Association of Frequency of Organic Food Consumption With Cancer Risk: Findings From the NutriNet-Santé Prospective Cohort Study | Cancer Screening, Prevention, Control | JAMA Internal Medicine | JAMA Network
[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 35.170.78.142. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Audio Author Interview (14:47)
1x
0:00 / 0:00
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.

    ×