The problem is that "organic" is a substitution model - one set of chemicals and practices for another set of chemicals and practices. And to make matters worse "organic" has been co-opted by the USDA who sets all the rules. I know many small farmers who refuse to become certified because USDA organic is not good enough. And what is "good enough" would not pass as USDA organic. "USDA organic" is not the same as the original "organic" of Rodale and Eliot Coleman and everything pre-WWII. USDA organic is not the end - it's the beginning. But all this is impossible for the average consumer to follow. Learning how food grows and is produced is a lot of hard work. Of course you should eat USDA organic over conventional (which is not even food - I believe). The food you grow in your garden or back yard, is miles better than USDA organic.
4
I myself believe the point made by most scientists who in essence state ”There’s no convincing evidence that these foods are different in nutritional composition”. Indeed, it is not possible to distinguish an organic apple, or berry from ones produced conventionally unless one goes to the molecular level.
If certain consumers, such as those I see at my stylish Upper West Side Whole Foods, who can afford to pay the substantial premium price that organic foods typically carry, wish to indulge themselves in the feel good act of buying only organic foods, fine by me.
However what does upset me is when I see an obviously poor mother at the supermarket choosing such foods because she has been brainwashed into believing that doing otherwise will harm her child. For her the difference in price is significant & may mean that she buys fewer vegetables & fruits or other perfectly healthy, safe food for her family. That to me is a cruel tragedy.
3
Sadly the author of this article most likely didn't read the original article as noted by the comment provided by Ken Peterson (who apparently did read the original article). In addition, the author did not inform her readers that IRAC is the only agency that considers glyphosate a probable carcinogen. Agencies having reached the opposite finding include:
EPA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIRFA) Report (2016):
New Zealand’s Environmental Protection Authority (2016):
German Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to the European Chemicals Agency (2016):
United Nations/World Health Organization (2016): “
EPA’s Cancer Assessment Review Committee (2015):
European Food Safety Authority (2015):
Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency (2015):
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (2013):
https://campaignforaccuracyinpublichealthresearch.com/glyphosate/case-study/
Also, based on NIH data, the incident rate for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in 2015 was the same as the rate in 1994 even though the use of glyphosate increased from 11 million pounds in 1987 to nearly 300 million pounds in 2015.
https://www.newsweek.com/glyphosate-now-most-used-agricultural-chemical-ever-422419. Obviously this HUGE increase in use by farmers did not lead to an epidemic of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
3
An apple a day
An organic apple !!!
Whole Foods has the best in the USA
1
I wonder if this article's author has read this study or relied only on the study author's summary? In one assessment of this study the author states that the study authors admitted:
"Combining both a high-quality diet and a high frequency of organic food consumption did not seem to be associated with a reduced risk of overall cancer compared with a low-quality diet and a low frequency of organic food consumption. Negative associations were found between the risk of cancer and combining both a low- to medium-quality diet and a high frequency of organic food consumption...." The NYT article states that adjustments were made for major life style variables, but the array of significant variables in such studies are beyond reasonable control. The study authors admit that "...our analyses were based on volunteers who were likely particularly health-conscious individuals, thus limiting the generalizability of our findings."
With such results it's impossible to make a confident interpretation. The author also uses statistics in a commonly misleading way when she states that this study showed 86 percent fewer non-Hodgkin's lymphomas without including the fact that the U.S. life-long non-Hodgkin's lymphoma risk is 2.1 percent (Wikipedia).
This NYT author needs to take the time to at least read rebuttal arguments if not the study itself before drawing such apparently positive conclusions.
14
We are what we eat....
3
Could we all please refrain from criticizing these studies? Correlation v Causation, adequate control, blah, blah. I would bet the majority of folks reading and commenting on these studies are aware of those problems. We’re really impressed, that you are too!
1
@Samantha Kelly
I was mainly criticizing the NYT writer's interpretation, not the study, which seems to be an ok study given the great difficulties of doing such a nutrition study, and fairly presented by the authors. "I would bet the majority of folks reading and commenting on these studies are aware of those problems...." Well this NYT writer doesn't seem to be aware of these problems! When a newspaper writer appears to misinterpret a study on a major issue I think it's a good idea to take note and comment; sorry you don't agree.
9
The most important reason that I eat organic has nothing to do with fear of cancer, but taste. Organic foods taste better. I have mostly grown my own vegetables and grew up on a farm that was not organic, but not chemically saturated. I take a lot of road trips and I can smell chemicals as I travel across countries...Australia, America, Russia, Canada, but rarely smell these chemicals in Europe. And the food there tastes better.
6
@thewriterstuff
Simply fresher and locally grown.
An old farmer told me years ago that you can’t have good looking produce without pesticides.
Epidemiologists look for the differece between two groups. There are many differences between French food and life and attitudes and American. It not just a glass of red wine
PS, everythingis a chemical. Organic is the class of chemicals originally thought to be restricted to living things.
2
How is a study of French women supposed to relate to the rest of us. Ever since the first “French Paradox” report all we have heard is how they eat differently than Americans.
2
Uh- Because French women are humans, too?
4
I've always said, pay now or pay later.
5
Technically, organic foods are planted by natural materials. We eat it to avoid absorbing chemical elements. By all mean, that’s an excellent choice for human being.
2
I developed severe asthma at age 9. The sudden attack was an anaphylactic reaction to pesticides in a swampy, large area on the Jersey Shore. It took three emergency room injections of epinephrine to save me.
For too many years, I have suffered from anaphylactic reactions to environmental pesticides in the air. Horrifyingly, I ate until recently "Cheerios" nearly every morning. Upon throwing the last nearly full box in the trash (after the glyphosate news) my morning asthma attack STOPPED. I despise the truth; Cheerios is certainly responsible for years & years of asthma attacks that caused havoc to my immune system.
For decades, top medical centers (Mayo Clinic, Mass General, NYP, etc.) would shock me with their suspicions that I had Multiple Myeloms, non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, or Hopkins Lymphoma. I endured two bone marrow biopsies, countless CT scans, lab tests, MRI scans, and X-rays.
What recently emerged is this sorry fact: my immunoglobulins & eosinophils react violently to pesticides & herbicides. The lifelong asthma attacks have decimated my lungs & immune system.
Of note, is that my diet is now completely organic. Of greater note, is that my organic diet is six decades too late. If I leave this earth due to anything other than Multiple Myeloma, Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma or Hopkins Lymphoma, I will be stunned.
12
Try going completely grain-free and sugar-free for 30 days and note further improvement. And you need a probiotic and fiber (28 g/d) which you’ll get from diverse vegetables.
I’ve been buying and consuming organically grown food for close to 50 years when it was available, and I was lucky to be able to access it fairly easily in SF. I’ve followed this practice even when I had very little money. I don’t know if it’s helped me stay healthy or not, it just made sense. Organic farmers tend to grow a wider variety of fruits and vegetables and that’s one reason they’re said to taste better—they aren’t products of UC Davis’s shelf-life obsession. So, I’m healthy, I’m 73. I think the organic diet has something to do with it, but I can’t know for sure.
10
I can’t shake the feeling that the wording / emphasis on this is backwards.
Seems like the real take-home is: eating (non-organic) conventionally produced foods is associated with a higher cancer risk
7
This is simply a correlation and does not imply causation. Since this wasn't a controlled study, the bigger factor is likely that people who ate more organic were likely more health conscious and likely had other healthy habits.
11
You're right that this is a correlation study and we cannot infer causation. However a randomized control trial is likely unfeasible for this type of study question. With prospective cohort studies such as this one, confounding factors have to be carefully accounted for and included in adjusted analyses. While it is impossible to account for all confounding variables, this study does adjust for many of them (socioeconomic status, lifestyle habits (smoking, alcohol intake), family history of cancer, fiber intake, red meat intake, etc.)
6
@Rich
Correlation does not equal causation, but it absolutely does imply it, just as smoke implies fire.
1
Correlation isn't causation.
4
@Kate
Deep and original. I think that was in the article too...
In other news water is wet, you heard that here first though!
This will all become moot as we ingest more and more micro plastics. Our tummies and brains are becoming wrapped in plastic.
16
So many people are laboring under the false belief that organic = no chemicals (a ridiculous thing to even say) or no pesticides.
It simply means that the pesticides (are supposed to) come from organic sources. I am confused on how say copper sulfate is an approved "organic pesticide" when it is an inorganic molecule. Is it because you can find copper in ore and sulfur used to make sulfuric acid also in ores?
Organic food is not as benign as people seem to think it is and while you may still be better off eating organic, that doesn't detract from the confusing way we designate what organic even means.
10
I’ve read quite a few of these comments, and so far haven’t seen anyone commenting on the better TASTE of many foods grown organically. We find this quite noticeable especially in bananas.
12
@Liz C
I wish this were the case for me. I'm not saying you're mistaken but I've never noticed any difference in the appearance, texture, or taste of organic produce vs regular. I have noticed a definite improvement in taste when I had the opportunity to go right to the farm and pick the fruit myself.
5
Personally, I think it depends on the type of food. Most obvious differences that Ive noticed are between organic and non organic berries- especially strawberries-, and tomatoes. Also: meats. The non-organic of anything seem to always be bigger in size but far blander.
3
Get real. Organic food doesn’t taste a bit different than non-organic. It is all in your mind.
2
Shop local. Know your farmer. Grow your own food. The word “Organic” has been co opted by the government and isn’t always what it seems.
7
The problem with the word organic is mostly a US problem, it’s not an issue in Europe.
4
Well, I eat organic. And I'm still alive and in my 70s. It was nip-n-tuck back then, though. I still can't get enough whole-milk chocolate and vanilla ice cream and candy bars. An' I haven't had a pimple since I was
...well I'll have to think about that one.
I was forced to eat my greens and veggies by my wife. It was either that or eat off dirty plates. It didn't take long for me to become suspicious of that greenish slime and ever since I've pitched in like a trooper. There! Go ahead and pinch my pink cheeks!
Now, if I could just get close enough to Duh Donald and pinch HIS cheeks! But since it's so hard to distinguish anything that resembles cheeks on that Presidently-protected body of his, I'm gonna wash THIS dish in HIS name!...
On second thought, I'm gonna note the time and see how long HIS takes to rot and pray that it takes a long, a VERY long, smelly time at least so that the cloud of it can envelope those audiences that cheer him on when he takes about how much he loves Amerika when he stands behind the podium giving one and all time to come to our senses.
2
"people who live a more organic lifestyle have lower cancer rates" is what it should read.
Can you just wash your vegetables or peel them? I heard that soaking your vegetables in water with baking soda removes most of the chemicals
2
Not true with Roundup on oats and Cheerios, according to testing by Environmental Working Group (ewg.org). They’ve found residues on most samples tested.
5
As the saying goes: "You are what you eat."
6
What pesticides and other toxins are causing:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180324103152.htm
6
From reading a few of these comments, it's clear that many didn't read the entire article. The fifth from the last paragraph talks about how the study adjusted for other factors in the participants' lives, such as whether they smoked. The reporter should have put that information up higher. The question this article doesn't ask and answer—and it's a question beyond its scope—is, would it be possible produce food organically on a scale large enough to feed everyone? (Just 5 percent of the food sold in stores is organic, the article says.) Interestingly, the article quotes a flak from a pesticide lobbying group saying that eating "conventionally grown produce" is good for you, as if using pesticides and fertilizers has been the way food was raised for most of human history.
9
@Bridgman -
This study controlled for a few standard things, like smoking, but didn't—and couldn't possibly—control for all of the hundred subtle things that affect cancer risk.
Remember: "Just 5 percent of the food sold in stores is organic, the article says," so you are talking about probably the most health-conscious and disciplined 5% of the whole population. How many organic-food-eaters smoke? C'mon. These people are different in hundreds of health-impacting ways. And according to other epidemiological studies, the net sum of those affects can be huge. See, for example, PMID 16790458 for the effects of just medication adherence. Or Google "healthy user bias."
Any hard-outcome study on organic food consumption must be randomized. This study deserves no weight. It was irresponsible of the reporter to publish on it.
3
I'm not sure about cancer risk, but it will lower your bank balance.
7
I thank my wife for buying only organic.
For sure, my body feels a lot better since we got together and she cooks only organic food. I also dropped 15 lbs, my love handles and belly gut are gone.
Funny seeing the comments from Liberals who deny a scientific study. Guess facts do not sway them.
Try organic, hopefully you body feels better too.
2
huh? "liberals who deny" these data? that's a huge assumption on your part. I'm liberal and I eat mostly organic, for health and taste. I read the article with interest.
14
@AutumLeaff
"Funny seeing the comments from Liberals who deny a scientific study."
Ij you've mistaken conservatives for liberals. An odd mistake to be sure, given it is conservatives who are gleefully polluting away and stripping away any semblance of earth stewardship.
Whether or not organic food is better for the eater, it is certainly better for the farm worker and his/her children and the environment.
18
I’m reminded of an interview with an orange grower in Florida on PBS a couple of weeks ago: about pesticides and the dangers posed to everyone by these chemicals but most especially those who live and work near the groves. The owner of this massive orange grove said his business would collapse without pesticides. So he continues to use them even as he knows they are harming his employees, those who live nearby, and even the consumers of his oranges. Tag line: this orange grower buys organic for his family!
14
Do people who eat organically tend to smoke less? Exercise more?
There may be a little more to this than just food.
4
@Pete
"Do people who eat organically tend to smoke less? Exercise more?
"There may be a little more to this than just food."
Good question.
The answer is "yes".
That's because when one's life-partner swiftly deserts the other, the deserted only later discovers that said partner took all the electronics along after slamming the door.
One must have at least SOMETHING to do (and there are so many appealing health books out there now to look forward to!).
:)
1
people who eat organic tend to have higher income and more discriminating on food choices. and more healthy.
5
I think I will err on the side of caution. I am not a scientist, just a mom.
1
According to the UN, worldwide pesticide use has had "catastrophic impacts" on human health and the environment. The UN reported on 01/24/2018, that an average of 200,000 people die each year from toxic exposure to pesticides. That's why I eat organic.
6
As a doctor and scientist, I know how hard it is to perform studies and that coming to a solid answer can take many years. So in our family, regardless of the current studies, we choose to eat organic as much as possible and we are fortunate to be able to afford it. As my 80 yr. old mother says, what goes into your body may not come out easily. She'd rather spend her money on good food than fancy clothes.
A good place to start might be to avoid the Dirty Dozen if one cannot buy everything organic:
https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/dirty-dozen.php
Also, it's always shocking to me that certain chemicals and fertilizers invented and produced in Europe aren't actually allowed to be used there because European governments will not allow them due to potential safety/ toxicity issues yet these companies continue to prosper because who buys these products? America.
26
The study contradicts the British study on 600.000 women about the risk of breast cancer while the higher incidence of non-Hodgkins lymphoma in nonorganic consumers was according to the British one. Given the fact that the paper reveals no difference in the incidence of any other type of cancer, what we can say is that the evidence, today limited, shows that eating organic could diminish the risk of having non-Hodgkin lymphoma (4% of total's cancer in America). Having into account the great material investment and environmental consequences that organic foot has, the normal, nonorganic food, seems to be yet the best way we have to eat until the evidence contradicted it. The risk of having non-Hodgkin lymphoma, if were true, is a rational consequence to pay back for a massive's population feeding, until a new method, and new products, are developed. Organic is the solution only to few people, but nonsustainable massively. I will, in consequence, continue to avoid eat organic.
2
It is very difficult to find a sufficiently large and good control group: people who are as equally interested in what they eat as people who eat a lot of organic foods, and are equally rich, because organics are rarely the cheapest choice in any store, but who have no interest in organics. These people are as rare as hen’s teeth and yet they are the only adequate control group for measuring the relative effects of organic foods.
2
My best friend was a lifelong vegetarian, bordering on vegan (she ate a little cheese and occasionally an egg). She only shopped at organic supermarkets (this was before we ever had Whole Foods, so small local organic stores).
She was also a gym rat and fitness enthusiast and jogger.
She died in 2003, at the age of 51 -- from cancer. She left behind a 6 year old daughter.
I always ate omnivorously -- anything -- good food, home cooking -- lots of variety -- fruits, veggies, but also fish and meat and eggs.
I am not athletic, though I enjoy walking, swimming, gardening. Have not seen the inside of a gym since high school.
And I'm still here.
7
I really believe that if each of us took some time to educate ourselves as to what is being used on the plants and soil and fed to the farm animals,we would all come to the same conclusion...organic has to be a better way to go.You are what you eat.And the argument that organic is too expensive isn't totally true.Yes,it is more expensive.But if you cut out of your diet "the junk"...then real,good food becomes more affordable.An aside here...I've noticed a number of health studies on the side of the agrochemical business...and they seem to have a prominent Harvard scientist on their side.I wonder what goes on at Harvard?? In conclusion...none of this is rocket science,it's plain common sense which we seem to be out of touch with these days.
16
I'm suspicious of the "adjustments" made by the researchers; I would expect that people who eat "organic" are way more health conscious about everything so they are bound to have fewer cancers. For instance, people who eat organic probably live in safer environments with less pollutants and chemicals in and near their homes. I seriously doubt that the study could "adjust" sufficiently to tease out eating organically as the only variable among the 70,000 adults. I think this is a case of researchers invested in a study who are confusing correlation with causation.
16
As Aaron Carrol wrote in the NYTimes last month about voluntary employer health plans (at www.nytimes.com/2018/08/06/upshot/employer-wellness-programs-randomized-..., Observational studies such as this—where the study’s variable is coincident with health-conscientiousness—will likely lead you to precisely the wrong conclusion. That is likely the case here.
Organic foods cost considerably more than regular, and those willing and able to pay to purchase them are likely to be considerably more health-conscious than those who do not. Such health-conscientiousness manifests itself in a hundred other meaningful ways that causally influence cancer risk that cannot be “controlled for” in the Cox proportional hazards models used, so their co-linear effects get mis-attributed to the organic variable. And the effect of these health-conscientiousness and discipline confounders can be huge. See PMID 16790458 in particular, but also PMID 21203857, 19349320 , and https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/center-for-drug-sa....
Consequently, this study deserves zero weight.
(What might convince is a trial of retirement homes or other institutions randomized to long-term organic or non-organic food consumption. And I have to admit that the non-Hodgkins lymphoma data in this dataset look pretty compelling, but those make up only about 3% of U.S. cancer deaths…).
6
From the study: "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."
Sorry, I am not convinced yet that an organic diet reduces cancer risk. I AM convinced, however, that higher SES, quitting smoking and access to healthful food is protective.
12
There is another element to this, that people are dancing around, and that maybe it isn't that organic produce and milk and meat are better for you per se, but that the way we allow non organic production is toxic, and there is a big difference between the 2. The real problem, one that is not likely to be addressed any time soon thanks to the farm and agribusiness lobby and how little farmers care about the health of those they supposedly grow crops for, is that we allow in conventional farming practices that have never been vetted. One of the biggest is with the use of Glysophate and other herbicides on crops, especially grains (soy is the worst, but corn and wheat are grown that way). They genetically modified the crops to not be affected by this stuff, then they routinely dump a lot of it on the crops..and unlike insecticides, the plant absorbs this and it is passed on to the people eating it (cheerios, anyone?). And get this, there are standards in terms of how much exposure via breathing it in is, but there is no level determined for eating it. More importantly, Glysophate is fat soluble and doesn't pass out of the body, like PCB's it accumulates..and it is most definitely a carcinogen, that is not in doubt. However, I don't expect that to happen, the farm industry owns the government, and if people get cancer, well, too bad, business is business.
20
I feel like I'm missing something--hasn't Roundup been repeatedly found to be a carcinogen? That we didn't do more longitudinal studies of the affects of pesticides on humans and the environment this more before using them on such a large scale seems like the real question, and is a testament to the power behind the companies that produce these chemicals. Why does it have to be a fringe belief to err on the side of caution when ingesting foods sprayed with powerful and often toxic chemical compounds, or question the environmental impact of those practices?
18
Organic costs more, looks worse, but tastes better, a lot. I throw less away, pays for the difference.
7
In an epidemiologic study, an effect size of 25% is not at all convincing, as even heroic attempts at limiting undetected biases still would lead this to be an interesting, but by no means definitive finding. For instance, how could one assure that the other lifestyle habits of those who report only eating organic food (and it is self-reported only) don't impact cancer risk, irrespective of the quality of their food intake? The high organic group was wealthier, exercised more, quit smoking less. It's as likely this effect was due to these factors than the food quality. This, coupled with the well-done study in the UK that found the no to opposite associations (cited in this article), would suggest this is not meaningful effect of organic food as replication in different studies, populations and repeated analyses matters in science. But, to be clear, I am not against eating organic food, but I am for good science.
6
The Ames test proved that we suffer carcinogenesis from the cumulative assault of toxins, pesticides, pollutants, solvents, 2nd hand smoke, potent hormone additives, etc. Measuring any single carcinogen is not a real life test.
Reducing as much and as many exposures as possible is just common sense.
6
All this may be very true. Unfortunately, most organic products are so highly priced that We can’t afford them.
3
@Mary Patricia Rouille Sanchez
Food prices are actually at a historical low. Yes, organic costs more, but real food should cost real money.
13
@Mary Patricia Rouille Sanchez
I used to feel that way... but now I look a at it as “pay now, or pay later”
1
As many of the commenters have already pointed out, it is notoriously difficult to prove (or disprove) the health benefits of an "organic" diet. We need to widen our view of what healthy is.
Growing food using time-tested organic methods is better for the Earth. This is not controversial. Organic agriculture improves the health of the soil, does not poison water, and does not pollute the air. Organic agriculture is less dependent on fossil fuels than is conventional agriculture. And on and on. If we peel back the skin of conventional agriculture we find a web of wishful thinking, arrogance, and big money - and disease.
If our environment is unhealthy, none of us will be healthy, no matter what we eat.
21
It seems like real statistical malpractice to run an uncontrolled study, find a correlation, and then not just imply causation (organic food reduces cancer risk), but the specific mechanism behind it (lower pesticide exposure). Even if you believe in the causation, there could be lots of reasons it exists.
7
@Jon "She [the study's lead author]noted the study does not prove an organic diet causes a reduction in cancers, but strongly suggests “that an organic-based diet could contribute to reducing cancer risk."
2
@Jon agree. I am astounded & disappointed that a study this large & expensive has such a glaring design flaw. This looks very much like a case of selection bias. How about doing it again but with just vegetarians (or vegans) in both arms (org vs conv) of the study? Decades after making the claim of health benefits why are data so elusive to demonstrate efficacy with clarity?
1
From the study "Our findings revealed a negative association between high organic food scores and postmenopausal breast cancer, NHL, and all lymphomas. No associations were observed with other cancer sites"...
"First, our analyses were based on volunteers who were likely particularly health-conscious individuals, thus limiting the generalizability of our findings."...
"Third, our follow-up time was short, which may have limited the causal inference, as well as the statistical power for specific sites, such as colorectal cancer."
I hope there will be a follow up study with more of the population over a longer time. The study had an average age of 44 and only a 5 year follow up. Since most cancers have higher rates in populations older than 50, this is a significant draw back of this study in my opinion.
6
@Mike
Yes, particularly that first one ("First, our analyses were based on volunteers who were likely particularly health-conscious individuals, thus limiting the generalizability of our findings.") unfortunately invalidates the entire study.
Organic eaters are probably the most health-conscious subgroup in the whole population, so such a study will have horrible selection bias, no matter how much you try to control for.
You need some kind of randomized study in a case like this.
1
Dietary studies are difficult in numerous ways and for numerous reasons. Scientific literature is full of low quality studies and observational studies such as this are seldom conclusive. This study however did not appear to suffer from conflicts of interest so common in nutrition research.
To the authors’ credit, they didn’t succumb to the temptation to sensationalize their findings using relative risk measures. The absolute risk reduction of 0.6% over almost 5 years was reported accurately. News such as the current article do succumb to the more sensational reporting.
So the study is far from conclusive. Yet I find it intriguing, especially when viewed in light of the recent American Academy of Pediatrics statement on food additives (which focuses more on plastic enhancers). Large nutrition and diet studies done well are very expensive. But it is past time to undertake them and carefully, cautiously study the effects of what we are ingesting. In the wake of the AAP report, I also found there to be a consensus among experts that endocrine disrupters in our food are responsible for declining sperm counts.
This really is urgent. Subsequent to better science in these areas, we will have to figure out how to feed the world without using harmful agents.
6
There seems to be a lot of confusion about the study--what was found and what was controlled for. A couple of quotes from the original paper should clear things up.
"In this large cohort of French adults, we observed that a higher organic food score, reflecting a higher frequency of organic food consumption, was associated with a decreased risk of developing NHL [Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma] and postmenopausal breast cancer, while no association was detected for other types of cancer. "
"Model is adjusted for age (time scale) and sex, month of inclusion, occupational status, educational level, marital status, monthly income per household unit, physical activity, smoking status, alcohol intake, family history of cancer, body mass index, height, energy intake, mPNNS-GS, fiber intake, processed meat intake and red meat intake, and (for women) parity, postmenopausal status, use of hormonal treatment for menopause, and use of oral contraception."
4
@Humble-Opinion
The problem isn't that they adjusted on it, it is that they did not give the weights of the adjustment. Studies vary on how much diet influences cancer risk. If they underestimated the importance of diet, then their model could be wrong.
@Humble-Opinion
The problem isn't that they adjusted on it, it is that they did not give the weights of the adjustment. Studies vary on how much diet influences cancer risk. If they underestimated the importance of diet, then their model could be wrong.
Another issue is the lack of validation, meaning they relied entirely on self-report, which can be inaccurate. For example, it is possible that inorganic users overestimate their positive dietary choices or weekly exercise, thus underestimating the importance of these factors when adjusting between subgroups.
1
@Humble-Opinion
The problem isn't that they adjusted on it, it is that they did not give the weights of the adjustment. Studies vary on how much diet influences cancer risk. If they underestimated the importance of diet, then their model could be wrong.
Another issue is the lack of validation, meaning they relied entirely on self-report, which can be inaccurate. For example, it is possible that inorganic users overestimate their positive dietary choices or weekly exercise, thus underestimating the importance of these factors when comparing subgroups. In other words, the "otherwise healthy" inorganic eaters are in the wrong subgroup. JAMA has already published their counterargument, self report, especially in regards to diet and organic consumption, can be unreliable.
1
Did this study control for other exposure that causes cancer, most commonly smoking and alcohol? Also, did it control for toxin exposure in the work place: those who select organic may be less likely to work in factory occupations exposing them to carcinogens.
1
@Markham Kirsten, MD
"Since people who eat organic food tend to be health-conscious and may benefit from other healthful behaviors, and also tend to have higher incomes and more years of education than those who don’t eat organic, the researchers made adjustments to account for differences in these characteristics, as well as such factors as physical activity, smoking, use of alcohol, a family history of cancer and weight."
3
@Allisen
You can never make adjustments to account for differences like physical activity, smoking, alcohol, family history, or weight.
You have to depend on what people report. How many years ago did I smoke cigarettes? How long did I smoke? My doctors' EPIC computer system is programmed to ask me that question every visit. I don't remember. I just give physician assistant a guess.
As Marion Nestle has pointed out in the NYT, for some nutrition studies, the numbers don't add up. The food they report eating isn't enough to match their weight.
The only way to get accurate answers is with randomized, controlled trials. They're expensive, but food is a trillion-dollar-a-year industry.
1
According to the study, it controls for smoking, alcohol, and many other factors.
2
The fact that organic food decreases the chances of getting cancer could be true, but this study certainly does not prove the point. The study enrolled particularly health-conscious individuals, whose lower cancer incidence may be due to other factors, such as healthier diet composition (eg, more fruits and vegetables), more exercise, less smoke/sun exposure etc etc etc. Study authors also admit that their findings are in conflict with those of a much larger study in the UK, which concluded that organic food consumption was not inversely correlated with cancer risk. So the jury is still out.
5
Do you really think it wise to continue eating pesticided and herbicided food until you're convinced? Why not err on the side of caution? The more people eat organic, the more noxious chemicals come out of the environment and the cheaper organic food becomes. It's a win-win.
4
I do my best to buy organic foods as much as I can. While this study is interesting and merits more, there are many confounding variables that call the causation into question.
Are people who eat organic more health conscious and more likely to eat well? How do socioeconomic factors play out? Etc.
2
After living in Europe, a major difference is that they give the benefit of doubt to the consumer. If there’s doubt whether or not something is safe, the onus is on the manufacturer to prove that it’s safe. Here it’s the other way around. The benefit of doubt goes to the business until it’s absolutely proven that something is dangerous.
40
@Lepowski Totally agree. I wrote a similar comment about how outside of the US, the standard used is whether it might be dangerous rather than do we have inconvertible truth it is dangerous.
2
This is an incredibly important study. The results will benefit the organic food industry. I imagine that it could translate to millions if not billions of dollars for them.
The commenters dismissing this research as junk science should go to the trouble of reading the original study that is available for free from JAMA.
Yes, the study is correlational, but that's all we got for now. A sincere effort was made to control for confounding variables. Also, the results are consistent with previous research suggesting that certain cancers are associated with pesticides (breast cancer and NHL) but not others. The study thus has both convergent validity and divergent validity.
4
@Humble-Opinion
I heard a panel discussion by epidemiologists from the NYC Department of Health, and I remember from my notes that one epidemiologist said flat-out that an associational study can *never* prove causation.
You can only prove causation from randomized, controlled trials.
Your argument, "Yes, the study is correlational, but that's all we got for now," has led to disaster. In the Nurses' Health Study, there was a correlation between hormone replacement therapy and lower heart disease, so Wyeth sold a lot of HRT pills. Then when the randomized, controlled trials were done, it turned out that HRT did not lower heart disease, but did increase breast cancer. So we had a mini-epidemic of increased breast cancer in the US as a result. The spurious correlation seemed to be that nurses who wanted to be healthy tended to both take HRT and exercise. The NYT covered this in detail.
2
@Humble-Opinion
Nobody is saying "junk science." The discussion is on how important the results could be - but are not- because of a weak study design. That discussion is the essence of science- it is not about knowing facts but rather the continual evaluation of new knowledge.
1
@Norman Very good points. However, smoking was identified as a cause of cancer without conducting a clinical trial. If you very high bar had been adopted we might still be waiting for "proof". Luckily, Austin Bradford Hill was willing to pursue correlational methods when he turned his attention from streptomycin trials to smoking.
2
would have liked to see this study (I read the article) include a graph/data comparing those that eat the SAME amount of fruit/veg (organic vs not). I might believe the correlation then...but without that data, the conclusions of the study seem unsupported.
2
Diet and exercise, diet and exercise.The keys to a healthier life. The message through all the studies stays the same. Organic or non-organic, the fact is, Having more confidence and information about where the food and ingredients you and your family consume is tremendously important. There is big money involved in the use of chemicals, fertilizers, pesticides, etc. Only the federal and to a lesser degree the state governments provides any sort of oversite into what gets into our food and the environment. People who take care of themselves, exercise regularly, and watch what they eat tend to live longer. Environmental toxins will eventually take us all down in varying degrees. Just because hazards are not studied adequately, or residual pesticides are not killing everything off right now does not mean there is not a problem. The lack of science in making policy decisions in Washington and beyond should be a large red flag for everyone.
Make sure your local politicians believe in science over commerce.
8
hard to believe this is a political football. But judging by some remarks in comments, folks are taking umbrage. A taste of stat/method, is nice, but a beginning course in simple reading might prove more beneficial.
1
Do you want to eat chemicals? Do you want your kids eating chemicals? Spend a bit more on food, a bit less on other things. Go, if possible, to farmers you know and trust.
Thank you for news of this study, it is important.
11
@moosemaps Everything we eat, drink, breathe, wear, build, etc is made of chemicals. Chemicals are matter. I believe that what you intend to say is that we should not be eating synthetics.
@moosemaps
Everything you eat is chemicals. You are chemicals. Whether or not something is toxic is not determined by whether it is natural or synthetic, as dining on poisonous mushrooms would demonstrate. You do know that rotenone and pyrethrum are approved for use on organic crops, right? Would you eat those?
1
@moosemaps
we all eat chemicals- that is all there is... Life is an on-going Oxidation/ Reduction reaction. It's all chemistry
Unless such studies can determine how or if the group that eats more organic food differs in other ways from the group that does not, they are meaningless.
4
@Frank Knarf
Re: “Unless such studies can determine how or if the group that eats more organic food differs in other ways from the group that does not, they are meaningless.”
“Meaningless” is a strong word. Plus, you’re wrong: Scientists deal effectively with uncertainty all the time, using clever — and valid — methods of experimental design and statistical analysis. While the “gold standard” for determining cause-and-effect relationships is the fully controlled, double-blind study, that’s often not possible (nor ethical!) in studies of human disease. Traditionally — and highly successfully — that’s where Public Health comes in.
An example: The conclusion that smoking causes lung cancer. No long-term, double-blind studies lead to that conclusion. Such studies would be totally unethical! (Not to mention virtually impossible to conduct meaningfully.) No, it was dedicated, gumshoe public-health research, of the same general kind described in this article about organic foods and cancer. MEANINGLESS? Think again.
5
@RR
Yes, MEANINGLESS.
I heard a panel where an epidemiologist from the NYC Department of Health said that an associational study can *never* prove causation.
The medical journals publish randomized, controlled trials of treatments every week. Before they do the RCT, they do several (cheaper) associational studies which seem to prove the treatment works. But about half the time, the RCT shows the treatment doesn't work.
There are a few exceptions, where the effects are so dramatic, that an RCT is unnecessary. (Cigarettes clearly caused lung cancer.) But this isn't one of them.
@RR -
The key here is RANDOMIZED studies.
People who pay so much more for organic food are probably the most overall health-conscious and disciplined people there are. They will have a hundred other uncontrolled-for behaviors that reduce their cancer risks compared to non-organic-eating people.
This study is a poster child for what is known as "selection bias," so, yes, meaningless is not too harsh a word.
(In fact, I am surprised that the supposed effect measured was not greater, but we are learning that most cancers are indeed due to random accumulated mutations...).
Sorry, Ms. Rabin, but the evidence for cancer-prevention benefits of organic food is still lacking; see https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/10/24/viewpoint-chemophobia-epid....
And you should know better.
8
No no no. This is as false and misleading an article and study as our idiot president talking about, well, anything. This is correlation not cause. Its ridiculous to even have to write down, but people who buy organic food have more money, buy food at a grocery store rather than eat frozen, prepared or restaurant food, have higher education levels and prioritize taking care of themselves which includes having an active mind and body lifestyle. Less stress. Less desperation. More positive feedback in many aspects of their lives. People get paid to do these studies? Someone needs to ask for their money back. And they call it bio in France.
12
The article says the study adjusted for all those factors.
2
I don’t need any study results for me to eat organic food when possible. Back when I lived in an apartment building that sprayed the entire building with bug spray, I used to feel sick. I’d rather not expose myself to pesticide if I have a choice. There are times when I choose a conventional produce looking a lot fresher over the tired-looking organic one, but it’s important for me to pay a few extra dollars for organic dairy and meats, as pesticides are generally soluble in oil. Like another commenter said, paying for organic food is cheaper than treating cancer. I also find that organically grown produce tastes better.
16
Organic foods are better for the planet as well as the individual.
17
@Marcia
A common argument- but I'd love to have you over to my "conventional" citrus orchard and also walk through my neighbor's organic one . The increased in water use, heat, diesel use, two cycle fuel use, is substantial & important. He still sprays with "organic" insecticides which kills bees & has an LD50 worse than anything we use. But he gets $.50 more /pound for fruit that is undistinguishable in quality from ours. You pay both ends.
2
@Marcia
Except when insects or bad weather wipes out crops.
1
She noted the study does not prove an organic diet causes a reduction in cancers, but strongly suggests “that an organic-based diet could contribute to reducing cancer risk." Or maybe not for that matter. But I suppose if you wish to play the current odds and can afford a primarily organic diet why not?
“From a practical point of view, the results are still preliminary, and not sufficient to change dietary recommendations about cancer prevention,”
This is entire article is another nice , soft piece of health reporting, adding up to not too much in particular. It also presupposes that the "organic" food we may purchase and consume is indeed free of pesticides or other extraneous chemicals. That in itself is a stretch of the belief system. But its still nice to play the game of , " let's try and eat healthy".
9
@KB I'm always surprised when people express skepticism, put "organic" in quotes and question whether organics are "indeed free of pesticides or other extraneous chemicals." One thing is certain: Non-organic food and food containing genetically modified ingredients are full of pesticides, harmful antibiotics and growth hormones, and other additives, so why not go with organics that are certified by the USDA and other organizations. They taste better, too. Since the merger with Amazon.com, Whole Foods Markets like the one in Paramus, N.J., where I shop, have become a lot more affordable, and Amazon Prime members get an extra 10% off on many sale items. And in recent years, Costco Wholesale has added lots of organic products at terrific prices. That organics cost too much is no longer is a convenient excuse.
17
@Victor Sasson
Why not eat organic? Because it's a sham.
No food is "full of pesticides". Pesticide use is tiny in any agricultural setting. The only difference is that organic farming, based on no valid reasoning, whatsoever, forbids synthetics, removing the most effective (ie less-applied) and least toxic options. You know what has reduced pesticide use? GMOs. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4218791/ Thanks to things like bt crops, GMOs massively reduce total insecticide use - organic uses bt endotoxin, too, but has to douse the plants in it rather than tiny amounts just occurring in the crops. "Extraneous chemicals"? If organic farming was serious about this goal, it would seek the best pesticides, natural or synthetic, and GMOs that facilitate this goal, the best of all methods. Instead it's just an appeal to what's "natural" instead of what's effective for any particular goal, and they aren't better, at anything.
If organic crops were merely useless/expensive, that'd be fine, but they're also environmentally harmful. Because of their much lower yields, it takes more land to grow crops organically than via conventionally (GMOs, again, are of particular avail). If we grew every crop in the US organically, it would take something like half again the currently-used farmland to maintain our present outputs. Likewise, if we ceased these useless organic farming methods and just focused on best methods, we could return cropland to forest, reduce tillage, etc
1
@Corey Simmonds, It's not just insecticides, it's also herbicides. Most farmers use lots of glyphosate and other chemicals on their crops. Just go to a local farmers' coop in a rural area and see (and smell) all of the chemicals they buy and use on their crops. GMOs? Like roundup-ready soybeans? They just encourage the continued use of herbicides.
3
This is old news, but not enough people take the time, or the finances, to break from the food that is produced to be pretty compared to being health. As the population looks for quicker, easier, "prettier" food, we are exposing our bodies to more toxins. More than looking for "organic," I was told more than two decades ago by my doctor to make sure it says free of antibiotics and hormones, especially dairy, poultry, meat. I also was told more than three decades ago not to eat processed meats, and generally stay away from things in a can (lead). Now I'm cutting back on plastic containers. Healthier farmers, healthier consumers, healthier planet.
15
Did I miss something (late night reading..) or was there NOT a control group that consumed the same produce but non-organic? If not-this is completely baloney. The same consumption of non-organic foods could yield the same results because we are talking about healthy unprocessed whole foods here. Not to mention- the standard of "organic" is not what is generally assumed. Many fruits and vegetables don't suffer from being non-organic.
6
@Xtined Yes I think you missed something. This study is a correlational study in which a very large sample of people were asked about their eating habits. In the sample there would be people who eat virtually no organic food, people who eat some, people who eat a lot . Their findings showed that people who reported eating a high amount of organic food had lower incidence of cancer than people who ate less organic food.
10
@Xtine
Controlled studies are expensive, and given the lack of enthusiasm from the food industry (who after all are the ones giving us what we suspect is unhealthy non organic produce and meat and the like), and also their patsies in the government and FDA who bow to the wishes of the farmers and the agribusinesses like ADM and Cargill. More importantly, when it comes to health, there are ethical concerns around getting people to eat in a way that could be harmful, we aren't talking about something that doesn't help (like taking niacin to reduce heart disease, if it doesn't work the person is no worse off), but rather like smoking involves putting them to potential risk.
As far as many vegetables not suffering from being non organic, yes and no. It is true some things, like apples for example, because they are thick skinned can be washed. However, root vegetables absorb insecticides as do berries, so they are better organic. More importantly, that isn't true around crops grown around glysophate (roundup), they absorb it, they just released studies that cheerios and other food products contain glysophate...and claming that is safe is a lie, because there are no levels for safe ingestion of that stuff, and it is cancer causing; if the cheerios were made with organic oats and grains, if the other products were produced organically, they wouldn't have any glysophate in it, guaranteed, if it is organic they can't use any non naturally occuring insecticides or herbicides.
2
@mthomas27
The researchers didn't know whether people ate no, some, or a lot of organic food. They only know what people reported. This is known as reporting bias.
For this and other reasons, the study is indeed baloney.
There are other factors too, and I agree that organic food or conventionally grown food is best. But in looking further into endocrine disruptors and where they may be found, and as I personally have long wondered about, birth control pills could be brought into this discussion. I feel when presenting a certain 'side' or one particular area of consideration, such as eating organic food, and applying it to lymphomas, should be widened. This may not be the best place to mention this, but this provoked my long held wondering and I found this article to bring purposeful questioning of a long held practice of taking birth control pills and its potential in causing cancers: https://www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/how-safe-are-birth-control-pills-...
3
@Kathy
The risks of birth control pills are known if only because they have been on the market for over 50 years, they havve been subject to controlled studies, so the risks are known. As far as endocrine disruptors go, one of the problems with conventionally grown produce is they are allowed to use things that are not only carcinogenic, but endocrine distruptors as well, many of the insecticides and herbicides are phytoestrogenic, they are structurally close enough to hormones that they block the receptor sites on cells and can wreak havoc.
whatever the problems with methodologies of the studies, the fact is that conventional pesticides are not good for people who grow the food, the land, the environment, or for the people eat the food. I don't need a research study to tell me that it's wise to avoid toxins where I can. Just because the study can't prove it is better for me doesn't mean I will choose to eat food sprayed with toxins which are decidedly bad or to eat meat or dairy produced from animals given antibiotics, which are also bad in overexposure. Common sense should win out here--also doing right by the environment and farm workers.
38
@MD
The irony is the same idiot farmers who claim that what they grow is fine, that growing soybeans and corn and wheat raised being sprayed with round up, are now suing monsanto because they are developing cancer from being exposed to it and breathing it in. They started using roundup and other herbicides routinely about 15-20 years ago, and they now are starting to suffer the effects (cancer usually develops way after exposure, 10 or 15 years or more), but they will swear up and down it okay for the products they grow.
1
We eat organic foods as much as possible - sometimes the quality or price rules it out. We think organic probably does protect our health, though how much is an open question.
But that's only half - at most - the reason we go organic. Our primary concern is for the farmworkers exposed to these poisons every day in the field. They're the ones most at risk and the ones least likely to be protected and have good health care, and the ones least likely to be uppermost in the minds of corporate agriculture, the current EPA, health department and Department of Agriculture.
131
@William LeGro I so appreciate that people take into consideration the lives of farmworkers. It's often the last thing that people cite as a reason, and yet most would agree it is of the greatest importance.
11
@William LeGro
I understand what you are saying, there are a lot of pragmatic websites out there that talk about things you should go organic with (and maybe not even eat it if you can't get it) , others you will be fine eating non organic. In general fruits like apples, pears, peaches, and other relatively thick skinned fruits are likely to be okay, if you wash them (use piroxide fruit wash to be even more sure). On the other hand, berries (especially grown in Mexico or South america) are likely to have been heavily exposed to toxic chemicals, so organic is better. With root vegetables, organic is better as well. The one thing I highly recommend going organic with is soy products, and that is not speculation, non organic soy is all gmo modified to be resistant to herbicides and contains high levels of glysophate and other products in it. So if you buy tofu (costo carries organic soy), or soy milk (westsoy plain unsweetened is what we use) is the way to go, conventionally grown soy for the most part is a disaster area.
2
@bill d
For non-organic, any fruit where you eat the skin is not likely to be ok at all. Only thick-skinned fruit/veg where you remove the skin or don't eat it is good to go. If the skin is thin, removing it may provide some benefit, but not completely.
2
Just one or two questions Roni: Since there is no accepted single standard of recognizing what 'Organic' means from one company to the next, and the fact that many 'Organic' farms are planted on or very near farms that have had decades of non-organic fertilizers (which after all utilizes very, very slow decomposing heavy metals and chemicals) added to their soils- Isn't the term 'Organic' currently in and of itself dishonest or at best misleading, if not negligent)? And within the mentioned study: Couldn't the experimental group who reportedly ate less 'non-organic' foods simply have incorporated healthier over all style changes, that could account for their lower CA rate? Personally, when I can afford it, I look for 'Organic' foods simply because they usually taste better.
8
@Birddog there is an accepted standard of organic which is certified by the US Department of Agriculture. Without meeting the standards, you cannot label produce as organic.
8
The problem with Organic is that in the U.S. it is not regulated. Most of the time you can't trust the Organic label.
4
There are far too many confounding variables to make this experiment or study even valid. Just eat more veggies & fruits. Less meat & dairy. We'll be fine in the end.
10
Terrible job here, to be frank. You cannot learn what you claim here from this study - their methods prohibit it. Furthermore, if you actually read the study (which im assuming the author here did not do) this effect was only found in people with poor overall diets and only for two types of cancer. However, they checked against many more types of cancers and did not use any technique to reduce false positives.
This is just noise. Do better NYT.
16
@Dylan the more tests you do the more likely you are to find some effect
3
This tells me nothing of value overall. 25% could be attributed just to the fact of affluence and care compared to the general population. Also why would I care about a cancer study when the subjects diet include meat and dairy?
I buy organic for One reason and that's to avoid chemicals period. It's purely addition by subtraction. I'm trying to avoid putting any additional chemicals in my body. That's it.
14
@Glengarry Plenty to criticize in the study and its conclusions, but your statement "Also why would I care about a cancer study when the subjects diet include meat and dairy," given the fact that MOST people in the world eat meat and dairy, is utterly arrogant and lends nothing to the discussion.
Humans have been eating meat and dairy literally forever. There are too many other confounding factors in any search for causes of cancers to bluntly and blindly state that meat and dairy are THE "cause" of them or even that no one anywhere, ever, should eat them.
Why should the rest of us care about what YOU care about? Some of us reading and studying information in this piece are seriously doing so.
6
Let’s not ignore the fact that those who consume organic food tend to have asignificantly healthier lifestyles than those who don’t. I see this within my own family. The differences are striking.
16
@PaulN
The study accounted for that, they looked at relative diets of the groups studied, they didn't compare people who smoke, drink, and eat a lot of junk food and processed food to Whole Food nation, they compared people who eat the same relative diet but one group uses organic products routinely, the other doesn't, it is in the description. I agree that people who eat organic tend to do so because they are health conscious, they aren't people who scarf down organic potato chips and organic ore ida potato products and fake tofu meat (loaded with fat), or eat organic bacon, they are people who know how to eat healthily, but in this case the study factored that in.
Folks, no one study proves anything, but if you look at the way conventional crops are grown and non organic meat and dairy are produced, it doesn't take a genius to figure out something is wrong with conventionally produced food. Conventional meat still allows the use of hormones and antibiotics (though that is changing, they finally banned this use in poultry), milk allows using various hormones and anti biotics on the cows, not to mention the horrible way they keep the animals (organic meat producers also don't raise them in factory farm conditions, most are free range, not penned up). Personally I don't think food needs to be organic to be healthful, the real problem is conventional food production is allowed to use methods that have no controls on them, the FDA is a joke.
This study is not applicable to the USDA where the National Organic Program has co-opted by those that control the industry. For example, accredited certifiers, including CCOF the largest certifier, routinely allow inputs that content prohibited substances. This is done by their choosing, illegally, to allow OMRI to make decisions for them. Since the States of Oregon and Washington have been testing fertilizers for use in the marijuana industry both States have found mislabeled and adulterated products that OMRI Lists for use in organic. OMRI response is tough tooties and continues to list the products. Google on "OMRI response to Oregon testing."
6
Just simply compare the cancer occurrence between the immigrants from Asia who tend to eat more vegetables and fruits with much less chemicals than US born citizens who tend to eat lots of meat and food with tons of chemicals. We should find out the answer quick and easy. Of course, this French study is more controlled and organized. But it is just another piece of the evidence.
9
@Usok Actually farmers in most Asian nations apply several more applications of pesticides due to the warmer climates and more generations of insects/plants per growing season.
1
It really doesn't matter to me. I see hipsters eating organic food like religion here in the gentrified Greenpoint area of Brooklyn.
The prices are sometimes twice that of non organic food.
It doesn't matter if it will help you live a little longer, if you go bankrupt buying it and die from starvation quicker.
5
@Paul
It's not just that, it's that wealthy people live longer and have fewer diseases on average. So if you are wealthy enough to afford organic food, you are probably already benefiting from better health, regardless of whether you eat organic apples or non-organic apples.
16
@Genmed- Thank you for your reply. My post was a little tongue in cheek. I believe in the equality theory of life....ie for everything you do there is a good and bad.
Rich people are usually educated and stay away from cigs, heavy booze, hard drugs etc. unlike poorer people but nature tells us smoking cigs, heavy booze, hard drugs gives you the greatest pleasure in life, the problem is you pay for it.
I call it the Jim Hendrix/Jack LaLanne proof. Jimi had wine, women and song and and drugs and died at 27. Jack never ate white bread, no desserts, no booze and worked out six hrs. a day but lived to age 95.
It all equals out in the end and if not in this life in another universe if you believe in Einstein or the afterlife if you believe in God.
1
And next week we will hear that we should be eating more meat and ingesting Round-up. I think common sense on what you put into your body is this; less chemical, more real food. The chemical industry has a huge lobby in this country and they will follow the lead of the dog in charge who, I'm sure, is calling this "fake news". I will continue to purchase and eat organic foods. I'd rather be safe than stupid.
23
@Mary Crain, I agree 100%. I don't care who studied what----I simply don't want these substances in my body when there is so much evidence regarding how much harm they do to living organisms and the Earth itself.
Another reason to buy/eat organic is to support the organic farming industry. These are people who are trying to do right by their customers and the environment, and we should be supporting them and helping them to succeed. The deck is already mightily stacked against them by the billion-dollar chemical industry.
28
@Mary Crain all food is 100% chemicals. There is nothing special about natural chemicals that make them safe. Some of the deadliest toxins are 100% natural.
@Jon
Yeah, I know, you saw those old Monsant commercials with "That's NACL-yep, good old table salt" as if a heavy organophosphate is the same as the naturally occurring enzymes and proteins and the like that are in food.
The difference with organic farming is that the things they are allowed to use in growing and producing food have been used for 100's of years and have a long track record of being deemed safe (if they weren't, by this point they would have been banned). The problem with conventional farming is they are using techhniques that have not been used for hundreds of years, they have come out of labs and genetic engineering within the last 10-15 years. For example, the practice of using roundup on genetically engineered soybeans and the like has only been in existence the last 15 years or so, and it only achieved widespread use within the last 10. With cattle, they have been using antibiotics along with hormones for about the last 40 years or so, and we have seen the results of this (antibiotic resistance thanks to ingestion, girls achieving puberty at younger and younger ages), but this still pales compared to the hundreds of years. And want to know a dirty secret? Many of these techniques have not been vetted, they have been allowed to do it with no impact studies, companies self certify. For example, it is now proven glysophate is in the produce it is used on, but there is no standard for safe levels.
2
How hard would it be for any grower or manufacturer of food to simply slap an "organic" label on it? I have a hard time believing that there are adequate resources, (especially in this era where deregulation is championed), to ensure that foods labeled "organic" are what they claim.
7
Does anybody believe that there is any way to completely correct for the immense differences of many sorts between organic and other people?
Granted, it is not feasible to do gold-standard experiments. But I wish there were some convincing way to have equivalent groups in every respect except the single test issue.
8
I didn’t realize how many comments would be anti organic. Chemical free food is such an odd thing to be against, like being against clean water or clean air. Is there a group that is pro-lead in water too?
139
@SXM organic and chemical free food (no such thing as all things are made of chemicals) are unscientific.
6
@SXM all food is chemical. For that matter, so is clean air and water.
3
@SXM: I think most people aren't anti-organic, they're anti-added cost. If organically-grown products were cheaper than conventionally-grown ones, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
6
The study may be flawed but I will continue to buy mostly organic food. I may or may not get sick but I simply can’t get myself to believe that pesticides are safe to eat.
152
Also it’s better for the environment; which is what I answer when my fellow scientists tease me about my organic diet.
9
This is a very flawed study.
It actually does not show correlation at all; it is unfortunate that the NY Times would print this without understanding the actual system of pesticides, agriculture or organic farming.
Here is a straightforward debunking of this study: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2707943
If you read it, it makes a lot of straightforward points. What it does not do is dive into how poorly the study was conducted; instead, it brings light to how poor the assumptions are.
if you want to understand more on this topic, the debunking article is a good start.
16
@Val The debunking article is behind a pay wall.
Looking at the full text of the study being reported, the limitations are outlined, and the organic food consumption could be an epiphenomenon related to the generally healthier lifestyle of those self-reporting higher organic food consumption. From the study:
"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)."
It is tough to tease out a single dominant factor explaining their observations.
It strikes me as premature to make too much of this, since all food certifications are not the same and standards are not uniform from country to country: https://www.thebalancesmb.com/when-is-organic-really-organic-2538312 .
One of the problems with diets higher in organic foods is expense. Also, the labeling may not mean much in restaurants: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/dining/organic-label-restaurants-bare... .
6
@JSK
Yup, and organic food consumption was also linked to healthier eating (more fruits and vegetables). On a quick skim, the authors don't say how they controlled for that, if at all.
4
When I was a kid I refused to eat veggies my dad grew because he sprayed them with bug killer. I said I didn't want to eat bug poison, that if it made them sick it might make me sick... really, if I could figure it out at age 5, why is it taking so long for the rest of us?
The chair of my BOH regularly goes on cable TV to preach that pesticide ladened GMO and fluoridated water are perfectly safe. He insists that organics are a waste of money and that there is no such thing as multiple chemical sensitivities. He ridicules anyone who disagrees with him and advises our city council to ignore science that contradicts him because they aren't qualified to analyze it. I was more qualified at age 5.
81
@K Spencer To include fluoridated water in your argument is nonsense. Few things have been studied as comprehensively as fluoride and found not only to be safe and highly beneficial at the levels maintained in drinking water, but indeed a naturally occurring element essential to optimum bone and tooth health. Don't forget that the benefits of fluoride were originally discovered when it was noted that the residents of Grand Rapids Michigan, who showed a high incidence of mottled teeth, also had a very low decay rate. It was found that by reducing the naturally occurring fluoride level found in their water supply to about one eighth, the decay rate benefit remained but the side effects disappeared .
16
@Chris I once believed fluoridation was well studied and safe, too. We were wrong.
Just this month, 3 out of the 6 studies published that reveal that lie are reported in Environmental Health News: https://www.ehn.org/we-add-it-to-drinking-water-for-our-teeth-but-is-flu...
One of other three October studies confirmed that 37% of infants in American communities are exceeding the wildly over-optimistic upper limits of safe fluoride consumption - this determined by actual testing of infant.
"If teeth are the only reason why you like fluoride, you better come up with a different reason. Fluoride hurts teeth, bones, brain, nerves, etc." - Michael Taras, DMD, FAGD (2015)
"I was conned by a powerful lobby.” - Richard G. Foulkes, MD, Chief Medical Officer, Calgary, AB and former Canadian fluoridationist (1992)
6
@Chris
There is plenty of evidence of fluoridation's harms, which is why you don't find it in most European countries, whose population consistently seems to be the most educated with respect to environmental toxins.
Anyone interested can easily investigate this controversial issue on the net, but here is a start:
"Although fluoride advocates have claimed for years that the safety of fluoride in dentistry is exhaustively documented and “beyond debate,” the Chairman of the National Research Council’s (NRC) comprehensive fluoride review, Dr. John Doull, recently stated that: “when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on. I think that’s why fluoridation is still being challenged so many years after it began.”
fluoridealert.org
Perhaps knowing that the fluoride compounds (routinely contaminated with arsenic) used in water fluoridation come from industrial waste from the fertilizer industry, which is happy to find a place to dump it, will concentrate some minds.
2
Organic food costs less than treating cancer.
188
@Marjorie Organic food tastes better than cancer drugs, too!
4
There are way too many variables not controlled for any conclusive statements to be made. People who ate organic may have been drawn to the false claims of organic because they already put health above other things and would have had much lower cancer rates anyway. This is just one glaring variable not controlled. These studies mean nothing.
6
I like how we beat around the bush with things like pesticides causing cancer. The sad thing is that if there is ever a point where the FDA officially comes out and says glyphosate is a human carcinogen, they will say it wrong. They won't say, "and has likely been causing cancer since it was unveiled and should have never been used."
I used to tell my students that all soon-to-be consumed water now should be filtered with at least Brita type filters. We are now living in a world where sporadic waterways have contamination that we aren't even looking for. Contaminants that are biologically active.
It is a combo ago on of public ignorance, business silencing, and costs unpaid for. Most medicines consumed by people are biologically active and only broken down 50% by livers. The rest is often excreted out. See Britain's birth control affects on amphibians in the English Channel. We like to pretend these things aren't out there until it is too late.
30
I've got some tasty fruits and vegetables grown the old fashioned way, like your ancestors might have eaten them a century or more ago.
Now would you like me to spray some pesticides on top? Knowing that all life on earth consists of cells that share certain biochemical features? That if a chemical kills an insect that might like to chomp on some corn, that chemical probably isn't good for you either? Anyone care to drink some roach killing cocktails?
Didn't think so, and if you answered yes, what ails you can't be fixed.
50
@drdeanster
By the same logic, you shouldn't take antibiotics, antivirals, anthelminthics or antimalarials. These chemicals all kill things too.
These would certainly have helped our ancestors.
3
@ChrisB
And all of those have side effects that range from minor to severe. They are taken to avoid catastrophic injury to the body (typically) or death, and the body must repair itself afterward/during to recover. If you ingested them even in small doses for your entire life you'd have serious issues.
After years of exposure to false organic food claims, I'm not at all surprised by this "study".
3
Do we really need a study to inform us that avoiding poison lowers our risk of being poisoned?
63
@Marc A
Seems crazy but apparently the answer is yes. We also have agricultural policy that subsidizes sugar, a toxin, so all us taxpayers are paying to make it easier for people to make themselves sick. Whereupon taxpayers can pay the enormous medical bills.
There is nothing rational about this.
32
@Marc A
Yes, if we want to quantify and prioritize our risks and benefits. This study does not go that for and by its design is not able to establish that there's a causal relationship, but it certainly suggests that organic farming merits our attention.
3
@Marc A That's because the standards the US gov't uses to judge whether something is toxic or unsafe is there must be evidence that is it unsafe/ toxic. Such studies can be expensive and nearly impossible to do given how many substances your average person is exposed to in one day. How do you isolate it down to one or a few things? In contrast, the standard in European countries and Canada is more along the lines of "Is there any potential this can be unsafe?" If there is any possibility, they forbid or heavily regulate that substance. There are substances European and Canadian farmers can't or won't use while our American agri-businesses will continue to use them. One documentary I saw recently noted that a fertilizer produced in Switzerland was not allowed by the Swiss gov't to be sold there. How did they make their money? They sell to America. Profits over people: the American way.
3
This is certainly an encouraging study, further emphasizing the importance of lifestyle changes and emphasizing the role "nurture" over the "nature" of cancer risks.
However, there are too many potential flaws for a causative link to be drawn between eating organic food and decreasing cancer diagnosis. While they do acknowledge (and somehow attempt to adjust for) the different demographic factors of consumers who purchase organic food, they ignore the geographic component.
The availability of organic foods is greater in regions where there is cleaner air, cleaner water, newer pipes, less lead paint, fewer toxic fumes. . .
Individuals that live in an area where organic food is not available (shopping at the local convenience store instead of a Whole Foods) are incidentally going to be at a greater risk of "nature" acquired cancers. The best this study can hope to show is a correlative relationship, certainly not causative.
Additionally, five years? What about the risk factors that occurred before five years ago? What about the cancers that will be diagnosed five years from now?
7
"Since people who eat organic food tend to be health-conscious and may benefit from other healthful behaviors, and also tend to have higher incomes and more years of education than those who don’t eat organic, the researchers made adjustments to account for differences in these characteristics, as well as such factors as physical activity, smoking, use of alcohol, a family history of cancer and weight.
Even after these adjustments..."
I just don't see how you account for those things above and still say it must be the organic food and not all those other things which are well established to lead to longer and healthier lives.
8
@Still Waiting for a NBA Title
Yes I agree. This is a problem with all dietary epidemiological studies. The problem gets a lot smaller if the study is huge, in the millions, so that the adjustments might actually be somewhat accurate, or if the effect is really large as with smoking. In this case, small changes in the adjustments might completely change the result.
2
@Still Waiting for a NBA Title
I don't know all the statistical methods that might be employed, but one is to compare subgroups that are matched in risk factors. So, for example, compare subgroups that may share only the same one of the various risk factors.
1
Eating organic foods is more difficult that it might appear to be. Growing your own vegetables, for example, won't keep you free of Monsanto's glyphosate, since Monsanto bought out more than 70% of American seed companies, and infuses their seeds with glyphosate.
And getting funding for credible studies into the harmful effects of various pesticides and herbicides is more difficult than it should be. But that's OK because, for example, Monsanto provides funds for studies showing that glyphosate doesn't harm humans--but it's sometimes difficult to find out that they have funded a university study--they prefer to be silent partners in studies.
Of course if we had a responsible government in Washington, they would provide funding for double blind studies into the health effects of a number of agricultural pesticides and herbicides. Wonder if Monsanto donates to any Congressional politicians.
53
I buy organic seeds
1
Being vegetarian, vegan, or all-organic does NOT guarantee you will be healthy. Wine, french fries, and some animal proteins may be "organic" but too much will harm your health. It's much better to look at those who partake of a "whole plant food" diet for comparison.
2
@ring0: my vegetarian friend used to point out to me that whipped cream, pastries and french fries were all "vegetarian" (and could be organic).
Whole Foods is chock-full of vegan and vegetarian chips, snacks, cookies, sweetened cereals and soft drinks.
1
"Our results contrast somewhat with the findings from the Million Women Study18 cohort among middle-aged women in the United Kingdom. In that large prospective study carried out among 623 080 women, consumption of organic food was not associated with a reduction in overall cancer incidence, while a small increase in breast cancer incidence was observed among women who reported usually or always eating organic food compared with women who reported never eating organic food. "
4
according to the study "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 "
They attempt to control for this with their statistical analysis but there are at least 2 comments that can be made
1) given the factors they did know about that seem correlated with a lower cancer risk, it seems a heroic assumption that they accounted for ALL the differences between the groups that could affect cancer risk
2) the regression analysis may have not evened out the 2 groups. If the link between behaviors and cancer risk is stronger than the statistical model knew then the remaining difference (organic vs non-organic) may appear stronger than it really is, if there is a link at all.
Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of organic food, but studies like this don't contribute much to our understanding.
22
If organic food reduces cancer risks then non-organic foods, with their higher levels of pesticide and chemical based fertilizer residue is a significant contributor to the high rates of cancer in our society.
When we think about health care costs in America need to also factor in the costs of treating diseases like cancer that are exacerbated or caused by our food industry.
If we developed an economic model based on these test results alone it would show that pesticide and chemical based fertilizers make billions for those industries, but cost us billions more for treating unnecessary, preventable diseases.
Shifting to organic is not only good for our health, it's good for the environment and can produce crop yields equal to what conventional farming offers.
74
"But until now, evidence of the benefits of eating organic has been lacking." This is a false statement, inconsistent with decades of studies that have found health benefits for eating organic. The expert from Harvard who declared more research is needed might ponder the fact that in the past a number of Harvard experts have fudged about research findings regarding healthy eating. Some years ago, Stanford University announced with great fanfare that their research project found no added benefit from eating organic food. Shortly afterward, it was reported that Monsanto had donated a large gift to their medical school, which happened to be the source of that study.
92
@William this is interesting if true -- please could you provide references to the mentioned reports?
1
@Sarah
The study came out about 10 years ago. You could google: Stanford University study on organic foods, or Stanford University Medical School research on organic foods; or Monsanto gift to SUMS connected to study on organic foods. I read these reports in the NYT long ago.
Many organic foods are available from local farmers’s market, sh were we do most of our shopping, or organic grocers other than Whole Foods. Skeptics: our colds/other illnesses dropped in frequency when we switched to organic, no pesticides, very few processed foods.
If you don’t buy junk food and focus on the basics — fruits, greens, carrots, broccoli, onions, potatoes, sweet potatoes, chicken/eggs/dairy, you can eat well and organic at reasonable prices. After eating organic for several years, we really notice the difference when we eat out at non-organic restaurants. The food is not nearly as tasty.
Michael Pollan had it right: Eat (real food); mostly plants; not too much.
54
Regarding the cost differential between organic and non-organic produce, one can readily find lists of fruits and vegetables which do or do not retain pesticide traces and make informed decisions about which to try to buy organic and which are less important to do so.
23
While organic food costs more than conventional food, it still costs way less than snack food. At my supermarket organic vegetables run $3/pound, grass-fed steak starts at $8 a pound, but chips and other snack food run more. And don’t get me on the subject of water with bubbles in it.
113
@Peter Silverman
Besides which there's the estimated 40% of food that's simply wasted.
2
@Peter Silverman: stuff must be cheap in Portland!
In my Midwestern hometown...organic veggies can be $8 a lb and are 2-3 times the cost of conventional....Tomatoes for $6 a pint vs. $2 at the supermarket.
Steaks? try more like $17 a pound organic! Salmon? organic is $26 a pound!
Even if it was healthier -- which I dispute -- I could never afford organic.
This is no surprise, and the fact that it was publicly funded is no surprise either. Personally, I eat 100% organic at home, and don’t feel great if I end up deviating from it substantially.
4
The answer is "NO" to the most casual observer. Get back to me after this theory is tested on at least 150 generations. I had a test tor mercury and PCBs, and was shocked at the result. Incidentally, most inorganic elements are hard on the teeth.
3
If you look at the study closely there is an absolute risk reduction of 0.6%. It is plainly obvious that organic foods don't really make a difference. Let's stop paying money to investigate things that really don't make a difference. It would be great for the journalist to report effect size.
10
@Oden That's being misleading. A 0.6% reduction, with a relative reduction of 25% means you prevent about 1 in every 4 cancers by eating organic vs. conventional. Using that math the cancer risk for conventional diets is around 2.4%, for organic diets around 1.8% That might not look big, but that reduction is a huge. There is no medication that can do that. We're not talking about headaches or indigestion... that's 1 out of every 4 cancers, which are often deadly, are always costly to treat, and always cause suffering, being prevented.
A decrease in risk of 0.6%, using the current US population numbers of 325 million, is 1,950,00 less cancers.
The only conclusion from this study is that organic food makes a huge difference in health outcomes, and should be further studied, and encouraged through public policy.
71
Your statistical knowledge I think is lacking. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe a relative risk reduction of 25% applies to the statistical risk for an individual in a population, not the whole population. So if your risk of cancer is 4 in 100 on a non-organic diet, a relative risk reduction of 25% takes it down to 3 in 100—not a huge difference on an individual basis. This story, in general is not convincing for me to eat more organic for disease prevention although there are other very good reasons to do so for the good of the environment and agricultural workers.
1
@Matt: correlation is not causation.
The goal should be to reduce or eliminate as many potential toxins from our food supply as possible, not just provide safer food for the well-to-do and more toxic food for everyone else. There is much more that could be done to benefit all of us, including eliminating known sources of contaminated food components from being included in our food.
93
5-year test for cancer is probably too short unfortunately. However, people who buy organic food are enthusiastic in healthy life and therefore the difference of 25% must have come out from healthier diet and lifestyle for a long time. Problems we encounter for organic foods are (1) lack of varieties and (2) freshness. Even at Wholefoods in my neighborhood, the store carries mostly non-organic vegetable and fruits. The red and yellow bell peppers are from Europe even though Florida is the largest producer of red bell peppers. This means probably that organic vegetable is not so attractive for large agriculture business.
The American agriculture business needs to change mindset for producing healthier products for us and our children.
21
I agree with your statement about Whole Foods. I can drive 35 minutes to Whole Foods or visit my local grocery store which sells the same produce. Whole Foods does sell some fancy gourmet items but is not worth the drive.
6
This is a note worth study. Consider, too, that farmers in Europe use 5 times less pesticides and weed killers, chemical in general than the American farmer does. Republican administrations rescinded the Democrat ban on certain known carcinogens in agriculture that have long been banned in Europe. Even what is considered organic in the US can be grown in earth saturated with chemicals for years, but if allowed to lie fallow for 3 years, voila! that field can now be deemed organic. The NYTimes recently published an article on cadmium in phosphate fertilizer. The strictest control of cadmium in the US allows 40 times more cadmium than that which is allowed in Europe.
156
@an observer
Farmers in Europe certainly do not use "5 times less pesticides and weed killers" than American farmers. In many European countries pesticide use (including weed killers) is actually higher than in the USA.
4
@an observer
Wherever did you get the information that "farmers in Europe use 5 times less pesticides... than the American Farmer does"?
In a response to a misleading 2016 NYT story on GMOs it was revealed that European farmers generally use more pesticides - particularly fungicides and insecticides - than their American counterparts https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/11/how-mislead-statistics-gm...
10
@an observer
In case it needs pointing out, if non-organic food is already that "clean" in Europe, the benefit of organic foods to Americans would in theory be considerably greater than to Europeans. This is of course assuming that there's a causal relationship.
1
Many people choose organic to keep poisons out of the environment and away from wildlife. The concern is larger than just the self.
224
@JustInsideBeltway
"Organic" produce and meats can contain poisons. They have to be "natural" however, such as pyrethrins or rotenone.
9
yp w
Farming and gardening organically is done to conserve the topsoil. The soil composition and the soil bacteria that helps plants absorb nutrients is rejuvenated with organic soil management. This includes topdressing the field with compost and watering when plants need it without overwatering. Also weeding manually or using horticultural vinegar to treat weeds. It is usually cost effective to grow food and flowers on good soil.
When soil is depleted it is cheaper to use chemical fertilizers then amend the soil naturally and wait for a few season for the soil to improve. When plants are over watered it might be necessary to use fungicides. Some residues could stay in the soil. When weeds are abundant due to too much synthesized fertilizer then herbicides are needed. Some residues may stay in the soil. Overall the less organic practices deplete the soil which is the farmer's resource for making a living. This is one of the main reasons for trying to grow as organic as possible. If the food has more nutrients or the flowers are more fragrant or have a deeper color from organic farming practices then that is a bonus but not the main goal of organic gardening and farming.
Good topsoil is a natural resource that can be depleted with poor soil management. Organic farming does not generally deplete soils.
2
I try to consume organic foods when possible and when not too expensive. I don't want to consume the chemicals discussed in this article for the reasons stated but you cannot avoid nasty substances like mercury in fish, arsenic in rice or cadmium in chocolate, organic or not. Also, when you investigate what is meant by "organic food" you come up with a wide range of guidelines and practices, not all of which make scientific sense like GMO foods.
13
@Emergence
In the U.S. "organic" is defined in great detail in the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990.
3