Oh FFS!!
The study actually found a 0.6% risk reduction in absolute terms.
People who buy organic also tend to be to richer, eat more fruit and veg, less meat & drink less booze.
But of course, the truth makes a boring headline. 🤔
thetimes.co.uk/article/people…
The study actually found a 0.6% risk reduction in absolute terms.
People who buy organic also tend to be to richer, eat more fruit and veg, less meat & drink less booze.
But of course, the truth makes a boring headline. 🤔
thetimes.co.uk/article/people…
This type of reporting just tacitly reinforces the idea that of you eat organic you are a better person & good people don’t get cancer.
That is BS.
It also makes wild conjecture that this *must* be due to pesticides, which this type of study could never provide evidence for.
That is BS.
It also makes wild conjecture that this *must* be due to pesticides, which this type of study could never provide evidence for.
A more responsible headline would read:
“A single study appeared to find a link between eating organic & an extremely small 0.6% (likely statistically irrelevent) reduction in cancer risk, which could be easily explained by confounding factors. No other studies reflect this.”
“A single study appeared to find a link between eating organic & an extremely small 0.6% (likely statistically irrelevent) reduction in cancer risk, which could be easily explained by confounding factors. No other studies reflect this.”
