鲜,摘下来就吃。
牛粪。
不过尽量还是不用non-organic的农药,目的就是吃新鲜,摘下来就吃。
M*t
74 楼
我今天正好去买有机食物的路上,听是这个广播,有点泄气。
a
foods.
comes
it.
difference
meat
health.
only
or
not
is
certain
or
neighbor
the
can'
crops
And
whole
maybe
【在 z*********n 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png)
: 哈哈,这个周末电视台,电台老听到大家在讲这个最新的study,
: 结论是:科学无法验证有机蔬菜比普通蔬菜对人更好
: 最多可能农药残余更小,但是这个差别也无证据显示有啥重要影响
: 最后一个法宝,就是全人类的角度了,organic gardening,对环境影响比较小,run
: off农药化肥比较少,对周围的大江大河有好处...
: 所以,农友们,改用化肥就用吧,哈哈哈,特别责任感强的,关注全人类的,少用点吧
: :D
: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/09/04/160395259/why-organ
: Yes, organics is a $29 billion industry and still growing. Something is
: pulling us toward those organic veggies that are grown without synthetic
a
foods.
comes
it.
difference
meat
health.
only
or
not
is
certain
or
neighbor
the
can'
crops
And
whole
maybe
【在 z*********n 的大作中提到】
![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png)
: 哈哈,这个周末电视台,电台老听到大家在讲这个最新的study,
: 结论是:科学无法验证有机蔬菜比普通蔬菜对人更好
: 最多可能农药残余更小,但是这个差别也无证据显示有啥重要影响
: 最后一个法宝,就是全人类的角度了,organic gardening,对环境影响比较小,run
: off农药化肥比较少,对周围的大江大河有好处...
: 所以,农友们,改用化肥就用吧,哈哈哈,特别责任感强的,关注全人类的,少用点吧
: :D
: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/09/04/160395259/why-organ
: Yes, organics is a $29 billion industry and still growing. Something is
: pulling us toward those organic veggies that are grown without synthetic
R*m
75 楼
我到不 太担心使用化肥和少量农药。我更担心转基因。
【在 z*********n 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png)
: 哈哈,这个周末电视台,电台老听到大家在讲这个最新的study,
: 结论是:科学无法验证有机蔬菜比普通蔬菜对人更好
: 最多可能农药残余更小,但是这个差别也无证据显示有啥重要影响
: 最后一个法宝,就是全人类的角度了,organic gardening,对环境影响比较小,run
: off农药化肥比较少,对周围的大江大河有好处...
: 所以,农友们,改用化肥就用吧,哈哈哈,特别责任感强的,关注全人类的,少用点吧
: :D
: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/09/04/160395259/why-organ
: Yes, organics is a $29 billion industry and still growing. Something is
: pulling us toward those organic veggies that are grown without synthetic
【在 z*********n 的大作中提到】
![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png)
: 哈哈,这个周末电视台,电台老听到大家在讲这个最新的study,
: 结论是:科学无法验证有机蔬菜比普通蔬菜对人更好
: 最多可能农药残余更小,但是这个差别也无证据显示有啥重要影响
: 最后一个法宝,就是全人类的角度了,organic gardening,对环境影响比较小,run
: off农药化肥比较少,对周围的大江大河有好处...
: 所以,农友们,改用化肥就用吧,哈哈哈,特别责任感强的,关注全人类的,少用点吧
: :D
: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/09/04/160395259/why-organ
: Yes, organics is a $29 billion industry and still growing. Something is
: pulling us toward those organic veggies that are grown without synthetic
B*a
76 楼
鬼才信。。。
【在 z*********n 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png)
: 哈哈,这个周末电视台,电台老听到大家在讲这个最新的study,
: 结论是:科学无法验证有机蔬菜比普通蔬菜对人更好
: 最多可能农药残余更小,但是这个差别也无证据显示有啥重要影响
: 最后一个法宝,就是全人类的角度了,organic gardening,对环境影响比较小,run
: off农药化肥比较少,对周围的大江大河有好处...
: 所以,农友们,改用化肥就用吧,哈哈哈,特别责任感强的,关注全人类的,少用点吧
: :D
: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/09/04/160395259/why-organ
: Yes, organics is a $29 billion industry and still growing. Something is
: pulling us toward those organic veggies that are grown without synthetic
【在 z*********n 的大作中提到】
![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png)
: 哈哈,这个周末电视台,电台老听到大家在讲这个最新的study,
: 结论是:科学无法验证有机蔬菜比普通蔬菜对人更好
: 最多可能农药残余更小,但是这个差别也无证据显示有啥重要影响
: 最后一个法宝,就是全人类的角度了,organic gardening,对环境影响比较小,run
: off农药化肥比较少,对周围的大江大河有好处...
: 所以,农友们,改用化肥就用吧,哈哈哈,特别责任感强的,关注全人类的,少用点吧
: :D
: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/09/04/160395259/why-organ
: Yes, organics is a $29 billion industry and still growing. Something is
: pulling us toward those organic veggies that are grown without synthetic
相关阅读