Diets
cruciferous vegetables decreases cancer risk
In plain terms: Does eating cruciferous vegetables lower cancer risk?
Yes as an observational association (~10-20% lower risk for several cancers), but it is correlational, not proof that the vegetables themselves cause the reduction.
📅 Last reviewed: 2026-07-14 ⓘ
Evidence ladder
How far up the ladder this claim has climbed. A high consensus on a low rung means "consistent so far," not "proven in people."
Top evidence so far: All trials, pooled (Meta-analysis)
How the studies fall
What the evidence shows
Pooled observational data associate high cruciferous intake with roughly 10 to 20 percent lower risk of several cancers, including about 19 percent for gastrointestinal cancers across 89 studies and lower ovarian cancer risk in dose-response analysis. It is correlational, inconsistent by site with bladder cancer weak, and inseparable from the rest of a vegetable-rich diet.
The evidence (14)
| Source | Grade | Stance | Quality | Finding |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yu P, Yu L, Lu Y 2022 · Front Nutr | meta-analysis | contradicts | moderate | Meta-analysis of cohort studies found only weak/inconsistent association between cruciferous intake and bladder cancer risk. |
| Li M, Long J, Yang M, Pang Y, Chen B, Li H 2024 · Gynecol Obstet Invest | meta-analysis | supports | moderate | Dose-response meta-analysis found cruciferous vegetable consumption associated with lower ovarian cancer risk. |
| Silva IAD, Weller M 2025 · Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP | observational | mixed | low | Prostate cancer, Brazilian case-control (125 cases/250 controls): cruciferous vegetable intake reduced risk by 22% per gram/day, OR=0.978 (95% CI 0.96-1.00), borderline p=0.052. |
| Ren HG, Luu HN, Liu Y, Wang DW, Guo X 2024 · Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr | meta-analysis | supports | moderate | Meta-analysis of 89 studies found highest cruciferous intake associated with ~19% lower gastrointestinal cancer risk with a dose-response. |
| Tabatabaei SVA, Haghdoost AA, Alavi SM, Rajabzadeh-Dehkordi M, Ghalandari H, Askarpour M 2025 · J Cancer Prevention | meta-analysis | supports | moderate | In pooled prospective cohorts, cruciferous vegetable intake was associated with ~18% lower lung cancer risk (RR 0.82), though without a clear non-linear dose-response. |
| Wu Q, Qing X, Gao W 2026 · Frontiers in nutrition | observational | supports | low | Bladder cancer (NMIBC) late recurrence, case-control (n=264): low cruciferous intake (<1 serving/week) independently associated with increased recurrence risk, aOR=2.41 (95% CI 1.42-4.10), dose-response trend p<0.05. |
| Guo C, Liu Y, Fu H, Zhang X, Li M 2024 · J Food Sci | meta-analysis | supports | moderate | Umbrella review: 'Overall, 22 meta-analyses involving 175 independent cancer studies were included.' Evidence for several cancers 'suggests a potential association between cancer and CV intake'. Units are meta-analyses, not primaries — review, zero weight. |
| Long J, Liu Z, Liang S, Chen B 2023 · Urologia Internationalis | meta-analysis | mixed | low | The association between cruciferous vegetable intake and prostate cancer risk was weak and inconsistent, remaining contentious. |
| Zhang D, Ren J, Ye J, Wu R, Wang J, Li D, Bai Y, Han P 2026 · Int J Surg | meta-analysis | supports | low | Umbrella review whose units are meta-analyses: 'We performed a comprehensive reanalysis of RRs, ORs, HRs, standardized mean differences, and weighted mean differences across all included meta-analyses.' Cruciferous estimates come from one MA (Zheng 2024, ref 21): protective only in 6 case-control studies at ≥412.5 g/week ('RR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.67–0.92) (low quality)'), while the cohort estimate was null (OR 1.00 [0.88–1.13], 10 cohorts) and 'more than 262.5 g of cruciferous vegetables per week' showed 'no significant association'. Review — zero weight. |
| Tang L, Wang Z, Hsiao HH, Kwan ML, Ergas IJ, Roh JM, Valice E, Yao S, Zhu Q, Quesenberry CP, Ambrosone CB, Kushi LH 2025 · Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology | observational | mixed | moderate | Breast cancer survival, Pathways prospective cohort (n=3,656): cruciferous intake inversely associated with total invasive events in age-adjusted models (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.77-0.97 per serving) but null in multivariable models (HR 0.91, 95% |
| Zheng S, Yan J, Wang J, Wang X, Kang YE, Koo BS, Shan Y, Liu L 2025 · Nutrition Reviews | meta-analysis | mixed | moderate | A dose-response meta-analysis found cruciferous vegetable intake inversely associated with several cancers but with differential, non-uniform effects across cancer types. |
| Lai B, Li Z, Li J 2025 · BMC Gastroenterology | meta-analysis | supports | moderate | A dose-response meta-analysis found higher cruciferous vegetable intake associated with reduced colon cancer risk, attributed to glucosinolate-derived isothiocyanates. |
| Zhang G, Li Y, Sun Y 2024 · Eur J Nutr | meta-analysis | supports | moderate | Updated meta-analysis found cruciferous vegetable intake associated with reduced pancreatic cancer risk. |
| Baladia E, Moñino M, Pleguezuelos E, Russolillo G, Garnacho-Castaño MV 2024 · Nutrients | meta-analysis | supports | moderate | A meta-analysis of observational studies found broccoli consumption inversely associated with cancer risk, though results were not fully consistent across studies. |
Disagree, or know a study we missed?
We grade by evidence, not opinions. The way to weigh in is to point us to a study we haven't cited (check the evidence table above first), or to flag a problem with one we have. Every submission is reviewed; if it holds up, the grade updates and shows in Science Changes Its Mind.
Opens a short form. You'll sign in with Google so submissions are tied to a real account — we don't display your identity, and we only accept a link we can verify (PubMed, DOI, ClinicalTrials.gov).
Educational only, not medical advice. Grades and scores reflect published evidence weighted by study design and quality; see the methodology.