Organic food consumption and cancers

1/ The volunteers of the study represent a very highly biased population as 78.0% of 68 946 participants were female. Only 22% of male volunteers is by itself a great explanation of the results. 
2/ 1340 first incident cancer cases were identified, with the most prevalent being 459 breast cancers (34.3%), 180 prostate cancers (13.4%), 135 skin cancers (melanoma and spinocellular carcinoma) (10.1%), 99 colorectal cancers (7.4%), 47 NHLs (3.5%), and 15 other lymphomas (1.1%).
3/ The reduction of risk associated with OFC is only about postmenopausal breast cancer (232/459), NHL, and all lymphomas (62 cases)
For NHL and lymphomas, the risk reduction with OFC is not linear and in lymphomas, the Q3 has a trend of higher risk!
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma
1 [Reference]
0.80 (0.35-1.81)
1.21 (0.61-2.43)
0.27 (0.07-0.96)
.23
0.75 (0.60-0.93)
.009
All lymphomas
1 [Reference]
0.56 (0.27-1.17)
0.97 (0.54-1.74)
0.23 (0.08-0.69)
.05
0.75 (0.60-0.93)
.03
4/ Among the participants consuming OF, physical activity and alcohol consumption are different... But we know that those factors are highly important and definitively more important than pesticides in cancer promotion and development.
5/ In the figure, several unlikely findings are against all other evidence in the literature.
- Sex. In males who do have a higher rate of cancers, there is no difference between the Q4 vs Q1.
In females who do have a lower rate of cancers the Q4 women do have a lesser risk than the Q1 ones... This is suggesting OFC lowers the risk in female only.
- Age. Q4 vs Q1 OFC is associated with a lesser risk only in postmedian age participants. Which means that in the time interval cancers which are the slowest to develop, I mean cancers in older people would have been reduced and the others that grow faster in younger people, wouldn't.
- BMI ≤25 0.81 (0.66-0.99)
BMI >25 to <30 0.66="" font="">
BMI ≥30 0.57 (0.35-0.93)
It is very improbable that people with BMI >30 would have been "protected" when consuming OF in the Q4, considering the evidence about the link between obesity and cancer.
- OFC do have an undifferentiated effect in non-smokers and former or current smokers which is very unlikely regarding that we know about smoking and cancer and the quantitated effect of carcinogens... 

For those reasons and for the eminent question of the evidence-based quantitated effect of protection, people should be advised to implement a healthy lifestyle based on efficient measures: 
No smoking,
Moderate to high physical activity
Normal weight and hip/waist ration even at old age
Fewer carbohydrates and especially added sugars
Less processed foods including processed meats.

Other comments:
"Please, correct me if i'm wrong, but this study has a very strange and weak design. 
The dietary profile of participants was assessed only once ("Two months after enrollment, volunteers were asked to provide information on their consumption frequency of 16 labeled organic products").
Moreover, while the authors state that they used a somewhat validated questionnaire, in their commentary Drs. Hemler, Chavarro and Hu, write:
"Most salient among the weaknesses is the fact that the organic food questionnaire was not validated; therefore, it is unclear what the intended exposure, organic food consumption, was actually measuring."
So, how could anyone draw any conclusions based on a single assessment made with an unvalidated questionnaire?"

"In that regard, in supplemental table 7, we can see that other variables change between the quartiles. For example milk, legume and poultry consumption. However, the models did not adjust for these. Red and processed meat were adjusted for, I assume because higher cancer risk was associated with these food categories, however one should not assume that because it has not been described, milk, poultry or legumes might not have an effect of their own, and the model should have been adjusted for that.
... An extra analysis of interest would be to see if there are specific food groups where organic vs conventional sourcing has a higher impact on the incidence of the reported cancers. According to the methods paragraph, the authors should have this kind of data. Does a PCA or MFA suggest any link? This would be particularly interesting as it could indirectly point towards a more specific subgroup of pesticides (organic eggs or milk are not exposed to the same pesticides as cereals or legumes), and perhaps support the authors' claim of pesticide involvement."
" The study referenced in the article included 68,946 patients, 78% women with a mean age at baseline of 44.2 years. According to the article, women are more prone than men to develop cancer. This helps to solidify the authors’ claims but does not take into account other age groups—particularly those more vulnerable like children or the elderly."
Finally interpretation by the authors of their study is biased by a classical issue in epidemiology: 
reverse causation.
It is more probable (regarding the different discrepancies between non organic food consumers and the volunteers of the study) that the culture, healthstyle and other factors are the cause of their decreased risk and OFC. 
1 / Les volontaires de l’étude représentent une population très fortement biaisée puisque 78,0% des 68 946 participants étaient des femmes. Seulement 22% des volontaires masculins constituent à eux seuls une excellente explication des résultats.
Deux cas sur 1340 cancers ont été identifiés, les plus fréquents étant: 459 cancers du sein (34,3%), 180 cancers de la prostate (13,4%), 135 cancers de la peau (mélanome et carcinome spinocellulaire) (10,1%), 99 cancers colorectaux (7,4 %), 47 LNH (3,5%) et 15 autres lymphomes (1,1%).
3 / La réduction du risque associé aux CPO ne concerne que le cancer du sein post-ménopausique, le LNH et tous les lymphomes (62 cas)
Pour les LNH et les lymphomes, la réduction du risque avec OFC n’est pas linéaire et dans les lymphomes, le Q3 a une tendance de risque plus élevé!
Lymphome non hodgkinien
1 [Référence]
0,80 (0,35-1,81)
1,21 (0,61-2,43)
0,27 (0,07-0,96)
.23
0,75 (0,60-0,93)
.009
Tous les lymphomes
1 [Référence]
0,56 (0,27-1,17)
0,97 (0,54-1,74)
0,23 (0,08-0,69)
0,05
0,75 (0,60-0,93)
.03
4 / Parmi les participants consommant du thé, l’activité physique et la consommation d’alcool sont différentes… Mais nous savons que ces facteurs sont très importants et nettement plus importants que les pesticides dans la promotion et le développement du cancer.
5 / Dans la figure, plusieurs conclusions peu probables vont à l’encontre de toutes les autres preuves présentées dans la littérature.
- le sexe. Chez les hommes qui ont un taux de cancer plus élevé, il n'y a pas de différence entre le Q4 et le Q1.
Chez les femmes qui ont un taux de cancer plus faible, les femmes du quatrième trimestre ont un risque moins élevé que celles du premier trimestre ... Cela suggère que l'OFC réduit le risque chez les femmes uniquement.
- l'âge. Q4 vs Q1 L'OFC est associé à un risque moindre que chez les participants d'âge médian. Ce qui signifie que, dans l'intervalle de temps, les cancers les plus lents à développer, je veux dire les cancers chez les personnes âgées auraient été réduits et les autres qui se développent plus rapidement chez les personnes plus jeunes, non.
- IMC ≤25 0,81 (0,66-0,99)
IMC> 25 à <30 0="" p="">IMC ≥30 0,57 (0,35-0,93)
Il est très improbable que les personnes ayant un IMC supérieur à 30 aient été "protégées" lorsqu'elles consomment du OF au 4ème trimestre, compte tenu des preuves relatives au lien entre obésité et cancer.
- Les CFO ont un effet indifférencié chez les non-fumeurs et les fumeurs anciens ou actuels, ce qui est très peu probable en ce qui concerne nos connaissances sur le tabagisme et le cancer et sur l'effet quantifié des substances cancérogènes ...

Pour ces raisons et pour la question éminente de l’effet quantitatif de la protection fondé sur des preuves, il convient de conseiller aux personnes d’appliquer un mode de vie sain reposant sur des mesures efficaces:
Ne pas fumer,
Activité physique modérée à élevée
Poids normal et ration hanche / taille même à un âge avancé
Moins de glucides et surtout de sucres ajoutés
Moins d'aliments transformés, y compris les viandes transformées.
<30 0="" p="">
<30 0="" p="">
<30 0="" p="">https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2707943