So, what to take away from this study?
-
-
Firstly, there are actually already bigger, arguable better studies on the topic that have found the opposite result!pic.twitter.com/xve7GKuxSi
1 reply 1 retweet 14 likesShow this thread -
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!
2 replies 1 retweet 14 likesShow this thread -
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
1 reply 1 retweet 16 likesShow this thread -
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
1 reply 1 retweet 13 likesShow this thread -
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 …
3 replies 1 retweet 14 likesShow this thread -
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
2 replies 1 retweet 10 likesShow this thread -
Something I missed earlier - it's also worth noting that in most of the interesting subgroups the association totally disappearedpic.twitter.com/Iv2pvCDg2u
2 replies 1 retweet 7 likesShow this thread -
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
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
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
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likesShow this thread
Also worth noting that the results are probably not generalizable, considering that this sample was heavily weighted towards highly-educated French women
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @ragstorm
Hi you can read it here: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1054508292813156352.html … Have a good day.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.