Organic food: Pricey, not particularly healthy, won't save you from cancer

Comment One of the primary drivers of the growth in organic food sales over the last couple of decades is the perception that organic food is healthier than conventionally farmed food.

It stands to reason, doesn’t it? After all conventional crops depend on chemicals and organic food doesn't.

And we all know that chemicals, in this case mainly pesticides, are bad for you. Ergo organic food should be healthier, and the strong growth in organic food sales (up 2.8 per cent last year, after a few years of downturn during the recession) attests to how popular opinion has accepted this assertion.

This is why the results of a new UK study that looked at cancer risk and the consumption of organic food is so damned inconvenient. Where organic food advocates have pushed organics as a way of reducing cancer risk, the study shows that it makes little difference one way or another. Hence uncomfortable headlines from the likes of the Daily Mail: Eating organic foods does NOTHING to reduce the cancer risk among women, says new study.

The study in question appears in the latest edition of the British Journal of Cancer and is by Oxford University cancer epidemiology boffin Dr Kathryn Bradbury and co-workers. Part of the Million Women Study funded by Cancer Research UK and the Medical Research Council, this particular bit of research tracked 623,080 middle-aged British women for almost 10 years and looked at their pattern of organic food consumption and the incidence of 16 different cancer types, as well as overall cancer incidence.

Based on their reported eating habits the women were put into three groups: never, sometimes, or usually/always eating organic food. The headline result showed that eating organic food was not associated with overall cancer incidence one way or another (in fact there was a tiny increased overall risk of about 3 per cent, but it’s the sort of noisy result one can ignore). Look at the specific cancer types and the results are mixed, with some showing increased or decreased risks, but again nothing to be alarmed (or pleased) about.

Of course this has upset some, especially the British Soil Association, the guardian of all things organic in the UK (including being the premier organic certification body in the country).

According to Peter Melchett (aka Lord Melchett or the 4th Baron Melchett, ex-Greenpeace head honcho and now Policy Director at the Soil Association) the study is flawed because certain confounding variables weren’t addressed and because, according to him, the authors don’t understand what pesticides are found in food or how they get into food.

However, he was quick to pick out one of the results for particular attention – the numbers show that there is an apparent 21 per cent decrease in non-Hodgkins lymphoma risk among the women who reported "usually or always" eating organic food.

However, there were other numbers that were not picked out by the Soil Association, the most alarming of which was the apparent 9 per cent increase in the risk of breast cancer. This was a result that the study authors subjected to a series of additional tests and the results still stood. More alarming still was the 37 per cent increase in the risk of developing a soft tissue sarcoma, a form of cancer which is rare and hard to treat. Why no mention of those figures at the Soil Association?

Of course the fact is that all of these figures are dealing with relative risk, which is standard practice in epidemiological studies. To get some perspective, the chances of getting non-Hodgkins lymphoma is about 2.1 per cent, so if the results of this study hold true, then sticking to an always organic diet will reduce that to 1.66 per cent.

The figures for breast cancer are around 12.3 per cent life-time risk, and this will be increased to 13.4 per cent if you go the all organic route. And if you really want to trade punches with the proponents of organic, you can point out that a high-organic diet will lead to more cancers as the incidence of breast cancer is much higher than the incidence of non-Hodgkins.

However, it’s unlikely that this finding is going to do much to dissuade the faithful that the benefits of organics have been over-sold. After all, this is not the first negative study when it comes to organics and health. A systematic review published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in 2012 found that: "The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods".

There were differences reported to do with pesticide residues but nothing to cause alarm. In terms of nutrient content, there was one statistically significant nutrient where organics outdid conventional produce: phosphorous. Now, if you’re starving, then eating organic is the better choice, but if you’re not, then increased phosphorous is pretty much irrelevant as it’s abundant in the diet no matter where it comes from.

Of course it’s the pesticide residues that ultimately drive the idea that organics are better for us. This ignores the fact that even organic food uses pesticides, for example rotenone and pyrethrin, some of which are considered carcinogenic or otherwise hazardous to health.

And, just to throw in some numbers, a study by the United States Department of Agriculture in 2012 found that 4 per cent of organic food samples had pesticide residues above the 5 per cent EPA limit, which technically meant they would have failed the organic certification they carried.

But leaving that aside, the chemophobia of much of the population is stoked by the use of in vitro studies which show that certain pesticides are carcinogenic. However, there is a huge difference between the inside of a petri dish and the inside of a human.

Pesticides are amongst the most heavily regulated chemical agents in the world, and if there was a link to cancer incidence then we would expect to see it in studies such as this one, and in studies that looked at farm workers and others who have greater exposure to pesticides.

One recently published paper looked at the incidence of cancer in agricultural workers in France during the period 2005 – 2009 (the AGRICAN study). It reported that overall agricultural workers were healthier than the general population, with reduced cancer incidence compared to the general population in the same areas. So where are the bodies (so to speak)?

There are, of course, problems with this new study in the UK. For one there was no stratification by type of organic diet – so, for example, we don’t know whether the lymphoma result was skewed by an excess of vegans or carnivores.

And the categories of "never", "sometimes" and "usually/always" are by necessity coarse and difficult to quantify – for example how can you tell how much non-organic food the "usually" group eats?

But for all that, this is study with a large sample size and if there was a positive signal that eating organic protects against cancer you’d expect to see it.

The upshot? It’s probably true to say that spending the pennies (or pounds) you save by eating non-organic on eating MORE fruit and veg is a healthier bet than forking out the extra for "organics". ®

You were the one that implied that carbohydrate calories and fat calories were the ‘same’ metabolically as adjuged by the calorie content labels.

Only silly people think fat is metabolized just like carbohydrates.

Or someone who never had, or passed, highschool chemistry. The rest of us understand that our metabolisms don’t resemble test tubes in a laboratory.

But please, continue to eat your high carb all GMO diet and please please pretty please feed it to your spouse, children and grandchildren. Do it for the rest of us! Promise!?

BTW, I low carb right now. I consume FIVE HUNDRED calories a day MORE than I did when I was low fat dieting. I also weigh EIGHTY POUNDS LESS.

Go figure. Instead of black coffee with splenda at breakfast with a low fat/low calorie granola bar I now have coffee with whole cream, 2 egg omelette cooked in BUTTER and folded over 2oz of CHEESE! for breakfast. What riches!

The rest of the day an it’s dietary differences is pretty much the same.

Try it sometimes.

BTW, my cholesterol went down 40%, my LDL halved and my HDL nearly doubled. With NO meds! My BP was 105/75 the last time it was checked (was 140/95 on the low fat diet and low sodium as well) and my A1C runs below 5 (it was 13+ when it was first tested, while I was low fat dieting).

Try that with your high carb/low fat diet sometimes.

What does this have to do with the first law of thermodynamics?

Nothing, what does the human body have to do with the first law of thermodynamics?

The body isn't a calorimeter as another poster stated. It treats the two nutrients differently. Ingested fat and protein do not trigger an immediate insulin reaction.

Do you really believe that insulin being released is responsible for people becoming fat?

Yes, the immediate release is when the body starts storing excess glucose in the body's fat cells. Sugar requires virtually no digestion, and quickly enters the bloodstream.

Everyone knows people are getting a ton of excess glucose. Fat does not trigger an instant insulin reaction. Good grief.

Yes, it is indeed grievous how many people are morbidly obese and diabetic because of this.

You have a profound reading comprehension problem. I never implied any such thing. It's your massive and unfortunate misunderstanding of human nutrition, and food science in general, that causes you to believe the things you do.

I've already stated that there are different pathways and differing efficiencies for fat, carbohydrates, and amino acids. Just because you have a slow metabolism doesn't mean you can defy thermodynamics. This has absolutely nothing to do with a laboratory test tube. A calorie is a measure of the amount of energy. This is how it is defined and it is always the same no matter what. But you knew that already, right? If not, then maybe you should have paid better attention in class, or you should have taken more advanced courses.

Your fear of GMO foods is the height of irrational behavior, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by the reactions of such an emotional person.

Good for you....but what is the point of your post other than to pat yourself on the back and remind us that you don't have any grasp of thermodynamics?

I'm not on a high carb, low fat diet by the way. I'm on a diet that practices moderation, and involves regular exercise. I have no cholesterol issues and my ratios are the envy of my MD. BP is fine and passed my last stress test without any concerns. Having stellar genes is a blessing.

The Pima Indians of northern Mexico live on a diet high in carbohydrates, especially the high GI kind. The Pima Indians living in Arizona exist on a diet high in protein and fat, with very little in the way of carbohydrates. Even so, the Pima Indians for Arizona weigh significantly more than their Mexican relatives (50 lbs. +), and they suffer from a very high incidence of diabetes as well. Not so with the Mexican Pima's. Since they share the same genetics, one would conclude that diet and exercise play a critical role. Same as it ever was.

Healthy people, living long and healthy lives, while existing on a diet high in carbohydrates. Not unlike many Asian populations. Go figure.

Well, for those of us who can’t tolerate the ‘official’ high carbohydrate low protein diet the very idea that it’s the ‘official standard’ is abhorrent. For most people it’s a death sentence. But not before you’ve spent gazillions of dollars on meds and surgeries trying to stay alive.

I suspect that was the whole intention of that ‘official diet’ to begin with.

A healthy population would never have accepted government control over medical care to the extent it has.

I’m not a Pima Indian. The Pima in Arizona eat refined carbs.

The diabetes numbers for Asia are shocking. Let’s talk India, shall we?

Do you eat GMO food and feed it to your family?

Yes or no.

If you don’t you’re a huge hypocrit. I, personally, hope you do! Please do.

Just reassure me that you eat GMO corn, and soy. And feed it to your loved ones.

Can you do that for me? I need a pick me up this evening! :)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/west-coast-aboriginal-community-tests-low-carb-diet-1.700710

High carb diets are a death sentence for native Americans.

Maybe you hate Native Americans?

Let’s talk the Pine Ridge reservation. Its inhabitants are either t1d, t2d or will be.

Nothing, what does the human body have to do with the first law of thermodynamics?

A great deal if you believe that you won't gain weight by consuming more energy than you burn, as long as it's done with the right macronutrient ratio. That's nothing but a fantasy for scientific illiterates.

The body isn't a calorimeter as another poster stated. It treats the two nutrients differently.

You're stating the obvious now, so that's progress.

The key purpose of insulin is to aid in breaking down carbs by driving it into the cells so it can be metabolized. The insulin response drives the sugar into the cells. Are you saying that it drives it into fat instead? That's not how it works. I said this before but it obviously didn't make an impact, when you consume carbohydrates, what's needed for immediate energy is taken and the rest is converted to glycogen, which is stored in the liver and muscles. If the glycogen reserves are full then, and only then, will it be converted to fat. This is why a guy like Michael Phelps can eat 12,000 calories a day, mostly carbs, and not get fat, because he is constantly replacing glycogen.

Many things can cause your insulin to spike. If what you're saying is true, then people who consume a great deal of caffeine should be getting obese and suffering from diabetes too. Since caffeine causes insulin to spike, which chases blood glucose into the cells, then people who drink a lot of caffeine should be suffering the same effects as those who consume large amounts of carbs. What evidence do you have that people who drink a lot of coffee or tea are also becoming obese and suffering disproportionately from diabetes?

I don't think you understand the metabolization of carbohydrates which is why you say such things.

when you consume carbohydrates, what's needed for immediate energy is taken

Which isn't much, unless you are an athlete.

and the rest is converted to glycogen, which is stored in the liver and muscles. If the glycogen reserves are full

Which is frequent in the fat-American lifestyle

then, and only then, will it be converted to fat.

VIOLA and Bingo!

You're starting to get it.

Well, for those of us who can’t tolerate the ‘official’ high carbohydrate low protein diet the very idea that it’s the ‘official standard’ is abhorrent

No one is forcing you to eat a diet that doesn't agree with your physiology. Stop whining.

For most people it’s a death sentence. But not before you’ve spent gazillions of dollars on meds and surgeries trying to stay alive.

Death sentence? Because you say it is? ROFL. Hyperbole much? How you manage to get out of bed in the morning with all that fear in your head is a mystery.

Over the past century, the only macronutrient to consistently increase in our diet is fat. At the beginning of the 20th century, almost 60% of our total calories came from carbohydrates, with much of that being from white four - you know, one of those processed carbohydrate that's a death sentence. Yet, despite this absurd belief of yours from that fever swamp of your imagination, people back then weren't obese and didn't suffer from the many metabolic afflictions that come from being obese. How is that possible when so much of their diet involved processed white flour, otherwise known by you as the white death?

Even in Japan, obesity is a fairly new phenomenon. So are the diseases that result from obesity. The Japanese have enjoyed a high carb diet for thousands of years without being obese or suffering from high rates of diabetes. Same with India.

Even though you're not a Pima Indian, you can appreciate the fact that when two genetically similar groups are compared, it's the ones eating lots of fat and protein that are suffering from obesity and diabetes, while the group with the high carb diet isn't. It's just more proof that what you believe to be true is loony tunes.

Wow, why did it take you so long to begin throwing up links? If a high carb diet is bad for these people then they should avoid a diet high in carbs, don't you think?

Native Americans have a big problem with alcohol, too, because they do not possess an abundance of one particular enzyme. I'd guess that if they consume too much alcohol, they're going to experience some health issues. Same with a celiac and gluten, or someone with PKU and phenylalanine. The list could go on and on....but what does this have to do with the fact that if you want to lose weight, you need to burn more energy than you consume?

Could you possibly be any more daft?

I'm going to explain it to you like I did my third-grader:

Food is energy, so fat, carbohydrates, and protein all provide energy for your body.
Fat offers the most energy per gram (9 calories), while protein and carbohydrates provide 4 calories per gram.
If your body gets more energy than it burns, it will gain weight.
If your body gets more energy than it burns from carbohydrates, it will gain weight. If your body gets more energy than it burns from fat, it will gain weight. If your body gets more energy than it burns from protein, it will gain weight. And most importantly:
If your body gets more energy than it burns from any combination of fat, carbohydrates, or protein, it will gain weight.

Yes, it's really that simple. Now, are you as smart as a third-grader?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.