2024-11-04 16:30:00
A customer shops at “Super Cafoutch”, a cooperative and participatory supermarket in Marseille, January 19, 2023. NICOLAS TUCAT / AFP
As long as it receives sufficient media coverage, any publication highlighting the health benefits of organic food is met with a barrage of denigration and untruths. With the singular circumstance that this false information does not only circulate on social networks or in the press: it is sometimes learned societies or scientific institutions which produce or relay this misleading information. According to several researchers in nutrition and public health, the National Academy of Medicine, the French Academy of Agriculture (AAF) and the National Cancer Institute (INCa) have thus, each in their own way, participated in fueling the confusion on the subject.
In question, a French epidemiological study published in 2018 in JAMA Internal Medicinehaving followed 70,000 people for four and a half years, and highlighting a significant drop in lymphomas (- 75%) and postmenopausal breast cancer (- 34%) among the biggest consumers of organic products, compared to those who do not consume it. Just three days after publication, the AAF posted a “viewpoint” from two of its members on its website, which criticized it.
“This text was a model of the techniques used by manufacturers to create doubt, with a pile of methodological criticisms bordering on bad faith, but which manage to give the illusion of a legitimate scientific discussionsays Serge Hercberg, one of the figures in nutritional epidemiology, and co-author of this study. We are obviously not hostile to debate, but it was clearly a desire to discredit rather than debate. » Questioned, the permanent secretary of the AAF recalls that the “points of view” of academicians, although disseminated by the learned society, are not formally endorsed by it.
Also read (2023) | Serge Hercberg, epidemiologist: “I am convinced that there is no contradiction between gastronomy, common sense and health”
Read later
In April 2019, several months after the publication of the famous study, the National Academy of Medicine published a brief press release Who “alert on the too rapid interpretation of epidemiological results”. The text argues that the groups compared (organic consumers and non-consumers) differ in other factors: “Consumption of fruits and vegetables, socio-economic level, physical activity… all [sont] capable of explaining a difference on their own. »
A criticism which suggests that the authors were negligent in not taking these confounding factors into account in their analysis. “It’s completely ridiculous.replies biochemist and nutritionist Denis Lairon, co-author of the attacked study. It is unthinkable that a magazine like JAMA Internal Medicineone of the most renowned and demanding, agrees to publish an epidemiological study which would not take into account these confounding factors! »
You have 54.43% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.
1730778828
#Scientific #institutions #maintain #doubt #benefits #organic
**Interview with Serge Hercberg: Debunking Myths Surrounding Organic Food**
*Date: November 4, 2024
Location: Marseille, France*
**Interviewer:** Thank you for joining us today, Serge. Your recent insights have stirred quite a conversation about organic versus conventional food. Can you shed some light on why there’s such a wave of skepticism surrounding the benefits of organic food?
**Serge Hercberg:** Thank you for having me. The skepticism largely stems from a combination of misunderstanding and misinformation that’s propagated even by reputable institutions. Many studies have shown that organic foods tend to have lower levels of toxic metabolites, such as heavy metals and pesticide residues. Yet, when a significant epidemiological study published in *JAMA Internal Medicine* highlighted health benefits associated with organic consumption, we saw an immediate backlash from certain learned societies.
**Interviewer:** That 2018 study you mentioned followed 70,000 individuals and reported a notable decrease in certain cancers among organic food consumers. How did organizations like the French Academy of Agriculture respond?
**Serge Hercberg:** Just three days after the study was published, the AAF published a critique that seemed more intent on discrediting the findings than fostering legitimate scientific debate. Their scrutiny employed common tactics used by manufacturers to instigate doubt, leaning heavily towards methodical criticisms that, frankly, seemed disingenuous.
**Interviewer:** What impact do such critiques have on public perception of organic food?
**Serge Hercberg:** They create confusion and foster skepticism among the public, which is troubling considering the potential health benefits associated with organic foods. When learned societies, who’ve earned public trust, disseminate misleading information, it not only undermines scientific discourse but also hinders people from making informed dietary choices.
**Interviewer:** As a co-author of the original study, what do you think is necessary to clear the air on this topic?
**Serge Hercberg:** Open, honest discussions that focus on the evidence are crucial. It’s essential for scientists to communicate their findings without fear of backlash, and for organizations to encourage, rather than silence, legitimate discussions regarding dietary health. The goal should always be the well-being of consumers, based on accurate scientific evidence.
**Interviewer:** In light of misinformation, what advice would you give to consumers regarding organic food choices?
**Serge Hercberg:** I encourage consumers to seek out credible sources of information and to consider the evidence surrounding organic foods. Ultimately, opting for organic products could benefit not just health but also sustainable agricultural practices. Making informed choices is key, and understanding the science behind our food is crucial in this journey.
**Interviewer:** Thank you, Serge, for your insights and for advocating for clarity in this important discussion.
**Serge Hercberg:** Thank you for having me; it’s vital we continue these conversations.
