Having trouble getting pregnant? Science says eat organic, regulate pesticides

Studies implicate eating pesticide-treated foods in fertility problems

 Published: 17 May 2020

The story below is from 2017, but its message is still timely and important.
---

Having trouble getting pregnant? Science suggests: eat organic and regulate the pesticide industry

Stacy Malkan
Huffington Post, Dec 1, 2017
https://tinyurl.com/y7cd9vuq
[links to sources at this URL]

If you’re trying to get pregnant and raise healthy children, recent science suggests you should consider switching to an organic diet and voting out politicians who put the pesticide industry in charge of our nation’s health laws.

In just the past few weeks, the Journals of the American Medical Association have published studies implicating pesticide-treated foods in fertility problems and documenting large increases in human exposure to the world’s most widely used pesticide, along with a physician’s commentary encouraging people to eat organic.

For their study in JAMA Internal Medicine, Harvard researchers followed 325 women at an infertility clinic and found that women who regularly ate pesticide-treated fruits and vegetables had lower success rates getting pregnant with IVF, while women who ate organic food had reduced risk of pregnancy loss and increased fertility.

The findings surprised lead researcher Jorge Chavarro, MD, of Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

“I was always skeptical that pesticide residues in foods would have any impact on health whatsoever. I thought we were not going to find anything,” he told Time magazine.

But now, “I am now more willing to buy organic apples than I was a few months ago,” Dr. Charvarro said.

The Harvard study sends “a warning that our current laissez-faire attitude toward the regulation of pesticides is failing us,” wrote epidemiologist and pediatrician Phillip Landrigan, MD, of Mount Sinai in a commentary in the same issue of JAMA.

The new study “comes at a time when multiple lines of evidence suggest that human fertility is on the decline and that the frequency of reproductive impairment is increasing,” Landrigan said – trends such as reduced sperm counts and increases in reproductive birth defects and testicular cancer that are “almost certainly” linked to environmental exposures to chemicals.

He said physicians should respond to these findings by educating patients about pesticides and urging reductions in exposure wherever possible.

“Encourage our patients to eat organic,” Dr. Landrigan wrote. “And educate elected officials and other policy makers about the hazards of pesticides—make them realize that pesticides are not merely a regulatory issue or an environmental problem, but that in fact these potent chemicals can have powerful effects on human health that need to be intelligently confronted.”

His statement echoes the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics to reduce children’s exposure to pesticides. “There is a growing body of literature that suggests that pesticides may induce chronic health complications in children, including neurodevelopmental or behavioral problems, birth defects, asthma, and cancer,” states a 2012 AAP paper in Pediatrics,

Rising levels of common pesticide in our bodies

Another recent JAMA study documented large increases in human exposure to the weed killer chemical glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer — and prompted more calls for government intervention.

Analyzing urine samples collected over two decades, researchers at UC San Diego reported that human exposure to glyphosate increased about 500% since the introduction of genetically modified crops (GMOs), most of which are engineered to survive Roundup pesticide spray.

Lead researcher Paul Mills told Time magazine that the levels of glyphosate found in people were 100-fold greater than levels of glyphosate fed to rats that developed liver disease in a long-term feeding study.

Glyphosate is also a probable human carcinogen, according to the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Hundreds of farmers and their families in the U.S. are suing Monsanto claiming glyphosate caused them or their loved ones to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

A recent update to the large Agricultural Health Study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute failed to identify a link between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, but reported evidence of increased risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) among people with the highest glyphosate exposures.

AML is a fast-growing cancer with a low survival rate, so this finding “should be very concerning to the public and particularly to pesticide applicators,” wrote Jennifer Sass of NRDC. She said the AHS study does not change the relevance of the IARC findings that glyphosate is “probably” a human carcinogen.

Two weeks ago — amid revelations that Monsanto manipulated the science on glyphosate for decades — the European Union failed to reauthorize glyphosate. Just hours before that vote, regulators in Arkansas voted to regulate dicamba, a weed killer used in combination with GMO crops that has damaged millions of acres of farmland.

“Taken together, the decisions reflect an increasing political resistance to pesticides in Europe and parts of the United States,” reported Danny Hakim in the New York Times .

What we can do to protect our families and our health

The science suggests we need to step up political resistance and insist on common-sense regulations for the pesticide industry.

As Dr. Landrigan wrote, “We need to overcome the strident objections of the pesticide manufacturing industry, recognize the hidden costs of deregulation, and strengthen requirements for both premarket testing of new pesticides, as well as postmarketing surveillance of exposed populations — exactly as we do for another class of potent, biologically active molecules—drugs.”

A September commentary in the AAAS magazine Science argues that lessons learned from pharmaceutical regulations could help improve pesticide regulations. The authors called for “pesticidovigilance” — requiring long term, post-market monitoring and data gathering of adverse effects, similar to the practice of pharmacovigilance.

In June, 14 researchers writing in Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health pointed out the many gaps in existing evaluations on glyphosate and concluded, “the current safety standards are outdated and fail to protect public health and the environment.”

They called for biomonitoring studies to document human exposures, state-of-the-art hazard assessments, and epidemiological studies that examine exposed workers, pesticide manufacturers and vulnerable populations.

In the meantime, we can use existing science as a guide. For those of us who are concerned about fertility, cancer and raising healthy children, science is suggesting we switch to an organic diet to reduce pesticide exposure and vote for politicians who are willing to stand up to the pesticide industry.

https://www.gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/19400-having-trouble-getting-pregnant-science-says-eat-organic-regulate-pesticides

Top 5 Reasons to Eat Organic

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

• Choosing organic products for yourself and your family is one of the most proactive measures you can implement to take control of your health
• Choosing organic foods lowers your exposure to pesticides. Research shows negative health effects may occur in children at current levels of exposure to pesticides
• Organically grown foods contain higher levels of antioxidants and healthy fats than conventionally grown varieties
• Soil depletion is a direct result of modern agricultural practices and has led to crops containing fewer nutrients. To receive the same amount of iron you used to get from one apple in 1950, by 1998 you had to eat 26 apples
• By buying organic, you also support the mitigation of climate change, protect the environment, promote animal welfare and farmer profitability, and ensure your food is not genetically engineered

• January 05, 2019
 

Written by Dr. Joseph Mercola

• 
  

Many want to lead a healthier lifestyle but cannot figure out where or how to start. In the realm of diet, more than half believe it's easier to calculate their income taxes than figure out what to eat.1 While nutritional science is indeed a complex affair, there's a way to make it really, really simple: Just eat organic.

"Let thy medicine be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food."

That famous quote by Hippocrates, who is often referred to as "the father of medicine," is somewhere around 2,500 years old, and for a long time this sentiment was treated as fact.

Today, many scoff at this notion, thinking nutrition and medicine have very little in common, using food to quench hunger and little else, while turning to pharmaceutical drugs to treat illness. Turning our backs on the fundamental truth that "food is medicine" is no doubt at the very heart of our current disease epidemics.

Another quote by Hippocrates, which is part of the Hippocratic Oath still recited by modern doctors today, is "First, do no harm." Unfortunately, the preoccupation with the idea that there must be "a pill for every ill" now greatly compromises this oath, because the practice of medicine is primarily focused on drugs that oftentimes to far more harm than good.

Meanwhile, modern doctors receive virtually no training in nutrition. The 2018 documentary, "Organic Food — Hype or Hope?" analyzes the benefits of organically grown foods.

How are they different from conventional and do they really live up to the promise of being healthier? Indeed, there's compelling evidence that organic food is a vital aspect of vibrant health, and is a truly practical solution to many of our current health and environmental crises.2

Organic Food Significantly Lowers Your Toxic Burden

Pesticides, in particular, pose risks to human health, and not just from contaminated food but also from contaminated groundwater — an issue covered in the featured documentary.

While U.S. regulators insist that set limits on pesticide residues in conventional produce are enough to protect public health, a 2016 report3 commissioned by the European Parliament found negative health effects may occur in children even at current levels of exposure. A key message of the report was that public health could be protected by promoting organic agriculture.

In 2017, Hilal Elver, the United Nations' special rapporteur on the right to food, and Baskut Tuncak, special rapporteur on toxics, took it a step further, calling for a global treaty to regulate pesticides, saying these chemicals have become a very troubling and pervasive food contaminant that threatens the health of children.4,5

"It is time to overturn the myth that pesticides are necessary to feed the world and create a global process to transition toward safer and healthier food and agricultural production," they noted in their report. Organic farming has other benefits beyond lowering your toxic burden, such as:

1. Mitigating climate change
2. Promoting animal welfare
3. Being more profitable for farmers6,7
4. Ensuring the food isn't genetically engineered (GE) or contains genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This is true for animal products as well, as animals raised on organic farms are not permitted to be fed GE alfalfa or GE corn

Modern Agricultural Practices Have Led to Decline in Food Quality

Soil depletion is a direct result of modern agricultural practices and has led to crops containing fewer nutrients. Reductions in biodiversity and a narrowing of available foodstuffs has also resulted in a narrower range of nutrients in our diets.

Even the healthy foods you choose, such as an apple or lettuce, are likely not as nutritious as they once were, and wild plants widely foraged in the past provided an astounding level of phytonutrients that are largely absent from our modern cultivated fruits and veggies.

For instance, according to Jo Robinson, author of "Eating on the Wild Side," purple potatoes native to Peru contain 28 times more anthocyanins than commonly consumed russet potatoes.8

Work by Dr. August Dunning, chief science officer and co-owner of Eco Organics, reveals that in order to receive the same amount of iron you used to get from one apple in 1950, by 1998 you had to eat 26 apples. Flavor has also fallen by the wayside, and this too is related to the deterioration of mineral content. The minerals actually form the compounds that give the fruit or vegetable its flavor.

Organic Foods Have Fewer Pesticides and Higher Antioxidant Content

Eating organic is one of the easiest ways to optimize your nutrition without supplementation (although certain supplements may still be necessary or advisable, depending on your condition and overall diet). Studies have repeatedly shown that organic foods: a) have much lower pesticide residues; and b) contain higher amounts of health-promoting nutrients.

Among them is a meta-analysis9 by Stanford University, published in 2012, which looked at 240 studies comparing organically and conventionally grown food. Organics were 23 to 37 percent less likely to contain detectable pesticide residues.

Considering the health dangers associated with pesticides, this is clear evidence that organics confer greater health benefits than conventional produce. Organically raised chicken was also up to 45 percent less likely to contain antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which will also help protect your health.

Following in Stanford University's footsteps, a group of scientists at Newcastle University in the U.K. evaluated an even greater number of studies, 343 in all, published over several decades. Just like the Stanford study, this follow-up analysis,10 published in 2014, found that while conventional and organic vegetables oftentimes contain similar levels of many nutrients, the frequency of occurrence of pesticide residues was four times higher in conventional foods.

Conventional produce also had on average 48 percent higher levels of cadmium,11 a toxic metal and a known carcinogen. Moreover, while many nutrient levels were comparable, a key nutritional difference between conventional and organics was their antioxidant content.

In the Newcastle analysis, organic fruits and vegetables were found to contain anywhere from 18 to 69 percent more antioxidants than conventionally grown varieties.

Antioxidants are a very important part of optimal health, as they influence how fast you age by fighting free radicals. So, the fact that organic foods contain far higher levels of them vouches for the stance that organic foods are healthier in terms of nutrition, in addition to being lower in pesticides.

Organic Grass Fed Milk and Meat Are Healthier Than Factory Farmed

Two 2016 studies12 — one on the compositional differences of organic and conventional meat,13 and one on milk14 — also found clear differences between the two. Said to be the largest studies of their kind, the researchers analyzed 196 and 67 studies on milk and meat respectively.

The largest difference in nutritional content of meat was its fatty acid composition, certain essential minerals and antioxidants. Coauthor Chris Seal, professor of food and human nutrition at Newcastle University, commented on the findings:15

"Omega-3s are linked to reductions in cardiovascular disease, improved neurological development and function, and better immune function. Western European diets are recognized as being too low in these fatty acids and the European Food Safety Authority recommends we should double our intake.

But getting enough in our diet is difficult. Our study suggests that switching to organic would go some way toward improving intakes of these important nutrients."

According to the review on milk, half a liter of organic full fat milk will provide you with an estimated 39 milligrams (mg) or 16 percent of the reference daily intake (RDI) of very long-chain (VLC) omega-3 (EPA, DPA and DHA), whereas conventional milk will provide only 25 mg or 11 percent of the RDI of these important fats.

As noted in the milk study,16 VLC omega-3s have been linked to a number of health benefits, including "improved fetal brain development and function, delayed decline in cognitive function in elderly men and reduced risk of dementia (especially Alzheimer's disease)."

Organic milk also contains lower levels of omega-6, providing a healthier ratio between these two fatty acids. Compared to conventional milk, organic milk was also found to contain:

• Higher levels of vitamin E
• Higher concentrations of iron
• Higher levels of antioxidant carotenoids
• 40 percent more conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), which has a wide array of important health benefits, from fighting cancer to decreasing insulin resistance and improving body composition

Other studies looking at grass fed beef,17 organic grass fed milk18 and organic free-range eggs19 have come to similar conclusions. A 2016 report20 by the European Parliament, "Human Health Implications of Organic Food and Organic Agriculture," also reviewed the nutritional content of organics (among many other things), concluding that the clearest benefits of organics on human health were found to be related to lowered pesticide, antibiotic and cadmium exposure.

According to the authors, "As a consequence of reduced pesticide exposure, organic food consequently contributes to the avoidance of health effects and associated costs to society."

Healthy Food Resources

Ultimately, choosing organic products for yourself and your family is one of the most proactive measures you can implement to take control of your health. If you must choose between which products to purchase organic, I recommend prioritizing organic animal foods and then using the Environmental Working Group's (EWG) "Dirty Dozen" list21 for produce.

The dirty dozen list shows which fruits and vegetables are most prone to heavy pesticide contamination and therefore the most important to buy organic.

Keep in mind that while many grocery stores now carry organic items, these are typically imported from other countries, which may or may not have stringent organic standards in place. Ideally, try to buy as much as you can directly from local farmers, whom you can ask directly about their agricultural practices. If you live in the U.S., the following organizations can help you locate farm-fresh foods:

Demeter USA — Demeter-USA.org provides a directory of certified Biodynamic farms and brands. This directory can also be found on BiodynamicFood.org.

American Grassfed Association (AGA) — The goal of the American Grassfed Association is to promote the grass fed industry through government relations, research, concept marketing and public education. Their website also allows you to search for AGA approved producers certified according to strict standards that include being raised on a diet of 100 percent forage; raised on pasture and never confined to a feedlot; never treated with antibiotics or hormones; and born and raised on American family farms.

EatWild.com — EatWild.com provides lists of farmers known to produce raw dairy products as well as grass fed beef and other farm-fresh produce (although not all are certified organic). Here you can also find information about local farmers markets, as well as local stores and restaurants that sell grass fed products.

Weston A. Price Foundation — Weston A. Price has local chapters in most states, and many of them are connected with buying clubs in which you can easily purchase organic foods, including grass fed raw dairy products like milk and butter.

Grassfed Exchange — The Grassfed Exchange has a listing of producers selling organic and grass fed meats across the U.S.

Local Harvest — This website will help you find farmers markets, family farms and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass fed meats and many other goodies.

Farmers Markets — A national listing of farmers markets.

Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals — The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, hotels and online outlets in the United States and Canada.

Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) — CISA is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms.

The Cornucopia Institute — The Cornucopia Institute maintains web-based tools rating all certified organic brands of eggs, dairy products and other commodities, based on their ethical sourcing and authentic farming practices separating CAFO "organic" production from authentic organic practices.

RealMilk.com — If you're still unsure of where to find raw milk, check out Raw-Milk-Facts.com and RealMilk.com. They can tell you what the status is for legality in your state, and provide a listing of raw dairy farms in your area. The Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund22 also provides a state-by-state review of raw milk laws.23 California residents can also find raw milk retailers using the store locator available at www.OrganicPastures.com.

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2019/01/05/importance-of-eating-organic.aspx

Eating organic food linked with lower cancer risk

"Organic food lowers blood and breast cancer risk, study finds," the Mail Online reports.

Tuesday

October 23, 2018

The news website reports on a large study in France that questioned 69,000 people on their consumption of organic food, and then monitored them for 5 years to see how many developed cancer.

Organic food is grown without the use of pesticides, manmade fertilisers or genetic modification (GM) techniques. Organic meat, poultry, eggs and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones.

Researchers found that people who ate the most organic food had a 24% reduced risk of cancer compared to those who ate the least.

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

The study does not demonstrate that organic food is the direct cause of the reduced risk. People who ate more organic food had healthier lifestyles in general, doing more exercise and eating more fruit and vegetables than other people. Though the researchers tried to adjust for such health and lifestyle factors, it's still possible these things had an influence.

So, claims that "eating organic food will reduce cancer rates" remain unproven. It would be better to focus on eating a healthy diet high in fruit, vegetables and fibre and low in processed meat, and to maintain a healthy weight. Eating well, along with taking regular exercise and not smoking, can significantly reduce your risk of developing cancer.

Where does the study come from?

The research was conducted by the Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicale, and Universit é Paris 13. Funding was provided by several French organisations including the Ministry of Health, Institute for Health Surveillance, and the National Institute for Prevention and Health Education.

One of the researchers declared that they had an advisory role promoting the use of organic products to 2 non-profit organisations.

The study was published in the peer-reviewed medical journal JAMA Internal Medicine.

The UK media took the findings at face value without acknowledging other factors that could have potentially influenced the results, and the small number of cancer cases recorded. For example, the Mail's statement that: "The biggest impact was seen on non-Hodgkin's lymphoma risk [a cancer of the lymphatic system], which plummeted among those who shunned chemical-sprayed food" is certainly overblown, given that this was based on tiny numbers and could be a chance finding.

But to their credit, the UK media did point out that people who eat organic food tend to have a healthier lifestyle than people who don't.

What kind of research was this?

This was a population-based cohort study that aimed to see whether eating organic food was associated with risk of developing cancer.

The organic food market avoids the use of chemical fertilisers, pesticides and GM methods, and restricts the use of medications in animals.

Previous research has demonstrated other potential beneficial effects of eating an organic diet, such as a lowered level of pesticides in urine samples. But few studies have looked at the potential link with cancer.

Observational studies such as this are useful for exploring potential links but can't prove cause and effect, as other health and lifestyle factors could be having an influence.

What did the researchers do?

This study involved 68,946 participants (78% women, average age 44 years) of the internet-based French cohort study, NutriNet-Sante. The cohort was set up in 2009 to look at links between diet, nutrition and health.

At the start of the study, participants provided information on their sociodemographic status, body measurements, health status and lifestyle behaviours.

They were asked 2 months later how often they ate 16 different organic products, including fruit and vegetables, dairy and eggs, meat and fish, grains and cereals, ready meals, wine, chocolate and coffee.

They were asked to tick 1 of the following:

• most of the time
• occasionally
• never ("too expensive")
• never ("product not available")
• never ("I'm not interested in organic products")
• never ("I avoid such products")
• never ("for no specific reason")
• I don't know

For each product, 2 points for were given for "most of the time", 1 point for "occasionally" and 0 for all other responses. The 16 items therefore had a total organic food score ranging from 0 to 32 points. The analysis was split into 4 quartiles, from lowest to highest intake.

Health outcomes of participants were recorded for an average of 4.5 years. This information was gathered through annual questionnaires. If participants reported receiving a diagnosis of cancer, they were asked for medical records (obtained for 90%) and details of the treating doctor or hospital.

The fully adjusted analysis took account of the following potential confounders:

• age and gender
• marital status
• education, occupational status and monthly income
• smoking and alcohol intake
• body mass index
• physical activity
• overall food energy intake and intake of fibre, fruit and vegetables, processed foods and red meat
• hormonal factors in women, such as use of hormone treatment and whether they'd been through the menopause

What were the basic results?

In total, 1,340 cancers developed among the 68,946 participants (2% of the cohort). These included breast cancer (34%), prostate cancer (13%), skin cancer (10%) and bowel cancer (7%).

Consumption of organic food was more common among:

• women
• those with a higher education or occupational status
• those who did more physical activity and who had healthier diets in general

Those who ate the most organic food had a 24% lower risk of developing cancer compared to those with the lowest intake (hazard ratio (HR) 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 0.90).

There were no differences in people who ate moderate amounts of organic food compared with those who ate the least.

By specific cancer, significant links with organic food intake were only found for:

• postmenopausal breast cancer
• lymphomas overall
• non-Hodgkin's lymphoma specifically

However, these results should be taken with caution, particularly because of the very low number of cases.

What do the researchers conclude?

The researchers conclude: "A higher frequency of organic food consumption was associated with a reduced risk of cancer. Although the study findings need to be confirmed, promoting organic food consumption in the general population could be a promising preventive strategy against cancer."

Conclusions

This study is a valuable investigation into potential links between eating organic food and cancer risk. However, the author's conclusion could be a little premature. This study alone cannot prove that eating organic food will prevent you getting cancer.

There are a few points to note.

Cancers still developed among people who ate the most organic food – it's just there were fewer cases (269 vs 360 among those eating the least amount of organic food). So even if there is a direct link, eating organic food is not guaranteed protection against cancer.

The conclusions about the links with specific cancers were based on tiny numbers – for example, 15 non-Hodgkin's lymphomas among those eating the least organic food vs 2 among those eating the most organic.

Organic food intake was taken at a single point in time and self-reported. This may be inaccurate and not reflect lifetime habits.

There was a notable difference in sociodemographics and lifestyles of those eating the most organic food. The researchers tried to adjust for these factors, but there's still a chance these things influenced the results. This means the study can't prove that eating organic food is responsible for the reduced risk – it could just be down to living a healthier lifestyle in general.

The study benefits from a large sample size, but these were online volunteers to a health and nutrition study who may not represent the general population of France.

Experts have added similar notes of caution. For example, Professor Tom Sanders of King's College London says: "[The authors'] conclusion, that promoting organic food in the general population could be a promising cancer preventive strategy, is overblown."

It's understandable to want to eat organic food for health or environmental reasons. But in terms of protecting against cancer, what's far more proven to have an effect is a healthier diet in general with a high amount of fruit and vegetables and fibre and low amount of processed meat, along with regular physical activity, and maintaining a healthy weight.

Analysis by Bazian 
Edited by NHS Website

Links to the headlines

Organic food lowers blood and breast cancer risk, study finds

Mail Online, October 22 2018

People who eat organic food ‘are 25 per cent less likely to get cancer’

The Sun, October 23 2018

People who eat organic 25 per cent less likely to get cancer

The Times (subscription required), October 23 2018

Links to the science

Baudry J, Assmann KE, Touvier M, et al. Association of Frequency of Organic Food Consumption With Cancer Risk - Findings From the NutriNet-Santé Prospective Cohort StudyJAMA Internal Medicine. Published online October 22 2018

https://www.nhs.uk/news/cancer/eating-organic-food-linked-lower-cancer-risk/

Can going organic reduce cancer risk?

To reduce your risk of cancer, you know you should quit smoking, exercise regularly, wear sunscreen and take advantage of screening tests.

October 29, 2018 Food, Health, Nutrition, Wellness

By AGENCY

A recent study suggests consuming organic food, as opposed to conventional food, may help reduce risk of some types of cancer. — TNS

New research suggests another item might be added to this list: Choose organic foods over conventional ones.

A study of nearly 70,000 French adults who were tracked for an average of 4.5 years found that those who ate the most organic foods were less likely to develop certain kinds of cancer than the people 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 researchers wrote.

“Further research is required to identify which specific factors are responsible for potential protective effects of organic food consumption on cancer risk,” they wrote in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine.

The researchers have an idea about what factors those may be: pesticides.

At least three of them – glyphosate, malathion and diazinon – probably cause cancer, and others may be carcinogenic as well, according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

“Organic products are less likely to contain pesticide residues than conventional foods,” they wrote.

That’s because the rules farmers must follow in order to use the organic label generally prohibit the use of synthetic pesticides (although pesticides based on natural compounds like hydrogen peroxide and soaps are allowed).

Previous studies have found that pesticide residue is more prevalent on conventionally grown produce than on its organic counterparts.

For instance, a report out in 2018 from the European Food Safety Authority found residue from one or more pesticides on 44% of the conventionally produced food samples that were tested.

Meanwhile, 6.5% of the organic food samples tested had detectable pesticide residues.

And there’s evidence that those pesticides are metabolised in the body. The urine of people who eat few (if any) organic foods contains higher concentrations of chemicals derived from pesticides than the urine of people who eat organic food regularly.

In the United States, more than nine out of 10 people have measurable amounts of pesticides in their urine or their blood, and these concentrations are known to fall when people switch from conventionally produced foods to organic ones.

Consuming fewer pesticide-related chemicals certainly seems like a good idea. But whether that’s associated with an actual health benefit is unclear.

So a team from Inserm, the French equivalent of the US National Institutes of Health, went looking for data.

In an ideal world, they would recruit thousands of volunteers and randomly divide them into two groups: one that follows an organic diet and one that doesn’t.

They would monitor these volunteers to make sure they were keeping to their assigned diets and observe the other things they do that could influence their cancer risk.

Then, after many years, they would count up the number of cancers diagnosed in each of the groups and see if there was a difference that could be explained only by the amount of organic food they ate.

But this is not an ideal world, so the researchers had to make do with the data that were available.

They focused on people who joined a large, ongoing health and nutrition study starting in 2009.

They were questioned about 16 categories of foods – including fruits, vegetables, eggs and wine – and how often they ate organic versions of them.

Once a year, they provided health updates, including whether they had been diagnosed with cancer.

By the end of 2016, there were 68,946 French adults who met all of these criteria and were included in the analysis. Their average age when they joined the study was 44, and 78% of them were women.

Between 2009 and 2016, cancer was diagnosed in 1,340 of the volunteers.

The most common type was breast cancer (459 cases), followed by prostate cancer (180 cases), skin cancer (135 cases), colorectal cancer (99 cases), non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (47 cases) and other types of lymphomas (15 cases).

The study authors ranked the volunteers according to how frequently they ate organic foods and divided them into four equally sized groups.

This revealed that the people who ate organic food most often had higher incomes, more education and higher-status jobs.

They were also more likely to exercise, to have quit smoking, and to eat higher amounts of healthful foods such as fruits and vegetables.

All of these things are associated with a lower risk of cancer.

After they took these and other demographic factors into account, they found that the people who ate organic food most frequently were 25% less likely to develop any kind of cancer than the people who ate organic food the least.

The overall effect of choosing lots of organic foods was similar in magnitude to having a family history of cancer.

When they considered each type of cancer separately, they found that only three had a statistically significant association with organic food consumption.

One of them was postmenopausal breast cancer: The women who ate organic foods most often were 34% less likely to receive this diagnosis than women who ate organic foods the least. (There were hints of reduced risk for premenopausal breast cancers as well, but the difference was smaller and could have been due to chance.)

Another was non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: The most frequent eaters of organic foods were 86% less likely to get this form of cancer than their counterparts on the other end of the spectrum. The difference between the two groups was just barely big enough to be statistically significant.

The last category was all lymphomas: People who ate organic food most often were 76% less likely to get cancers of the lymph system than people who ate organic foods the least.

Some of these findings were in line with past studies, and some were not.

In particular, the French researchers compared their results with data from the Million Women Study in Britain.

In the study, participants who ate organic food regularly had a 21% lower risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma than participants who didn’t eat organic food at all.

However, there was no reduction in overall cancer risk, and the risk of breast cancer was slightly higher among women who ate organic food routinely than it was for women who didn’t eat it at all.

“It now seems important to evaluate chronic effects of low-dose pesticide residue exposure from the diet,” the French researchers concluded.

A team from the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health noted several strengths of the new report in a commentary that was also published recently.

Glyphosate, malathion and diazinon have all been associated with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, so the researchers may be on to something, the Harvard authors wrote.

They also praised the study for including tens of thousands of people and following them prospectively instead of retrospectively.

But there are also several shortcomings that limit the strength of the study’s results, they added. For instance, no attempt was made to confirm people’s claims about the amount of organic food they ate.

The French researchers also assumed that the more organic foods a person ate, the lower their exposure to pesticide residue would be. This may be true, but there is no data to back it up.

“At the current stage of research, the relationship between organic food consumption and cancer risk is still unclear,” the Harvard researchers wrote.

What’s “urgently” needed is a more detailed study that would address some of the problems in the French report, according to the commentary.

“If future studies provide more solid evidence supporting the consumption of organic foods for cancer prevention, measures to lower costs and ensure equitable access to organic products will be crucial,” the Harvard authors wrote.

In the meantime, “concerns over pesticide risks should not discourage intake of conventional fruits and vegetables”, they advised.

“The benefits of consuming conventionally grown produce are likely to outweigh the possible risks from pesticide exposure.” – Los Angeles Times/Tribune News Service

https://www.star2.com/health/2018/10/29/organic-reduce-cancer-risk/

Dutch organic farmers feel duped in tainted eggs scandal

Dutch farmers producing organic eggs, supposedly free from insecticides, joined a chorus of outrage Friday over the growing tainted-egg scandal, claiming they were duped by the suppliers of a reputedly natural pesticide.

August 12, 2017

“Organic breeders are very depressed and feel they were fooled by the Chickfriend company, which supposedly sold them a clean and natural product,” said Miriam van Bree, spokeswoman for the Bionext organisation for organic farming.

At least 20 organic egg farmers have been affected by the scandal in which millions of eggs have been contaminated with fipronil — a chemical which can be harmful to humans. They believed they were using a product which was based on eucalyptus and menthol.

“Organic breeders always are doing everything they can to have the cleanest, healthiest and longest-lasting eggs that they can be proud of,” Van Bree told AFP.

“Today their eggs are contaminated with an insecticide… it’s a huge disappointment,” she said.

The presence of a mildly toxic substance like fipronil in organic eggs also had “repercussions for consumer confidence” which has been given “a huge knock”, she added.

Organic farmers now too have to rid their chicken pens from fipronil and were hamstrung because they could not use the same chemical products as commercial farmers.

“They will have to think hard about how they can clean their farms — it’s a unique situation for them,” said Van Bree.

The best way was to “put the contaminated chickens on a diet, as fipronil is concentrated in the bird’s fat,” said Van Bree, who excluded the possibility of slaughter because of animal welfare concerns.

https://www.independent.co.ug/dutch-organic-farmers-feel-duped-tainted-eggs-scandal/