分享

主場新聞分析史丹福之有機食物研究

"主場新聞"果然夠力,
不只翻譯原文,
針對原出處有完整連結,
還做了分析,這需要花費較多的時間。
史丹福這篇研究報告,果然標題夠聳動,
它的確引人注目了,
然而內容卻不是出於親自實驗之結果,
竟然是根據別人研究所得出的結論...
可惜了名校招牌~~
(這不就和國內某些學術論文的文抄公一樣嗎?)
不說太多,請大家看下去
(有時間請點開每個連結看看)
有機食物是騙局!」如果你一直支持有機食物,最近見媒體這樣報導,請冷靜。
史丹福大學9月3日發表新聞稿[2],題為「史丹福研究發現,沒有證據顯示有機食物對健康有好處」。其後媒體的廣泛報導都以此為主調,令人得出「有機食物物非所值」的印象。
主場新聞深入源頭及跟進對論文及報導的回應,發現這個研究只作出有局限的結論,不足以否定有機食物的價值。
《史丹福研究》是甚麼?
這是一個論文分析項目,從千多份英語論文中挑選出237篇和有機食物有關的學術論文,進行總結、分析,比較有機與傳統食物對人的影響,其中17篇以人為對象,223篇為營養及污染物的研究。
論文的總結[1]:
學術文獻中,沒有強力的證據顯示有機食物比傳統食物特別有營養。進食有機食物可能會減少殺蟲藥及抗藥細菌的影響。
The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods. Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
論文簡介(要點,原文見附錄):
﹣ 進食有機食物的兒童,尿中的殺蟲劑含量顯著地較少;
﹣ 有機食物的營養成份及污染物含量沒有顯著分別,但磷含量顯著地少;
﹣有機蔬菜受殺蟲劑污染的機會比傳統的低30%,雖然兩者的水平均低於法例規定;
﹣ 兩者受大腸桿菌感染的機會相同;
﹣ 有機鷄及豬肉中含有抗藥細菌的機會比傳統品種低33%。
可見《史丹福研究》並沒有否定有機食物的價值,反而證實了有機食物的特點。
《史丹福研究》不是甚麼?
研究報告表明,它所收集的論文,其研究範圍不一致及數量有限,及挑選發表的決定可能徧頗 。後來一名研究員接受辯論網站RemappinDebate.org質疑時,承認這些局限[4]:
﹣ 研究只限於部份現存醫學文獻,而這些論文命題的範圍不一致。
﹣ 不包括有機農業對環境等因素的影響;
﹣ 發表論文,目的只在讓消費者基於證據作出選擇,並沒有意圖影響消費者的決定。
還要不要買有機食物?
《史丹福研究》發表之後,不管研究員的原意如何,消費者必然受媒體報導的影響。如何決定是否值繼續支持有機食物?科學雜誌LiveScience.com介紹四個消費者選擇有機食物的理性理由 [5]:
﹣ 避免殺蟲藥
﹣ 好味道
﹣ 支持環保、永續
﹣有機農業有效率
編者推介文章
紐約時報記者Nicholas Kristof以中英對照文章”Where Cows Are Happy and Food Is Healthy“回應《史丹福研究》,介紹有機畜牧業人性的一面[5]。 
台灣科學網站PanSci.tw作者陳俊堯參考兩篇科學論文,找到有機食物好味道的原因: 有機草莓為什麼比較好吃
源頭論文
[1] Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives?: A Systematic Review
參考文章
[2] Little evidence of health benefits from organic foods, Stanford study finds
[3] 有机食品未必更有营养 
[4] Stanford researcher readily acknowledges limitations of study on organic versus conventional food 
[5] Shoud You Buy Organic?
附錄:源頭論文數據整合總結
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%]).[1]  
http://thehousenews.com/nature/%E6%9C%89%E6%A9%9F%E9%A3%9F%E7%89%A9-%E7%89%A9%E6%9C%89-%E7%89%A9%E9%9D%9E%E6%89%80%E5%80%BC/
分類:科技

"綠茶先生"致力以”organic"基本精神:生態、健康、公平、關懷,來提昇生活品質;也與伙伴經營"permaculture"式之永續農場,愛護我們的土地,歡迎大家持續來"綠茶的有機生活"共同成長

評論
上一篇
  • 懷念甘仔店賣有機豆渣月餅
  • 下一篇
  • 綠茶先生答客問1:不定根、球根和大板根是什麼?
  • 更多文章
    載入中... 沒有更多了