Slashdot Mirror
Does Eating Organic Food Help Prevent Cancer? (usatoday.com)
An anonymous reader quotes USA Today:
People who regularly eat organic food are less likely to develop cancer than those who don't, according to a new study out of France. A team of researchers studied 68,946 adult volunteers from France who provided information on how often they ate organic food, drinks and even dietary supplements. Participants were given a score, based on how often they eat organic food ranging from "most of the time" to "never" or "I don't know." During two follow-up appointments, one in 2009 and another in 2016, the researchers then tracked cancer diagnoses, the most prevalent being breast cancer. Other cancers observed included prostate cancer, skin cancer, colorectal cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphomas and lymphomas.
People who reported higher organic food scores were less likely to be diagnosed with cancer than the rest of the group. For example, those who consumed the most organic food were 25 percent less likely to have cancer, according to the research. That number grew to more than half when looking at cases of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
People who reported higher organic food scores were less likely to be diagnosed with cancer than the rest of the group. For example, those who consumed the most organic food were 25 percent less likely to have cancer, according to the research. That number grew to more than half when looking at cases of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Because they are less likely to eat gobs of added sugar. Nothing to do with the purity label of thier food.
These studies are really hard to do. I know they tried to control for a lot of stuff but people who eat organic are generally people who not only try to live a healthy lifestyle, but actually spend more money to do it.
You'd expect them to have a lower cancer rate.
I stole this Sig
It's also very possible that people who eat organic food are just more cognizant about nutrition, health, and they food they eat. I'd like to see a study of two groups who both eat healthy and excercise, but one group eats organic food. Not slamming organic food, but I am skeptical.
Shame on you for that suggestive headline.
Why would you try to make something up like that as if the study didn't control for it at all? Why not at least PRETEND TO READ THE STUDY FIRST, before your gut tries to nullify it with your digested pudenda?
Just unreproductible shit. Those seems to have something to hide.
People who go out of their way to eat organic food also eat less processed food, fewer food additives which everyone knows are problematic, and they exercise more. This is a no duh as far as studies go.
This signature has Super Cow Powers
This page intentionally left blank.
Congregation does not erect copulation.
I eat a high amount of organic food and I don't have cancer; Q.E.D., organic food prevents cancer.
Come on, is it red meat day at /.? This website loves to despise anything left of center.
First is Self Reporting. This study did NOT find that people that ate more organic food got less cancer. Instead it found that people that CLAIMED to eat more organic food got less cancer. That desire tends to be highly correlated with education, wealth, and health consciousness.
Second the availability of organic food is almost non-existent for the poor. You can't make that claim if you live in a food desert of a slum, next to a toxic waste dump because the grocery stores in those neighbourhoods do not carry organic food.
I am willing to bet that people that claimed to eat organic food also had much better living conditions in general. I would be surprised if they were not less likely to smoke, drink, live next to toxic waste dumps, live in slums, live next to smoke filled factories, etc. etc.
Studies of this type are good only to convince people to fund a REAL study where you take half the people and give them organic food and the other half regular food.
Then measure the result in 10 years.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
The background cancer rate is one in three. So, with any environmental factor, the numbers are clouded with a lot of noise.
More likely people who eat organic food think about their health more than people who don't care what they eat. People who make organic choices are likely eating more vegetables, which has already moved the needle on their cancer risk. As an individual, you can't tell if this little thing or that little thing will really lower your cancer risk. What does work is eating like a sane person, exercising, and keeping your alcohol intake in the moderate zone.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Income level is one of the strongest determinants of health.
Generally, regular organic food purchasers will be above average income, no?
Did they control for other health-promoting or harming behaviours, which are likely to differ between organic food choosers and general population.
It could be the pesticides, but it could also be any number of other factors associated with lifestyle, unless these were carefully controlled for in the experiment.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Besides a marketing label that some producers pay for?
And where can we find a source of inorganic food to serve as a control group?
And I don't have cancer. Thia food must cause cancer.
Longer answer: Organic foods do not contain any chemicals that foods that use artificial pesticides do not contain. A Granny Smith apple is a Granny Smith apple.
Lifestyle differences are both ignored and far more significant: people that pay the increases costs to eat organic food are also those that take other steps to stay healthy - like not smoke, use sunscreen, etc.
My first idea was that people that eat organic food are more likely to eat healthy food overall. This could be a bias, but it seems the researchers addressed it. The paper states they had a look at junk food, for instance:
Ultraprocessed food consumption was assessed using the NOVA classification
No.
Next question, please.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Water is wet! Who knew?
... are more healthy!
Next up:
Water wet!
Pope catholic!
News brought to you by CORI - Captain Obvious Research Institute
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Quote from the parent comment: "Plenty of pesticides are used in organic farming..."
See, for example, The Truth About Organic Farming (Dec. 22, 2009)
Quote:
"It has been assumed for years that pesticides that occur naturally (in certain plants, for example) are somehow better for us and the environment than those that have been created by man. As more research is done into their toxicity, however, this simply isn't true, either. Many natural pesticides have been found to be as bad if not worse than synthetic ones.
"Take the example of Rotenone. Rotenone was widely used in the US as an organic pesticide for decades 3. Because it is natural in origin, occurring in the roots and stems of a small number of subtropical plants, it was considered "safe" as well as "organic". However, research has shown that rotenone is highly dangerous because it kills by attacking the mitochondria, the energy powerhouses of all living cells. Research found that exposure to rotenone caused Parkinson's Disease-like symptoms in rats 4, and killed many species, including humans. Rotenone's use as a pesticide has already been discontinued in the US as of 2005 due to health concerns, but shockingly, it's still poured into our waters every year because it is approved for fisheries management use as a piscicide [poisonous to fish] to remove unwanted fish species. The point I'm driving home here is that just because something is natural doesn't make it non-toxic or safe."
Other issues: There are other issues that are generally not explored. For example, if a food is labeled "Organic", is it actually that, or is the label not honest?
Diet surveys are notoriously poor in reliability.
They are lazy and just done because they cost little. They generate bad science.
Self-reporting over long periods does not work, the surveys are not rigorously validated or are not broadly usable. The questions are often vague and people interpret them differently.
This does not apply just to this study but correlational studies in nutritional research as a whole.
Nutritional research often and notoriously produces poorly replicable results that keep flipping back and forth and the enthusiastic coverage of these flips in popular media erodes public trust in the scientific method.
Until full expert consensus is formed, these lazy studies should not be reported outside scholarly journals.
The fact is, there are many sub-issues, as I said at the end of my comment. I didn't choose the one you like.
I agree that "conventional pesticides" are often "appallingly dangerous". It is a HUGE mistake, however, to restrict the investigations to conventional pesticides, in my opinion.
This article does some exploration, imperfectly in some areas: Yes, You Are Definitely Ingesting Pesticides. Here's Why It's Not A Problem. (Aug. 18, 2017)
Does eating organic food prevent cancer? This study doesn't even attempt to answer that question, but don't tell the headline writer that because they clearly didn't RTFA
I understood it just fine. Maybe don't treat complex subject matter that you don't understand as obfuscation.
Seriously, whenever I see "organic food" or "bio" in the news, it's always because big companies who deal with that market, paid to have some flawed study made.
There's literally no actually scientific proof that GMO food would cause cancer or is any bad for you. Nutrition wise it's essentially identical... Or better depending on what it was modified to be. Yet we keep seeing "studies" like this one come up in the news all the time.
There's no real benefit to eating organic, other than essentially being the same an an annoying vegan who feel the need to remind everyone that their lifechoice is so much better than yours.
Great!! now name me five inorganic foods that I should avoid.
The type of people who are obsessed with buying organic are probably wealthier and/or in better overall health then the type of people who don't care or can't afford to buy organic.
You mostly have it right, you just switched two things.
Regular food is protected from commercially relevant pests by *insecticides* targeted very specifically to those particular insects, such that a very small amount does the job. Organic produce is treated with toxins such as extract of Deadly Nightshade, which is a general toxin rather than than an insecticide. Because it's not targeted to specific insects, Deadly Nightshade and the other organic toxins are far more dangerous to humans and have to be used in far greater amounts in order to be effective.
That would make no sense because organic produce has three to four times as much pesticide. Rather than modern insecticide that targets the problem insects, organic produce uses general toxins such as that produced by Deadly Nightshade. Since the organic toxin isn't targeting the relevant insects specifically, much more of it has to be used to be effective, and it's far more dangerous to humans.
There have been previous studies of the same type. The problem is you are more likely to be eating organic, and know that you are eating organic, if you are really interested in your health. This is not because eating organic is actually healthier but because it is a common meme that it is.*
If you are interested in your health you are probably doing other things to make sure you are healthy.
So if you are worried about your health and are monitoring it there is probably a really good chance that you are going to be healthier than someone who is not.
*As someone whose parents still raise organic, range-raised cattle and have many relatives in organic farming and ranching. Organic is better for you and you should definitely be purchasing and eating only organic food.
https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12520486&cid=57184660 RAY MORRIS SUCKS HITLER'S COCK IN HELL BUT EVEN WORSE HE PUSHES DEBUNKED NAZI PROPAGANDA
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Note that the Slashdot story, "Does Eating Organic Food Help Prevent Cancer?" involves VERY sloppy thinking.
The 1st comment says, "Because they are less likely to eat gobs of added sugar. Nothing to do with the purity label of their food."
There are many possible reasons for a reduction in cancer. Another comment, +5, says, "Income level is one of the strongest determinants of health. Generally, regular organic food purchasers will be above average income, no?"
My point: Think about ALL the issues. Don't get involved with an issue that is so shallow in its logic. To me that is obvious, but what I have said has not been received well.
I have long been skeptical about the health effects of eating organic food, but I often buy it because it is healthier for the planet and healthier for the farm workers.
Already been posted but this "survey" really says absolutely nothing. The only thing that really matters is causality and a correlation doesn't mean there is any causality. It just confirms what common sense would tell anyone: health-conscious people eat more organic food. That doesn't mean organic food *causes* (or contributes) someone to be more healthy. Health-conscious people probably also eat less sugar, saturated fat, carbs, and calories. They probably have a more widely varied diet and consume more fresh vegetables. They probably exercise more often and take supplements. They probably smoke less, drink less alcohol, and get better sleep. They probably have higher income and live in less polluted, cleaner areas and are more educated about healthy lifestyles, monitor their health and have access to more and better healthcare. They even might just be more genetically pre-disposed to be healthier.
Show me a long-term, repeatable, double-blind study, with adequate controls. Then it will mean something.
I'm not exactly pro-organic etc. but roundup ready was recently linked to cancer and several other pesticides were also linked. Organic pesticides weren't. Also some organic farmers reduce the use of pesticides by using natural predators (e.g. spiders) which is something that doesn't exist in conventional farming.
Saying that Organics have pesticides is factually correct but also misleading.
Slashdot editors, all food is organic, but not all food is grown organically.
Does eating food help prevent cancer? Gee, that's a great question!
can afford organic food can afford better medical care.
Correlation != causation.
Perfect: a food supply chain with zero fraud or swapping out natural food with unnatural foods.*
The good: a not perfect supply chain where 25? 50, 39.2?% of the food labeled organic is really not organic.
But that still leaves a higher percent of food labeled organic that really is organic than food not labeled organic.
If future studies on this subject included vetting the authenticity of food labeled organic, it might.should show an even stronger effect if the effect is real.
Adjusting for confounding factors is necessary: are self described eaters of organic food also less likely to smoke or eat red meat, and more likely to eat more vegetables and less packaged food?
Confounding factors and the validity of food labeled organic affect the confidence of the conclusions. It is a mistaken leap of illogic to say such factors "disprove" the conclusion.
I like Michael Pollen's recommendations on what to eat:
1. Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.
skipping to #5 on his list: Don't buy your food where you buy your gas.
*Gary Larsen cartoon: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3e/a5/f5/3ea5f5a6b40403440a7a3b955fea46b1.jpg
They're likely to be far richer (required to spend that much on "organic" produce), and accordingly, better educated people who will be far more health conscious in general (non-smokers, moderate drinkers, etc.)
Spoiler alert:
Organic produce found in grocery stores does in fact have three to four times as much pesticide as standard produce.
If they are "trying to avoid using pesticides", they are failing horribly.
Organic has nothing whatever to do with monoculture or balance. Have a look at any actual commercial organic farming operation. It's just as monoculture as the one next door that uses more effective pest control. The happy farmer is just a commercial.
"Organic" means exactly one thing on a food label -
Uses dangerous toxins similar to those produced by certain plants and fungi, as opposed modern insecticide control methods that aren't toxic to mammals.
Here's another spoiler -
Hidden Valley Ranch is made in a factory too. There is no happy smiley place where kids love broccoli. That only exists in the commercial.
Spoiler three:
Beyonce isn't making your $85 lipstick. It comes from China, after being made in the same factory as the Walmart lipstick. Once again, Beyonce is just in the commercial.
Junk science. The wording of the conclusion makes it obvious that this "study" is just blatant organic boosterism. In effect, the conclusion is saying "eat organic to reduce cancer risk big time," something not at all supported by the study.
"...a significant reduction in the risk of cancer was observed among high consumers of organic food."
"reduction" is a loaded word that hints at causality.
It also talks about risk, which is incorrect. The study studied incidence of cancer which is not by itself the same thing. Risk reduction is not at all demonstrated since that would require proving causality.
"Significant" (not statistically significant; here, it's used to mean "big") in a conclusion is also a red-flag judgemental adjective that has no place in a real paper's conclusion.
A more responsible wording would be "high consumers of organic food were observed to have a lower incidence of cancer [insert confidence interval here]."
they are less likely to go to the Dr and get diagnosed.
People who take the time to eat organic probably take the time to eat better in general.
This is an idiotic study. Confirmation bias hard at work trimming data to fit the desired outcome.