| Literature DB >> 33167995 |
Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot1, Pauline Rebouillat2, Laurence Payrastre3, Benjamin Allès2, Léopold K Fezeu2, Nathalie Druesne-Pecollo2, Bernard Srour2, Wei Bao4, Mathilde Touvier2, Pilar Galan2, Serge Hercberg2,5, Denis Lairon6, Julia Baudry2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Organic food (OF) consumption has substantially increased in high income countries, mostly driven by environmental concerns and health beliefs. Lower exposure to synthetic pesticides has been systematically documented among consumers of organic products compared to non-consumers. While experimental studies suggest that pesticides currently used in food production may be associated with type 2 diabetes (T2D), no well-conducted prospective studies have investigated the potential association between consumption of organic products and the risk of T2D, controlling for potential confounding factors. The objective of this prospective study was to estimate the association between OF consumption and the risk of T2D.Entities:
Keywords: Organic food, Pesticides, Diabetes, Nutrition, Cohort
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33167995 PMCID: PMC7653706 DOI: 10.1186/s12966-020-01038-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act ISSN: 1479-5868 Impact factor: 6.457
Fig. 1Selection of the sample
Baseline characteristics of the sample across sex-specific quintiles of the proportion of organic food in the diet, NutriNet-Santé study, 2014–2019, N = 33,256*
| Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | P1 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | 6650 | 6652 | 6652 | 6652 | 6650 | |
| Cut-off of organic food Share | ||||||
| Women | ≤0.04 | > 0.04–0.17 | > 0.17–0.32 | > 0.32–0.56 | > 0.56 | |
| Men | ≤0.01 | 0.01–0.12 | 0.12–0.26 | 0.26–0.5 | > 0.50 | |
| Female (%) | 76.33 | 76.32 | 76.32 | 76.32 | 76.33 | – |
| Age (years) | 52.7 (14.9) | 52.5 (14.3) | 53.3 (13.8) | 53.8 (13.5) | 53.7 (13.3) | < 0·0001 |
| Education (%) | < 0·0001 | |||||
| < High school diploma | 25.1 | 19.3 | 20.7 | 19.3 | 17.8 | |
| High school diploma | 16.6 | 15.3 | 13.8 | 13.6 | 13.9 | |
| Post-secondary graduate | 58.3 | 65.4 | 65.5 | 67.2 | 68.4 | |
| Monthly income per unit household unit in € (%) | < 0·0001 | |||||
| Missing | 6.74 | 5.97 | 6.21 | 6.06 | 6.32 | |
| < 1200 | 14.81 | 10.96 | 10.37 | 9.86 | 11.94 | |
| 1200–1800 | 25.13 | 22.81 | 22.49 | 21.83 | 22.74 | |
| 1800–2700 | 25.5 | 27.6 | 27.27 | 28.16 | 27.53 | |
| > 2700 | 27.82 | 32.67 | 33.66 | 34.1 | 31.47 | |
| Occupational categories (%) | < 0·0001 | |||||
| Non-employed | 4.41 | 3.76 | 3.97 | 3.85 | 4.87 | |
| Retired | 35.97 | 33.51 | 35.24 | 36.35 | 34.56 | |
| Employee/Manual worker | 19.23 | 16.07 | 14 | 11.91 | 12.6 | |
| Intermediate profession | 14.17 | 15.81 | 16.15 | 15.94 | 14.27 | |
| Managerial staff | 16.57 | 22.34 | 22.96 | 22.91 | 23.31 | |
| Never employed | 7.97 | 7.07 | 6.1 | 7.13 | 7.62 | |
| Craftsman, shopkeeper, business owner, and farmer | 1.68 | 1.44 | 1.59 | 1.92 | 2.77 | |
| Cohabiting (%) | 86.36 | 86.64 | 88.05 | 88.08 | 86.96 | 0.04 |
| Tobacco status (%) | 0.64 | |||||
| Former smoker | 38.78 | 39.13 | 39.37 | 40.83 | 40.6 | |
| Current smoker | 12.8 | 11.68 | 11.79 | 9.89 | 9.2 | |
| Never smoker | 48.42 | 49.19 | 48.84 | 49.28 | 50.2 | |
| Physical activity (%) | < 0·0001 | |||||
| Missing | 23.16 | 21.2 | 20.11 | 19.35 | 16.19 | |
| Low | 25.08 | 22.34 | 19.69 | 17.61 | 15.29 | |
| Medium | 18.4 | 20.25 | 20.76 | 20.44 | 20.16 | |
| High | 17.81 | 17.99 | 19.31 | 21.11 | 23.77 | |
| Energy intake (kcal/d) | 1965 (648) | 1980 (618) | 1995 (611) | 2022 (635) | 2011 (618) | < 0·0001 |
| % Carbohydrates | 39.73 (7.72) | 39.43 (7.38) | 39.68 (7.37) | 39.45 (7.27) | 40.25 (7.82) | 0.0003 |
| % Lipids | 40.29 (7.17) | 40.77 (6.92) | 40.87 (6.84) | 41.59 (6.85) | 42.38 (7.62) | 0·0017 |
| % Proteins | 19.58 (3.82) | 19.40 (3.49) | 19.05 (3.50) | 18.58 (3.52) | 17.00 (3.51) | < 0·0001 |
| Alcohol consumption (g/d) | 8.54 (14.31) | 8.65 (12.41) | 8.62 (11.91) | 8.58 (11.73) | 7.41 (10.53) | < 0·0001 |
| sPNNS-GS2 | 1.83 (3.48) | 2.16 (3.40) | 2.60 (3.30) | 2.99 (3.29) | 4.29 (3.03) | < 0·0001 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 24.77 (4.86) | 24.25 (4.65) | 24.11 (4.36) | 23.84 (4.24) | 22.97 (3.89) | < 0·0001 |
| Family history of T2D | 18.45 | 17.51 | 16.58 | 16.37 | 16.75 | 0.002 |
| History of hypertension | 17.98 | 16.27 | 15.53 | 14.51 | 10.75 | < 0·0001 |
| History of dyslipidemia | 19.85 | 18.72 | 18.64 | 18.13 | 13.31 | < 0·0001 |
Abbreviations: Q sex-specific Quintile
*All variables were assessed at baseline
1P for linear contrast or Chi2 test
Association between the proportion of organic food in the diet and risk of T2D, NutriNet-Santé study, 2014–2019, N = 33,256*
| model | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | P for trend | 5 points increment | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Person-years | 26,709 | 27,128 | 27,218 | 27,120 | 26,816 | |||
| Number of cases | 83 | 72 | 51 | 48 | 39 | |||
| Model 13 | 1.00 (ref) | 0.94 (0.69, 1.30) | 0.69 (0.48, 0.98) | 0.70 (0.48, 1.00) | 0.64 (0.43, 0.95) | 0.01 | 0.97 (0.94, 0.99) | 0.01 |
| Model 24 | 1.00 (ref) | 0.89 (0.65, 1.23) | 0.69 (0.48, 0.98) | 0.67 (0.46, 0.96) | 0.65 (0.43, 0.97) | 0.01 | 0.97 (0.95, 0.99) | 0.02 |
| Person-years | 26,733 | 27,141 | 27,179 | 27,239 | 26,698 | |||
| Number of cases | 83 | 67 | 55 | 40 | 48 | |||
| Model 35 | 1.00 (ref) | 0.88 (0.63, 1.21) | 0.74 (0.53, 1.05) | 0.55 (0.38, 0.81) | 0.76 (0.52, 1.10) | 0.01 | 0.97 (0.95, 1.00) | 0.03 |
| Model 46 | 1.00 (ref) | 0.83 (0.60, 1.16) | 0.75 (0.53, 1.06) | 0.52 (0.36, 0.77) | 0.77 (0.53, 1.12) | 0.01 | 0.98 (0.95, 1.00) | 0.03 |
| Person-years | 26,541 | 27,104 | 27,236 | 27,148 | 26,960 | |||
| Number of cases | 75 | 58 | 65 | 46 | 49 | |||
| Model 57 | 1.00 (ref) | 0.81 (0.57, 1.14) | 0.93 (0.66, 1.30) | 0.68 (0.47, 0.99) | 0.84 (0.58, 1.22) | 0.19 | 0.99 (0.96, 1.01) | 0.27 |
| Model 68 | 1.00 (ref) | 0.77 (0.54, 1.09) | 0.94 (0.67, 1.31) | 0.64 (0.44, 0.93) | 0.82 (0.56, 1.19) | 0.15 | 0.99 (0.96, 1.01) | 0.27 |
Abbreviation: Q sex-specific quintile
*Values are Hazard ratio (95% confidence intervals), 5 points correspond to 5% of the contribution of OF to the diet
1P for trend modeling quintile as ordinal independent variable
2P for continuous independent variable
3Model 1 is adjusted for age (time-scale), gender, familial history of diabetes, physical activity, occupation, marital status, education, monthly income per unit, smoking status, sPNNS-GS2, energy intake and alcohol consumption
4Model 2 is model 1 adjusted for body mass index
5Model 3 is model 1 adjusted for total plant food consumption
6Model 4 is model 3 adjusted for body mass index
7Model 5 is model 1 adjusted for total animal food consumption
8Model 6 is model 5 adjusted for body mass index
Fig. 2Linearity assumption of the association between the proportion of organic food in the diet and type 2 diabetes risk1,2. 1Spline plot modeling the association between the proportion of organic food in the diet and type 2 diabetes risk using Restricted cubic spline (RCS) SAS Macro® developed by Desquilbet and Mariotti. 2 P for overall association = 0.02, P for non-linear association = 0.12
Stratified analysis of the association of the proportion of organic food in the diet and risk of T2D, NutriNet-Santé study, 2014–2019*
| Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | P for trend | 5 points increment | P | P for interaction | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Women3 | 1.00 (ref) | 0.66 (0.43, 1.00) | 0.67 (0.43, 1.03) | 0.51 (0.31, 0.83) | 0.35 (0.19, 0.63) | 0.0002 | 0.94 (0.91, 0.97) | 0.001 | 0.01 |
| Men4 | 1.00 (ref) | 1.38 (0.81, 2.33) | 0.75 (0.40, 1.41) | 1.22 (0.68, 2.17) | 1.61 (0.89, 2.91) | 0.28 | 1.03 (0.99, 1.07) | 0.15 | |
| Tertile 1 | 1.00 (ref) | 0.75 (0.47, 1.21) | 0.78 (0.48, 1.26) | 0.55 (0.32, 0.93) | 0.72 (0.43, 1.20) | 0.08 | 0.99 (0.95, 1.03) | 0.59 | 0.24 |
| Tertile 2 | 1.00 (ref) | 1.17 (0.65, 2.12) | 0.66 (0.33, 1.30) | 0.70 (0.36, 1.39) | 0.55 (0.26, 1.15) | 0.04 | 0.96 (0.91, 1.00) | 0.07 | |
| Tertile 3 | 1.00 (ref) | 0.60 (0.28, 1.28) | 0.56 (0.26, 1.21) | 0.48 (0.20, 1.11) | 0.42 (0.17, 1.03) | 0.04 | 0.95 (0.90, 1.00) | 0.06 | |
| < 12005 | 1.00 (ref) | 0.69 (0.30, 1.56) | 0.36 (0.13, 0.97) | 0.53 (0.20, 1.44) | 0.20 (0.04, 0.94) | 0.02 | 0.92 (0.84, 1.00) | 0.05 | 0.99 |
| 1200–18006 | 1.00 (ref) | 0.58 (0.28, 1.22) | 0.69 (0.33, 1.42) | 0.78 (0.38, 1.62) | 0.55 (0.22, 1.35) | 0.32 | 0.97 (0.91, 1.02) | 0.25 | |
| 1800–27007 | 1.00 (ref) | 1.09 (0.53, 2.21) | 0.95 (0.46, 1.98) | 1.27 (0.62, 2.60) | 1.04 (0.46, 2.39) | 0.75 | 1.01 (0.97, 1.07) | 0.56 | |
| > 27008 | 1.00 (ref) | 0.85 (0.49, 1.45) | 0.50 (0.26, 0.96) | 0.38 (0.19, 0.79) | 0.65 (0.33, 1.25) | 0.02 | 0.95 (0.90, 0.99) | 0.03 | |
Abbreviations: CI confidence interval, HR Hazard ratio, PNNS-GS2 Programme National Nutrition Santé-guideline score 2, Q sex-specific (when appropriate) quintile, T2D type 2 diabetes
*Values are Hazard ratio (95% confidence intervals). 5 points correspond to 5% of the contribution of OF to the diet. Model are adjusted for age (time-scale), familial history of diabetes, physical activity, occupation, marital status, education, monthly income per unit, smoking status, sPNNS-GS2, energy intake, alcohol consumption and body mass index and gender for sPNNS-GS2 stratification
1P for trend modeling quintile as ordinal independent variable
2P for continuous independent variable
3N = 25,383
4N = 7873
5N = 3854
6N = 7648
7N = 9050
8N = 10,623