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
The evidence (14)
| Source | Grade | Stance | Quality | Finding |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yu 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 2024 · Gynecol Obstet Invest | meta-analysis | supports | moderate | Dose-response meta-analysis found cruciferous vegetable consumption associated with lower ovarian cancer risk. |
| Silva IAD et al 2025 · study_type: observational | 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 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 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 et al 2026 · study_type: observational | 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 2024 · J Food Sci | meta-analysis | supports | moderate | Umbrella review of 22 meta-analyses found cruciferous vegetable intake associated with reduced risk across multiple cancers. |
| Long 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 et al 2026 · study_type: meta-analysis | meta-analysis | supports | low | Bladder cancer, umbrella review of 84 meta-analyses: cruciferous vegetable intake ≥412.5 g/week associated with reduced risk, rated low-to-moderate certainty by GRADE overall. |
| Tang L et al 2025 · study_type: observational | 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 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 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 2024 · Eur J Nutr | meta-analysis | supports | moderate | Updated meta-analysis found cruciferous vegetable intake associated with reduced pancreatic cancer risk. |
| Baladia 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.