Jorge Nieva’s USC Study Links Healthy Eating Index Scores To Early-Onset Lung Cancer

A study presented at the American Association for Cancer Research conference this week has triggered a wave of alarm and pushback after headlines suggested that eating fruits, vegetables, and whole grains could increase the risk of lung cancer in certain people.

“Dubious nutrition research and downright terrible diet and health advice are nothing new, but the situation has devolved as of late”

Ars Technica

Ars Technica reported that “The full study behind the headlines hasn’t been published yet, but experts have seen enough to call it baloney,” adding that the research “hasn’t been peer reviewed” and is “only a conference abstract.”

Ars Technica

The study is being presented by researchers led by Jorge Nieva at the University of Southern California, and Ars Technica said the abstract describes a “small” study with “no appropriate control group” and “arbitrary” groupings.

Healthline likewise said the research was presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research on “April 17–22,” and it noted that “The research has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.”

The core finding, as described across outlets, is a correlation between higher “Healthy Eating Index” scores and early-onset lung cancer among people who “have never smoked.”

Newsweek framed the work as suggesting diets rich in fruits, vegetables and whole grains “may possibly be linked to a higher risk of early‑onset lung cancer,” while The Conversation emphasized that the work is “based on 187 people with early‑onset lung cancer” and “looks backwards from people who already have cancer.”

Multiple reports describe the USC work as analyzing dietary patterns among people diagnosed with lung cancer before age 50, with the study focusing on those who “have never smoked.”

Newsweek said the research “focused on an unusual and growing trend: rising lung cancer diagnoses among non‑smokers under age 50, particularly women,” and it described an “Epidemiology of Young Lung Cancer Project” cohort of “187 patients diagnosed with lung cancer before age 50,” with “women accounting for 78 percent of the cohort.”

Healthline

Healthline similarly said the researchers “surveyed 187 patients who received a diagnosis of lung cancer by the time they were 50,” and it reported that “The Healthy Eating Index ranks Americans’ diets on a scale of 1-100.”

Healthline provided a specific comparison: “Young, non-smoking patients who had lung cancer had an HEI score of 65 out of 100, compared with the average U.S. score of 57.”

The Independent and ScienceDaily both echoed the same HEI framing, with The Independent stating “Young non-smoking lung cancer patients had an average HEI score of 65, compared to a national average of 57,” and ScienceDaily describing “an average HEI score of 65, compared to the national average of 57.”

The Conversation added a methodological critique that the study “estimated probable pesticide exposure using average residue levels from other sources” rather than measuring pesticides directly in participants.

The USC team’s proposed explanation centers on pesticides rather than fruits and vegetables themselves, with several outlets quoting Jorge Nieva’s statement about “counter-intuitive findings” and an “unknown environmental risk factor.”

“A new study from researchers at the University of Southern California (USC) has suggested that diets rich in fruits, vegetables and whole grains may possibly be linked to a higher risk of early‑onset lung cancer”

Newsweek

Newsweek reported that “Nieva and other researchers speculated pesticides could be the risk factor in question,” and it said Nieva argued that “commercially grown (non‑organic) produce tends to carry higher pesticide residues than many processed foods, dairy products or meats.”

ScienceDaily similarly said Nieva pointed to “commercially produced (non-organic) fruits, vegetables and whole grains” as more likely to carry “higher levels of pesticide residue compared to dairy, meat and many processed foods.”

Healthline described the same general mechanism, stating that “non-organic fruits, vegetables, and whole grains produced commercially typically have higher levels of pesticides than many processed foods, as well as meat and dairy,” and it tied the idea to prior evidence that “agricultural workers who are exposed to pesticides have higher rates of lung cancer.”

Nieva’s quote appears repeatedly across outlets: Newsweek included “Our research shows that younger non-smokers who eat a higher quantity of healthy foods than the general population are more likely to develop lung cancer,” and it added that “These counter-intuitive findings raise important questions about an unknown environmental risk factor for lung cancer related to otherwise beneficial food that needs to be addressed.”

The Conversation stressed the speculative nature of the pesticide angle, saying “Instead of measuring pesticides in their food or blood, the team estimated probable pesticide exposure using average residue levels from other sources.”

While the USC findings are framed as raising questions, multiple outlets emphasize that the results do not establish causation and that the study is limited by its design and lack of direct pesticide measurement.

The Conversation wrote that “That is a very long way from proving that fruit and vegetables themselves are harmful,” and it added that “Studies like this are meant to raise questions” rather than “rewrite dietary advice on their own.”

ScienceDaily

Healthline quoted a pulmonologist, Jimmy Johannes, MD, saying, “This trend is quite concerning. I think it is important for us to better understand through research why non-smokers are getting lung cancer,” while also reporting that experts cautioned against reducing produce intake.

Healthline included a caution from registered dietitian nutritionist Melissa Mroz-Planells: “This study raises an important question, but doesn’t directly measure pesticide exposure in participants. Decades of evidence still show that diets rich in fruits and vegetables help lower cancer risk. People should not reduce their intake of plant foods based on this study alone.”

Ars Technica quoted Baptiste Leurent, associate professor in Medical Statistics at University College London, saying, “This is only a conference abstract, but the flaws of the study and its conclusions are quite striking,” and it criticized the abstract’s “arbitrary” groupings and lack of peer review.

The Conversation also highlighted the backward-looking design, stating that the study “cannot tell us whether their diet played any role in causing the disease” and “Nor does it show that these patients had higher pesticide exposures than comparable people without cancer.”

The next steps described by the USC researchers and echoed by other outlets focus on measuring pesticide exposure directly and clarifying whether any environmental factor can be linked to early-onset lung cancer.

“The idea that fruit and vegetables might cause cancer sounds bizarre”

The Conversation

Healthline said the researchers’ next step would be “to confirm the association between pesticides and lung cancer in young people by measuring pesticide levels in blood and urine samples,” and it also reported that “The next step in the research would be to confirm the association” in that way.

The Conversation

ScienceDaily likewise described that “The next step, according to Nieva, is to measure pesticide levels directly in patients through blood or urine samples,” and it said this could help determine whether “certain pesticides are more strongly associated with lung cancer risk than others.”

The Conversation framed the study’s role as question-raising rather than dietary rewriting, stating that it “cannot tell us whether their diet played any role” and that it “only shows that they ate foods that, on average, can carry residues.”

Ars Technica added that the abstract is “being presented at the American Association for Cancer Research conference this week and hasn’t been peer reviewed,” reinforcing that the findings are not yet part of the published evidence base.

Several outlets also discussed how the results intersect with broader concerns about rising lung cancer diagnoses among non-smokers under 50, particularly women, with Newsweek saying the research taps into “a real and growing concern among scientists as to why lung cancer rates are rising in younger people who have never smoked, particularly women.”