No, I do not think this will boost sales of organics. Why? Because the public is bombarded with studies, advice, and research — often saying very contradictory things, some of which are later retracted as new “evidence” comes along.

This study is a prime example of that: it could be that the people who eat organics have a propensity to lead healthier lives or have other substantive dietary differences which, in turn, reduce the likelihood of cancer. Correlation is not causation.

All that said, organic growth will continue — mainly because people are, in general terns, more health conscious and more environmentally concerned.

As admitted to in this piece the jury is sill out re the advantages of what is called “organic” foods. The term “organic” unfortunately has primarily become a marketing term rather than a true measure of food quality. If one were to blockchain the food back to where the seed came from, what soil it was planted in, what water was used, etc. there’d be big shock and disappointment. As in computing, garbage in, garbage out.

There is a movement in plant-based medicinals, however, for a growing number of serious afflictions including cancers. Some results quite miraculous. But again, the entire development chain of those products must be pristine and secure.

It is only a matter of time before people will realize that everything that goes into their bodies matters. It used to be that you could eat organic vegetables, meat, fish, and poultry but worry that condiments and other ingredients that are used in cooking would sabotage the effort. Now almost everything you need to prepare a meal can be organic so if you can afford it, you can be true blue organic all the way. I don’t think that this one study will drastically change a trend that is already hot. Those that practice good eating habits will continue to do so and those that eat poorly will either start to buy in or will ignore it. Exercise, sleep, not drinking too much alcohol, stress and many other factors of our daily lives will have a greater impact in the long run than if you are eating only organic on a regular basis. At the end of the day, those that tend to eat healthy are the ones that tend to take care of… Read more »

I honestly don’t see that there is any new news here. Most people who choose to buy organic foods primarily do so for three reasons: 1.) the health of the planet 2.) the health of the animals 3.) their own health and the health of their families. I doubt many of us who choose organic foods will be surprised by any studies that indicate that consuming fewer antibiotics, pesticides and herbicides could reduce our risk of cancer. Perhaps, as more studies indicate similar findings, a few more people will choose to start buying organics. However, if people haven’t yet decided the monetary costs of organic foods outweigh the health (and humane) costs of conventional foods, I doubt a few more studies will cause much of a change in the market for organics.

First of all, let’s not compare organic apples to industrially harvested oranges. This study was done in France. In addition to all of the caveats already attached to it — and they are significant — there is the small problem that “organic” in France means something different than “organic” does in America. So I have to say this new study will have minimal impact on organic sales here. As to why people buy organic, the answers are diverse and complex, but essentially boil down to the fact that organic shoppers believe that the food they eat is healthier for them than conventional alternatives. Are they right? Who really knows? But facts have rarely gotten in the way of a great marketing campaign.

Gosh, why is this a surprise? It’s pretty straightforward to me. Either I eat food that has been chemically enhanced, or I eat food that has been grown with age old techniques.

I certainly am not a “purely” organic person, but when given the choice, you bet I’ll take organics every time.

Overall, our society is bifurcating. It is bifurcating around economic status and (for want of a better word), intellectualism. One may intellectually know organics are better for you but just not be able to pay the up-charge. The other might not believe the information is conclusive, and may also have vested interests in non-organics.

This is just another manifestation of that. What’s the ultimate impact in the U.S.? It’s very, very hard to tell. The bifurcation might be the biggest issue of all.

This research will not add to organic food sales in the U.S., nor will it necessarily change minds The converted already believe and aren’t seeking validation; the rest won’t pay any attention. Outside of a lifestyle change, consumption of organic foods is based on availability of such choices at reasonable prices and far less with any research study — with or without a long list of caveats.

Whether the research shows that organic foods are safer than non-organic, many people believe that is the case. If consumers believe that way, they will shop accordingly which seems to be the case as more and more organic products are offered for retail sale. If more evidence is published showing the health benefits of organics, the trend will accelerate.

I suppose this might increase consumption of organic food unless you’re one of the sub-groups where the study didn’t find anything significant. Like…

Men, the young adults, those with only high school education, smokers, and those with good diets.

When I look at that list, it seems pretty likely that these are spurious results and made to look more dramatic with terms like “25 percent more likely” which often means 0.125 occurrences out of 1000 instead of 0.100 occurrences out of 1000.

So the question seems to be: “Will headlines from this study cause a change?” It’s an important distinction because the results themselves are pretty insignificant.

The new study on the impact of eating organics on lowering your chances of getting cancer may provide a short-term increase in organic food sales. However, consumers’ attention span is short and they will quickly lose focus on this study and organics and resort back to other habits — buying the lowest cost options. One thing that may help sustain organic sales is the continued increase in locally sourced organics (farmers market/locavore trend) and the increased focus on organics in traditional grocery stores. The cost is lower to produce organics (without the cost of pesticides) but the yield is also lower. As production of organics increases to support traditional supermarkets, the prices will come down. Some consumers question the legitimacy of “organic” products as “roughly 40 percent of all organic food sold in America tests positive for prohibited pesticides,” according to two USDA studies. One issue with the study is that it doesn’t consider that people that eat organic foods at a higher rate may share some other attributes that distinguish them from the people… Read more »

Maybe marginally. People committed to purchasing organic food already do that. Now that the organic section has become larger in stores, some people purchase organic because it is there. For most, the price differential is a problem. Why does it have to cost more to buy healthy food?

Unfortunately, many can not afford an organic diet. Those who can afford to buy organic likely are driven by the implied health benefits. With so many chemicals used in food production, and GMOs, it is sometimes frightening to read a label. GMOs are everywhere! The study will reinforce eating organic as a new measurement of a healthy lifestyle. A lot of pressure on health-conscious consumers lacking a “whole paycheck” budget.

As others have pointed out, price is by far the most significant headwind for increased consumption of organic foods. So what will it take to reduce the price gap? More farms must transition to organic. It typically takes three years for a conventional farm to be certified as organic. Expediting this process through best practices and technologies will open up supply. More supply chains must transition to organic. Organic eggs and milk have the highest price premiums over conventional counterparts, at 70-80 percent. The USDA requires feed qualify as organic for the byproducts to be organic. Today most of the feed, such as corn and soybeans, has to be imported to the US. (In a bit of irony, the US ships soybeans to China and China ships organic soybeans to the US). Deeper discounts by grocers can expand impulse purchases. Organic foods (aka without preservatives) often have shorter shelf lives. A deep discounting strategy for overdue produce both moves product before spoilage and encourages higher consumption from “switchers.” Despite a maturing market and greater choice… Read more »