Analyzing a study, help needed, part xxx: "Organic diet enhanced the health of rats"

[Kuko 4000]

Analyzing a study, help needed, part xxx: "Organic diet enhanced the health of rats"

This Danish study from 2005 was recently quoted by a couple of my more woo-loving friends to show that organic food is healthier than non-organic. It has also appeared in the biggest newspapers here in Finland with a title: "Animal Tests Prove the Healthiness of Organic Food". I remain suspicious.

http://www.darcof.dk/research/health.html

Here's the summary:

Need for further research

For most of the response measurements in the present study there was no differences between the three diets. But in all cases, where differences were observed, there was a beneficial effect of the organically grown diet regarding the health of the rats. This indicates a positive effect of organically grown foods as compared to conventionally grown food.

However, the results presently obtained cannot be extrapolated to all organic and conventional cropping systems as, for example, the crops were grown only in one replication and a very low level of fertiliser was used in the organic system. Likewise, the results cannot be directly extrapolated from rats to humans. Nevertheless, the results show the need for further interdisciplinary research in the area of human health aspects in relation to organic foods.

I couldn't find the paper from PubMed, but my PM-fu is a bit lacking.

A search for Lauridsen C came up with 18 papers:

http://tinyurl.com/6tgzbw

Here is a list of all her publications according to Aarhus University, Department of Agricultural Sciences:

http://tinyurl.com/9q3eo4

And her profile:

http://www.agrsci.org/content/view/full/1264

Once again the info presented here seems a bit suspicious for a skeptical minded lay person like me. I would appreciate if one or more of you guys would check it as well and let me know what you think. As usual, any help appreciated.

 

[jli]

Wonder if this article is the final version presenting the study.
There are differences in the author list. Anyway the authors do not claim that their results prove that organic food is healthier for humans.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Thanks jli, it looks to be the same study:

Received: 9 August 2005; Revised: 29 August 2007; Accepted: 28 September 2007

I'm now reading through the paper:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/117858067/PDFSTART

 

[soylent]

All of the studies I've read claiming that organic food is healthier than conventional food turn out to be doing something monumentally stupid, like taking fresh organic food and comparing it to conventional food that has been lugged half-way around the world.

 

[fls]

Once again the info presented here seems a bit suspicious for a skeptical minded lay person like me. I would appreciate if one or more of you guys would check it as well and let me know what you think. As usual, any help appreciated.

Several things come to mind (I've only read the abstract). Differences in biomarkers is not the same as differences in health. They don't mention whether the differences are significant. The more measures you take, the more likely you are to find significant differences due to chance. Thirty-three comparisons are mentioned in the abstract, out of which 12 were reported as different. As you read the paper, look at how many biomarkers were measured (was it only 11?) and the extent to which statistically significant differences were found and whether the significance testing was corrected for multiple comparisons.

Otherwise, it's an example of the Sharpshooter Technique.

Linda

 

[jli]

Differences in biomarkers is not the same as differences in health. They don't mention whether the differences are significant. The more measures you take, the more likely you are to find significant differences due to chance. Thirty-three comparisons are mentioned in the abstract, out of which 12 were reported as different. As you read the paper, look at how many biomarkers were measured (was it only 11?) and the extent to which statistically significant differences were found and whether the significance testing was corrected for multiple comparisons.

Otherwise, it's an example of the Sharpshooter Technique.

Linda

It seems that your version of the abstract is more detailed than the one I see.
In the article Kuko 4000 linked to they talk mostly about tendencies. The article (again in Kukos link) suggests that only igG and vitamin E levels in the blood reached statistically significant differences. But as you say that is not necessarily the same as differences in health.

 

[casebro]

Is it higher or lower IGG levels that are desirable? Higher could mean greater sensitivity to allergens, whereas lower might mean your immune system is not trying to fight. Or does higher mean your immune system is overacting, whereas lower means you don't have anything to fight.

And I don't think there is any study showing benefit to higher vitamin E levels either.

Sounds like still no prove of advantage to organics.

 

[luchog]

Well, I don't know about rats, but I'm definitely less health when I eat inorganic matter. Except paint chips. Eating paint chips gives me superpowers.

 

[casebro]

That's because most paint chips are made from organic oils. Soy or Flax mostly. Loads of Omega-6 in paint.

Flax is the same as Linseed. $10 gallon at Home Depot.