People who consumed high level of organic food less likely to get cancer
27 replies, posted
https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/food-and-drink/people-who-consumed-high-level-of-organic-food-less-likely-to-get-cancer-study-finds-1.3674078
Those who consume high levels of organic foods are 25 per cent less likely to get cancer, a large French study has concluded.
However, the study of 69,000 French adults who were tracked for an average of five years, found that the reduction in cancer risk was not solely because of their consumption of organic food.
It found people who ate the most organic foods were less likely to develop certain kinds of cancer compared to those who ate the least. Because of the way the study was conducted, it is impossible to say that the organic foods people ate were the reason why they had fewer cases of cancer. But the results are significant enough to warrant follow-up studies, the Paris-based researchers have said.
While the study has a large sample size, it does not demonstrate that organics reduce the risk of cancer, lead author Dr Julia Baudry acknowledged – it could be other healthy lifestyle factors that were not accounted for in the analysis, because people who make a point of eating organic food may well take steps to be more healthy.
The volunteers who participated in the study had access to the internet. They provided information via web-based questionnaires. Frequency of organic food intake was assessed consistently using a web-based questionnaire that asked them how frequently they ate 16 different types of organic food.
Despite finding an association of higher organic intake with lower risk of cancer overall, the data was only statistically significant for post-menopausal breast cancer and lymphomas.
In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified three pesticides frequently used in agriculture – glyphosate, malathion, and diazinon – as carcinogenic to humans based on evidence from studies of occupational exposure in humans and laboratory studies in animals.
Through occupational exposure (primarily in agricultural settings), malathion is associated with prostate cancer, diazinon is associated with lung cancer, and all 3 pesticides are individually linked to non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
In the general population, low-level pesticide exposure is widespread, and the primary route of exposure is diet, especially intake of conventionally-grown fruits and vegetables. In the US, more than 90 per cent of the population have detectable pesticides in their urine and blood.
Basically could be mostly due to the fact people who eat organic food generally pay more attention to their health as a whole. I wouldn't be surprised if exposure to pesticides played a role, though. Which is why this requires more in-depth study.
Study authors say other healthy lifestyle factors could also be at play
The important part of the article.
Yea maybe if you got the money to
Shit's bloody expensive yo
people willing to invest in a healthier lifestyle less likely to get cancer, more at 11
Yeah I don't buy organic either unless there's a sale or something.
If you have a garden you can grow some stuff for free, though.
Jumping to conclusions and assuming this is due to pesticides is exactly what we should not do (that's not how responsible science works), but you can bet your ass fervently pro-organic people are going to run with this study like the fucking wind. (props to you if you're pro-organic and don't, though. I've just seen enough bullshit coming from that particular circle that I automatically doubt anything they promote).
I never understood this line of reasoning. The fact that several pesticides have been confirmed to be carcinogenic for farmers is enough for me to apply the precautionary principle and avoid them if possible. I don't see the point in waiting for 20+ independent studies to confirm it also affects the end user before being cautious about what I put in my body myself. Cultural differences, I suppose.
Regardless, you do you, it's none of my business whether your eating habits are healthy, after all.
What I'm more concerned about, though, is the environmental impact of pesticides. They're sadly not ultra accurate poisons that solely target pests within a field and nowhere else. It persists, gets easily spread across large areas, and makes its way through the food chain. We've been finding glyphosate in honey already, and I don't think I have to explain why that's concerning given bees' key role in the ecosystem.
Then again, organic farming isn't exactly easy on the environment either, and can be pretty resource intensive. But that's all the more reason to find better alternatives, not stick to a pesticide-reliant model. Simply reducing meat consumption would reduce need for animal feed and thus pesticide use, too.
What's 'organic food'?
carbon-based
I only eat metals, am I screwed?
dont take diet advice from a cohort study my man, keep munching that copper
you can balance out your diet without changing it too much by eating organometallic complexes
This would be a much better study if it compared people who eat healthy organic produce, and people who eat healthy regular produce.
You'll find no argument from me against reducing meat consumption (well, that, and replacing factory farming entirely with lab-grown meat once it's cost effective). I mean, I've never eaten half as much beef and pork in my whole life as most Americans do on average, nor has anyone else in my family. We've never had that luxury, because we're not rich, and we didn't have the silly idea that it was necessary because of cultural "standards."
However, the study of 69,000 French adults who were tracked for an average of five years, found that the reduction in cancer risk was not solely because of their consumption of organic food.
Keep in mind that the French by in large have a culture that encourages (if not ingrains) healthy lifestyles. Especially in metropolitan areas where people walk/bike or use public transit more so than cars and serving sizes are generally smaller than most Americans.
This study isn't really speaking volumes even if that sample size is excellent, they're still using a generally homogeneous population that already has healthy lifestyles.
Surprise, surprise, rich people are less likely to get sick because they can afford to live better. Shocker.
In a nutshell?
Paris =/= France. Something a lot of foreigners tend to gloss over, sadly.
What doesn't give cancer nowadays anyways
Eating food you're genetically compatible with that doesn't have any monsanto bullshit in it.
That's fair enough, I'll concede that. I haven't seen much of France except the bits I saw pass by me on the train. I suppose people from other countries probably think London is basically all of England as well, silly me for making that assumption honestly.
Anything grown without forced genetic modification, pesticides, or herbicides. Can also include in its definition anything "grown naturally".
As for meats, it means animals that were strictly free-range and grass fed with no hormone treatments.
No processed foods, no canned foods, no artificial foods/preservatives - basically must be something that will eventually rot within days or weeks of being purchased as oppose to a few years.
At least in the United States, the USDA has a very strict definition of what foods may have a "Organic" labeling on them and it's illegal in the US to brand your food as organic without USDA approval by those guidelines
Organic 101
people who change their diet to exclusively water are much less likely to get cancer
the definition of organic farms has to conform to http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title7/chapter94&edition=prelim
the study was poorly handled and while there may be benefits to exclusively eating organic, the immensely increased costs and some of the requirements inherently decrease the amount of food produced
What's poorly handled about it?
i mean the article outright states it, "Because of the way the study was conducted, it is impossible to say that the organic foods people ate were the reason why they had fewer cases of cancer. "
grow it yourself if you have the space, get some pots. Just use leftover food and paper waste to make the compost. I talked to a park ranger who has a whole growing and composting operation in her apartment.
You won't be self-sufficient with this but you will be saving money
Except that doesn't mean the study was poorly conducted. Simply that more precise research needs to be done to establish a causal link.
Plenty of studies only establish correlations. We don't call them "poorly conducted". They're stepping stones that show that there's a point in allocating resources towards finer research in that area.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.