Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Does Eating Organic Food Help Prevent Cancer? (usatoday.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the health-foods dept.

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.

25 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. Because... by illiac_1962 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because they are less likely to eat gobs of added sugar. Nothing to do with the purity label of thier food.

    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 ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      perhaps they have adjusted for 'people that eat large amounts of organic food generally being more health concious'.

      TFA quotes several scientists criticising the study because it did NOT correct for other factors. So this could just be "eating organic" being correlated with eating fewer calories and less sugar and processed food. It could also just be a correlation with being more affluent, which is already known to be correlated with better health.

      Studies based on surveys, like this one, should be viewed with far more skepticism than studies based on controlled experiments.

    3. 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
    4. Re:Because... by will_die · · Score: 2

      Organic does not mean pesticide, fungicide or any of those cides free. What it does mean is you have to use certain ones. Most of the organic pesticides are horrible to humans, compared to the synthetic pesticides.
      Now where you get less of them, is that pesticides are mainly used on younger plants, and organic plants tend to be harvest when they have aged more, compared to non-organic, so it is more likely that the pesticides have been incorporated into the plants, and made into something else, or have been washed off.

    5. Re: Because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Organic Farmer here. While itâs true that organic farming uses Pesticides and conventional farming uses âsmore preciseâ pesticides. The actual effects of the synthetic pesticide cocktail thatâ(TM)s needed to avoid pests growing resistant to the different agents is not part of the approval process which focuses on toxicity on mammals and to a much lesser degree on water and soil organisms. Itâs also pretty much faux that synthetic pesticides just dissolve and have no effect on Wildlife. The effects on water organisms near crops is really tremendous and usually ends up in high infertility rates of frogs and other amphibious animals. Mainly due to the selective nature of fungal pesticides. Also most conventional fungicides are systemically up by the plant itself in contrast to organic pesticides you simply wash off.

    6. Re:Because... by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

      Spraying in Organics is not very common because we do not have very many good chemicals to use. For example, the two most common herbicides in organics is first tilling by a wide margin and then fire. I have never heard or anyone using anything else.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  2. Confounders? by quantaman · · Score: 2

    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
    1. Re:Confounders? by alvinrod · · Score: 2
      They did look at a lot of other common factors. The full study is available to read. Here are some of the caveats:

      When considering different subgroups, the results herein were no longer statistically significant in younger adults, men, participants with only a high school diploma and with no family history of cancer, never smokers and current smokers, and participants with a high overall dietary quality, while the strongest association was observed among obese individuals (although the 95% CI was large). The absence of significant results in certain strata may be associated with limited statistical power. Regarding the latter association, previous occupational data have indicated a potential interaction between obesity and pesticide use on cancer risk. It can be hypothesized that obese individuals with metabolic disorders may be more sensitive to potential chemical disruptors, such as pesticides.

      Negative associations were observed herein between the risk of cancer and combining both low to medium diet quality and high frequency of organic food consumption. The association between cancer risk and combining both a high-quality diet and high frequency of organic food consumption approached statistical significance. One hypothesis may be that higher intake of pesticide-contaminated products may partly counterbalance the beneficial role of high-quality foods among individuals with a high dietary quality.

      Some limitations of our study should be noted. First, our analyses were based on volunteers who were likely particularly health-conscious individuals, thus limiting the generalizability of our findings. NutriNet-Santé participants are more often female, are well educated, and exhibit healthier behaviors compared with the French general population. These factors may may have led to a lower cancer incidence herein than the national estimates, as well as higher levels of organic food consumption in our sample.

      One of the things that stands out the most is that if you already have a high quality diet, the results are no longer statistically significant. It's not a bad study, but of course the reporting on it jumps to conclusions that might not be true.

    2. Re:Confounders? by quantaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly, neither one of you have READ THE STUDY YET! https://jamanetwork.com/journa... Why would you ALREADY have pre-formed conclusions about it? Exactly.

      Actually I did read the study, though I don't really have the training (or time) to fully understand everything they did I understood enough to validate that.
      a) They did a good job trying to control for other variables.
      b) They couldn't control for everything because it's really tough to do.

      The point isn't that their research is useless, a 25-ish% drop in cancer is really significant. The point is that this study alone doesn't provide the answers that people want. They found a big correlation between organic food consumption and lower cancer rates, now future studies can start narrowing in on that. Was it the organic food and something in the non-organic pesticides? Was it the types of food that organic food eaters eat? Was it another lifestyle choice that correlates with organic food consumption.

      --
      I stole this Sig
  3. Correlation != Causation by overlook77 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Major problems by gurps_npc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Major problems by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      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

      And yet, in their conclusion they write: "promoting organic food consumption in the general population could be a promising preventive strategy against cancer"

      They could also have written instead: "promoting organic food consumption in the general population could be a promising way to increase monthly income per household unit"

      These are both associations they have found.

  5. It's a tough correlation to sustain by HangingChad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:It's a tough correlation to sustain by rmdingler · · Score: 2
      Your post was salient, poignant, and relatable, right up until

      keeping your alcohol intake in the moderate zone

      ... jesus, what are we, savages?

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

  6. Did they control for income? by presidenteloco · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?
    1. 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.

    2. Re:Did they control for income? by nospam007 · · Score: 2

      "Then why is life expectancy in the US going down compared to Europe?"

      It's called 'health insurance for everybody.'
      You have to actually pay taxes for things like that.

    3. Re:Did they control for income? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      Then why is life expectancy in the US going down compared to Europe?

      Hmm, according to the results of a quickie Google, it looks like alcohol abuse deaths are on the rise, ditto drug (prescription and otherwise) abuse deaths. And suicide seems to be on the rise as well....

      So, more people are dying young, bringing the average down....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  7. "Organic" farming is insufficiently managed. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  8. Diet Questionnaires are terrible by jma05 · · Score: 2

    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.

  9. There are many sub-issues, as I said in my comment by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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)

  10. Re:There are many sub-issues, as I said in my comm by omnichad · · Score: 2

    I understood it just fine. Maybe don't treat complex subject matter that you don't understand as obfuscation.

  11. Because it's a lot more pesticide by raymorris · · Score: 2

    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.

  12. The Slashdot story involves VERY sloppy thinking. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2

    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.