Next Article in Journal
Current and Future Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Coronary Artery Disease
Next Article in Special Issue
Impact of the Intake of Snacks and Lifestyle Behaviors on Obesity among University Students Living in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Previous Article in Journal
A Link between Handgrip Strength and Executive Functioning: A Cross-Sectional Study in Older Adults with Mild Cognitive Impairment and Healthy Controls
Previous Article in Special Issue
How Relevant Is the Place Where First-Year College Students Live in Relation to the Increase in Body Mass Index?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Healthcare
Volume 10
Issue 2
10.3390/healthcare10020231
healthcare-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Organic Food Consumption and Risk of Obesity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by
Akshaya Srikanth Bhagavathula
1,
Kota Vidyasagar
2 and
Jagdish Khubchandani
3,*
1
Department of Social and Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy at Hradec Kralove, Charles University, 50003 Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic
2
Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Hanamkonda 506009, India
3
Department of Public Health Sciences, College of Health, Education, and Social Transformation, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Healthcare 2022, 10(2), 231; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/healthcare10020231
Submission received: 23 December 2021 / Revised: 24 January 2022 / Accepted: 25 January 2022 / Published: 26 January 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Nutrition and Public Health 2.0)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Recent epidemiological studies have explored the association between organic food consumption and the risk of obesity, but the results remain controversial. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to determine the association between organic food consumption and the risk of obesity. Rigorous methods for a comprehensive search were employed to search for literature in PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Embase for relevant articles published until 30 November 2021. Pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (Cis) were calculated using a DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model to understand the risk of obesity based on exposure to organic food. Four studies, comprising 104,488 healthy subjects and 39,425 adults who consumed organic food, reported 1625 incident cases of obesity. Compared with the unexposed group, organic food consumption was associated with a lower probability of obesity (OR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.80–0.97, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed that this association was higher in the cohort (OR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.63–0.92) than cross-sectional studies (OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.91–1.00), respectively. Overall, organic food consumption had a modest reduction (11%) in the risk of obesity and can be an appropriate strategy to prevent obesity.

1. Introduction

In the 21st century, obesity has emerged as one of the most serious public health concerns worldwide [1,2]. Recent estimates have suggested that more than 500 million adults are obese worldwide, and nearly four million individuals die annually due to a high body mass index (BMI) [1]. As a result, cardiovascular diseases and diabetes have also become the leading causes of mortality in general and in association with high BMI [1,2,3]. In addition to premature mortality, obesity is also associated with various comorbidities and chronic diseases ranging from physical to mental health issues and considerable loss of quality of life and disabilities [1,3,4,5]. Given the high burden of obesity and associated morbidity and mortality, several studies and interventions have been conducted to address the rising epidemic of obesity. Most of these interventions and recommendations are designed to reduce calorie consumption, increase fruit and vegetable consumption, and improve physical activity and exercise [3,4,5,6].
Given the overwhelming strategies and interventions to improve health and manage body weight, there has been much interest recently in new dietary habits, supplements, and alternate diets. A prominent entity in this regard is “organic food.” Touted as one of the biggest consumer trends over the past few decades, the organic movement has gained particular popularity in western countries [7,8,9]. For example, in a 2016 survey, most Americans (68%) reported that they had bought organic food at least once in the preceding month. In addition, 40% of Americans reported that most or some of the foods they ate were organic [8]. Similarly, the global sales of organic products have increased sharply in the 21st century. According to one report, in 2019, sales of organic food amounted to USD 106 billion, up from USD 18 billion in 2000 [9]. It is postulated that traditional foods may be exposed to chemicals used to produce food that increase the risk of health problems. These chemicals (e.g., pesticides) promote toxicity risks towards human health but can cause many subtle metabolic and endocrine changes that collectively pose long-term health risks, including obesity and metabolic disorders. In contrast, organic foods are predominantly cultivated, in practice, free from chemical exposure to the harvest causing a reduction in the risk of health problems [7,10,11,12]. Despite the growing popularity and the proliferation of media reports and articles on the benefits of organic food, evidence-based research on the benefits and effects of organic food has recently started emerging in the scientific literature. One of the earliest and most rigorous reviews of organic food found that consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria [10]. However, the review lacked strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods. In contrast, more recent reviews suggest that organic foods may be healthier and of higher nutritional value [11,12]. Despite the various findings, all these studies unanimously suggest the need for better assessment and evidence synthesis on the benefits of organic foods, such as the influence on body mass index [10,11,12]. The purpose of this review was to investigate the association between the consumption of organic food and the risk of obesity.

2. Materials and Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines [13].

2.1. Literature Search Strategy

A literature search was performed to identify relevant available articles published in the English language from PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Embase up to 30 November 2021, using search terms: “organic food” (or “organic products” or “organic diet” or “ organic diet”) and “obesity” (or “obese” or “obesities” or “excess body weight”). Reference lists of the included articles were also checked to identify further relevant studies.

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

We included cross-sectional and cohort studies investigating the association between organic food consumption and the incidence of obesity in healthy subjects. Briefly, the inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) a published observational study; (2) organic food or organic products as the exposure of interest; (3) obesity as the outcome of interest; (4) odds ratios (ORs) or relative risks (RRs) or hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were provided; (5) the most recent study was selected if data from the same population had been published more than once. Studies that did not provide sufficient information on the exposure and outcome of interest were not considered. Studies conducted on special populations (children, pregnant women, older) and diseased populations were excluded. Non-human studies, in vitro research, review articles, editorials, letters to editors, case reports or case series, and letters without sufficient data were also excluded from this study.

2.3. Data Extraction

Two reviewers (ASB and KVS) independently reviewed the articles and extracted the relevant data. The following information was extracted: (1) the first author’s name; (2) year of publication; (3) study region; (4) study design; (4) study population; (5) sample size; (6) age range or mean age; (7) definition of obesity; (8) duration of follow-up and the cases of obesity; (9) organic food consumption; (10) variables adjusted for each study and (11) OR (we presented all results as OR for simplicity) with 95% CI. Moreover, OR of the highest threshold of organic food consumption, adjusted for confounders, was extracted. The quality assessment of observational studies was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) [14]. Studies with a NOS scale score of ≥7 were considered high-quality studies. Disagreement at each stage was resolved by consensus and involving a third author (JK) if required.

3. Statistical Analysis

The data analysis was performed using Stata version 16 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA). Risk estimates comprising higher quartiles from the most adjusted models were used for analysis. To investigate the strength of the association between organic food consumption and the risk of obesity, ORs were naturally log-transformed and pooled using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models [15]. When studies did not provide standard error (SE) or 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the mean for calculating the effect size directly, it was estimated from published data using the methods described by Greenland [16]. I2 was used to assess the heterogeneity between studies (I2 values of 0%, 25%, 50%, and 75% represent no, low, moderate, and high heterogeneity, respectively), and a p < 0.10 was considered evidence of substantial heterogeneity [17]. Subgroup analysis was performed to explore the sources of heterogeneity. The effect of each study in the overall estimates was evaluated by sensitivity analysis. Statistical methods cannot detect publication bias when the number of available published studies was small (<10), thus publication bias was not assessed [17]. All reported probabilities (p-values) were two-tailed, and a p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

4. Results

4.1. Literature Search and Study Characteristics

The literature review process is demonstrated in a flow chart in Figure 1. The search strategy identified 263 articles: 117 from PubMed/Medline, 89 from Web of Science, and 57 from Embase. Two additional articles were identified by checking the reference lists of included studies. Out of these articles, 76 duplicate records were removed, and 158 articles were excluded following titles and abstract screening. Twenty-five articles were subsequently excluded for various reasons after reviewing the full text. Finally, four studies were included in the systematic review and were eligible for the meta-analysis [18,19,20,21].
Table 1 shows the characteristics of the included studies published between 2010 [21] and 2021 [18]. Two studies were cohort studies [19,20], whereas the remaining two were cross-sectional studies [18,21]. Three were full-length research articles [18,19,21] and one article was published as conference proceedings [20]. Two studies were conducted in France [18,19], while one study each was conducted in five European countries [21] and in the USA [20]. All the studies focused on organic food [19,20,21,22], and one study conducted both children and adults [19]. In total, 104,488 healthy subjects participated in these studies. Regarding the quality assessment of studies, the mean NOS score of studies was 6.8, and the three studies had an overall score of 6 [18,20,21]. More details of the quality assessment are presented in Table 2.

4.2. Organic Food Consumption and Risk of Obesity

Four studies [18,19,20,21] comprising 104,488 participants with 39,425 adults consuming organic food and 1625 incident cases of obesity were included to evaluate the association between organic food consumption and the risk of obesity. The meta-analysis results showed that organic food consumption was associated with a lower probability of obesity. The pooled OR of obesity for the exposure versus no-exposure groups of organic food was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.80–0.97, p < 0.001; I2 = 77.5%, PQ = 0.003) (Figure 2).
In subgroup analysis with study population, the pooled ORs in cohort studies and cross-sectional studies [18,21] were 0.78 (95% CI: 0.63–0.92) and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.91–1.00), respectively (Table 3). Subgroup analysis also identified significant heterogeneity between the studies stratified by study design, location, and sample size. The detailed results of the subgroup analysis are shown in Table 3.

4.3. Sensitivity Analysis and Risk of Bias

A sensitivity analysis was conducted to investigate the proportion of each study in the overall effect. The findings demonstrated that Pérez-Cueto et al.’s [21] study contributed to between-study heterogeneity in analyzing the association between organic food consumption and the risk of obesity.

5. Discussion

This large multinational review of 104,488 participants found that organic food consumption was associated with an 11% reduced probability of obesity. These findings can be explained by several postulates [11,22,23,24]. First, organic foods are considered rich in fruits and vegetables with high amounts of fiber. Second, pesticides, antibiotics, and hormone exposure in conventional food production are much higher, and these chemicals can increase BMI, abdominal fat, and insulin resistance. Third, organic food’s nutrient content and nutritional value could be higher with more vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, or anti-inflammatory ingredients, leading to reduced body weight. Fourth, organic foods are packed with less sugar due to the smaller size of food items than conventional products (e.g., organic fruits of smaller sizes could provide the same amount of nutrients as larger-sized conventionally grown fruits). Finally, it could also be possible that consumers of organic foods could be more health-conscious or have more favorable social determinants of health [22,23,24,25].
Given the billions of dollars being spent on organic food and the growing popularity of such foods, it is imperative to recognize the effects and utility of organic foods. The associations that were observed in this review merit future investigation via prospective and accurate data concerning the nature of foods consumed, which is needed to confirm these findings and assess the long-term effects of organic food consumption on obesity and metabolic disorders. In most of the studies included in this review, the limitations were inherent to study designs (e.g., lack of baseline data, inability to establish cause and effect, recall bias, and issues with reliability and validity of measures). With the multiple geographic and sociocultural influences and individual differences, measuring dietary habits has always remained a challenge. However, to the best of our knowledge, this review is the first of its kind and included participants from various regions; hence, there could be benefits related to body weight from organic food consumption that cannot be ignored.
Data from a descriptive study conducted in Germany demonstrated that most organic food consumers exhibit lower body weight than non-consumers [26]. In addition, a recent Danish study observed that people with generally healthy lifestyles, physical activities, and dietary habits were more likely to eat organic food [27]. Recent studies on organic food consumption have also highlighted that people turned to organic food due to concerns about the potentially harmful effects of pesticide residues on consumer health [28,29,30]. Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses have indicated that consumers hold positive perceptions largely driven by attributes, such as health benefits, animal welfare, nutritional value, food quality, and food safety [25,31,32]. In addition, several studies published from the NutriNet-Santé cohort have indicated that a higher frequency of organic food consumption was negatively associated with a reduced risk of cancer [33], diabetes [34], metabolic syndrome [35], and obesity [36]. In the present meta-analysis, the association between organic food consumption and obesity remained significant with greater benefits on regular consumption. This variety and extent of evidence also suggest that individuals who consume organic foods, plant-based diets, and whole grains have better cardiometabolic health. Two previous meta-analyses have indicated that switching from conventional to organic dairy and meat products (containing a higher amount of omega-3 fatty acids) benefits the cardiovascular system [37,38]. However, it is still difficult to discern the nutritional significance of organic foods, as most of the included studies are cross-sectional, self-reported organic food frequency, and may have misclassification of organic food consumption. In addition, the evidence on the benefits of organic food remains conflicting given the wide variety of organic foods and the lack of data that has rigorously established that organic foods are more nutritious than non-organic counterparts. For example, organic foods may not necessarily contain fewer calories and may also contribute to high calorie intake (e.g., with newer trends of organic sweets and cookies, etc.). Increasing intake of calorie-rich organic food can pose equal risks of obesity but probably on a reduced scale due to the absence of pesticides or chemicals generally used for non-organic produce. Therefore, the associations observed in this review merit future investigation, with well-designed randomized controlled trials or robust cohort studies.

Strengths and Limitations

The results of this review should be considered in light of a few potential limitations. First, we included the studies that evaluated organic food consumption through self-reported validated tools (FFQ, 12–24 h recall, and a food-related lifestyle questionnaire) that are susceptible to recall bias. Second, most of the included studies are of moderate quality (NOS score of 6–7), observational, and from Western nations. The participants exhibit specific sociodemographic profiles, and there was significant heterogeneity between the studies. Therefore, caution is needed when generalizing the results. Third, we cannot omit the residual confounding due to the specific profile of high organic food consumers. Fourth, organic food is generally more expensive (specifically in western countries) and it can be reasonably assumed that organic food is mostly consumed by individuals with higher socioeconomic status (SES). These individuals and population groups also have a lower prevalence of obesity; such confounding due to SES factors could limit the validity of our results as there were not enough details across all studies on SES of individuals included for this review. Similarly, organic foods can be of wide varieties (e.g., Non-GMO or antibiotic-free, etc.). It could be possible that our search did not result in studies on such varieties of organic foods or there are no such studies that were conducted. If so, this would bias the findings of our review and limit the validity of our results. Furthermore, obesity is a complex phenomenon with multifactorial origins (e.g., social and cultural preferences for food, market influences, consumer behaviors across regions, etc.). The prevalence of obesity itself varies widely across regions and future studies should account for the wide variation in obesity burden across regions where studies on organic food are conducted. Finally, one of the most critical limitations of this review is that one of the studies included in the review is a conference abstract from the year 2020 and is not yet published as a full-length journal research article [20]. If the review standards for this conference abstract differ from the peer-review standards of other studies included in this review, this could be a threat to the validity of our findings.
Despite these limitations, our review has numerous strengths. First, a comprehensive search was conducted, and selection criteria included all cross-sectional and cohort studies examining the relationship between organic food consumption and obesity. Second, a large sample size, the use of adjusted estimates, stratified analyses, and lack of publication bias enhance statistical power to provide more precise and reliable results. Third, to the best of our knowledge, this is one of the first and largest reviews on the organic food consumption and obesity relationship. Finally, no substantial change in the association between organic food consumption and obesity was found in the sensitivity analysis. Hence, our results remain robust despite these limitations.

6. Conclusions

Organic foods have emerged as one of the most popular lifestyle trends over the past few decades. Global sales and consumption indicate further exponential growth of organic food consumption, with a plethora of media reports and lifestyle publications highlighting the benefits of organic foods. Despite the popularity of organic foods, there was a lack of robust evidence on the relationship between organic food consumption and obesity. Our rigorous review of existing evidence and meta-analysis demonstrates a modest reduction in the risk of obesity (11%) associated with organic food consumption. Dietary behaviors and patterns are difficult to measure and quantify, but our review suggests that the impact of organic food consumption on the risk of obesity warrants further investigation through long-term controlled studies. In the global urgency to combat obesity, our study offers promising results for an avenue of intervention and public health education.

Author Contributions

A.S.B. and J.K. conceptualized and designed the study. A.S.B. and K.V. collected all data and conducted the data analysis. A.S.B. and J.K. drafted the paper. K.V. provided critical inputs on the draft. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

No funding was received for this review.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data is available from the studies included in the review that have been cited.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Afshin, A.; Forouzanfar, M.H.; Reitsma, M.B.; Sur, P.; Estep, K.; Lee, A.; Marczak, L.; Mokdad, A.H.; Moradi-Lakeh, M.; Naghavi, M.; et al. Health effects of overweight and obesity in 195 countries over 25 Years. N. Engl. J. Med. 2017, 377, 13–27. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  2. Inoue, Y.; Qin, B.; Poti, J.; Sokol, R.; Gordon-Larsen, P. Epidemiology of Obesity in Adults: Latest Trends. Curr. Obes. Rep. 2018, 7, 276–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Blüher, M. Obesity: Global epidemiology and pathogenesis. Nat. Rev. Endocrinol. 2019, 15, 288–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Khubchandani, J.; Price, J.H.; Sharma, S.; Wiblishauser, M.J.; Webb, F.J. COVID-19 pandemic and weight gain in American adults: A nationwide population-based study. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. 2022, 16, 102392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Bleich, S.N.; Vercammen, K.A.; Zatz, L.Y.; Frelier, J.M.; Ebbeling, C.B.; Peeters, A. Interventions to prevent global childhood overweight and obesity: A systematic review. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2018, 6, 332–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Batsis, J.A.; Gill, L.E.; Bs, R.K.M.; Adachi-Mejia, A.; Blunt, H.B.; Bagley, P.; Lopez-Jimenez, F.; Bartels, S.J. Weight loss interventions in older adults with obesity: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials Since 2005. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2017, 65, 257–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Katt, F. A systematic review of drivers influencing consumer willingness to pay for organic food. Trend Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 100, 374–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Statista. Consumers attitudes toward organic food in United States as of 2016, by Age 2021. Available online: https://0-www-statista-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/statistics/316247/us-attitudes-toward-organic-food-in-diet-by-age/ (accessed on 30 October 2021).
  9. Statista. Worldwide Sales of Organic Food from 1990–2019. 2021. Available online: https://0-www-statista-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/statistics/273090/worldwide-sales-of-organic-foods-since-1999/ (accessed on 30 October 2021).
  10. Smith-Spangler, C.; Brandeau, M.L.; Hunter, G.E.; Bavinger, J.C.; Pearson, M.; Eschbach, P.J.; Sundaram, V.; Liu, H.; Schirmer, P.; Stave, C.; et al. Are organic foods safer or healthier than conventional alternatives?: A systematic review. Ann. Intern. Med. 2012, 157, 348–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Brantsaeter, A.L.; Ydersbond, T.A.; Hoppin, J.A.; Haugen, M.; Meltzer, H.M. Organic food in the diet: Exposure and health implications. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2017, 38, 295–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Mie, A.; Andersen, H.R.; Gunnarsson, S.; Kahl, J.; Kesse-Guyot, E.; Rembiałkowska, E.; Quaglio, G.; Grandjean, P. Human health implications of organic food and organic agriculture: A comprehensive review. Environ. Health 2017, 16, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Stroup, D.F.; Berlin, J.A.; Morton, S.C.; Olkin, I.; Williamson, G.D.; Rennie, D.; Moher, D.; Becker, B.J.; Sipe, T.A.; Thacker, S.B. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: A proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000, 283, 2008–2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Stang, A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2010, 25, 603–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. DerSimonian, R.; Laird, N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin. Trial. 1986, 7, 177–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Greenland, S. Quantitative methods in the review of epidemiologic literature. Epidemiol. Rev. 1987, 9, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Higgins, J.P.T.; Green, S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions; Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]; The Cochrane Collaboration: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  18. Gosling, C.J.; Goncalves, A.; Ehrminger, M.; Valliant, R. Association of organic food consumption with obesity in a nationally representative sample. Br. J. Nutr. 2021, 125, 703–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Kesse-Guyot, E.; Baudry, J.; Assmann, K.E.; Galan, P.; Hercberg, S.; Lairon, D. Prospective association between consumption frequency of organic food and body weight change, risk of overweight or obesity: Results from the NutriNet-Santé Study. Br. J. Nutr. 2017, 117, 325–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Park, Y.-M.; O’Brien, K.; Sandler, D. Association between organic food consumption and risk of obesity in women. Curr. Dev. Nutr. 2020, 4 (Suppl. S2), 1667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Pérez-Cueto, F.J.; Verbeke, W.; de Barcellos, M.D.; Kehagia, O.; Chryssochoidis, G.; Scholderer, J.; Grunert, K.G. Food-related lifestyles and their association to obesity in five European countries. Appetite 2010, 54, 156–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Barański, M.; Średnicka-Tober, D.; Volakakis, N.; Seal, C.; Sanderson, R.; Stewart, G.B.; Benbrook, C.; Biavati, B.; Markellou, E.; Giotis, C.; et al. Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium concentrations and lower incidence of pesticide residues in organically grown crops: A systematic literature review and meta-analyses. Br. J. Nutr. 2014, 112, 794–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Dangour, A.D.; Lock, K.; Hayter, A.; Aikenhead, A.; Allen, E.; Uauy, R. Nutrition-related health effects of organic foods: A systematic review. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2010, 92, 203–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Aleisha, F.K. Will Going Organic Help You Lose Weight? 2015. Available online: https://health.usnews.com/health-news/health-wellness/articles/2015/03/13/will-going-organic-help-you-lose-weight (accessed on 30 October 2021).
  25. Massey, M.; O’Cass, A.; Otahal, P. A meta-analytic study of the factors driving the purchase of organic food. Appetite 2018, 125, 418–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Eisinger-Watzl, M.; Wittig, F.; Heuer, T.; Hoffmann, I. Customers purchasing organic food—Do they live healthier? Results of the German National Nutrition Survey II. Eur. J. Nutr. Food Saf. 2015, 5, 59–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Andersen, J.L.M.; Frederiksen, K.; Raaschou-Nielsen, O.; Hansen, J.; Kyrø, C.; Tjønneland, A.; Olsen, A. Organic food consumption is associated with a healthy lifestyle, socio-demographics, and dietary habits—A cross-sectional study based on the Danish Diet, Cancer and Health cohort. Public Health Nutr. 2021, 2021, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Jeyakumar Nathan, R.; Victor, V.; Popp, J.; Fekete-Farkas, M.; Oláh, J. Food innovation adoption and organic food consumerism—A cross national study between Malaysia and Hungary. Foods 2021, 10, 363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Nagaraj, S. Role of consumer health consciousness, food safety & attitude on organic food purchase in emerging market: A serial mediation model. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 59, 102423. [Google Scholar]
  30. Tandon, A.; Jabeen, F.; Talwar, S.; Sakashita, M.; Dhir, A. Facilitators and inhibitors of organic food buying behavior. Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 88, 104077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hurtado-Barroso, S.; Tresserra-Rimbau, A.; Vallverdú-Queralt, A.; Lamuela-Raventós, R.M. Organic food and the impact on human health. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2019, 59, 704–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Rana, J.; Paul, J. Health motive and the purchase of organic food: A meta-analytic review. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2020, 44, 162–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Baudry, J.; Assmann, K.E.; Touvier, M.; Allès, B.; Seconda, L.; Latino-Martel, P.; Ezzedine, K.; Galan, P.; Hercberg, S.; Lairon, D.; et al. Association of Frequency of Organic Food Consumption with Cancer Risk: Findings From the NutriNet-Santé Prospective Cohort Study. JAMA Intern. Med. 2018, 178, 1597–1606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Kesse-Guyot, E.; Rebouillat, P.; Payrastre, L.; Allès, B.; Fezeu, L.K.; Druesne-Pecollo, N.; Srour, B.; Bao, W.; Touvier, M.; Galan, P.; et al. Prospective association between organic food consumption and the risk of type 2 diabetes: Findings from the NutriNet-Santé cohort study. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2020, 17, 136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Baudry, J.; Lelong, H.; Adriouch, S.; Julia, C.; Allès, B.; Hercberg, S.; Touvier, M.; Lairon, D.; Galan, P.; Kesse-Guyot, E. Association between organic food consumption and metabolic syndrome: Cross-sectional results from the NutriNet-Santé study. Eur. J. Nutr. 2018, 57, 2477–2488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Sakaki, J.R.; Melough, M.M.; Li, J.; Tamimi, R.M.; Chavarro, J.E.; Chen, M.H.; Chun, O.K. Associations between 100% orange juice consumption and dietary, lifestyle and anthropometric characteristics in a cross-sectional study of U.S. children and adolescents. Nutrients 2019, 11, 2687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Średnicka-Tober, D.; Barański, M.; Seal, C.; Sanderson, R.; Benbrook, C.; Steinshamn, H.; Gromadzka-Ostrowska, J.; Rembiałkowska, E.; Skwarło-Sońta, K.; Eyre, M.; et al. Composition differences between organic and conventional meat: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Br. J. Nutr. 2016, 115, 994–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Średnicka-Tober, D.; Barański, M.; Seal, C.J.; Sanderson, R.; Benbrook, C.; Steinshamn, H.; Gromadzka-Ostrowska, J.; Rembiałkowska, E.; Skwarło-Sońta, K.; Eyre, M.; et al. Higher PUFA and n-3 PUFA, conjugated linoleic acid, α-tocopherol and iron, but lower iodine and selenium concentrations in organic milk: A systematic literature review and meta- and redundancy analyses. Br. J. Nutr. 2016, 115, 1043–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Healthcare 10 00231 g001 550
Figure 1. Flow chart of included studies.
Figure 1. Flow chart of included studies.
Healthcare 10 00231 g001
Healthcare 10 00231 g002 550
Figure 2. Association between organic food consumption and risk of obesity.
Figure 2. Association between organic food consumption and risk of obesity.
Healthcare 10 00231 g002
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of included studies (N = 140,067).
Table 1. Characteristics of included studies (N = 140,067).
AuthorYearStudy DesignCountryStudy PopulationParticipantsSample SizeMethod of AssessmentOutcomesAdjustedQuality of Studies
Gosling et al. [18]2021Cross-sectionalFranceINCA3Children/adult3896food propensity questionnaire and 24-h dietary recallAdult OR: 0.97
Children OR: 0.95		demographics (age and sex), SES (family income and education level), nutritional covariates (MD, adherence, food processing, regime, dietary supplements, and energy intake), and physical activity (physical activity and sedentary lifestyle).6
Kesse-Goyot et al. [19]2017CohortFranceNutriNet-SantéAdult62,224Organic score/24 h recallOR: 0.69 (95% CI: 0.58–0.82)age and sex, occupation, marital status, education, monthly income per unit, dietary supplement use, mPNNS-GS, dietary pattern scores, energy intakes, physical activity and tobacco status, and history of chronic diseases9
Park et al. [20]2020Retrospective CohortUSASister studyAdult37,706organic diet score/12 months recallRR: 0.84 (95% CI: 0.74–0.96)socioeconomic, demographic, and lifestyle factors, including physical activity and other dietary measures6
Perez-Cureto et al. [22]2010Cross-sectionalBelgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, and PolandFive EU countries (EU FP6)Adult2437Food-related lifestyle questionnaireOR: 0.92 (95% CI: 0.86–0.98)age, gender, educational achievement, locality of residence, financial status, and marital status6
Table
Table 2. Assessment of the quality of the eligible studies based on NOS.
Table 2. Assessment of the quality of the eligible studies based on NOS.
Cohort StudiesSelection 1–4Comparability 5Exposure 6–8Total
Kesse-Guyot et al. [19]111121119
Park et al. [21]111021016
Cross-Sectional StudiesSelection 9–12Comparability 5Outcome 13,14
Gosling et al. [18]10012116
Perez-Cueto et al. [22]10012116
1 Representativeness: truly or somewhat representative of the exposed cohort; 2 Selection: selection of the non-exposed cohort; 3 Ascertainment: assessment by structured interviews or surgical medical records; 4 Demonstration: demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study; 5 Comparability: study controls for the most important factor or any additional factor; 6 Assessment: assessment of outcome; 7 Duration: follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur; 8 Adequacy: adequacy of follow-up of cohorts; 9 Representativeness: truly or somewhat representative of the target population; 10 Sample size: justified and satisfactory (including sample size calculation); 11 Non-respondents: proportion of target sample recruited attains pre-specified target or basic summary of non-respondent characteristics in sampling frame recorded; 12 Ascertainment of the exposure: vaccine records/vaccine registry/clinic registers/hospital records only; 13 Assessment: assessment of outcome and their methods validity; 14 Statistical test: statistical test used to analyze the data being clearly described, appropriate and measures of association presented including confidence intervals and probability level (p value).
Table
Table 3. Subgroup analysis.
Table 3. Subgroup analysis.
SubgroupNo. of StudiesOdds Ratio (95% CI)p-ValueI2
Study design
Cross-sectional2 studies0.95 (0.91–1.00)<0.00138.4
Cohort2 studies0.78 (0.63–0.92)0.00745.7%
Study location
Europe3 studies0.90 (0.80–0.99)0.00581.1%
USA1 study0.84 (0.71–0.97)<0.001-
Sample size
<10,0002 studies0.95 (0.91–1.00)0.00538.4%
>10,0002 studies0.78 (0.63–0.92)0.000145.7%
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bhagavathula, A.S.; Vidyasagar, K.; Khubchandani, J. Organic Food Consumption and Risk of Obesity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Healthcare 2022, 10, 231. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/healthcare10020231

AMA Style

Bhagavathula AS, Vidyasagar K, Khubchandani J. Organic Food Consumption and Risk of Obesity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Healthcare. 2022; 10(2):231. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/healthcare10020231

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bhagavathula, Akshaya Srikanth, Kota Vidyasagar, and Jagdish Khubchandani. 2022. "Organic Food Consumption and Risk of Obesity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Healthcare 10, no. 2: 231. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/healthcare10020231

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop