Amy F. Subar

Approximately 200 studies that examined the relationship between fruit and vegetable intake and cancers of the lung, colon, breast, cervix, esophagus, oral cavity, stomach, bladder, pancreas, and ovary are reviewed. A statistically significant protective effect of fruit and vegetable consumption was found in 128 of 156 dietary studies in which results were expressed in terms of relative risk. For most cancer sites, persons with low fruit and vegetable intake (at least the lower one-fourth of the population) experience about twice the risk of cancer compared with those with high intake, even after control for potentially confounding factors. For lung cancer, significant protection was found in 24 of 25 studies after control for smoking in most instances. Fruits, in particular, were significantly protective in cancers of the esophagus, oral cavity, and larynx, for which 28 of 29 studies were significant. Strong evidence of a protective effect of fruit and vegetable consumption was seen in cancers of the pancreas and stomach (26 of 30 studies), as well as in colorectal and bladder cancers (23 of 38 studies). For cancers of the cervix, ovary, and endometrium, a significant protective effect was shown in 11 of 13 studies, and for breast cancer a protective effect was found to be strong and consistent in a meta analysis. It would appear that major public health benefits could be achieved by substantially increasing consumption of these foods.

Researchers at the National Cancer Institute developed a new cognitively based food frequency questionnaire (FFQ), the Diet History Questionnaire (DHQ). The Eating at America's Table Study sought to validate and compare the DHQ with the Block and Willett FFQs. Of 1,640 men and women recruited to participate from a nationally representative sample in 1997, 1,301 completed four telephone 24-hour recalls, one in each season. Participants were randomized to receive either a DHQ and Block FFQ or a DHQ and Willett FFQ. With a standard measurement error model, correlations for energy between estimated truth and the DHQ, Block FFQ, and Willett FFQ, respectively, were 0.48, 0.45, and 0.18 for women and 0.49, 0.45, and 0.21 for men. For 26 nutrients, correlations and attenuation coefficients were somewhat higher for the DHQ versus the Block FFQ, and both were better than the Willett FFQ in models unadjusted for energy. Energy adjustment increased correlations and attenuation coefficients for the Willett FFQ dramatically and for the DHQ and Block FFQ instruments modestly. The DHQ performed best overall. These data show that the DHQ and the Block FFQ are better at estimating absolute intakes than is the Willett FFQ but that, after energy adjustment, all three are more comparable for purposes of assessing diet-disease risk.

This paper describes the Observing Protein and Energy Nutrition (OPEN) Study, conducted from September 1999 to March 2000. The purpose of the study was to assess dietary measurement error using two self-reported dietary instruments-the food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) and the 24-hour dietary recall (24HR)-and unbiased biomarkers of energy and protein intakes: doubly labeled water and urinary nitrogen. Participants were 484 men and women aged 40-69 years from Montgomery County, Maryland. Nine percent of men and 7% of women were defined as underreporters of both energy and protein intake on 24HRs; for FFQs, the comparable values were 35% for men and 23% for women. On average, men underreported energy intake compared with total energy expenditure by 12-14% on 24HRs and 31-36% on FFQs and underreported protein intake compared with a protein biomarker by 11-12% on 24HRs and 30-34% on FFQs. Women underreported energy intake on 24HRs by 16-20% and on FFQs by 34-38% and underreported protein intake by 11-15% on 24HRs and 27-32% on FFQs. There was little underreporting of the percentage of energy from protein for men or women. These findings have important implications for nutritional epidemiology and dietary surveillance.