昨晚在新光三越地下一樓, 看見賣菜的專櫃, 是的, 賣菜的"專櫃"!! 現場示範一整箱, 他幫你配好時蔬肉鮮, 比方, 3-5口之家, 可供五次烹飪, 只要2400塊, @@|| 是的. 價錢以此, 按質量再往上推......有到6,000塊的組合...甚或萬元以上.我問老媽, "如果不用考慮到預算, 妳會這樣叫一整箱嗎? 標榜健康有機?" 老媽認真想一下說: 嗯...不會. 我又勸說, 可是很健康有機耶....不會. 她確定地回我.
這個賣菜專櫃賣點是什麼? 價格高貴的優勢是什麼? 整個講起來, 是看到大家要健康, 但要在現實生活中湊出有機, 有點麻煩的環境下, 在賣一個"便利"給消費者吧?!~ 業者小有名氣, 多年苦心經營,能在百貨公司爭取到臨時專櫃, 代表有客層存在.
吃"有機"絕對是對的選擇, 但對的東西為何要付出那麼昂貴的價格? 況且何謂有機? 還有一番辯駁.....想起日前, 我追求"時髦", 買了一條有機吐司, 105塊; 對比平日, 只要50塊, 足足貴一倍!!~
吃得健康固然很神聖, 但當它變成兵家必爭之地時, 不知為何, 心中有股小小的納悶與不耐升起....
正當此時朋友提供了一篇文章也供大家參考:
First the big news: A recent study performed by the Stanford University School of Medicine found “little evidence of health benefits from organic foods.” Let that one sink in for a minute.
Are those organic apples and peppers for which you fork over twice as much of your precious salary really no better than the perfectly shiny “modified” variety? After reviewing more than 237 relevant papers, the Stanford study’s senior author concluded that “There isn’t much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you’re an adult and making a decision based solely on your health.”
Wow. Color us slightly shocked. Researchers found that, while the consumption of organic produce did limit exposure to potentially toxic pesticides, organic foods were generally not more nutritious and did not “carry fewer health risks” than their non-organic brethren—and FDA-approved “organic” foods aren’t 100% pesticide-free either! Researchers were, by their own admission, “a little surprised” by these results.
This study amounts to a big PR challenge for companies that base their sell on the health benefits of all things organic, since it pretty much relegates their claims to the land of unproven marketing doublespeak.
Wait a minute, though: the Los Angeles Times takes issue with the study’s conclusions.
The paper’s editorial board points to the pesticide issue, noting the survey’s finding that “38% of conventional produce contains pesticide residue (compared with 7% of organic produce).” The board also mentions the potentially significant (if often unclear) environmental benefits of organic farming, fishing, and livestock practices; most importantly, the piece reminds readers that the Stanford study only considered produce and meats. This point is especially relevant when considering the fact that the majority of the American diet consists of processed foods, none of which were included in the data set. We have to agree that this is a major omission.
The only definitive conclusion that can be drawn from the study is that research on the subject is surprisingly light–the senior Stanford researcher called existing studies “confusing” and “not very rigorous.” The true value of the “organic” label remains an open-ended question—but we still feel like this development is bad news for companies using the designation as a major selling point. The issue will not be resolved anytime soon; check back for updates.
In the meantime, we’d love to hear your thoughts on the “organic” phenomenon. Is it the future of food, or is it an over-hyped snake-oil salesman’s scam?
留言列表
留言列表
