https://www.genitronsviluppo.com/2009/09/01/alimenti-biologici-non-hanno-beneficio-per-la-salute/ Tecnologie, buone pratiche, ecodesign, bioarchitettura, agricoltura ed energia verso un futuro più intelligente e sostenibile, ma non solo… GenitronSviluppo.com è a sostegno di aziende, istituzioni e processi culturali di innovazione per uno sviluppo sostenibile locale, nazionale e sociale. Sat, 16 Mar 2019 14:43:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= https://www.genitronsviluppo.com/2009/09/01/alimenti-biologici-non-hanno-beneficio-per-la-salute/comment-page-1/#comment-25757 Marcia Mendonça Tue, 01 Sep 2009 08:45:54 +0000 http://www.genitronsviluppo.com/?p=3921#comment-25757 The article published by the London School of Hygiene if read out of context makes us forget the real purpose of organic products. Maybe the Research Question is too narrow and leave important factors outside of the picture in relation to organic production. I totally agree with the finding that this sector (Organic) is a profitable market and those in it are taking huge advantage over final consumers, especially because most organic products are not as toxin-free as people think to justify the premium they pay. The study shows that commercially grown vegetables are equally nutritious if compared to Organic products. The problem about conventionally produced food are the added toxins necessary to increase production, the impact on the groundwater tables and contamination of the land by potassium, nitrogen and other substances used as fertilizers. It depends on the overall diet of an individual to be able to access the general health and benefits of the consumption of organic products. For instance, it is no good to have a diet based only on carbohydrates (potatoes and sweet corn) even if they are organic. I put another question forward: When a consumer at the supermarket has to decide in between organic potatoes from New Zealand (and by the way wrapped in plastic bags for the journey) or conventionally grown potatoes from Sicilia, which choice really does less harm to the health or the environment? The article published by the London School of Hygiene if read out of context makes us forget the real purpose of organic products. Maybe the Research Question is too narrow and leave important factors outside of the picture in relation to organic production.
I totally agree with the finding that this sector (Organic) is a profitable market and those in it are taking huge advantage over final consumers, especially because most organic products are not as toxin-free as people think to justify the premium they pay. The study shows that commercially grown vegetables are equally nutritious if compared to Organic products. The problem about conventionally produced food are the added toxins necessary to increase production, the impact on the groundwater tables and contamination of the land by potassium, nitrogen and other substances used as fertilizers.
It depends on the overall diet of an individual to be able to access the general health and benefits of the consumption of organic products. For instance, it is no good to have a diet based only on carbohydrates (potatoes and sweet corn) even if they are organic.
I put another question forward: When a consumer at the supermarket has to decide in between organic potatoes from New Zealand (and by the way wrapped in plastic bags for the journey) or conventionally grown potatoes from Sicilia, which choice really does less harm to the health or the environment?

]]>