What is the story about?
The rows of crops in the fields are straight, the yields are high, and the produce arrives in supermarkets unblemished, exactly as it is supposed to.
Women have, by every nutritional survey conducted in recent years, followed dietary guidance more conscientiously than men, filling their plates with produce and whole grains and paying attention to advice that has accumulated over half a century of public health messaging.
A study from the USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center has now produced a finding that doesn’t bode well. Non-smoking Americans under age 50 who follow healthier diets — rich in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains — may face a higher risk of developing lung cancer, and researchers believe
pesticide residue, accumulating through years of conscientious eating, may be the mechanism.
Lung cancer has typically been a disease that affects older adults, with an average age of onset of 71, and has been more common in men and in people who smoke. As smoking rates fell from the mid-1980s onward, lung cancer cases fell with them across most of the United States — except among non-smokers aged 50 and younger, especially women, who are now more likely to get lung cancer than men of the same age.
It was this pattern that prompted the USC team to look more carefully at who these patients were. Researchers analysed 187 patients diagnosed with lung cancer before age 50, with women accounting for 78 percent of the cohort, most of whom had never smoked and many of whom carried tumour types that differ biologically from lung cancers caused by smoking.
When the team examined what these patients had in common, they found a virtue where they expected a vice. Young non-smoking lung cancer patients scored an average of 65 out of 100 on the US Department of Agriculture's Healthy Eating Index, against a national average of 57, and they consumed more daily servings of dark green vegetables, legumes, and whole grains than the average American adult.
Commercially produced, non-organic fruits, vegetables, and whole grains carry higher pesticide residues than dairy, meat, and many processed foods, which means the foods with the highest nutritional value also tend to carry the heaviest chemical load.
People who eat a lot of produce tend to have higher levels of pesticide breakdown products in their urine, with exposure building steadily across years without any single meal being identifiable as the source.
There is older evidence pointing in the same direction: farm workers who handle pesticides regularly and at high doses have higher rates of certain cancers, including some lung cancers, though those are occupational exposures considerably greater than what accumulates through diet. The USC findings raise the possibility that chronic, low-level dietary exposure carries its own cost, operating over a longer timeframe and at lower intensity.
The researchers estimated pesticide exposure using published data on average residue levels across food categories rather than measuring the foods participants actually ate, and they have identified the direct measurement of pesticide levels in patients' blood or urine as the essential next step — one that would also help determine whether certain pesticides are more strongly associated with cancer risk than others.
The pesticide hypothesis offers a biological pathway as well as a dietary correlation. Many pesticides are endocrine-disrupting, and many of the lung cancers found in young patients express hormone receptors, with these pesticides capable of interacting with estrogen receptors of the type seen in lung cancers most prevalent in the young lung cancer population. Once inside the body, they bind to receptors and trigger cellular responses the body's own chemistry never called for.
Oral contraceptive use was also higher than average among certain groups of female participants — around 77 percent of women in the EGFR and mixed mutation groups reported ever taking oral contraceptives, against roughly 11 percent of US women aged 15 to 49 generally — and whether contraceptives compound the disruption caused by pesticide exposure is a question the data raises without yet being able to answer.
The study carries significant caveats: it has not been peer-reviewed, its sample of 187 patients is small, and the pesticide exposure figures were estimated rather than measured directly. Meta-analyses combining data from multiple studies continue to find reductions in lung cancer risk associated with higher fruit and vegetable intake, and official dietary guidance remains unchanged.
Nieva has recommended washing produce thoroughly and choosing organic where possible.
The researchers said the findings call for a more in-depth look into other possible environmental contributors to lung cancer in young adults — among them the pesticides applied to the crops that public health has long encouraged people to eat more of.
The study's next phase will measure pesticides directly in patients' blood and urine and widen its scope to examine global patterns and identify which specific chemicals may carry the greatest risk.
This article is based on preliminary, non-peer-reviewed research. The scientific consensus continues to support eating fruits and vegetables as part of a healthy diet.
Women have, by every nutritional survey conducted in recent years, followed dietary guidance more conscientiously than men, filling their plates with produce and whole grains and paying attention to advice that has accumulated over half a century of public health messaging.
A study from the USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center has now produced a finding that doesn’t bode well. Non-smoking Americans under age 50 who follow healthier diets — rich in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains — may face a higher risk of developing lung cancer, and researchers believe
The wrong patients
Lung cancer has typically been a disease that affects older adults, with an average age of onset of 71, and has been more common in men and in people who smoke. As smoking rates fell from the mid-1980s onward, lung cancer cases fell with them across most of the United States — except among non-smokers aged 50 and younger, especially women, who are now more likely to get lung cancer than men of the same age.
It was this pattern that prompted the USC team to look more carefully at who these patients were. Researchers analysed 187 patients diagnosed with lung cancer before age 50, with women accounting for 78 percent of the cohort, most of whom had never smoked and many of whom carried tumour types that differ biologically from lung cancers caused by smoking.
When the team examined what these patients had in common, they found a virtue where they expected a vice. Young non-smoking lung cancer patients scored an average of 65 out of 100 on the US Department of Agriculture's Healthy Eating Index, against a national average of 57, and they consumed more daily servings of dark green vegetables, legumes, and whole grains than the average American adult.
View this post on Instagram
What rides on the broccoli
Commercially produced, non-organic fruits, vegetables, and whole grains carry higher pesticide residues than dairy, meat, and many processed foods, which means the foods with the highest nutritional value also tend to carry the heaviest chemical load.
People who eat a lot of produce tend to have higher levels of pesticide breakdown products in their urine, with exposure building steadily across years without any single meal being identifiable as the source.
There is older evidence pointing in the same direction: farm workers who handle pesticides regularly and at high doses have higher rates of certain cancers, including some lung cancers, though those are occupational exposures considerably greater than what accumulates through diet. The USC findings raise the possibility that chronic, low-level dietary exposure carries its own cost, operating over a longer timeframe and at lower intensity.
The researchers estimated pesticide exposure using published data on average residue levels across food categories rather than measuring the foods participants actually ate, and they have identified the direct measurement of pesticide levels in patients' blood or urine as the essential next step — one that would also help determine whether certain pesticides are more strongly associated with cancer risk than others.
A hormone imposter
The pesticide hypothesis offers a biological pathway as well as a dietary correlation. Many pesticides are endocrine-disrupting, and many of the lung cancers found in young patients express hormone receptors, with these pesticides capable of interacting with estrogen receptors of the type seen in lung cancers most prevalent in the young lung cancer population. Once inside the body, they bind to receptors and trigger cellular responses the body's own chemistry never called for.
Oral contraceptive use was also higher than average among certain groups of female participants — around 77 percent of women in the EGFR and mixed mutation groups reported ever taking oral contraceptives, against roughly 11 percent of US women aged 15 to 49 generally — and whether contraceptives compound the disruption caused by pesticide exposure is a question the data raises without yet being able to answer.
What happens next
The study carries significant caveats: it has not been peer-reviewed, its sample of 187 patients is small, and the pesticide exposure figures were estimated rather than measured directly. Meta-analyses combining data from multiple studies continue to find reductions in lung cancer risk associated with higher fruit and vegetable intake, and official dietary guidance remains unchanged.
Nieva has recommended washing produce thoroughly and choosing organic where possible.
The researchers said the findings call for a more in-depth look into other possible environmental contributors to lung cancer in young adults — among them the pesticides applied to the crops that public health has long encouraged people to eat more of.
The study's next phase will measure pesticides directly in patients' blood and urine and widen its scope to examine global patterns and identify which specific chemicals may carry the greatest risk.
This article is based on preliminary, non-peer-reviewed research. The scientific consensus continues to support eating fruits and vegetables as part of a healthy diet.
