4.7 Article

Consuming organic versus conventional vegetables: The effect on nutrient and contaminant intakes

期刊

FOOD AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY
卷 48, 期 11, 页码 3058-3066

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2010.07.044

关键词

Organic vegetables; Conventional vegetables; Consumption; Nutrients; Contaminants; Intake assessment

资金

  1. Ministry of the Flemish Community (Department of Sustainable Agricultural Development - ADLO)
  2. Federal Ministry of Health
  3. Food Chain and Environment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The health benefits of consuming organic compared to conventional foods are unclear. This study aimed at evaluating the nutrient and contaminant intake of adults through consumption of organic versus conventional vegetables, namely carrots, tomatoes, lettuce, spinach and potatoes. A probabilistic simulation approach was used for the intake assessment in two adult populations: (1) a representative sample of Belgians (n = 3245) and (2) a sample of Flemish organic and conventional consumers (n = 522). Although significant differences in nutrient and contaminant contents were previously found between organic and conventional vegetables, they were inconsistent for a component and/or vegetable. These findings were translated here into inconsistent intake assessments. This means that the intake of specific nutrients and contaminants can be higher or lower for organic versus conventional vegetables. However, when considering the consumption pattern of organic consumers, an increase in intake of a selected set of nutrients and contaminants is observed, which are explained by the general higher vegetable consumption of this consumer group. In public health terms, there is insufficient evidence to recommend organic over conventional vegetables. The general higher vegetable consumption of organic compared to conventional consumers outweighs usually the role of differences in nutrient and contaminant concentrations between organic and conventional vegetables. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据