Picking a can of black beans is likely one of the most mundane grocery store tasks. Unless, of course, the choice is between organic and non-organic beans.

    At a Manhattan Whole Foods （ WFMI - news - people ）, the store sells in-house non-organic and organic 15-ounce cans for $.89 and $1.09, respectively. But it also offers several brand-name organic beans that range between $2.19 and $2.39.

    The added cost for organic beans seems like a small price to pay for a product that's supposedly better for you and the planet. Yet recent developments have called this trade-off into question, and that has once again put organics at the center of an ongoing debate about the American diet.

    In Depth: Seven Things to Know About Organic Food

    In 2008, consumers spent $23 billion on organic food. The market, which grew by 16% last year, is seen by many as an alternative to the practices of industrial agriculture; organic food is largely produced without pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, hormones and antibiotics. And though most organic food producers don't bill their products as more nutritious than conventionally grown food, the organic label tends to confer increased health benefits.

    Yet according to a recent comprehensive review published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, there is no evidence to support the claim that organic food has higher quantities of vitamins and minerals. In addition to that finding--contested by many organic food advocates--the USDA announced this month that it would audit the National Organic Program, which develops standards and accredits organic certifiers. The decision came at the behest of industry members who say the integrity of the program had been compromised in recent years with less-than-uniform guidelines.

    去雜貨店選擇一罐黑豆可能是的一項(xiàng)最平凡的任務(wù)。當(dāng)然，這并不是是在有機(jī)豆子和無機(jī)豆子之間進(jìn)行選擇。

    在曼哈頓的 Whole Foods（完全食品市場(chǎng)公司-消息-通訊錄）,這家商店在內(nèi)部分別以 0.89 美元和 1.09 美元出售非有機(jī)的和有機(jī)的 15-盎司豆類罐頭。但是它也提供幾種范圍在 2.19 美元和 2.39 美元之間的名牌有機(jī)豆類，.

    為有機(jī)豆類增加費(fèi)用似乎是為一種對(duì)于您以及這個(gè)星球假定更好的產(chǎn)品付出一個(gè)小的代價(jià)。然而，最近的事態(tài)發(fā)展已經(jīng)對(duì)這種通過交換賣掉的方式發(fā)生疑問，并且再次把有機(jī)食品放到正在進(jìn)行的有關(guān)美國人飲食的爭(zhēng)論的中心。

    人們逐漸地了解到關(guān)于有機(jī)食品的七個(gè)事情

    ……

    2008年，消費(fèi)者們?cè)谟袡C(jī)食品上花費(fèi)了 230 億美元。很多人看到了這個(gè)去年增長(zhǎng)了 16% 的市場(chǎng)，視為產(chǎn)業(yè)農(nóng)業(yè)習(xí)慣做法的替代；有機(jī)食品主要是不用農(nóng)藥、化肥、激素和抗生素生產(chǎn)的。不過大多數(shù)有機(jī)食品生產(chǎn)商并沒有列出其產(chǎn)品比常規(guī)方式生產(chǎn)的食物有更多的營養(yǎng)成分，有機(jī)標(biāo)簽趨向于賜予增加的健康益處。

    然而，根據(jù)最近發(fā)表在《美國臨床營養(yǎng)學(xué)雜志》上的綜合評(píng)論說，并沒有證據(jù)能支持這種說法，即有機(jī)食品具有更高數(shù)量的維生素和礦物質(zhì)。在這個(gè)發(fā)現(xiàn)之外--許多有機(jī)食品提倡者所爭(zhēng)辯的---美國農(nóng)業(yè)部在這個(gè)月宣布，它將對(duì)全國有機(jī)計(jì)劃項(xiàng)目進(jìn)行審計(jì)，該項(xiàng)目制定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)并且向有機(jī)證明者授權(quán)。這個(gè)決定是應(yīng)產(chǎn)業(yè)成員們的要求而作出的，他們說，在近年來，該項(xiàng)計(jì)劃的完整性已經(jīng)受到不統(tǒng)一的指導(dǎo)方針的損害。