Organic food is more than just a passing fad. Organic food sales totaled a record $45.2 billion in 2017， making it one of the fastest-growing segments of American agriculture. While a small number of studies have shown associations between organic food consumption and decreased incidence of disease， no studies to date have been designed to answer the question of whether organic food consumption causes an improvement in health.

An environmental health scientist has been studying pesticide exposures in human populations over the past 20 years. His research group published a small study that he believed suggests a path forward to answering the question of whether eating organic food actually improves health.

According to the USDA， the organic label does not imply anything about health. In 2015， Miles McEvoy， then chief of the National Organic Program for USDA， refused to speculate about any health benefits of organic food， saying the question wasnt “relevant” to the National Organic Program. Instead， the USDAs definition of organic is intended to indicate a production method that “foster cycling of resources， promote ecological balance， and conserve biodiversity.”

While some organic food consumers may base their purchasing decisions on factors like resource cycling and biodiversity， most consumers choosing organic food because they think its healthier.

Many years ago， there was a study to look at the potential for an organic diet to reduce pesticide exposure. This study focused on a group of pesticides called organophosphates， which have consistently been associated with negative effects on childrens brain development. The study showed that children who ate conventional diets had nine times higher exposure to these pesticides than children who ate organic diets.

The study got a lot of attention. But while the results were novel， they didnt answer the big question. As the scientist told The New York Times， “People want to know， what does this really mean in terms of the safety of kids？ But they dont know. Nobody does.” It was true then， and its still true now.

有機(jī)食品可不僅僅是一時(shí)風(fēng)尚。2017年，其銷售總額創(chuàng)歷史新高——452億美元，成為美國農(nóng)業(yè)增長最快的部分之一。雖然少數(shù)研究已表明食用有機(jī)食品和疾病發(fā)病率降低存在聯(lián)系，但尚未有研究對如下問題做出解答：食用有機(jī)食品是否會讓人更健康？

雖然有些購買有機(jī)食品的消費(fèi)者可能是根據(jù)資源循環(huán)和生物多樣性等因素做出的購買決定，但大多數(shù)人還是因?yàn)橛X得它更健康而購買。

多年前，有一個(gè)關(guān)于探索有機(jī)飲食潛力以降低農(nóng)藥接觸的研究。這項(xiàng)研究重點(diǎn)關(guān)注一組名為有機(jī)磷酸鹽的農(nóng)藥，這類農(nóng)藥一直被認(rèn)為會對兒童的大腦發(fā)育帶來負(fù)面影響。研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，飲食傳統(tǒng)的兒童接觸這些農(nóng)藥的次數(shù)比食用有機(jī)食品的兒童高9倍。

有一名環(huán)境健康科學(xué)家在過去的二十年一直都在研究人類接觸農(nóng)藥的情況。他的研究團(tuán)隊(duì)發(fā)表了一篇小型研究，他認(rèn)為這項(xiàng)研究為上述問題提供了解決的方向。

據(jù)美國農(nóng)業(yè)部表示，有機(jī)標(biāo)簽并不意味著健康。在2015年，美國農(nóng)業(yè)部國家有機(jī)計(jì)劃的時(shí)任負(fù)責(zé)人邁爾斯·麥克沃伊拒絕推測有機(jī)食品的健康益處，并表示這一問題與國家有機(jī)計(jì)劃并“不相關(guān)”。相反，美國農(nóng)業(yè)部對有機(jī)一詞的定義旨在表明一種生產(chǎn)方法，該方法可“鼓勵資源循環(huán)、促進(jìn)生態(tài)平衡、保護(hù)生態(tài)多樣性”。

這項(xiàng)研究受到廣泛關(guān)注。雖然結(jié)果是新穎的，但卻并未回答上述問題。正如這名科學(xué)家曾經(jīng)對《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》所說的那樣：“人們想知道，這對兒童的安全究竟有何意義？但他們并不知道答案。沒有人知道?！边@句話既適用于當(dāng)時(shí)，也適用于當(dāng)下。

Word Study

imply /?m'pla?/ v.暗示;暗指;表明

speculate /'spekjule?t/ v. 推測;推斷;猜測

Critics of the project speculate about how many hospitals could be built instead.

indicate /'?nd?ke?t/ v. 表明;顯示;示意

A survey of retired people has indicated that most are independent and enjoying life.

foster /'fɑ?st?r/ v. 促進(jìn);助長;培養(yǎng)

novel /'nɑ?vl/ adj. 新穎的;驚奇的