[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Figure.  Association Between Quartiles of the Organic Food Score (Quartile 4 vs Quartile 1) and Overall Cancer Risk Stratified by Different Factors, NutriNet-Santé Cohort, France, 2009 to 2016
Association Between Quartiles of the Organic Food Score (Quartile 4 vs Quartile 1) and Overall Cancer Risk Stratified by Different Factors, NutriNet-Santé Cohort, France, 2009 to 2016

BMI indicates body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared); HR, hazard ratio; and mPNNS-GS, Programme National Nutrition Santé Guideline Score without the physical activity component.

Table 1.  Baseline Characteristics According to Quartiles of the Organic Food Score, NutriNet-Santé Cohort, France, 2009 to 2016
Baseline Characteristics According to Quartiles of the Organic Food Score, NutriNet-Santé Cohort, France, 2009 to 2016
Table 2.  Multivariable Associations Between the Organic Food Score (Modeled as a Continuous Variable and as Quartiles) and Overall Cancer Risk, NutriNet-Santé Cohort, France, 2009 to 2016
Multivariable Associations Between the Organic Food Score (Modeled as a Continuous Variable and as Quartiles) and Overall Cancer Risk, NutriNet-Santé Cohort, France, 2009 to 2016
Table 3.  Multivariable Associations Between the Organic Food Score (Modeled as Quartiles) and Cancer Risk by Site, NutriNet-Santé Cohort, France, 2009 to 2016a
Multivariable Associations Between the Organic Food Score (Modeled as Quartiles) and Cancer Risk by Site, NutriNet-Santé Cohort, France, 2009 to 2016a
Table 4.  Multivariable Associations Between a Simplified Organic Food Score (Modeled as a Continuous Variable and as Quartiles) and Overall Cancer Risk and Cancer Risk by Site, Sensitivity Analyses, NutriNet-Santé Cohort, France, 2009 to 2016a
Multivariable Associations Between a Simplified Organic Food Score (Modeled as a Continuous Variable and as Quartiles) and Overall Cancer Risk and Cancer Risk by Site, Sensitivity Analyses, NutriNet-Santé Cohort, France, 2009 to 2016a
1.
Ferlay  J, Soerjomataram  I, Dikshit  R,  et al.  Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012.  Int J Cancer. 2015;136(5):E359-E386. doi:10.1002/ijc.29210PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
World Health Organization. International Agency for Research on Cancer. https://www.iarc.fr/. Accessed August 4, 2017.
3.
Dossier: par INSERM [salle de presse]. Pesticides: effets sur la santé, une expertise collective de l’INSERM. http://presse.inserm.fr/pesticides-effets-sur-la-sante-une-expertise-collective-de-linserm/8463/. Published June 13, 2013. Accessed August 21, 2016.
4.
Mostafalou  S, Abdollahi  M.  Pesticides: an update of human exposure and toxicity.  Arch Toxicol. 2017;91(2):549-599. doi:10.1007/s00204-016-1849-xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Graillot  V, Takakura  N, Hegarat  LL, Fessard  V, Audebert  M, Cravedi  JP.  Genotoxicity of pesticide mixtures present in the diet of the French population.  Environ Mol Mutagen. 2012;53(3):173-184. doi:10.1002/em.21676PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
IFOAM EU and FiBL. Organic in Europe: prospects and developments: 2016. https://shop.fibl.org/CHen/mwdownloads/download/link/id/767/?ref=1. Published 2016. Accessed September 3, 2017.
7.
Andreeva  VA, Salanave  B, Castetbon  K,  et al.  Comparison of the sociodemographic characteristics of the large NutriNet-Santé e-cohort with French Census data: the issue of volunteer bias revisited.  J Epidemiol Community Health. 2015;69(9):893-898. doi:10.1136/jech-2014-205263PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Andreeva  VA, Deschamps  V, Salanave  B,  et al.  Comparison of dietary intakes between a large online cohort study (Etude NutriNet-Santé) and a nationally representative cross-sectional study (Etude Nationale Nutrition Santé) in France: addressing the issue of generalizability in e-epidemiology.  Am J Epidemiol. 2016;184(9):660-669. doi:10.1093/aje/kww016PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Hughner  RS, McDonagh  P, Prothero  A, Shultz  CJ, Stanton  J.  Who are organic food consumers? a compilation and review of why people purchase organic food.  J Consum Behav. 2007;6(2-3):94-110. doi:10.1002/cb.210Google ScholarCrossref
10.
Padilla Bravo  C, Cordts  A, Schulze  B, Spiller  A.  Assessing determinants of organic food consumption using data from the German National Nutrition Survey II.  Food Qual Prefer. 2013;28(1):60-70. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.08.010Google ScholarCrossref
11.
Règlement (CE) No. 834/2007 Du Conseil. Du 28 Juin 2007: relatif à la production biologique et à l'étiquetage des produits biologiques et abrogeant le règlement (CEE) No. 2092/91. http://www.agencebio.org/sites/default/files/upload/documents/3_Espace_Pro/RCE_BIO_834_2007_oct08.pdf. Published 2007. Accessed July 18, 2016.
12.
Barański  M, Średnicka-Tober  D, Volakakis  N,  et al.  Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium concentrations and lower incidence of pesticide residues in organically grown crops: a systematic literature review and meta-analyses.  Br J Nutr. 2014;112(5):794-811. doi:10.1017/S0007114514001366PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
European Food Safety Authority.  Monitoring data on pesticide residues in food: results on organic versus conventionally produced food.  EFSA Support Publ. 2018;15(4):1397E. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/pub/en-1397. Accessed April 26, 2018.Google Scholar
14.
Curl  CL, Beresford  SAA, Fenske  RA,  et al.  Estimating pesticide exposure from dietary intake and organic food choices: the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA).  Environ Health Perspect. 2015;123(5):475-483. doi:10.1289/ehp.1408197PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Oates  L, Cohen  M, Braun  L, Schembri  A, Taskova  R.  Reduction in urinary organophosphate pesticide metabolites in adults after a week-long organic diet.  Environ Res. 2014;132:105-111. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2014.03.021PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
European Commission. EU: pesticides database. http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/eu-pesticides-database/public/. Published 2016. Accessed August 20, 2016.
17.
Kim  S, Thiessen  PA, Bolton  EE,  et al.  PubChem substance and compound databases.  Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44(D1):D1202-D1213. doi:10.1093/nar/gkv951PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Bradbury  KE, Balkwill  A, Spencer  EA,  et al; Million Women Study Collaborators.  Organic food consumption and the incidence of cancer in a large prospective study of women in the United Kingdom.  Br J Cancer. 2014;110(9):2321-2326. doi:10.1038/bjc.2014.148PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Kesse-Guyot  E, Baudry  J, Assmann  KE, Galan  P, Hercberg  S, Lairon  D.  Prospective association between consumption frequency of organic food and body weight change, risk of overweight or obesity: results from the NutriNet-Santé study.  Br J Nutr. 2017;117(2):325-334. doi:10.1017/S0007114517000058PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Torjusen  H, Brantsæter  AL, Haugen  M,  et al.  Reduced risk of pre-eclampsia with organic vegetable consumption: results from the prospective Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study.  BMJ Open. 2014;4(9):e006143. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006143PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Eisinger-Watzl  M, Wittig  F, Heuer  T, Hoffmann  I.  Customers purchasing organic food: do they live healthier? results of the German National Nutrition Survey II.  Eur J Nutr Food Saf. 2015;5(1):59-71. doi:10.9734/EJNFS/2015/12734Google ScholarCrossref
22.
Baudry  J, Allès  B, Péneau  S,  et al.  Dietary intakes and diet quality according to levels of organic food consumption by French adults: cross-sectional findings from the NutriNet-Santé cohort study.  Public Health Nutr. 2017;20(4):638-648. doi:10.1017/S1368980016002718PubMedGoogle Scholar
23.
Petersen  SB, Rasmussen  MA, Strøm  M, Halldorsson  TI, Olsen  SF.  Sociodemographic characteristics and food habits of organic consumers: a study from the Danish National Birth Cohort.  Public Health Nutr. 2013;16(10):1810-1819. doi:10.1017/S1368980012004119PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Simões-Wüst  AP, Moltó-Puigmartí  C, van Dongen  MC, Dagnelie  PC, Thijs  C.  Organic food consumption during pregnancy is associated with different consumer profiles, food patterns and intake: the KOALA Birth Cohort Study.  Public Health Nutr. 2017;20(12):2134-2144. doi:10.1017/S1368980017000842PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Hercberg  S, Castetbon  K, Czernichow  S,  et al.  The NutriNet-Santé study: a web-based prospective study on the relationship between nutrition and health and determinants of dietary patterns and nutritional status.  BMC Public Health. 2010;10:242. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-10-242PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
World Medical Association.  World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects.  JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191-2194. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.281053PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Touvier  M, Méjean  C, Kesse-Guyot  E,  et al.  Comparison between web-based and paper versions of a self-administered anthropometric questionnaire.  Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25(5):287-296. doi:10.1007/s10654-010-9433-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Vergnaud  AC, Touvier  M, Méjean  C,  et al.  Agreement between web-based and paper versions of a socio-demographic questionnaire in the NutriNet-Santé study.  Int J Public Health. 2011;56(4):407-417. doi:10.1007/s00038-011-0257-5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Lassale  C, Péneau  S, Touvier  M,  et al.  Validity of web-based self-reported weight and height: results of the NutriNet-Santé study.  J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(8):e152. doi:10.2196/jmir.2575PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Lassale  C, Castetbon  K, Laporte  F,  et al.  Validation of a web-based, self-administered, non-consecutive-day dietary record tool against urinary biomarkers.  Br J Nutr. 2015;113(6):953-962. doi:10.1017/S0007114515000057PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Lassale  C, Castetbon  K, Laporte  F,  et al.  Correlations between fruit, vegetables, fish, vitamins, and fatty acids estimated by web-based nonconsecutive dietary records and respective biomarkers of nutritional status.  J Acad Nutr Diet. 2016;116(3):427-438.e5. doi:10.1016/j.jand.2015.09.017PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Touvier  M, Kesse-Guyot  E, Méjean  C,  et al.  Comparison between an interactive web-based self-administered 24 h dietary record and an interview by a dietitian for large-scale epidemiological studies.  Br J Nutr. 2011;105(7):1055-1064. doi:10.1017/S0007114510004617PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Le Moullec  N, Deheeger  M, Preziosi  P,  et al.  Validation of the photography manual of servings used in dietary collection in the SU.VI.MAX study  [in French].  Cah Nutr Diét. 1996;31(3):158-164.Google Scholar
34.
Monteiro  CA, Cannon  G, Moubarac  JC, Levy  RB, Louzada  MLC, Jaime  PC.  The UN Decade of Nutrition, the NOVA food classification and the trouble with ultra-processing.  Public Health Nutr. 2018;21(1):5-17. doi:10.1017/S1368980017000234PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Fiolet  T, Srour  B, Sellem  L,  et al.  Consumption of ultra-processed foods and cancer risk: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort.  BMJ. 2018;360:k322. doi:10.1136/bmj.k322PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Étude NutriNet-Santé.  Table de Composition des Aliments. Paris, France: Economica; 2013.
37.
Black  AE.  Critical evaluation of energy intake using the Goldberg cut-off for energy intake:basal metabolic rate: a practical guide to its calculation, use and limitations.  Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2000;24(9):1119-1130. doi:10.1038/sj.ijo.0801376PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Estaquio  C, Kesse-Guyot  E, Deschamps  V,  et al.  Adherence to the French Programme National Nutrition Santé Guideline Score is associated with better nutrient intake and nutritional status.  J Am Diet Assoc. 2009;109(6):1031-1041. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2009.03.012PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
INSEE. Definitions, methods, and quality. http://www.insee.fr/en/methodes/. Published 2009. Accessed February 23, 2015.
40.
Hagströmer  M, Oja  P, Sjöström  M.  The International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ): a study of concurrent and construct validity.  Public Health Nutr. 2006;9(6):755-762. doi:10.1079/PHN2005898PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
World Health Organization.  International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2010. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/icd/icd10cm.htm. Accessed August 30, 2018.
42.
Miettinen  OS.  Proportion of disease caused or prevented by a given exposure, trait or intervention.  Am J Epidemiol. 1974;99(5):325-332. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a121617PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Yusof  AS, Isa  ZM, Shah  SA.  Dietary patterns and risk of colorectal cancer: a systematic review of cohort studies (2000-2011).  Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2012;13(9):4713-4717. doi:10.7314/APJCP.2012.13.9.4713PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Bertuccio  P, Rosato  V, Andreano  A,  et al.  Dietary patterns and gastric cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  Ann Oncol. 2013;24(6):1450-1458. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdt108PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Brennan  SF, Cantwell  MM, Cardwell  CR, Velentzis  LS, Woodside  JV.  Dietary patterns and breast cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  Am J Clin Nutr. 2010;91(5):1294-1302. doi:10.3945/ajcn.2009.28796PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
46.
Barański  M, Srednicka-Tober  D, Volakakis  N,  et al.  Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium concentrations and lower incidence of pesticide residues in organically grown crops: a systematic literature review and meta-analyses.  Br J Nutr. 2014;112(5):794-811. doi:10.1017/S0007114514001366PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
Smith-Spangler  C, Brandeau  ML, Olkin  I, Bravata  DM.  Are organic foods safer or healthier?  Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(4):297-300. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-158-4-201302190-00019PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
Science and Technology Options Assessment. Human health implications of organic food and organic agriculture. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/581922/EPRS_STU%282016%29581922_EN.pdf. Accessed May 28, 2017.
49.
Guyton  KZ, Loomis  D, Grosse  Y,  et al; International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group, IARC.  Carcinogenicity of tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate.  Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(5):490-491. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(15)70134-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
50.
Androutsopoulos  VP, Hernandez  AF, Liesivuori  J, Tsatsakis  AM.  A mechanistic overview of health associated effects of low levels of organochlorine and organophosphorous pesticides.  Toxicology. 2013;307:89-94. doi:10.1016/j.tox.2012.09.011PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
51.
Kim  KH, Kabir  E, Jahan  SA.  Exposure to pesticides and the associated human health effects.  Sci Total Environ. 2017;575:525-535. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.009PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
52.
Nougadère  A, Sirot  V, Kadar  A,  et al.  Total diet study on pesticide residues in France: levels in food as consumed and chronic dietary risk to consumers.  Environ Int. 2012;45:135-150. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2012.02.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
53.
Gray  JM, Rasanayagam  S, Engel  C, Rizzo  J.  State of the evidence 2017: an update on the connection between breast cancer and the environment.  Environ Health. 2017;16(1):94. doi:10.1186/s12940-017-0287-4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
54.
Hu  L, Luo  D, Zhou  T, Tao  Y, Feng  J, Mei  S.  The association between non-Hodgkin lymphoma and organophosphate pesticides exposure: a meta-analysis.  Environ Pollut. 2017;231(pt 1):319-328. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2017.08.028PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
55.
Mostafalou  S, Abdollahi  M.  Pesticides and human chronic diseases: evidences, mechanisms, and perspectives.  Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2013;268(2):157-177. doi:10.1016/j.taap.2013.01.025PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
56.
Macon  MB, Fenton  SE.  Endocrine disruptors and the breast: early life effects and later life disease.  J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia. 2013;18(1):43-61. doi:10.1007/s10911-013-9275-7PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
57.
Andreotti  G, Hou  L, Beane Freeman  LE,  et al.  Body mass index, agricultural pesticide use, and cancer incidence in the Agricultural Health Study cohort.  Cancer Causes Control. 2010;21(11):1759-1775. doi:10.1007/s10552-010-9603-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    5 Comments for this article
    EXPAND ALL
    Strange design
    Jean-Francois Grenier, MD |
    Please, correct me if i'm wrong, but this study has a very strange and weak design.
    The dietary profile of participants was assessed only once ("Two months after enrollment, volunteers were asked to provide information on their consumption frequency of 16 labeled organic products").
    Moreover, while the authors state that they used a somewhat validated questionnaire, in their commentary Drs. Hemler, Chavarro and Hu, write:
    "Most salient among the weaknesses is the fact that the organic food questionnaire was not validated; therefore, it is unclear what the intended exposure, organic food consumption, was actually measuring."
    So, how could anyone
    draw any conclusions based on a single assessment made with an unvalidated questionnaire?
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    READ MORE
    Interesting, but a few questions remain.
    Sebastien Causse |
    The findings are very interesting, but the significance of the differences appears rather light. The factosr may well be causally unrelated to consumption of organic food, yet correlated, and this could be enough to send the differences of incidence under the significance threshold.
    In that regard, in supplemental table 7, we can see that other variables change between the quartiles. For example milk, legume and poultry consumption. However, the models did not adjust for these. Red and processed meat were adjusted for, I assume because higher cancer risk was associated with these food categories, however one should not assume that
    because it has not been described, milk, poultry or legumes might not have an effect of their own, and the model should have been adjusted for that.
    Otherwise, suggesting that pesticides are the cause of the cancers is somewhat risky.

    An extra analysis of interest would be to see if there are specific food groups where organic vs conventional sourcing has a higher impact on the incidence of the reported cancers. According to the methods paragraph, the authors should have this kind of data. Does a PCA or MFA suggest any link? This would be particularly interesting as it could indirectly point towards a more specific subgroup of pesticides (organic eggs or milk are not exposed to the same pesticides as cereals or legumes), and perhaps support the authors' claim of pesticide involvement.
    This could also reduce the risk of an unidentified confounding factor (see first comment): if the incidence of cancers can be related to the consumption of organic food in a specific food group instead of the general consumption of organic food, then it is less likely that causality is due to difference of lifestyle (that is, if we assume that other healthy lifestyle habits correlate to organic food consumption on the whole and not the consumption of organic food of a specific group).
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    READ MORE
    Ethics
    Naomi Boldon, Ethics | Rocky Vista University
    Julia Baudry, et al used a French research study to make associations between health and nutrition, backing up their claim that eating organic foods lowers the risks for developing cancer. The study referenced in the article included 68,946 patients, 78% women with a mean age at baseline of 44.2 years. According to the article, women are more prone than men to develop cancer. This helps to solidify the authors’ claims but does not take into account other age groups—particularly those more vulnerable like children or the elderly. While the study was well conducted, additional research is needed to clarify all aspects of the authors’ claims.
    As physicians it is our responsibility to make recommendations as well as to educate our patients about diet and lifestyle. In doing so, we are incorporating beneficence into our daily practice. Education regarding diet not only helps to improve the lives of our patients, but by extension also has the potential to improve the nutrition of the patient’s families and communities as they in turn educate others around them about what they have learned from us.
    There are an increasing number of regions within the United States that are beginning to ban GMO foods (https://gmo.geneticliteracyproject.org/FAQ/where-are-gmos-grown-and-banned). These bans may include the banning of cultivation and/or imports or limit specific crops to GMO cultivation. Some examples of regions participating in the GMO bans include Boulder County, Colorado, as well as cities throughout California and Maine. In addition to comments made in the article about considering the different classes of pesticides used, I am referencing GMO foods in this context because the pesticide Roundup is applied to 80% of these conventionally grown foods (http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/44/download/isaaa-brief-44-2012.pdf). States such as California have recently moved for labeling of glyphosate (the main ingredient in Roundup) as a known human carcinogen (https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/State-can-label-widely-used-herbicide-as-possible-12849147.php). This alone should alert us as to the importance of being conscious about where our food comes from, how it is grown and harvested, and what effects these can have on our overall health and vitality.
    The article also mentions that, “natural pesticides allowed in organic farming in the European Union exhibit much lower toxic effects than the synthetic pesticides used in conventional farming.” While there are multitudes of factors that go into the growth and progression of cancer, world reports do show that there are fewer instances of cancer in European countries than in the United States (https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jan/24/worldwide-cancer-rates-uk-rate-drops). This leads me to ask what the toxic effects of natural pesticides might include or what regulations are considered safe for organic farming practices. These points were not addressed in the article but would be important for  follow up. A more in-depth approach to the topic would further educate not only physicians but also our patients and their families and communities.
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    READ MORE
    Questions about the adjustments
    Long-Gang Zhao |
    The adjustments in the model are strange.
    In the main analyses, the author provided three models. The first model included age and sex. The second included other potential risk factors including dietary factors. The third included other specific foods and dietary pattern. The inclusion of specific foods is hard to explain as the goal of the study was to determine the effect of organic foods. The reason is that fiber, fruit and vegetable intake may be part of the organic foods. The inclusion of these food items may lead to over-adjustments.
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    The Researchers Missed the Common Ingredient
    Douglas Costello |
    In looking at the various categories of food products included in the diets there is a common ingredient that has been ignored and that has a significant impact upon the biome.

    Preservatives are included in literally every product except possibly red meat and even then unless banned sodium nitrate solution is sprayed to maintain and enhance its redness. Commercial flours have preservatives added by the miller. Take a sliced loaf of bread a typical loaf and see how long it takes for mould to grow.

    If red meat caused cancer and particularly colorectal cancer we should
    have been experiencing elevated cancer instances but we haven't until the last thirty-five to forty years. Bacon gets its red colour from the use of sodium nitrate and sausages unless specifically made preservative free will all have a preservative added.

    So while diet will have an impact on the composition of the biome the preservatives contained in all food products until preservative free will actively work to destroy the biome setting the scene for colorectal cancer. Pesticides while an issue and potentially a cause are in this instance not the primary motivator. Eating organic foods is possibly the ideal but budgetary issues for many preclude that source. So while organic vegetables etc may be consumed any baked products either purchased cooked or made by the consumer unless from organic flour will have a preservative within it.

    Preservatives provide long shelf lives, and permit indifferent food handling in the home if food are left unrefrigerated for periods before and after cooking and before consumption.
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    READ MORE
    Original Investigation
    December 2018

    Association of Frequency of Organic Food Consumption With Cancer Risk: Findings From the NutriNet-Santé Prospective Cohort Study

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Centre de Recherche Epidémiologie et Statistique Sorbonne Paris Cité, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) U1153, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA) U1125, Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers, Université Paris 13, Equipe de Recherche en Epidémiologie Nutritionnelle, Bobigny, France
    • 2Département de Dermatologie, Hôpital St André, Bordeaux, France
    • 3Département de Santé Publique, Hôpital Avicenne, Bobigny, France
    • 4Centre de Recherche en Cardiovasculaire et Nutrition, Aix Marseille Université, INSERM, INRA, Marseille, France
    JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(12):1597-1606. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4357
    Key Points

    Question  What is the association between an organic food–based diet (ie, a diet less likely to contain pesticide residues) and cancer risk?

    Findings  In a population-based cohort study of 68 946 French adults, a significant reduction in the risk of cancer was observed among high consumers of organic food.

    Meaning  A higher frequency of organic food consumption was associated with a reduced risk of cancer; if the findings are confirmed, research investigating the underlying factors involved with this association is needed to implement adapted and targeted public health measures for cancer prevention.

    Abstract

    Importance  Although organic foods are less likely to contain pesticide residues than conventional foods, few studies have examined the association of organic food consumption with cancer risk.

    Objective  To prospectively investigate the association between organic food consumption and the risk of cancer in a large cohort of French adults.

    Design, Setting, and Participants  In this population-based prospective cohort study among French adult volunteers, data were included from participants with available information on organic food consumption frequency and dietary intake. For 16 products, participants reported their consumption frequency of labeled organic foods (never, occasionally, or most of the time). An organic food score was then computed (range, 0-32 points). The follow-up dates were May 10, 2009, to November 30, 2016.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  This study estimated the risk of cancer in association with the organic food score (modeled as quartiles) using Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusted for potential cancer risk factors.

    Results  Among 68 946 participants (78.0% female; mean [SD] age at baseline, 44.2 [14.5] years), 1340 first incident cancer cases were identified during follow-up, with the most prevalent being 459 breast cancers, 180 prostate cancers, 135 skin cancers, 99 colorectal cancers, 47 non-Hodgkin lymphomas, and 15 other lymphomas. High organic food scores were inversely associated with the overall risk of cancer (hazard ratio for quartile 4 vs quartile 1, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63-0.88; P for trend = .001; absolute risk reduction, 0.6%; hazard ratio for a 5-point increase, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.96).

    Conclusions and Relevance  A higher frequency of organic food consumption was associated with a reduced risk of cancer. If these findings are confirmed, further research is necessary to determine the underlying factors involved in this association.

    Introduction

    Worldwide, the number of new cases of cancer was estimated in 2012 at more than 14 million,1,2 and cancer remains one of the leading causes of mortality in France. Among the environmental risk factors for cancer, there are concerns about exposure to different classes of pesticides, notably through occupational exposure.3 A recent review4 concluded that the role of pesticides for the risk of cancer could not be doubted given the growing body of evidence linking cancer development to pesticide exposure. While dose responses of such molecules or possible cocktail effects are not well known, an increase in toxic effects has been suggested even at low concentrations of pesticide mixtures.5

    Meanwhile, the organic food market continues to grow rapidly in European countries,6 propelled by environmental and health concerns.7-10Quiz Ref ID Organic food standards do not allow the use of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and genetically modified organisms and restrict the use of veterinary medications.11 As a result, organic products are less likely to contain pesticide residues than conventional foods.12,13Quiz Ref ID According to a 2018 European Food Safety Authority13 report, 44% of conventionally produced food samples contained 1 or more quantifiable residues, while 6.5% of organic samples contained measurable pesticide residues. In line with this report, diets mainly consisting of organic foods were linked to lower urinary pesticide levels compared with “conventional diets” in an observational study14 of adults carried out in the United States (the median dialkyphosphate concentration among low organic food consumers was 163 nmol/g of creatinine, while among regular organic food consumers it was reduced to 106 nmol/g of creatinine). This finding was more marked in a clinical study15 from Australia and New Zealand (a 90% reduction in total dialkyphosphate urinary biomarkers was observed after an organic diet intervention) conducted in adults.

    Because of their lower exposure to pesticide residues, it can be hypothesized that high organic food consumers may have a lower risk of developing cancer. Furthermore, natural pesticides allowed in organic farming in the European Union16 exhibit much lower toxic effects than the synthetic pesticides used in conventional farming.17 Nevertheless, only 1 study18 to date has focused on the association between frequency of organic food consumption and cancer risk, reporting a lower risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) only. However, consumption of organic food was assessed using only a basic question. Multiple studies19-24 have reported a strong positive association between regular organic food consumption and healthy dietary habits and other lifestyles. Hence, these factors should be carefully accounted for in etiological studies in this research field. In the present population-based cohort study among French adult volunteers, we sought to prospectively examine the association between consumption frequency of organic foods, assessed through a score evaluating the consumption frequency of organic food categories, and cancer risk in the ongoing, large-scale French NutriNet-Santé cohort. The follow-up dates of the study were May 10, 2009, to November 30, 2016.

    Methods
    Study Population

    The NutriNet-Santé study is a web-based prospective cohort in France aiming to study the associations between nutrition and health, as well as the determinants of dietary behaviors and nutritional status. This cohort was launched in 2009 and has been previously described in detail.25 Volunteers with access to the internet are recruited from the general population and complete online self-administrated questionnaires using a dedicated website.

    The NutriNet-Santé study is conducted in accord with the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.26 It was approved by the institutional review board of the French Institute for Health and Medical Research and the Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03335644). Electronic informed consent was obtained from each participant.

    Data Collection

    The baseline questionnaires investigating sociodemographics and lifestyles, health status, physical activity, anthropometrics, and diet were pilot tested and then compared against traditional assessment methods or objectively validated.27-32 Two months after enrollment, volunteers were asked to provide information on their consumption frequency of 16 labeled organic products (fruits; vegetables; soy-based products; dairy products; meat and fish; eggs; grains and legumes; bread and cereals; flour; vegetable oils and condiments; ready-to-eat meals; coffee, tea, and herbal tea; wine; biscuits, chocolate, sugar, and marmalade; other foods; and dietary supplements). Consumption frequencies of organic foods were reported using the following 8 modalities: (1) most of the time, (2) occasionally, (3) never (“too expensive”), (4) never (“product not available”), (5) never (“I’m not interested in organic products”), (6) never (“I avoid such products”), (7) never (“for no specific reason”), and (8) “I don’t know.” For each product, we allocated 2 points for “most of the time” and 1 point for “occasionally” (and 0 otherwise). The 16 components were summed to provide an organic food score (range, 0-32 points).

    At study inclusion, dietary intake was assessed using three 24-hour records, randomly allocated over a 2-week period, including 2 weekdays and 1 weekend day, with a validated method.30 Participants reported all foods and beverages consumed at each eating occasion. Portion sizes were estimated using photographs from a previously validated picture booklet33 or directly entered as grams, volumes, or purchased units. Alcohol intake was calculated using either the 24-hour records or a frequency questionnaire for those identified as abstainers in the three 24-hour record days. Similarly, the weekly consumption of seafood was assessed by a specific frequency question. Daily mean food consumption was calculated from the three 24-hour records completed at inception and weighted for the type of day (weekday or weekend day). Ultraprocessed food consumption was assessed using the NOVA classification.34,35

    Nutrients intakes were derived from individuals’ food intakes assessed via the 24-hour records and were calculated using the NutriNet-Santé food composition table.36 Underreporters were identified and excluded using the method by Black.37

    Diet quality was assessed using a modified version of the validated Programme National Nutrition Santé Guideline Score without the physical activity component (mPNNS-GS), reflecting adherence to the official French nutritional guidelines.38 Components, cutoffs, and scoring are summarized in eTable 1 in the Supplement.

    At baseline, data on age, sex, occupational status, educational level, marital status, monthly income per household unit, number of children, and smoking status were collected. Monthly income per household unit was calculated by dividing the household’s total monthly income by the number of consumption units.39 The following categories of monthly income per household unit were used: less than €1200 (less than US $1377.46), €1200 to €1800 (US $1377.46 to US $2066.18), greater than €1800 to €2700 (greater than US $2066.18 to US $3099.28), and greater than €2700 (greater than US $3099.28). Physical activity was assessed by the International Physical Activity Questionnaire.40

    Anthropometric questionnaires provided information on weight and height. The use of dietary supplements (yes or no) and sun exposure were assessed using specific questionnaires. For sun exposure, the question was formulated as follows: “During adulthood, have you been regularly exposing yourself to the sun?” (yes or no).

    Case Ascertainment

    Participants self-declared health events through a yearly health status questionnaire or using an interface on the study website allowing the entering of health events at any time. For each reported cancer case, individuals were asked by a study physician (P.G. and other nonauthors) to provide their medical records (diagnoses, hospitalizations, etc). The study physicians contacted the participants’ treating physician or the respective hospitals to collect additional information if necessary. All medical information was collegially reviewed by an independent medical expert committee for the validation of major health events. Overall, medical records were obtained for more than 90% of self-reported cancer cases. Linkage of our data (decree authorization in the Council of State No. 2013-175) to medicoadministrative registers of the national health insurance system (Système National d’Information Inter-Régimes de l’Assurance Maladie [SNIIRAM] databases) allowed complete reporting of health events. Mortality data were also used from the French Centre for Epidemiology Medical Causes of Death database (CépiDC). Cancer cases were classified using the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification.41 In this study, all first primary cancers diagnosed between study inclusion and November 30, 2016, were considered cases except for basal cell skin carcinoma, which was not considered cancer.

    Statistical Analysis

    For the present study, we used data from volunteers who were enrolled before December 2016 who completed the organic food questionnaire (n = 95 123) and did not have prevalent cancer (except for basal cell skin carcinoma) (n = 89 711), with a final population of 68 946 adults who had available data for the computation of the mPNNS-GS and follow-up data. The studied sample was compared with participants who were in the eligible population but who were excluded because of missing data (eTable 2 in the Supplement). To date, the dropout rate in the NutriNet-Santé cohort is 6.7%.

    Baseline characteristics are presented by quartile (Q) of the organic food score. Cox proportional hazards regression models with age as time scale were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs, reflecting the association between the organic food score (as a continuous variable, while modeling the HR associated with each 5-point increase, and as quartiles, with the first quartile as reference) and the incidence of overall cancer. A 5-point increment corresponded to half of the interquartile range. Tests for linear trend were performed using quartiles of the organic food score as an ordinal variable. Full details about cancer risk modeling are provided in the eAppendix in the Supplement, with additional information included in eTables 3 through 6 in the Supplement.

    All statistical tests were 2 sided, and P < .05 was considered statistically significant. A statistical software program (SAS, version 9.4; SAS Institute Inc) was used for analyses.

    Results

    The mean (SD) follow-up time in our study sample was 4.56 (2.08) years; 78.0% of 68 946 participants were female, and the mean (SD) age at baseline was 44.2 (14.5) years. During follow-up, 1340 first incident cancer cases were identified, with the most prevalent being 459 breast cancers (34.3%), 180 prostate cancers (13.4%), 135 skin cancers (melanoma and spinocellular carcinoma) (10.1%), 99 colorectal cancers (7.4%), 47 NHLs (3.5%), and 15 other lymphomas (1.1%).

    Baseline Characteristics of the Sample

    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.

    Organic Food Score in Relation to Cancer Risk

    The association between the organic food score and the overall risk of cancer is summarized in Table 2. After adjustment for confounders (main model), high organic food scores were linearly and negatively associated with the overall risk of cancer (HR for Q4 vs Q1, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63-0.88; P for trend = .001; absolute risk reduction, 0.6%; HR for a 5-point increase, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.96). Accounting for other additional dietary factors did not modify the findings. After removing early cases of cancers (eTable 5 in the Supplement), the overall association remained significant (HR for Q4 vs Q1, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56-0.88; P for trend = .004).

    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 (eTable 6 in the Supplement).

    Population attributable risks (PAR) were calculated42 from multivariable-adjusted HRs (main model) in relation to the organic food score and a family history of cancer to identify how much of the risk was specifically attributable to the organic food score. Herein, PAR represents the proportion of cancer cases that can be attributed to any risk factor studied. By comparison, the number of avoided cancers (all types of cancer) owing to a high organic food consumption frequency was slightly lower than the estimated number of cases owing to a family history of cancer (% PAR high organic food score of −6.78 vs % PAR family history of cancer of 8.93) under the causality assumption.

    Associations by cancer site are summarized in Table 3. 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.

    Sensitivity Analysis

    When applying a simplified, plant-derived organic food score, our main findings were not substantially changed except for postmenopausal breast cancer, for which the association with the organic food score did not remain significant (Table 4). When stratifying by various factors, significant associations were detected in women, older individuals, those with lower and higher educational levels, individuals with a family history of cancer, those with low to medium overall nutritional quality, all body mass index strata, and former smokers (Figure).

    Discussion

    Quiz Ref IDIn 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 and postmenopausal breast cancer, while no association was detected for other types of cancer. Epidemiological research investigating the link between organic food consumption and cancer risk is scarce, and, to the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first to evaluate frequency of organic food consumption associated with cancer risk using detailed information on exposure. Therefore, frequency of organic food consumption for various food groups was assessed, and our models were adjusted for multiple important confounding factors (sociodemographics, lifestyles, and dietary patterns). Control for dietary patterns is of high importance because the current state of research in nutritional epidemiology emphasizes the strong associations between Western and healthy dietary patterns and the development of certain types of cancers.43-45

    Quiz Ref IDOur 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. Moreover, despite different populations and assessment methods, similar results in that study and in our study were obtained with respect to NHL (in the Million Women Study, there was a 21% lower risk among regular organic food consumers compared with nonconsumers).

    One possible explanation for the negative association observed herein between organic food frequency and cancer risk is that the prohibition of synthetic pesticides in organic farming leads to a lower frequency or an absence of contamination in organic foods compared with conventional foods46,47 and results in significant reductions in pesticide levels in urine.48 In 2015, based on experimental and population studies, the International Agency for Research on Cancer49 recognized the carcinogenicity of certain pesticides (malathion and diazinon were classified as probably carcinogenic for humans [group 2A], and tetrachlorvinphos and parathion were classified as possibly carcinogenic for humans [group 2B]). While there is a growing body of evidence supporting a role of occupational exposure to pesticides for various health outcomes and specifically for cancer development,4,50,51 there have been few large-scale studies conducted in the general population, for whom diet is the main source of pesticide exposure.52 It now seems important to evaluate chronic effects of low-dose pesticide residue exposure from the diet and potential cocktail effects at the general population level. In particular, further research is required to identify which specific factors are responsible for potential protective effects of organic food consumption on cancer risk.

    In our study, we observed a lower risk of breast cancer among high organic food consumers. This finding may be interpreted in light of a recent review on the link between breast cancer and various chemicals, which concluded that exposure to chemicals (including pesticides) may lead to an increased risk of developing breast cancer.53 The inverse association found between NHL and organic food consumption in our study appears to be in line (under the pesticide-harm hypothesis) with a meta-analysis54 reporting that exposure to malathion, terbufos, and diazinon led to a 22% increased risk of NHL.

    Possible underlying mechanistic pathways relating pesticide residues and carcinogenicity include structural DNA damage, as well as functional damage through epigenetic mechanisms. Other mechanisms, such as disorders at the mitochondrion or endoplasmic reticulum level or disturbances of factors implied in maintaining cell homeostasis, are also frequently mentioned.55 Because endocrine-disrupting pesticides mimic estrogen function, such properties may also be involved in breast carcinogenesis.56

    When considering different subgroups, the results herein were no longer statistically significant in younger adults, men, participants with only a high school diploma and with no family history of cancer, never smokers and current smokers, and participants with a high overall dietary quality, while the strongest association was observed among obese individuals (although the 95% CI was large). The absence of significant results in certain strata may be associated with limited statistical power. Regarding the latter association, previous occupational data have indicated a potential interaction between obesity and pesticide use on cancer risk.57 It can be hypothesized that obese individuals with metabolic disorders may be more sensitive to potential chemical disruptors, such as pesticides.

    Negative associations were observed herein between the risk of cancer and combining both low to medium diet quality and high frequency of organic food consumption. The association between cancer risk and combining both a high-quality diet and high frequency of organic food consumption approached statistical significance. One hypothesis may be that higher intake of pesticide-contaminated products13 may partly counterbalance the beneficial role of high-quality foods among individuals with a high dietary quality.

    While organic food (on confirmation of our findings) may be important to reduce the risk of specific cancers, the high price of such foods remains an important hurdle. Indeed, organic foods remain less affordable than corresponding conventional products, and high prices are a major obstacle for buying organic foods.

    Limitations

    Some limitations of our study should be noted. First, our analyses were based on volunteers who were likely particularly health-conscious individuals, thus limiting the generalizability of our findings. NutriNet-Santé participants are more often female, are well educated, and exhibit healthier behaviors compared with the French general population.7,8 These factors may may have led to a lower cancer incidence herein than the national estimates, as well as higher levels of organic food consumption in our sample.

    Second, although organic food frequencies in our study were collected using a specific questionnaire providing more precise data than earlier studies, strictly quantitative consumption data were not available. Some misclassification in the organic food score intermediate quartiles herein cannot be excluded.

    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. However, more than 1300 cancer cases were registered in this study. The investigation of longer-term effects, while accounting for exposure change, will be insightful as part of the cohort’s follow-up. Nevertheless, analyses that were performed by removing cases occurring during the first 2 years of follow-up did not substantially modify our findings.

    Quiz Ref IDFourth, the observed associations may have been influenced by residual confounding. Although we accounted for a wide range of covariates, including major confounders associated with organic food consumption (eg, dietary patterns and other lifestyle factors), residual confounding resulting from unmeasured factors or inaccuracy in the assessment of some covariates cannot be totally excluded. Nutritional covariates, such as the mPNNS-GS or dietary pattern factors, were assessed based on a high level of precision (59 food groups), while the exposure of interest was calculated using a simple scoring method. This may have resulted in a potential bias toward attenuated associations of the exposure of interest. The sensitivity analysis performed applying a simplified, plant-derived organic food score (to account for variations in pesticide exposure across food groups) did not show stringent differences compared with the original organic food score except for breast cancer.

    Fifth, we cannot exclude the nondetection of some cancer cases. This is despite the use of a multisource strategy for case ascertainment.

    Strengths of our study include its prospective design and the large sample size, allowing us to conduct stratified analyses for different cancer sites. In addition, we used a detailed questionnaire on organic food frequency and clinical validation of cancer cases.

    Conclusions

    Our results indicate that higher organic food consumption is associated with a reduction in the risk of overall cancer. We observed reduced risks for specific cancer sites (postmenopausal breast cancer, NHL, and all lymphomas) among individuals with a higher frequency of organic food consumption. Further prospective studies using accurate exposure data are necessary to confirm these results and should integrate a large number of individuals. If confirmed, our results appear to suggest that promoting organic food consumption in the general population could be a promising preventive strategy against cancer.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Accepted for Publication: July 10, 2018.

    Correction: This article was corrected on December 3, 2018, to reword the conclusions paragraphs in the abstract and key points, and to fix a data display problem in Table 1.

    Corresponding Author: Julia Baudry, PhD, Centre de Recherche Epidémiologie et Statistique Sorbonne Paris Cité, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) U1153, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA) U1125, Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers, Université Paris 13, Equipe de Recherche en Epidémiologie Nutritionnelle, 74 rue Marcel Cachin, 93017 Bobigny, France (j.baudry@eren.smbh.univ-paris13.fr).

    Published Online: October 22, 2018. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4357

    Author Contributions: Dr Kesse-Guyot had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

    Concept and design: Touvier, Galan, Hercberg, Lairon, Kesse-Guyot.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

    Drafting of the manuscript: Baudry, Kesse-Guyot.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Assmann, Touvier, Allès, Seconda, Latino-Martel, Ezzedine, Galan, Hercberg, Lairon, Kesse-Guyot.

    Statistical analysis: Baudry, Kesse-Guyot.

    Obtained funding: Galan, Hercberg, Kesse-Guyot.

    Administrative, technical, or material support: Galan, Kesse-Guyot.

    Supervision: Touvier, Galan, Hercberg, Kesse-Guyot.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Lairon reported serving since 2018 as a scientific expert, with no honoraria or personal funding, in 2 nonprofit foundations recently funded in France (“Fondation Bjorg, Bonneterre et Citoyens” and “Fond de Dotation Institut de l’Alimentation Bio”). No other disclosures were reported.

    Funding/Support: The NutriNet-Santé study is supported by the French Ministry of Health, French Institute for Health Surveillance, National Institute for Prevention and Health Education, National Institute for Health and Medical Research, National Institute for Agricultural Research, National Conservatory of Arts and Crafts, and Paris 13 University. Dr Baudry was funded by grant ANR-13-ALID-0001 from the French National Research Agency (Agence Nationale de la Recherche) in the context of the 2013 Programme de Recherche Systèmes Alimentaires Durables.

    Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding sources had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

    References
    1.
    Ferlay  J, Soerjomataram  I, Dikshit  R,  et al.  Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012.  Int J Cancer. 2015;136(5):E359-E386. doi:10.1002/ijc.29210PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    2.
    World Health Organization. International Agency for Research on Cancer. https://www.iarc.fr/. Accessed August 4, 2017.
    3.
    Dossier: par INSERM [salle de presse]. Pesticides: effets sur la santé, une expertise collective de l’INSERM. http://presse.inserm.fr/pesticides-effets-sur-la-sante-une-expertise-collective-de-linserm/8463/. Published June 13, 2013. Accessed August 21, 2016.
    4.
    Mostafalou  S, Abdollahi  M.  Pesticides: an update of human exposure and toxicity.  Arch Toxicol. 2017;91(2):549-599. doi:10.1007/s00204-016-1849-xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    5.
    Graillot  V, Takakura  N, Hegarat  LL, Fessard  V, Audebert  M, Cravedi  JP.  Genotoxicity of pesticide mixtures present in the diet of the French population.  Environ Mol Mutagen. 2012;53(3):173-184. doi:10.1002/em.21676PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    6.
    IFOAM EU and FiBL. Organic in Europe: prospects and developments: 2016. https://shop.fibl.org/CHen/mwdownloads/download/link/id/767/?ref=1. Published 2016. Accessed September 3, 2017.
    7.
    Andreeva  VA, Salanave  B, Castetbon  K,  et al.  Comparison of the sociodemographic characteristics of the large NutriNet-Santé e-cohort with French Census data: the issue of volunteer bias revisited.  J Epidemiol Community Health. 2015;69(9):893-898. doi:10.1136/jech-2014-205263PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    8.
    Andreeva  VA, Deschamps  V, Salanave  B,  et al.  Comparison of dietary intakes between a large online cohort study (Etude NutriNet-Santé) and a nationally representative cross-sectional study (Etude Nationale Nutrition Santé) in France: addressing the issue of generalizability in e-epidemiology.  Am J Epidemiol. 2016;184(9):660-669. doi:10.1093/aje/kww016PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    9.
    Hughner  RS, McDonagh  P, Prothero  A, Shultz  CJ, Stanton  J.  Who are organic food consumers? a compilation and review of why people purchase organic food.  J Consum Behav. 2007;6(2-3):94-110. doi:10.1002/cb.210Google ScholarCrossref
    10.
    Padilla Bravo  C, Cordts  A, Schulze  B, Spiller  A.  Assessing determinants of organic food consumption using data from the German National Nutrition Survey II.  Food Qual Prefer. 2013;28(1):60-70. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.08.010Google ScholarCrossref
    11.
    Règlement (CE) No. 834/2007 Du Conseil. Du 28 Juin 2007: relatif à la production biologique et à l'étiquetage des produits biologiques et abrogeant le règlement (CEE) No. 2092/91. http://www.agencebio.org/sites/default/files/upload/documents/3_Espace_Pro/RCE_BIO_834_2007_oct08.pdf. Published 2007. Accessed July 18, 2016.
    12.
    Barański  M, Średnicka-Tober  D, Volakakis  N,  et al.  Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium concentrations and lower incidence of pesticide residues in organically grown crops: a systematic literature review and meta-analyses.  Br J Nutr. 2014;112(5):794-811. doi:10.1017/S0007114514001366PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    13.
    European Food Safety Authority.  Monitoring data on pesticide residues in food: results on organic versus conventionally produced food.  EFSA Support Publ. 2018;15(4):1397E. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/pub/en-1397. Accessed April 26, 2018.Google Scholar
    14.
    Curl  CL, Beresford  SAA, Fenske  RA,  et al.  Estimating pesticide exposure from dietary intake and organic food choices: the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA).  Environ Health Perspect. 2015;123(5):475-483. doi:10.1289/ehp.1408197PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    15.
    Oates  L, Cohen  M, Braun  L, Schembri  A, Taskova  R.  Reduction in urinary organophosphate pesticide metabolites in adults after a week-long organic diet.  Environ Res. 2014;132:105-111. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2014.03.021PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    16.
    European Commission. EU: pesticides database. http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/eu-pesticides-database/public/. Published 2016. Accessed August 20, 2016.
    17.
    Kim  S, Thiessen  PA, Bolton  EE,  et al.  PubChem substance and compound databases.  Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44(D1):D1202-D1213. doi:10.1093/nar/gkv951PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    18.
    Bradbury  KE, Balkwill  A, Spencer  EA,  et al; Million Women Study Collaborators.  Organic food consumption and the incidence of cancer in a large prospective study of women in the United Kingdom.  Br J Cancer. 2014;110(9):2321-2326. doi:10.1038/bjc.2014.148PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    19.
    Kesse-Guyot  E, Baudry  J, Assmann  KE, Galan  P, Hercberg  S, Lairon  D.  Prospective association between consumption frequency of organic food and body weight change, risk of overweight or obesity: results from the NutriNet-Santé study.  Br J Nutr. 2017;117(2):325-334. doi:10.1017/S0007114517000058PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    20.
    Torjusen  H, Brantsæter  AL, Haugen  M,  et al.  Reduced risk of pre-eclampsia with organic vegetable consumption: results from the prospective Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study.  BMJ Open. 2014;4(9):e006143. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006143PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    21.
    Eisinger-Watzl  M, Wittig  F, Heuer  T, Hoffmann  I.  Customers purchasing organic food: do they live healthier? results of the German National Nutrition Survey II.  Eur J Nutr Food Saf. 2015;5(1):59-71. doi:10.9734/EJNFS/2015/12734Google ScholarCrossref
    22.
    Baudry  J, Allès  B, Péneau  S,  et al.  Dietary intakes and diet quality according to levels of organic food consumption by French adults: cross-sectional findings from the NutriNet-Santé cohort study.  Public Health Nutr. 2017;20(4):638-648. doi:10.1017/S1368980016002718PubMedGoogle Scholar
    23.
    Petersen  SB, Rasmussen  MA, Strøm  M, Halldorsson  TI, Olsen  SF.  Sociodemographic characteristics and food habits of organic consumers: a study from the Danish National Birth Cohort.  Public Health Nutr. 2013;16(10):1810-1819. doi:10.1017/S1368980012004119PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    24.
    Simões-Wüst  AP, Moltó-Puigmartí  C, van Dongen  MC, Dagnelie  PC, Thijs  C.  Organic food consumption during pregnancy is associated with different consumer profiles, food patterns and intake: the KOALA Birth Cohort Study.  Public Health Nutr. 2017;20(12):2134-2144. doi:10.1017/S1368980017000842PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    25.
    Hercberg  S, Castetbon  K, Czernichow  S,  et al.  The NutriNet-Santé study: a web-based prospective study on the relationship between nutrition and health and determinants of dietary patterns and nutritional status.  BMC Public Health. 2010;10:242. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-10-242PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    26.
    World Medical Association.  World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects.  JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191-2194. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.281053PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    27.
    Touvier  M, Méjean  C, Kesse-Guyot  E,  et al.  Comparison between web-based and paper versions of a self-administered anthropometric questionnaire.  Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25(5):287-296. doi:10.1007/s10654-010-9433-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    28.
    Vergnaud  AC, Touvier  M, Méjean  C,  et al.  Agreement between web-based and paper versions of a socio-demographic questionnaire in the NutriNet-Santé study.  Int J Public Health. 2011;56(4):407-417. doi:10.1007/s00038-011-0257-5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    29.
    Lassale  C, Péneau  S, Touvier  M,  et al.  Validity of web-based self-reported weight and height: results of the NutriNet-Santé study.  J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(8):e152. doi:10.2196/jmir.2575PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    30.
    Lassale  C, Castetbon  K, Laporte  F,  et al.  Validation of a web-based, self-administered, non-consecutive-day dietary record tool against urinary biomarkers.  Br J Nutr. 2015;113(6):953-962. doi:10.1017/S0007114515000057PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    31.
    Lassale  C, Castetbon  K, Laporte  F,  et al.  Correlations between fruit, vegetables, fish, vitamins, and fatty acids estimated by web-based nonconsecutive dietary records and respective biomarkers of nutritional status.  J Acad Nutr Diet. 2016;116(3):427-438.e5. doi:10.1016/j.jand.2015.09.017PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    32.
    Touvier  M, Kesse-Guyot  E, Méjean  C,  et al.  Comparison between an interactive web-based self-administered 24 h dietary record and an interview by a dietitian for large-scale epidemiological studies.  Br J Nutr. 2011;105(7):1055-1064. doi:10.1017/S0007114510004617PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    33.
    Le Moullec  N, Deheeger  M, Preziosi  P,  et al.  Validation of the photography manual of servings used in dietary collection in the SU.VI.MAX study  [in French].  Cah Nutr Diét. 1996;31(3):158-164.Google Scholar
    34.
    Monteiro  CA, Cannon  G, Moubarac  JC, Levy  RB, Louzada  MLC, Jaime  PC.  The UN Decade of Nutrition, the NOVA food classification and the trouble with ultra-processing.  Public Health Nutr. 2018;21(1):5-17. doi:10.1017/S1368980017000234PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    35.
    Fiolet  T, Srour  B, Sellem  L,  et al.  Consumption of ultra-processed foods and cancer risk: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort.  BMJ. 2018;360:k322. doi:10.1136/bmj.k322PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    36.
    Étude NutriNet-Santé.  Table de Composition des Aliments. Paris, France: Economica; 2013.
    37.
    Black  AE.  Critical evaluation of energy intake using the Goldberg cut-off for energy intake:basal metabolic rate: a practical guide to its calculation, use and limitations.  Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2000;24(9):1119-1130. doi:10.1038/sj.ijo.0801376PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    38.
    Estaquio  C, Kesse-Guyot  E, Deschamps  V,  et al.  Adherence to the French Programme National Nutrition Santé Guideline Score is associated with better nutrient intake and nutritional status.  J Am Diet Assoc. 2009;109(6):1031-1041. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2009.03.012PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    39.
    INSEE. Definitions, methods, and quality. http://www.insee.fr/en/methodes/. Published 2009. Accessed February 23, 2015.
    40.
    Hagströmer  M, Oja  P, Sjöström  M.  The International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ): a study of concurrent and construct validity.  Public Health Nutr. 2006;9(6):755-762. doi:10.1079/PHN2005898PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    41.
    World Health Organization.  International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2010. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/icd/icd10cm.htm. Accessed August 30, 2018.
    42.
    Miettinen  OS.  Proportion of disease caused or prevented by a given exposure, trait or intervention.  Am J Epidemiol. 1974;99(5):325-332. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a121617PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    43.
    Yusof  AS, Isa  ZM, Shah  SA.  Dietary patterns and risk of colorectal cancer: a systematic review of cohort studies (2000-2011).  Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2012;13(9):4713-4717. doi:10.7314/APJCP.2012.13.9.4713PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    44.
    Bertuccio  P, Rosato  V, Andreano  A,  et al.  Dietary patterns and gastric cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  Ann Oncol. 2013;24(6):1450-1458. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdt108PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    45.
    Brennan  SF, Cantwell  MM, Cardwell  CR, Velentzis  LS, Woodside  JV.  Dietary patterns and breast cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  Am J Clin Nutr. 2010;91(5):1294-1302. doi:10.3945/ajcn.2009.28796PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    46.
    Barański  M, Srednicka-Tober  D, Volakakis  N,  et al.  Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium concentrations and lower incidence of pesticide residues in organically grown crops: a systematic literature review and meta-analyses.  Br J Nutr. 2014;112(5):794-811. doi:10.1017/S0007114514001366PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    47.
    Smith-Spangler  C, Brandeau  ML, Olkin  I, Bravata  DM.  Are organic foods safer or healthier?  Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(4):297-300. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-158-4-201302190-00019PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    48.
    Science and Technology Options Assessment. Human health implications of organic food and organic agriculture. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/581922/EPRS_STU%282016%29581922_EN.pdf. Accessed May 28, 2017.
    49.
    Guyton  KZ, Loomis  D, Grosse  Y,  et al; International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group, IARC.  Carcinogenicity of tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate.  Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(5):490-491. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(15)70134-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    50.
    Androutsopoulos  VP, Hernandez  AF, Liesivuori  J, Tsatsakis  AM.  A mechanistic overview of health associated effects of low levels of organochlorine and organophosphorous pesticides.  Toxicology. 2013;307:89-94. doi:10.1016/j.tox.2012.09.011PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    51.
    Kim  KH, Kabir  E, Jahan  SA.  Exposure to pesticides and the associated human health effects.  Sci Total Environ. 2017;575:525-535. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.009PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    52.
    Nougadère  A, Sirot  V, Kadar  A,  et al.  Total diet study on pesticide residues in France: levels in food as consumed and chronic dietary risk to consumers.  Environ Int. 2012;45:135-150. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2012.02.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    53.
    Gray  JM, Rasanayagam  S, Engel  C, Rizzo  J.  State of the evidence 2017: an update on the connection between breast cancer and the environment.  Environ Health. 2017;16(1):94. doi:10.1186/s12940-017-0287-4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    54.
    Hu  L, Luo  D, Zhou  T, Tao  Y, Feng  J, Mei  S.  The association between non-Hodgkin lymphoma and organophosphate pesticides exposure: a meta-analysis.  Environ Pollut. 2017;231(pt 1):319-328. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2017.08.028PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    55.
    Mostafalou  S, Abdollahi  M.  Pesticides and human chronic diseases: evidences, mechanisms, and perspectives.  Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2013;268(2):157-177. doi:10.1016/j.taap.2013.01.025PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    56.
    Macon  MB, Fenton  SE.  Endocrine disruptors and the breast: early life effects and later life disease.  J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia. 2013;18(1):43-61. doi:10.1007/s10911-013-9275-7PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    57.
    Andreotti  G, Hou  L, Beane Freeman  LE,  et al.  Body mass index, agricultural pesticide use, and cancer incidence in the Agricultural Health Study cohort.  Cancer Causes Control. 2010;21(11):1759-1775. doi:10.1007/s10552-010-9603-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    ×