Stanford Center for Health Policy and Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, 117 Encina Commons, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-6019, USA.
Ann Intern Med. 2012 Sep 4;157(5):348-66. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-157-5-201209040-00007.
The health benefits of organic foods are unclear.
To review evidence comparing the health effects of organic and conventional foods.
MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2011), EMBASE, CAB Direct, Agricola, TOXNET, Cochrane Library (January 1966 to May 2009), and bibliographies of retrieved articles.
English-language reports of comparisons of organically and conventionally grown food or of populations consuming these foods.
2 independent investigators extracted data on methods, health outcomes, and nutrient and contaminant levels.
17 studies in humans and 223 studies of nutrient and contaminant levels in foods met inclusion criteria. Only 3 of the human studies examined clinical outcomes, finding no significant differences between populations by food type for allergic outcomes (eczema, wheeze, atopic sensitization) or symptomatic Campylobacter infection. Two studies reported significantly lower urinary pesticide levels among children consuming organic versus conventional diets, but studies of biomarker and nutrient levels in serum, urine, breast milk, and semen in adults did not identify clinically meaningful differences. All estimates of differences in nutrient and contaminant levels in foods were highly heterogeneous except for the estimate for phosphorus; phosphorus levels were significantly higher than in conventional produce, although this difference is not clinically significant. The risk for contamination with detectable pesticide residues was lower among organic than conventional produce (risk difference, 30% [CI, -37% to -23%]), but differences in risk for exceeding maximum allowed limits were small. Escherichia coli contamination risk did not differ between organic and conventional produce. Bacterial contamination of retail chicken and pork was common but unrelated to farming method. However, the risk for isolating bacteria resistant to 3 or more antibiotics was higher in conventional than in organic chicken and pork (risk difference, 33% [CI, 21% to 45%]).
Studies were heterogeneous and limited in number, and publication bias may be present.
The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods. Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
None.
有机食品对健康的益处尚不清楚。
综述比较有机食品和传统食品对健康影响的证据。
MEDLINE（1966 年 1 月至 2011 年 5 月）、EMBASE、CAB Direct、Agricola、TOXNET、Cochrane 图书馆（1966 年 1 月至 2009 年 5 月）和检索文章的参考文献。
比较有机和传统种植的食物或食用这些食物的人群的英文报告。
2 名独立调查员提取了关于方法、健康结果以及营养素和污染物水平的数据。
符合纳入标准的人类研究有 17 项，食物中营养素和污染物水平的研究有 223 项。仅 3 项人体研究检查了临床结果，未发现食物类型对过敏结果（湿疹、喘息、特应性致敏）或症状性弯曲杆菌感染的人群有显著差异。两项研究报告说，食用有机食品而非传统饮食的儿童尿液中的农药水平明显较低，但对成年人血清、尿液、母乳和精液中生物标志物和营养素水平的研究没有发现有临床意义的差异。除了磷的估计值外，所有食物中营养素和污染物水平的差异估计值都高度异质；磷的水平明显高于传统农产品，尽管这种差异没有临床意义。有机农产品的农药残留检测风险低于传统农产品（风险差异，30%[-37%至-23%]），但超过允许最大限量的风险差异较小。有机农产品和传统农产品的大肠杆菌污染风险没有差异。零售鸡肉和猪肉的细菌污染很常见，但与养殖方式无关。然而，传统鸡肉和猪肉中对 3 种或更多种抗生素有抗药性的细菌的分离风险高于有机鸡肉和猪肉（风险差异，33%[21%至 45%]）。
研究具有异质性且数量有限，可能存在发表偏倚。
已发表的文献缺乏强有力的证据表明有机食品比传统食品更有营养。食用有机食品可能会减少接触农药残留和抗药性细菌。
无。
