Cross-sectional studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked A-VEG-14 standard review
Organic vs conventional diet in preschoolers
Organophosphorus pesticide exposure of urban and suburban preschool children with organic and conventional diets.
Overview
Curl CL et al.. Environ Health Perspect 2003 · PMID 12611667 · DOI 10.1289/ehp.5754
Children on conventional diets had about six times more pesticide metabolites in urine.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Compare exposure
- How was the study done?
Cross-sectional
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
39 children (18 organic, 21 conventional diets)
- What was actually found?
Higher metabolites with conventional
- How large was the observed effect?
~6-fold median
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Organic reduces exposure.
- What are the study's limitations?
Small; no outcomes
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Exposure only
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Moderate
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot show harm.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Curl CL, Fenske RA, Elgethun K
- Journal
- Environ Health Perspect
- Year
- 2003
- Identifier
- PMID 12611667 DOI 10.1289/ehp.5754 · PMC1241395
- Verification
- verified – PubMed E-utilities efetch, 2026-10-25
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
NIEHS/CDC funding
2. Research question
Compare OP exposure by diet type.
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Cross-sectional study – Cross-sectional biomonitoring
- Population
Preschool children
- Country
USA (Seattle)
- Period
Not stated
- Sample size
39 (18 organic, 21 conventional)
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Diet classified by food diaries
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Conventional diet
- Comparator
Organic diet
- Endpoints
Urinary dialkylphosphates
- Statistical methods
Median comparison
5. Actual results
- Results
Median total dimethyl metabolites ~6 times higher with conventional diets (0.17 vs 0.03 µmol/L; p=0.0003); means differ 9-fold; organic produce may shift exposure from 'uncertain risk' to 'negligible risk' (EPA guidelines).
- Absolute risks
not reported
- Authors' conclusion
Organic produce is a simple way to reduce children's OP exposure.
6. Strengths
- Biomonitoring
7. Weaknesses
- Small
- Cross-sectional
- Self-classified diet
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- ROBINS-E
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- some concerns
- Rationale
Confounding possible.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
Exposure biomarker.
10. Relevance to the specific claim
Supports exposure part of C-VEG-13.
11. Independent contrary findings
EFSA 2023.
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
Moderate.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Exposure only.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | moderate |
| Risk of bias | some concerns |
| Precision of results | low |
| Directness | indirect |
| Reproducibility | replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | consistent |
| Regional transferability | moderate |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | partly correct but over-interpreted |
14. Open questions
Health relevance.
15. Linked fact checks
Use by the Tayebat archive
Note: according to the archive, the studies were compiled by the archive operators. Whether Dr. Elawady himself cited this study is not established.
- What the archive says about the study
Conventionally fed preschoolers ~6-fold higher OP metabolites.
- A. What was actually studied?
Exposure by diet.
- B. What did the authors find?
As stated.
- C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?
Organic reduces exposure.
- D. What does the archive derive from it?
Vegetables harmful.
- E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?
Shows exposure difference; authors speak of uncertain vs negligible risk, not harm.
- Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)
- partly correct but over-interpreted