Cohort studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked I-RES-109 standard review
No link between organic food and overall cancer in Denmark
Organic food consumption and the incidence of cancer in the Danish diet, cancer and health cohort.
Overview
Andersen JLM et al.. Eur J Epidemiol 2023 · PMID 36592285 · DOI 10.1007/s10654-022-00951-9
Over 15 years, organic food consumption was not related to 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 cancer incidence?
- How was the study done?
Prospective cohort (Diet, Cancer and Health)
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
41,928 participants; 9,675 cancers
- What was actually found?
No association with overall cancer. Stomach cancer lower (low: HR 0.50, 0.32-0.78; medium 0.50, 0.32-0.80; high 0.54, 0.27-1.07); non-Hodgkin lymphoma higher (low 1.45, 1.01-2.10; high 1.97, 1.28-3.04).
- How large was the observed effect?
No association with overall cancer. Stomach cancer lower (low: HR 0.50, 0.32-0.78; medium 0.50, 0.32-0.80; high 0.54, 0.27-1.07); non-Hodgkin lymphoma higher (low 1.45, 1.01-2.10; high 1.97, 1.28-3.04).
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
No clear cancer benefit from avoiding conventional produce.
- What are the study's limitations?
Organic intake reported once; Many site-specific tests
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts a major role of residues.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Danish (EU) data.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Proxy exposure only.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Andersen JLM et al.
- Journal
- Eur J Epidemiol
- Year
- 2023
- Identifier
- PMID 36592285 DOI 10.1007/s10654-022-00951-9
- Verification
- verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-26; Crossref 2026-10-26
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
Independent Research Fund Denmark; Danish Cancer Society (PubMed grant list)
2. Research question
Is organic food consumption associated with cancer incidence?
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Cohort study – Prospective cohort (Diet, Cancer and Health)
- Population
Danish adults
- Country
Denmark
- Period
median 15 y follow-up
- Sample size
41,928 participants; 9,675 cancers
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
as described in the abstract
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Organic food score (never/low/medium/high)
- Comparator
Never
- Endpoints
Incident cancer overall and by site
- Statistical methods
as reported in the abstract
5. Actual results
- Results
No association with overall cancer. Stomach cancer lower (low: HR 0.50, 0.32-0.78; medium 0.50, 0.32-0.80; high 0.54, 0.27-1.07); non-Hodgkin lymphoma higher (low 1.45, 1.01-2.10; high 1.97, 1.28-3.04).
- Absolute risks
not reported
- Authors' conclusion
Does not support an association between organic food consumption and overall cancer.
6. Strengths
- Long follow-up
- Registry outcomes
7. Weaknesses
- Organic intake reported once
- Many site-specific tests
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; multiplicity.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
Site-specific results conflict with other cohorts (NHL direction opposite to Bradbury), suggesting chance.
10. Relevance to the specific claim
Independent replication test of organic food and cancer.
11. Independent contrary findings
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
13. Overall methodological judgement
Over 15 years, organic food consumption was not related to overall cancer risk.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | moderate |
| Risk of bias | some concerns |
| Precision of results | moderate |
| Directness | indirect |
| Reproducibility | partly replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | inconsistent |
| Regional transferability | high |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not applicable |