Cohort studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked I-RES-108 standard review
No less cancer among UK women who ate organic food
Organic food consumption and the incidence of cancer in a large prospective study of women in the United Kingdom.
Overview
Bradbury KE et al.. Br J Cancer 2014 · PMID 24675385 · DOI 10.1038/bjc.2014.148
Among 623,080 women, regular organic eaters had no lower overall cancer risk.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Is organic food consumption associated with lower cancer incidence?
- How was the study done?
Prospective cohort (Million Women Study)
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
623,080 women; 53,769 cancers
- What was actually found?
All cancer RR 1.03 (0.99-1.07); soft tissue sarcoma 1.37 (0.82-2.27); breast cancer 1.09 (1.02-1.15); non-Hodgkin lymphoma 0.79 (0.65-0.96).
- How large was the observed effect?
All cancer RR 1.03 (0.99-1.07); soft tissue sarcoma 1.37 (0.82-2.27); breast cancer 1.09 (1.02-1.15); non-Hodgkin lymphoma 0.79 (0.65-0.96).
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Avoiding conventional food did not lower cancer risk overall.
- What are the study's limitations?
Organic intake self-reported once; No residue measurement
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts residues as a main cause of cancer at UK exposure levels.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
UK data.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Organic intake is a crude proxy for residue exposure.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Bradbury KE et al.
- Journal
- Br J Cancer
- Year
- 2014
- Identifier
- PMID 24675385 DOI 10.1038/bjc.2014.148
- Verification
- verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-26; Crossref 2026-10-26
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
Cancer Research UK; Medical Research Council (PubMed grant list)
2. Research question
Is organic food consumption associated with lower cancer incidence?
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Cohort study – Prospective cohort (Million Women Study)
- Population
Middle-aged UK women
- Country
United Kingdom
- Period
9.3 y follow-up
- Sample size
623,080 women; 53,769 cancers
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
as described in the abstract
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Usually/always eating organic food
- Comparator
Never
- Endpoints
Incidence of all cancer and 16 sites
- Statistical methods
as reported in the abstract
5. Actual results
- Results
All cancer RR 1.03 (0.99-1.07); soft tissue sarcoma 1.37 (0.82-2.27); breast cancer 1.09 (1.02-1.15); non-Hodgkin lymphoma 0.79 (0.65-0.96).
- Absolute risks
not reported
- Authors' conclusion
Little or no decrease in cancer incidence associated with organic food, except possibly for NHL.
6. Strengths
- Very large cohort
- Many cases
7. Weaknesses
- Organic intake self-reported once
- No residue measurement
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
Observational.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
Precise null for all cancer.
10. Relevance to the specific claim
Largest test of whether lower pesticide exposure via organic food reduces cancer.
11. Independent contrary findings
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
13. Overall methodological judgement
Among 623,080 women, regular organic eaters had no lower overall cancer risk.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | moderate |
| Risk of bias | some concerns |
| Precision of results | high |
| Directness | indirect |
| Reproducibility | partly replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | inconsistent |
| Regional transferability | high |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not applicable |