Cohort studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked I-RES-107 standard review
French organic food eaters had fewer cancers
Association of Frequency of Organic Food Consumption With Cancer Risk: Findings From the NutriNet-Sante Prospective Cohort Study.
Overview
Baudry J et al.. JAMA Intern Med 2018 · PMID 30422212 · DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4357
The highest organic consumers had 25% fewer cancers (absolute 0.6%), possibly due to healthier lifestyles.
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?
Is frequency of organic food consumption associated with cancer risk?
- How was the study done?
Prospective cohort (NutriNet-Sante)
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
68,946 participants; 1,340 cancers
- What was actually found?
Q4 vs Q1: overall cancer HR 0.75 (0.63-0.88), absolute risk reduction 0.6%; per 5-point increase HR 0.92 (0.88-0.96).
- How large was the observed effect?
Q4 vs Q1: overall cancer HR 0.75 (0.63-0.88), absolute risk reduction 0.6%; per 5-point increase HR 0.92 (0.88-0.96).
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
A possible but unconfirmed signal.
- What are the study's limitations?
Volunteers; healthy-consumer bias; Short follow-up; Organic score not a residue measurement; Erratum published
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Weak indirect support; not specific to residues.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
French (EU) data.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot show residues cause cancer.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Baudry J et al.
- Journal
- JAMA Intern Med
- Year
- 2018
- Identifier
- PMID 30422212 DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4357
- Verification
- verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-26; Crossref 2026-10-26
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
ErratumIn: JAMA Intern Med 2018;178(12):1732
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
not stated in abstract
2. Research question
Is frequency of organic food consumption associated with cancer risk?
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Cohort study – Prospective cohort (NutriNet-Sante)
- Population
French adult volunteers (78% women)
- Country
France
- Period
2009-2016
- Sample size
68,946 participants; 1,340 cancers
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
as described in the abstract
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Organic food score (quartiles)
- Comparator
Lowest quartile
- Endpoints
Incident cancer
- Statistical methods
as reported in the abstract
5. Actual results
- Results
Q4 vs Q1: overall cancer HR 0.75 (0.63-0.88), absolute risk reduction 0.6%; per 5-point increase HR 0.92 (0.88-0.96).
- Absolute risks
not reported
- Authors' conclusion
Higher organic food consumption was associated with reduced cancer risk; findings need confirmation.
6. Strengths
- Prospective
- Detailed covariates
7. Weaknesses
- Volunteers; healthy-consumer bias
- Short follow-up
- Organic score not a residue measurement
- Erratum published
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
Strong potential for confounding by lifestyle.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
ARR 0.6% (NNT about 167); relative association moderate; residual confounding likely (stats/C-RES-02_cohorts.py).
10. Relevance to the specific claim
Tests whether lower pesticide exposure via organic food relates to cancer.
11. Independent contrary findings
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
13. Overall methodological judgement
The highest organic consumers had 25% fewer cancers (absolute 0.6%), possibly due to healthier lifestyles.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | moderate |
| Risk of bias | some concerns |
| Precision of results | moderate |
| Directness | indirect |
| Reproducibility | not replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | inconsistent |
| Regional transferability | high |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not applicable |