
In a new study, those who ate more organic food had fewer cancer diagnoses - Hooke
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/23/well/eat/can-eating-organic-food-lower-your-cancer-risk.html
======
kirrent
Nope.

[https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/problems-
with-...](https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/problems-with-that-
organic-food-and-cancer-study/)

~~~
Hooke
I find most of this post persuasive, but it seems to me like there shouldn't
be excessive certainty on either the yes or no column here. The author's claim
is not "no, this is false" but "the study is not bad, for what it is, but is
highly limited in the conclusions that can be drawn from it, and it has some
serious limitations." It seems reasonable to remain agnostic for now and
pursue further studies on the topic that attempt to more accurately correct
for other confounding variables.

This also gives me pause: "It is certainly possible that some pesticide is
causing adverse health effects at the currently used levels (although there is
no current evidence for this)."

That claim seems to me to be false if we include studies on occupational use
of pesticides [1]. It could definitely be the case that the residues that
ordinary consumers encounter are entirely non-toxic, but again, it seems to me
like the jury is still out on that.

[1]
[https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0128766)

------
seanwilson
Is this just a correlation or it's something more thorough?

People that have more money or are more health conscience tend to have better
health could be another explanation.

~~~
craftyguy
Among my friends and coworkers, those who tend to eat more organic food also
do a lot more physical activity/exercise than those who don't. This smells
like correlation.

~~~
Hooke
From the article: _Participants in the French study also provided information
about their general health status, their occupation, education, income and
other details, like whether they smoked. 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, the most frequent consumers of organic food had
76 percent fewer lymphomas, with 86 percent fewer non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas, and
a 34 percent reduction in breast cancers that develop after menopause._

Granted, it could be that these socio-economic factors weren't adequately
corrected for, but they did at least attempt to.

~~~
craftyguy
How do you even make those adjustments? Do we actually understand the impact
on developing cancer that exercise has, for example?

~~~
jmcmichael
The field of biostatistics is dedicated to answering those kinds of questions:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biostatistics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biostatistics)

------
open-source-ux
Here's a review of the same study from the NHS:

 _" Despite the encouraging media reports, this study does not prove that
eating organic food will protect you against cancer."_

[https://www.nhs.uk/news/cancer/eating-organic-food-linked-
lo...](https://www.nhs.uk/news/cancer/eating-organic-food-linked-lower-cancer-
risk/)

~~~
basicplus2
Re: the NHS Take on this..

<Previous research has demonstrated other potential beneficial effects of
eating an organic diet, such as a lowered level of pesticides in urine
samples>

Well this can only be a good thing..

i find it unacceptable that pesticides should be found in urine from eating
anything in a modern society.

~~~
charlesdm
That in itself makes it worth it to eat organic food, in my opinion.

~~~
ianai
Especially with the growing concerns about glycophosphate.

------
jcampbell1
People that drink exactly one glass of red wine per day are wealthier than
average, don't over indulge, and live longer. Ergo, red wine makes you live
longer.

------
parliament32
Not discounting the benefits or organic food, but this specific study isn't
very useful: there's certainly a correlation between eating organics and lower
cancer rates, but there are too many other plausible variables (ie people who
buy organics are more healthy in general: exercise more, have more disposable
income (therefore higher quality of life), are more mindful of other
environmental problems, etc).

What would actually be interesting is a double blind study: a group of people
get a weekly box of unbranded vegetables, either organic or regular, then
track health/cancer rates/whatever.

------
throwaway33114
A thing that really annoys me on HN (though it's certainly not specific to
this website but more general to any place where the users self style as
'intellectuals' or 'rationally minded' or whatever) is the amount of smart-
sounding comments that betray a very cursory reading of what is being posted
in the first place. For instance:

-Yes, we know correlation isn't causation. Don't you think the authors aren't aware of that, you know, being scientists and all? That doesn't mean they aren't useful and shouldn't be taken into consideration for making policies. It doesn't mean people shouldn't investigate correlations in the search of a potential causal link. For the record, many therapeutic drugs are approved way before the exact mechanism causing the therapeutic effect is known.

-Yes, they _did_ control for all the obvious things such as socio-economic factors and so on. You'd know it if you actually read the paper, but searching for confounding factors is literally high school statistics. Don't you think the PhD-level authors wouldn't have thought about that?

-No, no one ever said that there even was a causal link in the first place. It's explicitly acknowledged in the paper. What makes it interesting, though, is: 1) the large sample size and observation period, and 2) the _prospective_ aspect of it, i.e. they simply waited for possible cancer outcomes instead of actively going for them and hunting for correlations. This makes the findings significantly more solid.

Please, remember the guidelines: always take the most charitable
interpretation of what someone says. Do assume that scientists are capable of
doing their jobs, and whatever you've thought of in the few minutes of
attention you gave this link, chances are the authors thought about it in the
seven-odd years it took to publish it.

------
hannob
"In a new study, those who ate more organic food had fewer cancer diagnoses"

The title is correct. And it's not surprising at all. People who eat organic
food are usually richer, which comes with all kinds of health benefits.

What this study didn't show: That they had less cancer because of the organic
food.

~~~
manmal
The study could have controlled for income, as it should for smoking,
exercise, etc. Richer people also eat out more often (some, all the time) and
usually are served the cheapest ingredients there, except for very expensive
venues.

~~~
jlarocco
> Richer people also eat out more often (some, all the time) and usually are
> served the cheapest ingredients there, except for very expensive venues.

I'm not sure about that last part. It's not hard to find moderately priced
restaurants using quality and/or organic ingredients. It won't be fast food
prices, obviously, but it isn't going to break the bank, either.

~~~
manmal
IDK, there’s so many reports of rancid olive oil and the wrong type of fish
being served. Ingredients are where restaurants can really save costs without
anyone noticing.

------
tedunangst
Was it a double blind study?

~~~
pmiller2
How exactly would you ethically conduct a double blind nutrition study that
looks at cancer diagnoses in humans?

~~~
scott_s
I don't think that's uncommon. You have something which you think reduces
_problem X_ , and you give it to half of your population, and a placebo to the
other half. Over a long period of time, you observe the rate of _problem X_
across both populations. I believe we have done this with many different kinds
of problems, including cancer, heart disease, arthritis, etc.

~~~
pmiller2
If it’s not uncommon, then it should be easy for you to cite one.

~~~
Confiks
Your reply is unnecessarily combative and short. Assume good faith in
grandparent's reply, and preferably try to find out yourself and report back
your findings.

Meanwhile, have a bit to read on the ethics of placebo-controlled clinical
trials (which is what is meant with "double blind" study here):
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3844122](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3844122)

