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.

3 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Because... by wisnoskij · · Score: 3, Informative

    No. It is 2-3 years since last prohibited substance use for a field to be certified organic. So they are very much different fields, and are not ever sprayed with roundup.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  2. Re: Because... by poity · · Score: 4, Informative

    Organic != Pesticide free

    Plenty of pesticides are used in organic farming, just not synthetic ones designed, for example, to target specific organisms or to break down quickly before reaching consumers.

    As another comment pointed out, wealth is associated with both organic food consumption and better health. As well those who make the conscious decision to buy higher priced organic food have demonstrated a greater awareness of personal health choices (however misguided they may be on the subject of organics and pesticides) and a greater willingness to make an effort into improving their lifestyles, perhaps some stumbling into some that are actually effective.

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  3. Re:Did they control for income? by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Informative

    Did they control for

    Let me stop you there. They didn't need to control anything. They did a study and made a conclusion based on the study. The finding was: "In a population-based cohort study of 68946 French adults, a significant reduction in the risk of cancer was observed among high consumers of organic food."

    That's it. They don't need to control for any other factors to reach this claim. They make no causal claim between the food and the cancer. They do give a couple of possible explanations along with the caveat that when correcting for subgroups they lack statistical significance.

    But since you asked:

    Higher organic food scores were positively associated with female sex, high occupational status or monthly income per household unit, postsecondary graduate educational level, physical activity, and former smoking status (Table 1). Higher organic food scores were also associated with a higher mPNNS-GS. Dietary characteristics by organic food score quartiles are summarized in eTable 7 in the Supplement. Higher organic food scores were associated with a healthier diet rich in fiber, vegetable proteins, and micronutrients. Higher organic food scores were also associated with higher intake of fruits, vegetables, nuts, and legumes and with lower intake of processed meat, other meat, poultry, and milk.

    So yes it would appear that scientists actually know what they are doing, just the people discussing and reporting on science don't.