APAKAH MAKANAN ORGANIK MEMPUNYAI NILAI NUTRIN YANG LEBIH BAIK DARI MAKANAN KONVENSIONAL ?

 

http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/news/2009/organikfood.html

Makanan Organik TIDAK mempunyai nilai nutrisi yang lebih baik dari makanan yang dihasilkan dengan cara konvensional

Rabu, 29 hb Julai 2009  Analisis yang sistematik (Systematic review) ke atas kertas penyelidikan dalam tempoh 50 tahun telah mendapati TIDAK ADA bukti yang menunjukkan bahawa makanan yang dihasilkan secara organik mempunyai nilai nutrisi yang lebih tinggi dari bahan makanan yang dihasilkan secara konvensional, menurut hasil kajian yang disiarkan di dalam The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Pengguna sanggup mengeluarkan belanja yang lebih besar untuk membeli barangan makanan yang berasaskan organik kerana mereka beranggapan bahawa bahan makanan organik ini lebih baik dan menyihatkan dan pasaran global bahan makanan organik ini pada tahun 2007 dianggarkan bernilai 29 billion pound sterling (£29 billion). Terdapat beberapa analisa dan kajiselidik yang telah dilakukan menunjukkan makanan organik mempunyai komposisi bahan nutrin yang lebih tinggi tetapi ianya bukanlah kajian atau analisis yang sistematik. Penyelidik-penyelidik dari London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine telah melengkapkan analisa dan kajianselidik yang paling komprehensif pernah dilakukan mengenai kandungan bahan nutrin di dalam makanan organik . Analisis ini memfokuskan kandungan bahan nutrin di dalam makanan organik, walau bagaimanapun ianya tidak mengkaji kandungan bahan2 kontaminasi atau bahan2 kimia yang terdapat di dalam makanan dari hasil pertanian ini. Lebih 50,000 kertas kajian telah dianalisa dan diselidiki, terdapat 162 rencana yang relevan telah ditemui dan disiarkan di dalam tempoh 50 tahun sehingga 29 hb Feb 2008 yang membandingkan kandungan nutrin di dalam makanan yang organik dengan makanan yang dihasilkan melalui kaedah konvensional. Para penganalisis pula akan memilih hanya kertas kajian yang berkualiti sahaja untuk dipilih dan kaedah pemilihannya adalah seperti berikut : The studies had to provide information on the organik certification scheme from which the foodstuffs were derived, the cultivar of crop or breed of livestock analysed, the nutrient or other nutritionally relevant substance assessed, the laboratory analytical methods used, and the methods used for statistical analysis. Melalui kaedah yang terperinci bagi memilih hasil kajian yang terbaik di atas, didapati sebanyak 55 kertas kajian telah memenuhi criteria kertas yang mempunyai kualiti yang memuaskan dan kajian2 ini telah melihat perbandingan kandungan 13 nutrin utama di antara makanan organik dengan makanan yang dihasilkan melalui kaedah konvensional. Penyelidik-penyelidik telah mendapati bahawa TIDAK terdapat perbezaan di antara kandungan bahan nutrin yang terkandung di dalam makanan organik dan makanan yang dihasilkan secara konvensional. Sepuluh dari 13 kategori bahan nutrin yang telah dianalisa, tidak terdapat perbezaan yang signifikan dari segi penghasilan nutrin di dalam kedua-dua bentuk makanan tersebut. Perbezaan yang dikesan hanyalah disebabkan oleh perbezaan dari segi penggunaan jenis baja ( kandungan nitrogen, fosforus) dan keranuman (ripeness) bahan makanan tersebut ketika dipetik ( menyebabkan perbezaan dari segi asiditi bahan makanan) , dan perbezaan ini tidak akan memberi apa2 kelebihan kepada makanan organik dari sudut bahan nutrin dan juga manfaat kesihatan. Alan Dangour, dari London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine's Nutrition dan Public Health Intervention Research Unit, dan salah seorang dari penulis lapuran tersebut membuat komen berikut : ' Perbezaan yang kecil di antara kandungan nutrin di dalam bahan makanan organik berbanding dengan makanan yang dihasilkan secara konvensional berkemungkinan besar TIDAK akan memberi sebarang manfaat yang relevan kepada kesihatan orang awam. Kajian kami juga telah menunjukkan tidak ada bukti untuk mengesyorkan pengambilan bahan makanan organik untuk tujuan mendapatkan nilai nutrisi yang lebih tinggi.'. Untuk maklumat lanjut, atau untuk menemuramah penulis dan pengkaji lapuran ini sila hubungi Gemma Howe in the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Press Office: Gemma.howe@lshtm.ac.uk Tel: +44 (0)20 7927 2802/07828 617 901 Food Standards Agency Press Office: Tel:+44 (0)20 7276 8888 Emer.timmins@foodstandards.gsi.gov.uk Notes to Editors: Nutritional quality of organik foods: a systematic review Authors: Alan D Dangour, Sakhi K Dodhia, Arabella Hayter, Elizabeth Allen, Karen Lock, Ricardo Uauy

Organic food not nutritionally better than conventionally produced food

http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/news/2009/organicfood.html

 

Organic food not nutritionally better than conventionally produced food

Wednesday, 29 July 2009 Systematic review of literature over 50 years finds no evidence for superior nutritional content of organic produce There is no evidence that organically produced foods are nutritionally superior to conventionally produced foodstuffs, according to a study published today in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (see abstract). Consumers appear willing to pay higher prices for organic foods based on their perceived health and nutrition benefits, and the global organic food market was estimated in 2007 to be worth £29 billion (£2 billion in the UK alone). Some previous reviews have concluded that organically produced food has a superior nutrient composition to conventional food, but there has to date been no systematic review of the available published literature.   Researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine have now completed the most extensive systematic review of the available published literature on nutrient content of organic food ever conducted. The review focussed on nutritional content and did not include a review of the content of contaminants or chemical residues in foods from different agricultural production regimens.   Over 50,000 papers were searched, and a total of 162 relevant articles were identified that were published over a fifty-year period up to 29 February 2008 and compared the nutrient content of organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs. To ensure methodological rigour the quality of each article was assessed. To be graded as satisfactory quality, the studies had to provide information on the organic certification scheme from which the foodstuffs were derived, the cultivar of crop or breed of livestock analysed, the nutrient or other nutritionally relevant substance assessed, the laboratory analytical methods used, and the methods used for statistical analysis. 55 of the identified papers were of satisfactory quality, and analysis was conducted comparing the content in organically and conventionally produced foods of the 13 most commonly reported nutrient categories.   The researchers found organically and conventionally produced foods to be comparable in their nutrient content. For 10 out of the 13 nutrient categories analysed, there were no significant differences between production methods in nutrient content. Differences that were detected were most likely to be due to differences in fertilizer use (nitrogen, phosphorus), and ripeness at harvest (acidity), and it is unlikely that consuming these nutrients at the levels reported in organic foods would provide any health benefit.   Alan Dangour, of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine's Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit, and one of the report's authors, comments: 'A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance. Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority. Research in this area would benefit from greater scientific rigour and a better understanding of the various factors that determine the nutrient content of foodstuffs'. For further information, or to interview any of the report's authors, please contact Gemma Howe in the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Press Office: Gemma.howe@lshtm.ac.uk Tel: +44 (0)20 7927 2802/07828 617 901 Food Standards Agency Press Office: Tel:+44 (0)20 7276 8888 Emer.timmins@foodstandards.gsi.gov.uk Notes to Editors: Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review Authors: Alan D Dangour, Sakhi K Dodhia, Arabella Hayter, Elizabeth Allen, Karen Lock, Ricardo Uauy

PROCESSED FOOD LINK WITH DEPRESSION

Processed food link to depression: research

 

AFP - Tuesday, November 3,2009

LONDON (AFP) - – A diet heavy in processed and fatty foods increases the risk of depression, according to British research published on Monday.

A recent research from University College, London, suggested a link between nutrients that are present in processed foods such as fatty acids and B vitamins, and depression.

For the new study, published in the British Journal of Psychiatry, researchers studied dietary data provided from 3486 participants, foodproductiondaily.com reported. With an average age of 55 years the participants, completed a questionnaire on their eating habits at the start of the trial and, five years later, a self-assessment on depression.

Researchers at University College London also found that a diet including plenty of fresh vegetables, fruit and fish could help prevent the onset of depression.

They compared participants -- all civil servants -- who ate a diet largely based on "whole" foods with a second group who mainly ate fried food, processed meat, high-fat dairy products and sweetened desserts.

Those eating a lot of processed meat, chocolate, sweetened desserts, fried foods, refined cereals and high fat dairy, on the other hand, were seen to be more vulnerable to depression. The clear distinction remained even after the researchers had accounted for factors like smoking, level of physical activity, and body mass.

Taking into account other indicators of a healthy lifestyle such as not smoking and taking physical exercise, those who ate the whole foods had a 26 percent lower risk of depression than those who ate mainly processed foods.

People with a diet heavy in processed food had a 58 percent higher risk of depression.

The researchers put forward several explanations for the findings, which are published in the British Journal of Psychiatry.

Firstly, the high level of antioxidants in fruits and vegetables could have a protective effect, as previous studies have shown higher antioxidant levels to be associated with a lower risk of depression.

Secondly, eating lots of fish may protect against depression because it contains high levels of the sort of polyunsaturated fatty acids which stimulate brain activity.

And they said it was possible that a "whole food" diet protects against depression because of the combined effect of consuming nutrients from lots of different types of food, rather than the effect of one single nutrient.

The researchers concluded: "Our research suggests that healthy eating policies will generate additional benefits to health and well-being, and that improving people's diet should be considered as a potential target for preventing depressive disorders."