Does Eating Organic Food Help Prevent Cancer? (usatoday.com) 151
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... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Because... (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:1)
http://non-gmoreport.com/articles/debunking-alternate-facts-pesticides-organic/ = 25 organic-approved synthetic pesticides vs. 900 conventional
Re: Because... (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 Wildli
"Organic" farming is insufficiently managed. (Score:5, Interesting)
See, for example, The Truth About Organic Farming [nutritionwonderland.com] (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?
There are many sub-issues, as I said in my comment (Score:4, Interesting)
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. [forbes.com] (Aug. 18, 2017)
The Slashdot story involves VERY sloppy thinking. (Score:3)
The 1st comment [slashdot.org] 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, [slashdot.org] 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. D
Re: (Score:3)
I understood it just fine. Maybe don't treat complex subject matter that you don't understand as obfuscation.
Because it's a lot more pesticide (Score:3)
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.
Re: Because it's a lot more pesticide (Score:1)
Organic tries to avoid using insecticides, by the order in which crops are grown, avoidance of monoculture and having your crops grown in a balanced ecosystem.
Tries and fails (Score:2)
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 d
Re: (Score:2)
"organic produce uses general toxins such as that produced by Deadly Nightshade. "
So? Potatoes are 'deadly nightshades' as well, beans are toxic if eaten raw just as lots of other vegetables, organic or not.
Re: Because... (Score:1)
Personally I feel like stuff like pesticides could have some to do with it but I also imagine some of those choosing organic may also chose less refined food all in all. They may also be wealthier or come from a culture which eat more greens affecting their life outcome and health.
Did they control for income? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Then why is life expectancy in the US going down compared to Europe?
Re: (Score:3)
"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.
Re: (Score:3)
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....
Re:Did they control for income? (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
reduction: the action or fact of making something smaller or less in amount, degree, or size.
"Making something smaller" implies causality.
Their article continues: "Although the study findings need to be confirmed, promoting organic food consumption in the general population could be a promising preventive strategy against cancer.".
What does "confirming" the "study findings" mean ? The study only found associations. Confirming the association doesn't lead to their conclusion.
So yes it would appear that scientists actually know what they are doing
They realize that there are many
Junk science with an axe to grind (Score:2)
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.
"Significa
Re: (Score:2)
Junk science. The wording of the conclusion
Sorry but horseshit. The wording of the conclusion is the only one reachable given the boundaries of the experiment.
"reduction" is a loaded word
Words aren't "loaded" words have written meanings. If you think the word is loaded then it's likely you are applying your own biases to it while reading. I suggest you don't do that while reading scientific publications.
It also talks about risk, which is incorrect. The study studied incidence of cancer which is not by itself the same thing.
Risk is a frequency and a consequence. The study studied the incidence over a given time period which was a reduction in frequency which by extension is a reduction in risk.
in a conclusion is also a red-flag judgemental adjective that has no place in a real paper's conclusion.
For
Re: (Score:2)
When all you know is that a study was published, yes, you do know that it controlled for income level.
Gaaaaaa, the stupid, it hurts so bad!!!!!!!!!?!!!!1!!!!!!!
Re:Because... (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Studies based on surveys, like this one, should be viewed with far more skepticism than studies based on controlled experiments.
Studies like this should not even appear in popular press. It should be published in an appropriate journal, and then used as a possible starting point for real research. When a real causal link is confirmed, then it's time to publish an article in the paper.
Re: (Score:2)
Implying chips, pop, and candy are not the most popular of all Organic goods.
In fact because of its steeper price, Organic products are more lily to be luxury goods like coffee, chocolates, etc, things largely sweet.
Re:Because... (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:1)
...and because every step of the distribution chain is completely honest and they never pull a switcheroo and substitute a cheaper product for a more expensive one.
in restaurant seafood, it's well known that testing reveals over 50% of seafood is mislabeled, just flat out lies. but organic carrot labelling, you can trust carrot labelling, riiiiiight?
don't be a sucker.
Re: (Score:2)
Disregarding the likelihood the human greed factor plays a role is ill-advised, and in real time, not the percentage bet. Yet, it doesn't discount the fact that advertised organic produce is still more likely to be better for you than the pesticide-ridden common fare produced by industrial farms.
P:
You are spreading disinformation FUD.
This knee jerk FUD proclamation is not a conversation ender, so much as a catchy way to undermine arguments contrary to one's settled belief set without scientific evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1 lb of organic produce will have more nutrients than 1 lb of the produce grown with fertilizers from the same seed stock. fertilizers do not enhance the growth of every cell in the plant; a lot of nutrients, the same total amount is produced by the plant, but it is now diluted into a larger volume of produce!
It isn't about labeling, it is about the dilution involved in using growth methods that maximize yield, vs traditional growth methods that maximize quality and intentionally accept lower total yield pe
Re: Because... (Score:2)
Those are claims you need to back up with sources of information.
You just stated a bunch of stuff that could be dried out and used as fertilizer without any form of research to back it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Those are claims you need to back up with sources of information.
No, no, no, no, those are claims you need to have sources of information about before you can analyze them.
You're just asking to me to convincingly propagandize you, but that isn't my goal, and isn't within my budget.
Re: (Score:1)
1 lb of organic produce will have more nutrients than 1 lb of the produce grown with fertilizers from the same seed stock.
It's even simpler than that: Organically grown food is devoid of the poisons used to grow non-organic food: chemical pesticides and genetic modification. All those poisons sprayed on non-organic crops are damaging to human bodies. And over time, those damages accumulate into an greatly increased risk of severe bodily malfunction.
This should be common sense, but (once again) the chemical industry has done a wonderfully successful job of brainwashing the masses into thinking that spraying our food with pois
Re: (Score:1)
Right, except backward (Score:2)
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 use
Re: (Score:3)
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 b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Chemical pesticides? What exactly do you think the "natural" pesticides used for organic farming are, happy thoughts?
Organic labeled food often have higher levels of known poisons than conventionally grown food. Those poisons are damaging to human bodies as you put it.
Most poisons doesn't accumulate.
Re: (Score:2)
That's mostly down to centuries of selective breeding rather than fertilizer use. You would see a much better comparison between heirloom varieties and modern commercial varieties. Though some foods have higher per-fruit yield and nutrition through selective breeding - e.g. avocados.
Re: (Score:2)
I did take the time to specify results from the same seed.
Instead of repeating pap you heard a bunch of times, (golly, I might have already heard it to!) you could always grow a vegetable garden and do a comparison with seeds from the same packet.
Even without organic vs conventional you can do the same sort of experiment with water; grow two tomato plants in your garden, give one the amount of water that conventional farmers apply, give the other one the least amount of water to maintain plant health. Easy
Re: Because... (Score:1)
A plant's size is principally governed by its ability to convert water, sunlight, and CO2. Micronutrient content comes from the soil.
It is credible (actually blindingly obvious) that the argiculture industry is happy to grow plants to large size and low micronutrient density. I suspect most industrial fertilizers only replace things the plant needs to grow big and fast, not the stuff that makes vegetables healthy. But I haven't read up on fertilizer composition. I recall the big use of them is something to
Re: (Score:2)
It's a difficult variable to keep independent of other variables. Ie, who eats a mostly organic diet but changes nothing else whatsoever in their lifestyle? Also, organic food is more expensive meaning those who buy it tend to be wealthier, and wealth has a strong correlation to better health.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they are less likely to eat gobs of added sugar. Nothing to do with the purity label of thier food.
And because this is the population that eats less and which exercises more. Were these factors controlled for?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd guess, unless it's a very strong effect, that it's because those who eat mainly organic food are also likely to do other things that they feel will act to make them healthier.
That said, one should never believe claims that some pesticide is safe "at measured levels", because you aren't exposed to just one. (One also shouldn't strongly disbelieve the claim. It's just that this is a claim where usually the only available evidence is manipulated by someone who stands to profit by selling the stuff.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Very likely they are also more health-aware and hence get more exercise, drink less alcohol and smoke less. It is quite possible the "purity label"-food has no effect at all.
Confounders? (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I know they tried to control for a lot of stuff
How do you know that?
Re: (Score:2)
It is impossible to control for confounders.
Sure, most studies try to do it by running the Cox multivariate analysis model, checking residuals, and then claim they are done. This is a standard feature of the statistical package. You can use it even if you don't fully understand the limitations.
The problem is that the Cox model assumes the confounders are: linear, independent, and time-invariant. But we know that for many health-related parameters, none of these three conditions hold. Dose/response usually f
Re:Confounders? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly, neither one of you have READ THE STUDY YET! https://jamanetwork.com/journa... [jamanetwork.com] 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Specifically c) they found when attempting to control for subgroups their study was too small and lacked statistical significance.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the demonstrated fact that if you eat organic = you are likely to have that outcome enough?
That hasn't been demonstrated, though. Maybe it you did a study, you could find that people living in zipcodes that start with "9" have better school grades. Based on that study, would you argue that we should renumber zip codes so that they all start with "9" ?
Re: (Score:1)
These studies are really hard to do.
No, they are not hard to do and that is the problem. Any idiot can collect data, mine it for a correlation and then publish it. Until journals start requiring evidence of causation and not just simple correlation scientifically useless studies like this will keep on being published and the media will keep on hyping them only to have them be contradicted or significantly altered by a later "result". This type of pseudo-science is why some people are starting to seriously question science which is bad for ev
Re: (Score:2)
Plus what food doesn't contain carbon? Avoiding food that doesn't contain carbon is pretty much something every human has ever tried to do.
Re: (Score:2)
They are basically impossible to do in this form. You can never control for all the factors that also have an influence. What you can find is that people eating organic food get less cancer. What you cannot find is whether the organic food causes that, unless you do a double-blind study, where one group gets real organic food and the other gets fake organic foods. Then you do that for 50 years or so and you get meaningful results if your groups are large enough, i.e. at least 100 people each. Good luck with
Re: (Score:2)
The interest in this article is really : if i switch to organic food will it improve my health?
The answer is maybe yes but it is only part of the lifestyle changes you would need to make such as regular exercise.
It's not a silver bullet but a better diet is part of the answer. Every one seems to be talking about pesticides, but organic will also include less use of preservatives that are used to increase shelf life.
Correlation != Causation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Correlation is not causation (Score:1)
Shame on you for that suggestive headline.
Right but... (Score:2)
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.
No (Score:2)
As the great Oswald Bates put it (Score:2)
Congregation does not erect copulation.
Major problems (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this study once out was almost immediately and publicly critiqued for its inconsistencies and poor methodological approach. And for good reasons.
Releasing it as is was a huge mistake. It gave room to a lot of people for instantly using counter-fallacies and trying to claim the opposite: that eating organic food doesn't make a difference, which obviously is an even worse fallacy than the initial claim. Not being able to rigorously prove a danger doesn't make it suddenly safe. I'm observing a current tre
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the sheer number of published studies today, if you use the results of a single study to live your life by, then you're an idiot, independent of your socioeconomic status.
Like getting your news from a single source, not factoring in the value of many studies is a mistake on the order of parroting the viewpoint of a single 24 hr news source.
Re: (Score:2)
Many studies are not necessarily better if they are all sloppy. The problem in nutrition is that most studies are just observational. The controlled trials are often done on animals, and/or short duration, and/or small, and/or poorly controlled. Ideally, you'd want to have good control, on large groups of humans, for most of their life. That's just not possible.
Re: (Score:1)
Indeed! Here's a review of this paper by Australia's well regarded nutritionist Rosemary Stanton, which independently has been assessed as presenting "a fair, balanced and accurate assessment of the research study.": https://theconversation.com/re... [theconversation.com]
Another way to look at the study findings is that if you are an uneducated older woman who smokes and has a low overall dietary quality, you may have a higher risk of Non Hodgkin's Lymphoma and breast cancer, particularly if you are obese!!
Re: (Score:2)
Instead it found that people that CLAIMED to eat more organic food
That is not a major problem. Sample sizes take care of pathological liars, as do the basis of studies that have no significant impact on the person being studied. I.e. you're not being judged. They aren't asking you to list your sexual fetishes in decreasing order of preference.
Second the availability of organic food is almost non-existent for the poor.
Completely irrelevant given the findings that were made: Correlation between consumption of organic food and cancer rate. They did not claim one causes the other.
I am willing to bet that people that claimed to eat organic food also had much better living conditions in general.
You don't need to bet. The study asked:
Higher organic food scores were
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed it could be.
Great thing about words like "could" they imply possibilities. It is possible, just not proven here. If you want to look at the actual conclusions of the study then read the sentences as they are written in english, and look for those that deal with the conclusions from the data rather than possible explainations.
You can start with the sentence before: "A higher frequency of organic food consumption was associated with a reduced risk of cancer" That is the only part that deals in absolute
It's a tough correlation to sustain (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
keeping your alcohol intake in the moderate zone
... jesus, what are we, savages?
What is Organic Food? (Score:1)
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?
Junk food (Score:2)
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
Does Eating Organic Food Help Prevent Cancer? (Score:1)
No.
Next question, please.
Re: (Score:1)
No. Next question, please.
Uh... actually Yes it does and TFS says that with no doubt. Why is the story title a question is more the question.
Re: (Score:2)
NEWSFLASH! Health-aware people ... (Score:2)
... are more healthy!
Next up:
Water wet!
Pope catholic!
News brought to you by CORI - Captain Obvious Research Institute
Diet Questionnaires are terrible (Score:3)
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.
Organic foods!! (Score:1)
Great!! now name me five inorganic foods that I should avoid.
Re: (Score:2)
Repeat of old study. (Score:2)
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
Organic food has other benefits, (Score:1)
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.
Causality (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree there are indications that taking supplements are in many cases worse than not taking any. IMHO probably because most people do not understand that higher doses aren't better.
Re: (Score:2)