Darkside  

Voltar   Darkside > Darkside > Comunidade

Responder
 
Thread Tools
Jeep
fagmin
 

XFIRE ID: ds-jeep Steam ID: jeep_ds
Default Cientistas de Stanford e as duvidas das vantagens da carne e vegetais "organicos"

04-09-12, 08:57 #1
veggies gonna hate

Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/sc...e.html?_r=3&hp

Does an organic strawberry contain more vitamin C than a conventional one?

Maybe — or maybe not.

Stanford University scientists have weighed in on the “maybe not” side of the debate after an extensive examination of four decades of research comparing organic and conventional foods.

They concluded that fruits and vegetables labeled organic were, on average, no more nutritious than their conventional counterparts, which tend to be far less expensive. Nor were they any less likely to be contaminated by dangerous bacteria like E. coli.

The researchers also found no obvious health advantages to organic meats.

Conventional fruits and vegetables did have more pesticide residue, but the levels were almost always under the allowed safety limits, the scientists said. The Environmental Protection Agency sets the limits at levels that it says do not harm humans.

“When we began this project, we thought that there would likely be some findings that would support the superiority of organics over conventional food,” said Dr. Dena Bravata, a senior affiliate with Stanford’s Center for Health Policy and the senior author of the paper, which appears in Tuesday’s issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine. “I think we were definitely surprised.”

The conclusions will almost certainly fuel the debate over whether organic foods are a smart choice for healthier living or a marketing tool that gulls people into overpaying. The production of organic food is governed by a raft of regulations that generally prohibit the use of synthetic pesticides, hormones and additives.

The organic produce market in the United States has grown quickly, up 12 percent last year, to $12.4 billion, compared with 2010, according to the Organic Trade Association. Organic meat has a smaller share of the American market, at $538 million last year, the trade group said.

The findings seem unlikely to sway many fans of organic food. Advocates for organic farming said the Stanford researchers failed to appreciate the differences they did find between the two types of food — differences that validated the reasons people usually cite for buying organic. Organic produce, as expected, was much less likely to retain traces of pesticides.

Organic chicken and pork were less likely to be contaminated by antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

“Those are the big motivators for the organic consumer,” said Christine Bushway, the executive director of the trade association.

The study also found that organic milk contained more omega-3 fatty acids, which are considered beneficial for the heart.

“We feel organic food is living up to its promise,” said Sonya Lunder, a senior analyst with the Environmental Working Group, which publishes lists highlighting the fruits and vegetables with the lowest and highest amounts of pesticide residues.

The Stanford researchers said that by providing an objective review of the current science of organic foods, their goal was to allow people to make informed choices.

In the study — known as a meta-analysis, in which previous findings are aggregated but no new laboratory work is conducted — researchers combined data from 237 studies, examining a wide variety of fruits, vegetables and meats. For four years, they performed statistical analyses looking for signs of health benefits from adding organic foods to the diet.

The researchers did not use any outside financing for their research. “I really wanted us to have no perception of bias,” Dr. Bravata said.

One finding of the study was that organic produce, over all, contained higher levels of phosphorus than conventional produce. But because almost everyone gets adequate phosphorus from a wide variety of foods, they said, the higher levels in the organic produce are unlikely to confer any health benefit.

The organic produce also contained more compounds known as phenols, believed to help prevent cancer, than conventional produce. While the difference was statistically significant, the size of the difference varied widely from study to study, and the data was based on the testing of small numbers of samples. “I interpret that result with caution,” Dr. Bravata said.

Other variables, like ripeness, had a greater influence on nutrient content. Thus, a lush peach grown with the use of pesticides could easily contain more vitamins than an unripe organic one.

The study’s conclusions about pesticides did seem likely to please organic food customers. Over all, the Stanford researchers concluded that 38 percent of conventional produce tested in the studies contained detectable residues, compared with 7 percent for the organic produce. (Even produce grown organically can be tainted by pesticides wafting over from a neighboring field or during processing and transport.) They also noted a couple of studies that showed that children who ate organic produce had fewer pesticide traces in their urine.

The scientists sidestepped the debate over whether the current limits are too high. “Some of my patients take solace in knowing that the pesticide levels are below safety thresholds,” Dr. Bravata said. “Others have questioned whether these standards are sufficiently rigorous.”

Similarly, organic meat contained considerably lower levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria than conventionally raised animals did, but bacteria, antibiotic-resistant or otherwise, would be killed during cooking.

Dr. Bravata agreed that people bought organic food for a variety of reasons — concerns about the effects of pesticides on young children, the environmental impact of large-scale conventional farming and the potential public health threat if antibiotic-resistant bacterial genes jumped to human pathogens. “Those are perfectly valid,” she said.

The analysis also did not take factors like taste into account.

But if the choice were based mainly on the hope that organic foods would provide more nutrients, “I would say there is not robust evidence to choose one or the other,” Dr. Bravata said.

The argument that organic produce is more nutritious “has never been major driver” in why people choose to pay more, said Ms. Lunder, the Environmental Working Group analyst.

Rather, the motivation is to reduce exposure to pesticides, especially for pregnant women and their young children. Organic food advocates point to, for example, three studies published last year, by scientists at Columbia University, the University of California, Berkeley, and Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan. The studies identified pregnant women exposed to higher amounts of pesticides known as organophosphates and then followed their children for years. In elementary school, those children had, on average, I.Q.’s several points lower than those of their peers.

Critics of the Stanford study also argue that lumping all organic foods into one analysis misses the greater benefits of certain foods. For example, a 2010 study by scientists at Washington State University did find that organic strawberries contained more vitamin C than conventional ones.

Dr. Crystal Smith-Spangler, another member of the Stanford team, said that the strawberry study was erroneously left out but that she doubted it would have changed the conclusions when combined with 31 other studies that also measured vitamin C.





Jeep is offline   Reply With Quote
Marumba
Trooper
 

Steam ID: marumba
04-09-12, 09:08 #2
faz resumo ai fi
as 9h da manha nao da pra ter todo esse pique de leitura

Marumba is offline   Reply With Quote
Stranger
Trooper
 

04-09-12, 09:15 #3
Resumo:

Alimentos orgânicos e convencionais tem praticamente a mesma qualidade nutricional, mesmo tendo preços muito diferentes. Enquantos os níveis de agrotóxicos estiverem dentro da faixa aceita não existem problemas grandes mas em níveis maiores existem prejuízos para a saúde. O estudo não levou em conta o sabor/textura em conta.

Stranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Marumba
Trooper
 

Steam ID: marumba
04-09-12, 09:20 #4
grato!

Marumba is offline   Reply With Quote
percezione
Trooper
 

Steam ID: brunorei
04-09-12, 09:40 #5
ueh, mas organico pra mim sempre foi sem agrotóxico, nunca foi pq tinha + vitamina não...

percezione is offline   Reply With Quote
Stranger
Trooper
 

04-09-12, 09:50 #6
Eles falam isso no texto mas deixei de fora do resumo.

Stranger is offline   Reply With Quote
mojud
Trooper
 

04-09-12, 10:01 #7
O título e os primeiros parágrafos não refletem exatamente o texto, foram escritos pra criar confusão mesmo.

O artigo diz claramente que em alguns pontos os alimentos orgânicos não apresentaram grandes diferenças, mas em outros sim, como o leite orgânico com mais omega 3, ou a maior quantidade de fenols que os alimentos orgânicos possuem.

mojud is offline   Reply With Quote
Jeep
fagmin
 

XFIRE ID: ds-jeep Steam ID: jeep_ds
04-09-12, 10:24 #8
sem falar que sao feitos com amor, é o mais importante

Jeep is offline   Reply With Quote
percezione
Trooper
 

Steam ID: brunorei
04-09-12, 10:43 #9
assim como pães caseiros

percezione is offline   Reply With Quote
Jeep
fagmin
 

XFIRE ID: ds-jeep Steam ID: jeep_ds
04-09-12, 10:47 #10
weeeeeeeeeeeee
 

Jeep is offline   Reply With Quote
percezione
Trooper
 

Steam ID: brunorei
04-09-12, 10:49 #11
weeeeeeeee
 

percezione is offline   Reply With Quote
Buwem
Trooper
 

04-09-12, 10:51 #12

Buwem is offline   Reply With Quote
mojud
Trooper
 

04-09-12, 10:58 #13
weeeeeeeeeee
 

mojud is offline   Reply With Quote
Eluan
Trooper
 

Steam ID: eluancm
04-09-12, 13:58 #14
Sempre achei que o argumento fosse menos aditivos e produtos tóxicos envolvidos na produção e não mais nutrição... Weird.

Eluan is offline   Reply With Quote
Calliban
Trooper
 

04-09-12, 14:13 #15
Velho papo da divulgação científica. Os papers da área falam uma coisa faz 20 anos, a imprensa de divulgação não entende o que eles falam e tentam fazer manchetes que chamem a atenção e analisam os resultados conforme lhes for conveniente. Eles não referenciam os artigos científicos em questão, é difícil avaliar qualquer coisa assim; se alguém achar os papers e disponibilizar pro pessoal, acho mais saudável.

Mas pra falar a real, eu tenho um nojo foda do pessoal que tem quimiofobia e epistemofobia.

Calliban is offline   Reply With Quote
Calliban
Trooper
 

04-09-12, 14:17 #16
Quanto aos aditivos e agrotóxicos, na industria dos alimentos orgânicos eles usam produtos orgânicos para adubar e matar pestes. Eles usam sim produtos, a diferença é que são de origem mais natural (o que não significa em nenhum momento que são menos nocivos ao homem e natureza).

No atual nível de desenvolvimento (e paranoia pública) dos agrotóxicos "não orgânicos" são bem mais seguros e produzem uma quantidade bem menor de subprodutos ruins que os equivalentes orgânicos, além de serem usados em concentração menor por serem mais eficientes, diminuindo a concentração de poluentes. Acho que tem um episódio do Penn & Teller sobre isso, vale a pena procurar.

Calliban is offline   Reply With Quote
NewKa
Trooper
 

04-09-12, 14:22 #17
essa polarização sempre rolou, sempre vai rolar.
acho que o deve ser levado em questão é se é saudável ou não.

Níveis seguros pra ingerir agrotóxicos? Meu pau!

NewKa is offline   Reply With Quote
Blazed
Trooper
 

04-09-12, 14:29 #18
estranhamente eu concordo com o newka

Blazed is offline   Reply With Quote
EncirclingOne
Ewok
 

04-09-12, 15:56 #19
Sou meio adepto de teorias da conspiração sobre essas coisas, você vê resultados de pesquisas favoráveis sempre ao que é conveniente as grandes empresas... É estranho como cresceu o mercado de alimentos orgânicos e as pesquisas de alguns anos trouxeram resultados (agora, justamente depois do boom do mercado) que favorece as industrias gigantes por ai... Anyway, divago, e posso estar me passando por retardado, mas sempre acontece isso em todas as áreas.
Também acho que não existe isso de nível seguro, são coisas químicas, e pelo pouco que me lembro do ensino médio, qualquer merda pode dar alguma reação e uma célula sua que se foder pode virar cancerígena ou coisa semelhante e foder todo o resto.
O mínimo aceitável eu acho que o povo leva em consideração uma relação tipo traficante vs. usuário de droga: Ele tá usando a parada, vai viver 70 anos, tá na média, então foda-se, é aceitável, vamos ter o mercado dele por 50 anos, então vamos vender... Ai chega tipo o crack: não o usuário morre com 10 anos de uso, então é foda, vamos perder cliente cedo, tá acima do limite, não vende/restringe a venda/cria medidas pra parar as vendas porque ta dando merda!

EncirclingOne is offline   Reply With Quote
SsjGohan
Trooper
 

04-09-12, 16:13 #20
Teu corpo produz substancia prejudicais a ele próprio.
Td pode dar errado alguma hr. Melhor comer bem do q ficar se preocupando com isso.
Obviamente a melhor forma de ficar com saúde é exercicios e uma "dieta" normal.
Nada de pizza 7 dias por semana e malhar igual um animal. Vai se foder igual

SsjGohan is offline   Reply With Quote
NewKa
Trooper
 

04-09-12, 16:23 #21
é gohan, seu corpo produz substâncias prejudiciais a ele próprio.. Mas também possui os mecanismos pra detectá-las, destruí-las ou excretá-las.

NewKa is offline   Reply With Quote
Renegade
Trooper
 

Gamertag: BrunoTambara Steam ID: bruno_renegade
04-09-12, 16:29 #22
o corpo do newka por exemplo produz votos improprios.

Renegade is offline   Reply With Quote
mojud
Trooper
 

04-09-12, 16:30 #23
Já dizia o sábio: uma planta natural não pode te prejudicar

mojud is offline   Reply With Quote
Stranger
Trooper
 

04-09-12, 17:03 #24
Salada de cicuta.

Stranger is offline   Reply With Quote
MdKBooM
Trooper
 

04-09-12, 17:12 #25
Quote:
Postado por Renegade Mostrar Post
o corpo do newka por exemplo produz votos improprios.
Daqui a pouco o newka vai pedir asilo político na hardmob!

MdKBooM is offline   Reply With Quote
Renegade
Trooper
 

Gamertag: BrunoTambara Steam ID: bruno_renegade
04-09-12, 17:31 #26
AHOUhuoaHuoUOAHuohAUO

quero deixar bem claro, que não tenho nada contra o newka em si. Ele deve ser uma boa pessoa.

o fato de não saber votar, não estraga a pessoa, só o ambiente em que vivemos.

se bem que, se ele doar 13 mil litros de sangue pra compensar a merda que fizeram, pode ser que eu esteja errado...

Renegade is offline   Reply With Quote
Fura Olho
wat
 

XFIRE ID: EmB_FuraOlho Steam ID: gustavomartino
04-09-12, 22:37 #27
complementando:


Fura Olho is offline   Reply With Quote
Responder

Thread Tools

Regras de postagem
Você não pode criar novos tópicos
Você não pode postar
Você não pode enviar anexos
Você não pode editar seus posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Atalho para Fóruns



O formato de hora é GMT -3. horário: 05:32.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.