I will say, this study did the best job I have yet seen of controlling for confounders Still there are several that I can immediately see might be an issue (i.e. ethnicity)pic.twitter.com/w0IEgSm0db
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Firstly, there are actually already bigger, arguable better studies on the topic that have found the opposite result!pic.twitter.com/xve7GKuxSi
Secondly, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PESTICIDES This study didn't look at pesticides at all. We have no idea if organic consumption equates to reduced pesticide ingestion - especially considering that there is some evidence to suggest the opposite!
Thirdly, the absolute risk is tiny The "high organic" group ate MORE THAN 20x the organics of the "low organic" group, and they only saw a 0.6% reduction in risk That's a huge expenditure for a minuscule benefit, even if this study is correct
Finally, there's a good chance that these results are meaningless. The more factors the authors controlled for, the smaller the statistical difference There's a good chance that if you could control for everything, the result would disappear entirely
This study probably means very little to your life. Eating organic is ~probably~ better for the environment, but that's about it I've written about this beforehttps://medium.com/@gidmk/organic-food-isnt-better-for-your-health-93a35584639d …
Also, this isn't a criticism of the study, the actual research was pretty cool. I would say that the authors were a bit optimistic in their conclusion, but otherwise it was interesting epidemiological researchpic.twitter.com/LxIlXpe98s
Something I missed earlier - it's also worth noting that in most of the interesting subgroups the association totally disappearedpic.twitter.com/Iv2pvCDg2u
What this means is that organics are likely only useful in reducing the cancer risk of elderly women, which to me points to the results being likely down to statistical noise
If the effect disappears when you don't look at a single group of cancers - postmenopausal breast cancer - then it's more than likely it's not there at all
Also worth noting that the results are probably not generalizable, considering that this sample was heavily weighted towards highly-educated French women
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.