Health effects of organic farming, review of literature since 2005-Revision

Groot Maria
{"title":"Health effects of organic farming, review of literature since 2005-Revision","authors":"Groot Maria","doi":"10.17352/jfsnt.000036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 2005, a study was carried out with chicks fed either organic feed or conventional feed. The aim of the trial was to see whether there was a difference in health between organic and non-organic fed chickens, as a stepping stone to a study in pigs and ultimately in humans. Thus, the final goal was to see whether organic food has positive health effects on humans. In the study, it appeared that animals fed organic feed showed a stronger immune response after a challenge than animals not fed organic feed. However, the researchers found that no firm conclusions could be drawn about the health status of organically fed animals. Based on these results, it was decided not to commission a follow-up study because the differences would be too small. The current knowledge and insights may give new reasons for follow-up research. For this purpose, a report was published with a summary of the original research and subsequent publications, as well as results from literature since 2005 on the health effects of organic feed for animals and organic products for humans. After the 2005 study, no comparable animal studies were carried out with organic and conventional feed. It is precisely in the case of animals that only the feed can differ, which can provide valuable insight into the effects of using only organic nutrition. Research has been done on the differences in composition between conventional and organic products. Human cohort studies have also been conducted on the effects of organic food on health parameters and the occurrence of various types of cancer. Although most researchers are very cautious about concluding the health effects of organic food, there are several relevant findings on differences in the composition of products, most of which are related to the organic production method. These include no synthetic chemical crop protection agents and fewer biocides as compared to conventional production, more antioxidants, and phenols and fewer antibiotic-resistant germs than conventional food. Moreover, milk has a more beneficial fatty acid pattern. There are some indications that eating organic food lowers the risk of developing certain conditions, such as allergies, metabolic syndrome and obesity, and certain cancers.","PeriodicalId":188479,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Food Science and Nutrition Therapy","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Food Science and Nutrition Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17352/jfsnt.000036","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In 2005, a study was carried out with chicks fed either organic feed or conventional feed. The aim of the trial was to see whether there was a difference in health between organic and non-organic fed chickens, as a stepping stone to a study in pigs and ultimately in humans. Thus, the final goal was to see whether organic food has positive health effects on humans. In the study, it appeared that animals fed organic feed showed a stronger immune response after a challenge than animals not fed organic feed. However, the researchers found that no firm conclusions could be drawn about the health status of organically fed animals. Based on these results, it was decided not to commission a follow-up study because the differences would be too small. The current knowledge and insights may give new reasons for follow-up research. For this purpose, a report was published with a summary of the original research and subsequent publications, as well as results from literature since 2005 on the health effects of organic feed for animals and organic products for humans. After the 2005 study, no comparable animal studies were carried out with organic and conventional feed. It is precisely in the case of animals that only the feed can differ, which can provide valuable insight into the effects of using only organic nutrition. Research has been done on the differences in composition between conventional and organic products. Human cohort studies have also been conducted on the effects of organic food on health parameters and the occurrence of various types of cancer. Although most researchers are very cautious about concluding the health effects of organic food, there are several relevant findings on differences in the composition of products, most of which are related to the organic production method. These include no synthetic chemical crop protection agents and fewer biocides as compared to conventional production, more antioxidants, and phenols and fewer antibiotic-resistant germs than conventional food. Moreover, milk has a more beneficial fatty acid pattern. There are some indications that eating organic food lowers the risk of developing certain conditions, such as allergies, metabolic syndrome and obesity, and certain cancers.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
有机农业对健康的影响,2005年以来的文献综述
2005年进行了一项研究,分别用有机饲料和传统饲料喂养雏鸡。该试验的目的是观察有机饲料和非有机饲料喂养的鸡在健康方面是否存在差异,作为在猪身上进行研究并最终在人类身上进行研究的垫脚石。因此,最终目标是观察有机食品是否对人类健康有积极影响。在这项研究中,喂食有机饲料的动物似乎比没有喂食有机饲料的动物在受到攻击后表现出更强的免疫反应。然而,研究人员发现,对于有机饲养的动物的健康状况,无法得出确切的结论。基于这些结果,决定不委托进行后续研究,因为差异太小。现有的知识和见解可能为后续研究提供新的理由。为此,发表了一份报告,概述了最初的研究和随后的出版物,以及2005年以来关于有机饲料对动物和有机产品对人类健康影响的文献结果。在2005年的研究之后,没有对有机饲料和传统饲料进行类似的动物研究。正是在动物的情况下,只有饲料是不同的,这可以为只使用有机营养的影响提供有价值的见解。人们对传统食品和有机食品的成分差异进行了研究。人们还对有机食品对健康参数和各种癌症发生的影响进行了人体队列研究。虽然大多数研究人员对有机食品对健康的影响的结论非常谨慎,但在产品成分的差异方面有一些相关的发现,其中大多数与有机生产方法有关。这包括不使用合成化学作物保护剂,与传统食品相比,杀菌剂更少,抗氧化剂和酚类更多,耐抗生素细菌也比传统食品少。此外,牛奶有更有益的脂肪酸模式。有一些迹象表明,食用有机食品可以降低患某些疾病的风险,比如过敏、代谢综合征、肥胖和某些癌症。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
One health concept, prevalence and phenotypic antibiotic susceptibility of Escherichia coli and Salmonella isolated from meats sold in Lagos, Nigeria Enhancing immunity against carcinogens through probiotics: A literature review Effects of a nutraceutical combining green tea extract, vitamin C, D, and zinc in patients with post-COVID conditions The human gut fungiome: Role in physiology and detoxification Review on the prevalence and economic importance of camel tuberculosis in Ethiopia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1