Organic food

Organic food is produced by methods that comply with the standards of organic farming. Standards vary worldwide, but organic farming in general features practices that strive to cycle resources, ecological balance and preserving biodiversity. Organizations regulating organic products may restrict the use of certain pesticides and fertilizers in farming. In general, organic foods are usually not processed using irradiation, or industrial solvents or synthetic food additives. Currently, the European Union, the United States, Canada, Mexico, Japan, and many other countries require producers to obtain certification in their markets. In the context of these regulations, organic food is produced in such a way that national governments and international organizations. Although the product of the kitchen may be organic, the food industry has been approved by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) or the European Commission (EC). There is no sufficient evidence in medical literature to support claims that organic food is safer or healthier conventionally grown food. While there may be some differences in the nutrient and antinutrient contents of organically- and conventionally-produced food, the variable nature of food production and handling makes it difficult to generalize results. Claims that organic food tastes better not supported by evidence. with the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) or European Commission (EC). There is no sufficient evidence in medical literature to support claims that organic food is safer or healthier conventionally grown food. While there may be some differences in the nutrient and antinutrient contents of organically- and conventionally-produced food, the variable nature of food production and handling makes it difficult to generalize results. Claims that organic food tastes better not supported by evidence. with the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) or European Commission (EC). There is no sufficient evidence in medical literature to support claims that organic food is safer or healthier conventionally grown food. While there may be some differences in the nutrient and antinutrient contents of organically- and conventionally-produced food, the variable nature of food production and handling makes it difficult to generalize results. Claims that organic food tastes better not supported by evidence. There is no sufficient evidence in medical literature to support claims that organic food is safer or healthier conventionally grown food. While there may be some differences in the nutrient and antinutrient contents of organically- and conventionally-produced food, the variable nature of food production and handling makes it difficult to generalize results. Claims that organic food tastes better not supported by evidence. There is no sufficient evidence in medical literature to support claims that organic food is safer or healthier conventionally grown food. While there may be some differences in the nutrient and antinutrient contents of organically- and conventionally-produced food, the variable nature of food production and handling makes it difficult to generalize results. Claims that organic food tastes better not supported by evidence.

For the vast majority of its history, agriculture can be described as having been organic; only during the 20th century was a large supply of new products. The organic farming movement arose in the 1940s in response to the industrialization of agriculture. In 1939, Lord Northbourne coined the term organic farming in his book Look to the Land (1940), out of his conception of “the farm as organism,” to describe a holistic, ecologically balanced approach to farming-in contrast to what he called chemical farming, which relies on “imported fertility” and “can not be self-sufficient nor an organic whole.” Early soil scientists also described the differences in soil composition when animal manures were used as “organic”, because they contain carbon compounds where superphosphates and haber processes nitrogen do not. Their respective use affects humus content of soil. This is different from the scientific use of the term “organic” in chemistry, which refers to a class of molecules that contain carbon, especially those involved in the chemistry of life. This class of molecules is more likely to be considered and more likely to be toxic and more likely to be “organic” and, particularly, “inorganic” (sometimes wrongly used as a contrast by the popular press) to organic chemistry is an equivocation fallacy when applied to farming, the production of food, and to foodstuffs themselves. Properly used in this agricultural science context, “organic” refers to the methods grown and processed, not necessarily the chemical composition of the food. Ideas that organic food could be better for the environment and originated in the early 1943 book The Living Soil and Farming and Gardening for Health or Disease (1945). In the industrial era, a moderate level of popularity in the United States in the 1950s. In the 1960s, the environmentalists and the counterculture championed organic food, but it was only in the 1970s that a national marketplace for organic foods developed. Early consumers interested in organic food would look for non-chemically treated, non-use of unapproved pesticides, fresh or minimally processed food. They mostly had to buy directly from growers. Later, “Know your farmer, and product labeling, like “certified organic,” is relied upon. Government regulations and third-party inspectors are looked for for insurance. In the 1970s, interest in organic food grew with the publication of Silent Spring and the rise of the environmental movement, and was also reported by food-related health scares like the Alar that arose in the mid-1980s.

Organic food production is a self-regulated industry with oversight in some countries, separate from private gardening. Currently, the European Union, the United States, Canada, Japan, and many other countries require producers to obtain their certification based on their borders. In the context of these regulations, the products marketed in organic foods are produced in a manner that complies with organic standards and international organic industry trade organizations. In the United States, organic production under the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA) and Regulations in Title 7, Part 205 of the Code of Federal Regulations and mechanical practices that promote cycling of resources, ecological balance, and conservation biodiversity. If livestock are involved, the livestock must be rearranged with antibiotics or growth hormones. Processed organic food usually only contains organic ingredients. Non-organic ingredients are present, at least a certain percentage of the food’s total plant and animal ingredients must be organic (95% in the United States, Canada, and Australia). Foods claiming to be organic, and being so processed, and chemical methods, such as chemical ripening, food irradiation, and genetically modified ingredients. Pesticides are allowed as long as they are not synthetic. However, under US federal organic standards, Pesticides and weeds are not controllable through management practices, nor through organic pesticides and herbicides, “a substance included on the national list of synthetic substances may be used to prevent, suppress, or control pests, weeds, or diseases. ” Several groups have called for organic standards to prohibit nanotechnology on the basis of the precautionary principle in light of the unknown risks of nanotechnology. The use of nanotechnology-based products in the production of organic food is prohibited in some jurisdictions (Canada, the UK, and Australia) and is unregulated in others. To be certified organic, products must be grown and manufactured in a manner nor via organic pesticides and herbicides, “may be used to prevent, suppress, or control pests, weeds, or diseases.” Several groups have called for organic standards to prohibit nanotechnology on the basis of the precautionary principle in light of the unknown risks of nanotechnology. The use of nanotechnology-based products in the production of organic food is prohibited in some jurisdictions (Canada, the UK, and Australia) and is unregulated in others. To be certified organic, products must be grown and manufactured in a manner nor via organic pesticides and herbicides, “may be used to prevent, suppress, or control pests, weeds, or diseases.” Several groups have called for organic standards to prohibit nanotechnology on the basis of the precautionary principle in light of the unknown risks of nanotechnology. The use of nanotechnology-based products in the production of organic food is prohibited in some jurisdictions (Canada, the UK, and Australia) and is unregulated in others. To be certified organic, products must be grown and manufactured in a manner Several groups have called for organic standards to prohibit nanotechnology on the basis of the precautionary principle in light of the unknown risks of nanotechnology. The use of nanotechnology-based products in the production of organic food is prohibited in some jurisdictions (Canada, the UK, and Australia) and is unregulated in others. To be certified organic, products must be grown and manufactured in a manner Several groups have called for organic standards to prohibit nanotechnology on the basis of the precautionary principle in light of the unknown risks of nanotechnology. The use of nanotechnology-based products in the production of organic food is prohibited in some jurisdictions (Canada, the UK, and Australia) and is unregulated in others. To be certified organic, products must be grown and manufactured in a manner

There is no doubt that organic food is safer, more nutritious, and better tasting than conventional food, which has grown into an organic food culture. Consumers purchase organic foods for different reasons, including concerns about the effects of farming practices on the environment, human health, and animal welfare. The most important reason for the purchase of organic foods is to provide information about health-giving properties and higher nutritional value. These beliefs are promoted by the organic food industry, and have fueled increased demand for organic food products. Organic labels also encourage the consumer to view the product as more positive nutritional value. Such effects, such as the “halo” effect, which are related to the choice and consumption of organic food, are also important motivating factors in the purchase of organic food. The perception that organic food is low-calorie food or health food appears to be common. In China, the baby has a baby formula and the formula for a baby formula, has been “broken down” by a series of food scares, the worst being the death of six children “in 2009 and the 2008 Chinese milk scandal, making the Chinese market for organic milk in the world as of 2014. A Pew Research Center survey in 2012 said that 41% of Chinese consumers thought of food safety a very big problem, up by three times from 12% in 2008. which are related to the choice and consumption of organic food, are also important motivating factors in the purchase of organic food. The perception that organic food is low-calorie food or health food appears to be common. In China, the baby has a baby formula and the formula for a baby formula, has been “broken down” by a series of food scares, the worst being the death of six children “in 2009 and the 2008 Chinese milk scandal, making the Chinese market for organic milk in the world as of 2014. A Pew Research Center survey in 2012 said that 41% of Chinese consumers thought of food safety a very big problem, up by three times from 12% in 2008. which are related to the choice and consumption of organic food, are also important motivating factors in the purchase of organic food. The perception that organic food is low-calorie food or health food appears to be common. In China, the baby has a baby formula and the formula for a baby formula, has been “broken down” by a series of food scares, the worst being the death of six children “in 2009 and the 2008 Chinese milk scandal, making the Chinese market for organic milk in the world as of 2014. A Pew Research Center survey in 2012 said that 41% of Chinese consumers thought of food safety a very big problem, up by three times from 12% in 2008. are also important motivating factors in the purchase of organic food. The perception that organic food is low-calorie food or health food appears to be common. In China, the baby has a baby formula and the formula for a baby formula, has been “broken down” by a series of food scares, the worst being the death of six children “in 2009 and the 2008 Chinese milk scandal, making the Chinese market for organic milk in the world as of 2014. A Pew Research Center survey in 2012 said that 41% of Chinese consumers thought of food safety a very big problem, up by three times from 12% in 2008. are also important motivating factors in the purchase of organic food. The perception that organic food is low-calorie food or health food appears to be common. In China, the baby has a baby formula and the formula for a baby formula, has been “broken down” by a series of food scares, the worst being the death of six children “in 2009 and the 2008 Chinese milk scandal, making the Chinese market for organic milk in the world as of 2014. A Pew Research Center survey in 2012 said that 41% of Chinese consumers thought of food safety a very big problem, up by three times from 12% in 2008.

There is no good evidence that organic food tastes better than its non-organic counterparts. There is evidence that some organic fruit is conventionally grown fruit; Some of the fruit may also have more intense flavor due to the higher concentration of flavoring substances. Some foods, such as bananas, are picked when unripe, are cooled to prevent ripening while they are shipped to market, and then are induced to ripen rapidly by exposing them to propylene or ethylene, which are produced by plants to induce their own ripening; as flavor and texture changes during ripening, this process can affect those qualities of the fruit.

With respect to chemical differences in the composition of organically grown foods compared conventionally grown food, studies have examined differences in nutrients, antinutrients, and pesticide residues. These studies are likely to be confounding variables, and they are difficult to generalize due to differences in the tests that were done, the methods of testing, and because of the vagaries of agriculture affecting the chemical composition of food; these variables include variations in weather; crop treatments (fertilizer, pesticide, etc.); soil composition; the cultivar used, and in the case of meat and dairy products, the parallel variables in animal production. Treatment of the foodstuffs after initial gathering, the length of time between harvesting and analysis, as well as conditions of transport and storage, also affect the chemical composition of a given item of food. Additionally, there is evidence that organic produce is conventionally grown; a higher content in any chemical may be explained by higher concentration than in absolute amounts.

Many people believe that organic foods are more nutritious than conventional foods. However, the results of this study have not been shown to be consistent. A 2009 systematic review found that organically produced foodstuffs are not richer in vitamins and minerals than conventionally produced foodstuffs. The results of the test results in a lower and higher phosphorus content compared to conventionally grown foodstuffs. Content of vitamin C, calcium, potassium, total soluble solids, copper, iron, nitrates, manganese, and sodium did not differ between the two categories. A 2012 survey of the scientific literature did not find significant differences in the content of organic and conventional plant and animal products, and found that results varied from study to study. Produce studies reported on ascorbic acid (vitamin C) (31 studies), beta-carotene (precursor for vitamin A) (12 studies), and alpha-tocopherol (a form of vitamin E) (5 studies) content; milk studies reported on beta-carotene (4 studies) and alpha-tocopherol levels (4 studies). Few studies reviewed vitamin content in meats, but these found no difference in beta-carotene in beef, alpha-tocopherol in pork or beef, or vitamin A (retinol) in beef. The authors analyzed 11 other nutrients reported in studies of produce. A 2011 literature review found that organic foods had a higher micronutrient content overall than conventionally produced foods. Similarly, organic chicken contains higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids than conventional chicken. The authors found no difference in the protein or fat content of organic and raw milk. A 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis found that organic meat had comparable or slightly lower levels of saturated fat and monounsaturated fat, but higher levels of both overall and n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids. Another meta-analysis published in the same year shows no significant differences in levels of saturated and monounsaturated fat between organic and milk products. The authors found no difference in the protein or fat content of organic and raw milk. A 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis found that organic meat had comparable or slightly lower levels of saturated fat and monounsaturated fat, but higher levels of both overall and n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids. Another meta-analysis published in the same year shows no significant differences in levels of saturated and monounsaturated fat between organic and milk products. The authors found no difference in the protein or fat content of organic and raw milk. A 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis found that organic meat had comparable or slightly lower levels of saturated fat and monounsaturated fat, but higher levels of both overall and n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids. Another meta-analysis published in the same year shows no significant differences in levels of saturated and monounsaturated fat between organic and milk products. A 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis found that organic meat had comparable or slightly lower levels of saturated fat and monounsaturated fat, but higher levels of both overall and n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids. Another meta-analysis published in the same year shows no significant differences in levels of saturated and monounsaturated fat between organic and milk products. A 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis found that organic meat had comparable or slightly lower levels of saturated fat and monounsaturated fat, but higher levels of both overall and n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids. Another meta-analysis published in the same year shows no significant differences in levels of saturated and monounsaturated fat between organic and milk products.

The amount of nitrogen in certain vegetables, especially green leafy vegetables and tubers, has been found to be higher when grown organically as compared to conventionally. When evaluating environmental toxins such as heavy metals, the USDA has noted that organically raised chicken may have lower arsenic levels. Arsenic, cadmium or other heavy metals. However, a 2014 review found lower concentrations of cadmium, particularly in organically grown grains.

A 2014 meta-analysis of 343 studies on phytochemical composition found that organically grown crops had lower cadmium and pesticide residues, and 17% higher concentrations of polyphenols than conventionally grown crops. Concentrations of phenolic acids, flavanones, stilbenes, flavones, flavonols, and anthocyanins were elevated, with flavanones being 69% higher. Studies on the phytochemical composition of organic crops with numerous deficiencies, including lack of standardized measurements and poor reporting on measures of variability, duplication or selective reporting of data, publication bias, lack of rigor in studies geographical origin of samples, and inconsistency of farming and post-harvest methods.

The amount of pesticide residue is the pesticide residue. In the United States, a pesticide may be used on a food crop, the US Environmental Protection Agency must determine that pesticide may be used in the health care. A 2012 meta-analysis determined that pesticide residues were found in 7% of organic produce samples and 38% of samples. This result was statistically heterogeneous, because of the variable level of detection used among these studies. Only three studies reported the prevalence of contamination exceeding maximum allowed limits; all were from the European Union. A 2014 meta-analysis found that conventionally grown produce was more likely to have pesticide residue than organically grown crops. The American Cancer Society has stated that it does not exist that the small amount of pesticide residue found on the market. They have also stated that there is no way to reduce the risk of organic diseases. The Environmental Protection Agency maintains strict guidelines on the regulation of pesticides by setting a tolerance on the amount of pesticide residue. Although some residue may remain at the time of harvest, In addition, the commodities are washed down and treated to a greater extent.

A 2012 meta-analysis determined that prevalence of E. coli contamination was not statistically significant (7% in organic produce and 6% in standard produce). While bacterial contamination is common among both organic and animal products, differences in the prevalence of bacterial contamination are also statistically insignificant.

Organic meat certification in the United States requires USDA organic regulations throughout their lives. These regulations require that the animals are fed organic food that contains no animal byproducts. Further, organic farm animals can receive no growth hormones or antibiotics, and they must be raised using techniques that protect native species and other natural resources. Irradiation and genetic engineering are not allowed with organic animal production. One of the major differences in organic animal husbandry protocol is the “pasture rule”: .

There is little scientific evidence of benefit or harm to the health of a diet, and it is very difficult. A 2012 meta-analysis noted that “there have been no long-term studies of health outcomes of predominantly organic consuming populations versus conventionally produced food controlling for socioeconomic factors, such studies would be expensive to conduct.” A 2009 meta-analysis noted that “most of the articles of study did not contain a direct effect on human health.” (83%) Antioxidant status and activity are useful biomarkers do not directly equate to a health outcome. The evidence of beneficial health effects of organic food consumption, which has led researchers to call for more long-term studies. In addition, studies that suggest that organic foods may be healthier than conventional foods face significant methodological challenges, such as the correlation between organic food consumption and factors known to promote a healthy lifestyle. When the American Academy of Pediatrics reviewed the literature on organic foods in 2012, they found that “current evidence does not support any meaningful nutritional benefits, or that they are demonstrate health benefits or disease protection as a result of consuming an organic diet. ” which has led to the search for longer-term studies. In addition, studies that suggest that organic foods may be healthier than conventional foods face significant methodological challenges, such as the correlation between organic food consumption and factors known to promote a healthy lifestyle. When the American Academy of Pediatrics reviewed the literature on organic foods in 2012, they found that “current evidence does not support any meaningful nutritional benefits, or that they are demonstrate health benefits or disease protection as a result of consuming an organic diet. ” which has led to the search for longer-term studies. In addition, studies that suggest that organic foods may be healthier than conventional foods face significant methodological challenges, such as the correlation between organic food consumption and factors known to promote a healthy lifestyle. When the American Academy of Pediatrics reviewed the literature on organic foods in 2012, they found that “current evidence does not support any meaningful nutritional benefits, or that they are demonstrate health benefits or disease protection as a result of consuming an organic diet. ” may be healthier than conventional foods, such as the correlation between organic food consumption and factors known to promote a healthy lifestyle. When the American Academy of Pediatrics reviewed the literature on organic foods in 2012, they found that “current evidence does not support any meaningful nutritional benefits, or that they are demonstrate health benefits or disease protection as a result of consuming an organic diet. ” may be healthier than conventional foods, such as the correlation between organic food consumption and factors known to promote a healthy lifestyle. When the American Academy of Pediatrics reviewed the literature on organic foods in 2012, they found that “current evidence does not support any meaningful nutritional benefits, or that they are demonstrate health benefits or disease protection as a result of consuming an organic diet. ”

The main difference between organic and chemical products. The residues of those chemicals in food products. Pharmaceuticals, antibiotics, growth hormones and other types of chemicals are used in the production of pesticides. Claims of improved safety of organic food has been focused on pesticide residues. These concerns are driven by the facts that “(1) acute, contaminant de toxicant les pesticides, les toxicants de toxicants” (2) if not all, However, it is not uncommonly noted in the scientific literature: “What does not follow from this, however, is that chronic exposure to the traces of pesticides found in food results in demonstrable toxicity. This possibility is practically impossible to study and quantify; “therefore firm conclusions concerning the relative safety of organic foods have been hampered by the difficulty in proper study design and relatively small number of studies directly compared to organic food Project, which is a part of the US EPA’s Distributed Structure-Searchable Toxicity (DSSTox) Database Network, has been systemically testing the carcinogenicity of chemicals, both natural and synthetic, and building in the past 30 years. Their work attempts to fill in the gaps in our scientific knowledge of the carcinogenicity of all chemicals, both natural and synthetic, as the scientific conductors of the project described in the journal, Science, in 1992: Toxicological examination of synthetic chemicals, chemicals that occur naturally, in the data and the perception of chemical carcinogens. Three points that we have compared that should be made with natural and synthetic chemicals. 1) The vast proportion of chemicals that humans are exposed to occur naturally. Nevertheless, the fact that every chemical is also toxic at some dose. The daily average exposure of Americans to burnt material in the diet is ~ 2000 mg, and exposure to natural pesticides (the chemicals that produce them to defend themselves) is ~ 1500 mg. In comparison, the total daily exposure to all synthetic pesticide residues combined is ~ 0.09 mg. Thus, we estimate that 99.99% of the pesticides humans ingest are natural. Despite this enormously greater exposure to natural chemicals, 79% (378 out of 479) of the chemical tests for carcinogenicity in both rats and mice are synthetic (that is, do not occur naturally). 2) It has often been wrongly assumed that humans have evolved defenses against the natural chemicals in our diet but not against the synthetic chemicals. However, these defenses are generally considered to be specific; moreover, defenses the inducible and therefore protective of low doses of both synthetic and natural chemicals. 3) Because the toxicology of natural and synthetic chemicals is similar, one finds a similar positivity rate for carcinogenicity among synthetic and natural chemicals. The positivity rate among chemicals tested in mice is ~ 50%. Therefore, because humans are exposed to so many more natural synthetic chemicals (by weight and by number), as defined by high-dose tests on rodents. We have shown that even though only a very small proportion of pesticides in plant foods have been tested, these are common carcinogens among the 57 tested, occurring in more than 50 common plant foods. It is likely that all fruits and vegetables in the supermarket contain natural pesticides that are rotting carcinogens. While studies have been shown via chemical analysis, the results of this study have been significantly reduced by pesticide residue levels, the following is noticeable in the literature. government established guidelines for what is considered safe. This view has been echoed by the US Department of Agriculture and the UK Food Standards Agency. A study published by the National Research Council in 1993 determined that for infants and children, the major source of exposure to pesticides is through diet. A study published in 2006 by Lu et al. measured levels of organophosphorus pesticide exposure in 23 school children and their diet with organic food. In this study it was found that levels of organophosphorus pesticide exposure dropped from negligible levels to undetectable levels when the children switched to an organic diet, the authors presented this reduction as a significant reduction in risk. The conclusions presented in Lu et al. were criticized in the literature as a case of bad scientific communication. More specifically, Claims related to pesticide residue of increased risk of infertility or lower sperm counts. Likewise, the American Cancer Society (ACS) has stated that “it is important that they be cancer-free because they are less likely to be contaminated.” Reviews of the risks of microbiological sources or natural hazards are likely to be much more significant than those of pesticide residues.

In search of an increased risk of microbial contamination, the use of E. coli O157: H7 during organic production production, there is little evidence of actual incidence of outbreaks which can be positively blamed on organic food production. The 2011 Germany E. coli O104: H4 outbreak was blamed on organic farming of bean sprouts.

Demand for organic foods is primarily driven by concerns for personal health and for the environment. Global sales for organic foods climbed by more than 170 percent since 2002 reaching more than $ 63 billion in 2011 while growing less than 2 percent of total farmland under production, increasing in OECD countries (which account for the majority of organic production) by 35 percent for the same time period. Organic products typically cost 10 to 40% more than similar conventionally produced products, to several times the price. Processed organic foods vary when compared to the standard counterparts. While organic food accounts for 1-2% of total food production worldwide, The organic food market is growing rapidly with between 5 and 10 percent of the food market share in the United States according to the Organic Trade Association, significantly outpacing sales growth volume in dollars of conventional food products. World organic food sales jumped from US $ 23 billion in 2002 to $ 63 billion in 2011.

Production and consumption of organic products is rising rapidly in Asia, and both China and India are becoming global producers of organic products and a number of countries, particularly China and Japan, also becoming large consumers of organic food and drink. The disparity between production and demand, is leading to a two-tier organic food industry, typified by significant and growing imports of primary organic products from Australia, Europe, New Zealand and the United States.

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright foroactivo.eu 2019
Shale theme by Siteturner