"A higher frequency of organic food consumption was associated with a reduced risk of cancer."
But as we now know, "observational studies often get overturned by randomized clinical trials" [T_A].
But who is going to do a PCa randomized clinical trial for organic food.
Is it really helpful to restrict pesticide intake?
"WASHINGTON, February 8, 2018 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) today published the 2016 Pesticide Data Program (PDP) Annual Summary. The Summary shows more than 99.5 percent of the samples tested had pesticide residues well below benchmark levels established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and 22 percent had no detectable residue.
"PDP scientists and staff use rigorous sampling and advanced methods to test a wide variety of domestic and imported foods, helping ensure that the U.S. food supply is one of the safest in the world. The 2016 report includes data from over 10,000 samples, giving consumers confidence that the products they buy for their families are safe and wholesome.
"PDP data is used by EPA to conduct dietary risk assessments and to ensure that any pesticide residues in foods remain at safe levels and adverse health effects are unlikely. The data also provides regulators, farmers, processors, manufacturers, consumers and scientists with important insights into the actual levels of pesticide residues found on widely consumed foods."
The extract above [2] may comfort most, bur where is the clinical trial?
Well, there may NEVER be such a trial for several reasons. One it is difficult within Big Pharma parameters to study nutrition. 2. No one is actually going to fund such a trial in the US and most likely abroad as well. 3. Nutrition is never one thing alone. Organic is the absence of pesticides. There are very few studies of the results on our human bodies of hundreds or thousands of chemical exposures daily, especially over time. I have been told (as an outspoken Cancer Advocate who travels to many conferences) that this is difficult to examine. I hate that answer which I first received in 1995 and still here to this day. So go with what we have. I would NOT WAIT to eat as much organic food as possible on a daily basis. ewg.org offers a list of most sprayed, least sprayed and can be used as a purchasing guide. There is also a small study of children eating organic only for 7 days and being tested for 3-5 chemicals which disappeared from their bodies in that time period. Similar small studies but nothing Level I and most likely never will be. (Level I is a randomized, multi-center clinical trial a la Big Pharma). IS that style really necessary for unsprayed FOOD? I personally do NOT think so. All drugs are harmful as well as helpful. In cancer meds we know most drugs are a little bit helpful and often quite harmful. You decide.
The only reason to do such a study would be to prove there is a health benefit to ingesting human manufactured pesticides.
No one seriously contests the economic benefits of using pesticides.
And no one seriously promotes the ingestion of human manufactured pesticides as something that will improve your health.
If there is some compound out there that promotes health and that also functions as a pesticide, there is plenty incentive for big pharma to conduct studies that prove it to be so.
The USDA / EPA insist that our food is "safe and wholesome". But what else would they say?
It is known that produce that requires a lot of water will have a greater concentration of whatever is in the soil. Hydroponic lettuce, e.g., might be safer. Which are the foods that are most contaminated?
One strategy, of course, is to avoid eating a tot of any particular food.
Strawberries were found by Giovannucci to be one of 4 foods associated with PCa protection. I have tended to eat a lot when available locally (but not otherwise, even though I believe fisetin to be beneficial.) Recently, I read that strawberries are the "dirtiest" of foods.
But as the only downsides to organic food are economic, I am uncertain what value any clinical studies can provide. They will not alter the voting behavior of Congress, or the lobbying expenditures of industry, or the positions of our two political parties.
The sides have been taken. No research result is going to alter them.
Any research that tells me pesticides are good for me, I will not believe. Will you?
But the over 50% of senators hailing from agricultural states, will they believe such research? Yeah pretty much if given the opportunity.
There is an exception: organic milk. Parents apparently believe the milk is better or safer for their children, but are mostly unconcerned about what they put into their own mouths.
Incidentally, the USDA plays a big role in the organic arena. It has a foot in both camps.
We buy a lot of organic produce for the whole family. But I have read/heard that there is round-up in our water supply. Not sure if this is true for everyone. I still think it is helpful to eat organic. According to one of the nutritionfacts.org videos they have more phytonutrients. Sometimes the organic fruit at our grocery store is kind of lousy.. I confess I will buy the family regular produce because I want them to eat it and the kids won't eat lousy looking fruit.( My husband is less picky though )
Patrick, We've been a study and buyer of nutrient dense foods for 15 yrs or so. I agree that organic is a wide range and nutrient density is not assured. (longer story as to why).
>Is it really helpful to restrict pesticide intake?
Lets jump to nutrient density: A good search term is: high brix food.
Westonaprice.org is always reliable for solid research about the benefits of nutrient dense food.
Its not the absence of toxics, but the presents of nutrition that makes the difference in health. This study did not spit it out, its the higher nutrition, wider range of minerals etc etc that well raised organic food delivers.
I do agree since we went through a phase where we tested the food we bought with a simple and cheap brix meter, that gives a quick relative indication of nutrition. Vegetables have a very wide range in nutritional density from reading and personal testing including organic and conventional. Since meat is what the animals eat, meat too has a wide range of nutritional density.
We have a lot of our food shipped from PA (the Amish farmers) / high calcium soil states thanks to the insanely cheap and fast shipping we now have thanks to leaders like Amazon etc.
Should you go off the deep end like we did, buy a brix meter in the range of: 0-16, avoid meters in higher ranges. Vegetables will test 4-10. yet genetically and optimally tomatoes, green beans should be mid-teens... Shocking how much of the local food was testing in the anti-nutritional range <8 ish. Better off eating cardboard or sawdust which many of us are already (hopefully organic).
In the same vane as we all should kill the meat we eat, at least once, we all should brix test the vegetables we eat. Its an eye opening education! Food != Food.
The study seems ridiculous to me on the face of it. People who eat organic are surely going to be more health conscious , exercise more and generally lead a healthier lifestyle. So shouldn’t we expect them to get less cancer with or without organic.
Studies try to adjust for factors that might contribute to, or detract from, the result. Can't comment on the success of the new study, but note:
"This study estimated the risk of cancer in association with the organic food score ... adjusted for potential cancer risk factors."
I had a similar concern with eggs. Men with PCa tend to give up what they consider to be dangerous in the diet. Men who eat the most eggs have an attitude problem - LOL - & maybe they do other reckless things. Like eat bacon with the eggs. With luck, the egg studies adjust for the long list of potential confounders, but there is only so much one can do with questionnaire data.
Whatever limits the PDP and EPA set are there in favor of the big agro businesses not for the health of the public. We are vegetarians and buy our produce from the local Amish farmers. But even that does not guarantee pesticide free foods. Contaminants are everywhere.
Beware the labels, "organic", "freerange", and other term used for foods. There are little or no guidelines or definitions for these terms. Have you ever seen and inorganic peach? Remember USDA labels are suspect.
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
)
High risk vs. aggressive cancer
Foods that kill Prostate Cancer Cells
Testosterone Levels and Prostate Cancer Risk - 1
The food to avoid for a patient with advanced prostate cancer
