Organic food doesn't prevent cancer...

[Archae]

Another woo belief goes "pif."

Women who mostly or always eat organic foods have the same overall chance of developing cancer as women who never eat it, according to a new study from the UK's University of Oxford and published in the British Journal of Cancer that followed over 600,000 middle-aged women for nearly a decade.

One of the investigators, Tim Key, professor of epidemiology and deputy director of the Cancer Epidemiology Unit at Oxford, says:

"In this large study of middle-aged women in the UK we found no evidence that a woman's overall cancer risk was decreased if she generally ate organic food."

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/274811.php

[siligut]

1. Reducing risk is not the same as prevention

Your subline made the article written by Catharine Paddock PhD sound not only dismissive of the real concern, but simple-minded as well. The real concern is that these pesticides build up in the soil overtime and become concentrated and there is evidence that higher exposure does cause cancer.

According to the National Cancer Institute, pesticides and herbicides used in farming have been linked to a greater overall increase in certain types of cancer in the people who have experienced repeated exposure.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/ahs

Most of the cancer research in the AHS has focused on pesticides, which are chemicals used to kill invasive insects, weeds, or small animals. In some cases, relationships between these pesticides and human cancer were examined for the first time in the AHS.

Thus far, researchers have evaluated more than 20 pesticides to determine whether the farmers who use them have increased risks of developing cancer. Some of these analyses have shown that people exposed to certain pesticides have an increased risk of developing certain cancers, but further research is needed to confirm these findings and to evaluate the potential mechanisms by which pesticides might influence cancer risk.

For example, a study from the AHS reported in 2009 that people who use the weed killer imazethapyr have increased risks of bladder cancer and colon cancer. Imazethapyr is in a class of chemicals known as aromatic amines. It was first used in the United States in 1989, and, since then, has been one of the most commonly used herbicides for killing weeds in soybean, dry bean, alfalfa, and other crop fields.

[yellowcanine]

5. "these pesticides build up in the soil overtime..." Can you be more specific with citations?

Which pesticides have been shown to build up over time that are linked to cancer? That is a fairly significant claim which should be well documented but I am not aware of any pesticide like that so I would like to see your citations for that. In general pesticides break down over time. Derivatives of some pesticides can stick around for a while and then with continued use of the original pesticide the derivatives could build up. So it would be good to know when that is occurring and if the derivatives are showing up in food at levels which could be carcinogenic. The example you cite is about the risk to people applying the pesticide - not from food residues. There is a huge difference in potential exposure risk. Risk is a function of toxicity plus exposure.

[siligut]

6. Read the article I linked to in my post

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/ahs
For example, a study from the AHS reported in 2009 that people who use the weed killer imazethapyr have increased risks of bladder cancer and colon cancer. Imazethapyr is in a class of chemicals known as aromatic amines. It was first used in the United States in 1989, and, since then, has been one of the most commonly used herbicides for killing weeds in soybean, dry bean, alfalfa, and other crop fields.

I explained that pesticide residue on food is not the big concern, the concern is the residue in soil. And it is hardly a significant claim, it is common knowledge for people who work in oncology, however those people have been gagged. You said, "In general pesticides break down over time." Could you please cite where you found that information?

You can see the table for half-life of common pesticides if you click the link below.
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/TIB/movement.html

And the study concludes:

SUMMARY

The release of pesticides into the environment may be followed by a very complex series of events which can transport the pesticide through the air or water, into the ground or even into living organisms. The most important route of distribution and the extent of distribution will be different for each pesticide. It will depend on the formulation of the pesticide (what it is combined with) and how and when it is released. Despite this complexity, it is possible to identify situations that can pose concern and to try to minimize them. However, there are significant gaps in the knowledge of pesticide movement and fate in the environment and so it is best to minimize unnecessary release of pesticides into the environment. The fewer pesticides that are unnecessarily released, the safer our environment will be.

Those gaps in knowledge? Some of them have been paid for.

[yellowcanine]

7. The article you linked is about exposure from pesticide application, not soil residues.

Farmers and farm families are most at risk from the mixing and application process - soil residues were not measured in the study you cited. In fact, no residue measurements of any kind were taken so no conclusions regarding residues can be made. The Agricultural Health Study was based on questionaires sent to farm families to assess their potential exposure to pesticides. Your half-life table actually proves my point about breakdown over time. And note that most of the pesticides on that list are not applied to soil at all, so the amount even reaching the soil in the first place is relatively small. Most are applied to leaves and thus subject to other breakdown factors such as plant metabolism, UV, etc.before they even reach the soil. Chlordane is an exception to that but it has been banned in the U.S since 1988. It is a chlorinated hydrocarbon like DDT and most chlorinated hydrocarbons have been banned exactly for the reason that they do persist in soil and otherwise longer than most. "Those people have been gagged" - what is your evidence for that - sorry - "common knowledge" is not data and that is an extraordinary claim so you need some extraordinary proof. And it is also not up to me to provide proof that soil residues are not an issue as carcinogens - you are making the claim that they are, so that burden is on you as well.

[siligut]

8. The first article links pesticides to cancer

The second article lists half-life of common pesticides and their persistence in the environment. That is the concern as cited in the article. You obviously try very hard to deny the risk, I have seen it personally. We are at odds.

[yellowcanine]

9. "I have seen it personally" is anecdote, not science.

Anecdote does not control for other variables and is not replicated, therefore, not on the same level as science.

As I noted, the first article is not about residues, it is about indirect and direct exposure during mixing and application based on a survey of farm families. Nothing can be inferred regarding residues, soil or otherwise. The second article shows that many pesticides have a half-life in soils of less than 100 days - and that does not consider whether or not they are in the soil in very large amounts in the first place. Most in fact are not so other environmental factors come into play in terms of possible residues. We are at odds because you want to put anecdote, "common knowledge", and rumors of cover-ups on the same level as science as well as cite studies which are not relevant to the risk you are trying to assess. It has nothing to do with my trying to "deny the risk" and everything to do with you trying to establish a level of risk where the science does not support it.

[SheilaT]

2. One thing to keep in mind when looking at these studies

is that the numbers are often very small.

Some study will show that consume a particular food reduces the risk for an uncommon cancer by thirty percent It's a real reduction, but the original risk was very small to begin with.

And so on.

Too often people will conclude that some specific diet is the magic thing that will keep them from ever getting whatever horrible disease they're most afraid of. Not necessarily so.

The risk factors can be tricky to asses, and the published risks will be for the population at large while you, personally, may have a vastly greater or lesser risk because of your personal genetics or lifestyle or whatever.

[NickB79]

3. At least this study doesn't fall prey to that

followed over 600,000 middle-aged women for nearly a decade.

[SheilaT]

4. Another thing about cancer that people don't get is that the risk

of getting any specific cancer is far more random than they realize. I recently read the book The Cancer Chronicles by George Johnson. He wrote it after his wife got a rare and aggressive cancer and he was trying to puzzle out why this happened to her. For one thing, she'd been eating organic foods for years -- maybe even a vegan or vegetarian life style, can't recall all the details right now -- and this terrible thing still happened to her. Among the things I learned from the book is that even dinosaurs got cancer, and really good analysis of old burials shows that cancer rates today are essentially unchanged throughout human history, meaning cancer is NOT an artifact of modern civilization.

The one risk factor that is clearly linked to cancer? Yep, it's smoking. Don't smoke and you'll vastly reduce your odds of certain cancers as well as heart disease, but beyond that live your life more or less as you want to and hope you have good genetics as well as the good luck not to get cancer.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

10. Why would someone make this post?

What is your agenda?

I think it is very safe to say that someone that would post this kind of stuff has no real ability to think clearly. Certainty this kind of thinking shows a complete lack of the ability to consider long term sustainability issues.

STUDY SHOWS THAT KILLING YOURSELF BY SHOOTING YOURSELF IN THE HEAD IS A 100 PERCENT GUARANTEE THAT YOU WILL NOT DIE OF CANCER. This statement is just as relevant to the discussion of organic food production as the article sited.

Cancers often show up later in life than middle age. This reason alone is sufficient to disregard the study. CANCER is NOT the main health concern associated with the chemicals used in agriculture. Organic food production is a fundamental change in agriculture. It is not a cancer cure. It is a cure for scores of problems that our culture faces.

Are you fighting against organic food production?

[afaruzzi]

11. why wouldn't someone make this post?

I think the point of the post is to show scientific evidence against yet another common claim by anti-GMO people. Maybe you haven't seen it, but a lot of people who are anti-GMO like to use cancer as a potential negative when they argue against GMO foods. I see no problem with battling potentially false claims one at a time with scientific data. Why is it when someone shows themselves to NOT be anti-GMO , they're always accused of having some agenda. Did this person say they are against organic food production? Why do you automatically make that jump?

It has been reported time and time again that organic food production will not be able to sustain the expanding world population. If you want to farm organically for yourself, that's fine. But GMO foods have a better chance of producing food to support the hungry of our world. And being in support of GMO foods does not mean you are against organic food production. A rational person would realize that the one equal the other.