난 그래서 유기농을 단지 인간의 건강만을 위해서 소비하는 행태는 문제가 있다고 지적한다. 인간의 건강'만'을 위한 것이 아니라 환경 또는 자연의 건강을 위해서 소비하는 것이 바로 유기농이 되어야 한다. 인간의 건강'만'을 위한 유기농이 그냥 시장에 휩쓸려 기존의 사치품과 무엇이 달라진단 말인가? 그저 더 비싼 값에 소비자들의 욕망만을 채우는 자본주의의 한 상품으로 전락할 뿐이다. 아래의 연구는 어찌 보면 참 좋은 연구일 수도, 어찌 보면 참 위험한 연구일 수도 있지만, 난 개인적으로 아래의 연구에 박수를 보낸다. 유기농에 대한 '환상'은 깨져야 한다. 그리고 인간과 자연의 좋은 관계를 재정립하는 데에, 인간 사회의 구조를 재정립하는 데에 더욱 집중해야 할 것이다.
유기농.일반 식품이나 큰 차이는 없었다
살충제도 쓰지 않고 천연 성분으로 재배해 훨씬 건강에 유익한 것으로 알려진 유기농.
보통 제품보다 가격이 비싸지만 '기왕이면' 몸에 좋은 걸 먹으려는 소비자들 사이에서 인기를 끌고 있다.
하지만 유기농 제품이 제초제나 항생제를 이용한 다른 제품에 비해 건강에 더 유익하다는 증거가 거의 없다는 연구 결과가 나왔다.
4일(한국시각) 미국 뉴욕타임스 등 외신에 따르면 "스탠퍼드 대학 연구팀이 1966년부터 2011년까지 45년에 걸쳐 작성된 237개 논문을 4년 동안 분석했더니 유기농 식품이 다른 식품에 비해 건강에 유익하다는 증거를 거의 발견할 수 없었다"고 밝혔다. 스탠퍼드 대학 연구팀은 이러한 결과를 미국 내과학 연보에 게재했다.
데나 브라바타 스탠퍼드대 박사는 외신과의 인터뷰에서 "맛이나 환경에 대한 걱정 등 때문에 유기농 제품을 먹을 수도 있겠지만, 적어도 개개인의 건강과 관련된 문제에 관해서는 일반적인 식품과 큰 차이가 없다는 걸 발견했다"며 "이러한 결과에 우리도 깜짝 놀랐다"고 밝혔다.
과일과 채소 등에 든 비타민이나 미네랄 함유량의 경우도 유기농이나 일반 식품이나 큰 차이는 없었다. 다만 유기농 제품이 약간의 인(phosphorous)이 더 많았다. 유기농 우유과 닭고기에 오메가 3지방산이 더 많다고 알려졌지만 이러한 결과를 도출한 연구는 많지 않았다.
다만 잔류 농약과 내성 박테리아 검출에서는 차이를 보였다. 유기농 돼지고기와 닭고기는 일반 제품보다 3가지 이상의 항생제에 내성을 가진 박테리아 수가 33%가량 낮았다. 연구팀은 일반적으로 돼지와 닭을 사육할 때 항생제를 과도하게 먹이기 때문이라고 풀이했다.
다른 전문가들은 이번 연구가 확증단계의 연구는 아니기 때문에 추가 연구를 통해 이를 다시 점검해볼 필요가 있다고 주장했다.
외신은 "이번 연구 결과에 따라 유기농이 과다 지출을 유발하는 마케팅 도구가 아닌지 검토해 봐야 할 필요가 있다"고 전했다.
아래는 이와 관련된 뉴욕타임즈의 기사
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 Cthan 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.
