Author: MIL-OSI Publisher

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Asrif Yusoff, Senior Lecturer and Employability Lead, University of Greenwich

It has been said that “people leave managers, not companies”. It’s easy to believe that this is true, either from personal experience or observation. Many workers can easily point to a line manager who dismissed their concerns or treated them unfairly.

But is it really fair to suggest that managers alone are the dominant cause of staff turnover? Our recent study indicates that in most cases, it’s a combination of both leadership and the organisation. We reviewed 39 papers from the past ten years – and the findings suggest something more nuanced.

People might leave a job if what is demanded of them significantly exceeds the resources they’re given. Managers do matter here because they can shape both sides of that equation. But leadership style alone can be overpowered when workload remains high and resources are consistently below par. In these conditions, even good managers struggle to retain people.

Read more:
Revenge quitting: is it ever a good idea to leave your job in anger?

Across the literature, leadership was shown to influence employee turnover in two ways. First, leaders set the tone for how their employees operate. Good relationships between managers and employees tend to clarify to workers what is expected from them, as well as a sense of autonomy and an ability to express oneself without fear (what we call psychological safety).

Within management theory, there are different types of positive leadership. These include “transformational” (real impact is felt), “servant” (leaders maximise team potential) and “ethical” (grounded on strong principles). Studies consistently link these favourable approaches to staff being less inclined to leave, due to stronger levels of trust and engagement.

Second, leaders intensify demands. Naturally, micromanagement or abusive supervision will strain relationships. When employees feel they are under constant pressure, they are more likely to disengage and plan their exit. In this respect, people do leave managers – because their boss’s behaviour creates conditions that make work feel unmanageable.

These conditions explain how leadership can influence workers’ intentions to leave. They also explain why organisations keep returning to manager coaching or training as an intervention to help them hold on to talented staff. But this could be a waste of time – leadership is just one part of the story.

When good management is not enough

In many of the reviewed studies, factors such as workload, scheduling and pay played a big role in someone’s decision to leave. A supportive manager may buffer strain to protect team members, but when workload is chronically heavy or people aren’t clear on how they can progress in the organisation, the manager’s positive influence will fade away.

This explains some common patterns. Organisations sometimes attribute turnover to bad managers when the deeper cause is an overly stretched workforce. Also, managers are frequently expected to compensate for problems they cannot control – things like understaffing, pay structures or working hours. A manager can only do so much to appease unhappy workers.

Evidence from the literature suggests the demands of work must be balanced with the resources provided (time, staff, money or equipment, for example). This can be a two-track approach.

Track 1: Structural improvement

One way that work structures can be improved is by reducing overload. This is of course easier said than done – it involves diagnosing what is pushing demands too far. Someone’s decision to leave begins with unclear priorities or unpredictable demands. Even small improvements such as a clearer allocation of work and strategies for prioritising tasks can reduce pressure.

Another angle is clarity on what employees have to do to progress within the organisation. Employees are more likely to leave when progression appears arbitrary or – even worse – political. Clarifying pathways and criteria for promotion (and following through) can reduce uncertainty and strengthen employees’ commitment.

This kind of change takes time, however. It may require some extra budget and stronger collaborations across teams. What’s key is addressing what can be changed across the organisation rather than placing the entire burden of retaining staff on leaders.

Track 2: Strengthening leadership

When change is slow, leadership becomes a more immediate lever. The goal is for leaders to not only be inspiring, but to “walk the talk”. Change must be felt, and it becomes tangible when leaders actually increase resources and reduce avoidable demands.

Coaching (continuous nurturing and support) is increasingly cited as a prerequisite for leaders. This is not only because it promotes empathy. Coaching is useful because it can offer better clarity for employees. It also helps to uncover workload challenges early.

Related to this is how work is distributed. When duties are allocated transparently, it reduces people’s perceptions of unfairness and prevents avoidable overload. This is actually a more feasible action compared to changing the behaviour of managers.

But where managers are abusive or authoritarian, attempts to hold on to staff will fail unless the managerial behaviour is addressed. Toxic leadership can easily accelerate staff losses beyond the level that structural changes can repair in the short term.

Staff turnover is not always a purely individual decision. Some studies indicate that when people start to leave a workplace, it can start a trend. Employees can also begin to make comparisons within teams, particularly when opportunities appear uneven.

For organisations, this makes monitoring staff turnover a form of early warning system. An exodus should trigger an investigation, targeted support and action where necessary. Unfortunately, there’s no one-size-fits-all solution.

In summary, people do leave managers, but they also leave organisations. Both leadership behaviour and the design of workplaces shape this decision. Retention improves when organisations see leadership and structural change as complementary levers in the same system.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The old adage that people leave managers, not companies is true – but only up to a point – https://theconversation.com/the-old-adage-that-people-leave-managers-not-companies-is-true-but-only-up-to-a-point-280879

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Glenn Fosbraey, Associate Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Winchester

This year is the national year of reading, and if you’re a music lover, I urge you to pick one up about your favourite musician. The lives of musicians are often full of highs and lows, which makes for compelling reading. Here are five of my favourites.

1. Fight The Power by Chuck D

I suppose I shouldn’t really include Fight The Power in my list, given that Chuck D himself says in its prologue that it “damn sure ain’t an autobiography”. He positions himself as a tour guide rather than a protagonist, chaperoning us through the fascinating landscape of 80s and 90s hip-hop. Such guiding means it’s different from your average autobiography. But, intertwined with observations on racial oppression, media bias, politics, violence and religion, we find Chuck D’s life story. And it’s quite the story indeed.

The book moves from a childhood lived against a backdrop of assassinations, chaos and race riots, through his days as the leader of Public Enemy (one of the most revolutionary groups in music history), up to his latest challenge as a father encouraging his daughters to think as independently as possible. An engrossing, page-turning peek behind the curtain of a fascinating character living in a fascinating (albeit often troubling) world.

2. Under the Ivy: The Life and Music of Kate Bush (2024 Omnibus Remastered Edition) by Graeme Thomson

At 432 pages, this is a slim volume compared with the likes of Ray Davies: A Complicated Life (800 pages), Madonna: A Rebel Life (880 pages), or The Life and Times of Malcolm McLaren (892 pages). But what it lacks in physical heft, Under the Ivy more than makes up with the weight of research that has gone into it.

Thomson is forensic in his detail, both in terms of researching Bush’s life (he conducted more than 70 interviews with school friends, band mates, studio collaborators, former managers, producers, musicians, video directors, dance instructors and record company executives), and in analysing her songs, which he does with the keen eye of a music critic. Trying to form a single picture of an artist as enigmatic and complex as Bush is, in Thomson’s words, “like trying to complete a jigsaw when some of the pieces are missing”. And making a coherent, entertaining and informative read from that is an even bigger challenge. Luckily for us, Thomson is up to it.

3. Things The Grandchildren Should Know by Mark Oliver Everett

By page four of his autobiography, Eels singer and songwriter Mark Everett (known professionally as “E”) has been attacked with a butcher’s knife, found his 51-year-old father dead in the family home, and told us about how, at 19, he fantasised about driving his car off a bridge. As if this weren’t enough tragedy for one lifetime, E then tells us about his sister’s suicide, the months of nursing his bedridden mother before she eventually succumbed to breast cancer, his flight attendant cousin dying during the Pentagon plane crash on 9/11, the deaths of several close friends, and the numerous rejections of his music.

In other hands, Things The Grandchildren Should Know might have been one of the saddest, most harrowing autobiographies ever written. And it certainly had every right to be. That it somehow succeeds in being one of the most uplifting, positive, and inspirational autobiographies is a testament to both E’s skilful writing, bone-dry sense of humour, and infectious optimism in the face of adversity. I’ve read it at least once a year since its release in 2008, usually in one sitting. It’s one of those books that never fails to raise my spirits. Even if you haven’t heard a single note of Eels’ music, or you don’t normally bother with books about rock or pop stars, this story is so good; it’s a must-read.

4. The Beatles by Hunter Davies

That it is the only authorised biography of The Beatles ever to be produced is reason enough to read this 1968 classic. But knowing that, for 18 months, Hunter Davies partied with the band, went to work with them and was introduced to all their friends makes it an essential. And the 18 months were those between 1967 and 1968, when the band were changing not only music, but pop culture at large.

Strangely, for all the magic of the now well-known story of the band’s rise to global domination, the real highlight comes toward the end of the book, where Davies details the time he spent at each Beatle’s house. Here we get to see the world’s most celebrated icons behind closed doors, unguarded and relaxed. And the mundanity of it is delicious. There’s Lennon playing with a loose filling before swigging milk straight from the bottle; Ringo pottering around his garden; Paul eating fried eggs, bacon and buttered bread; and George answering the phone pretending to be “Esher Wine Store”.

5. The Story of The Streets by Mike Skinner

Mike Skinner burst onto the British garage scene with his project the Streets in the early 2000s, with songs about sitting around on the sofa, working at JB Sports and getting pissed on the plane back from holiday. After five hit albums, Skinner took a hiatus from The Streets in 2011, releasing this book the following year.

Skinner makes it clear from the outset that he’s “going to be as honest as the publisher’s lawyers will allow”, but the book is so much more than a warts-and-all account. Much of it focuses on musical inspirations, the craft of songwriting, and his production techniques.

It may come as a surprise to some that The Story of The Streets is written with such intelligence and insight, especially given that Skinner’s lyrics brim with colloquialisms, profanity and ineloquence. But as those of us who’ve followed his career closely will know, this is a man who is able to build character as well as he builds story, and the “everyman” we see portrayed in the Streets’ songs is only the tiniest part of a much more complex person.

This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

Glenn Fosbraey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Five books about the lives of musicians that are stonking good reads – https://theconversation.com/five-books-about-the-lives-of-musicians-that-are-stonking-good-reads-280216

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dipa Kamdar, Senior Lecturer in Pharmacy Practice, Kingston University

Metformin has a strong claim to being one of the most influential medicines of the past century. For decades, it has underpinned the treatment of type 2 diabetes, helped millions of people control their blood sugar, and inspired a second life in research on everything from ageing and cancer to heart health and fertility.

Its story begins not in a laboratory but in a plant, galega officinalis, also known as French lilac or goat’s rue. For centuries, the plant was used in folk remedies for symptoms we now recognise as associated with diabetes, including excessive thirst and frequent urination. In the early 20th century, scientists isolated blood sugar-lowering compounds from it. After years of refinement and testing, metformin emerged as a relatively safe and effective medicine, and was introduced in the UK in the late 1950s.

Large clinical trials, which are carefully designed studies in people to test how well treatments work, confirmed what many doctors already suspected. Metformin was not only effective at lowering glucose, the body’s main form of sugar, but also at reducing diabetes-related complications. It became the main treatment for type 2 diabetes across much of the world.

Metformin is a biguanide drug, a class of medicines that lowers blood sugar, and it works by helping the body use insulin more effectively. Insulin is the hormone that helps move glucose from the bloodstream into cells for energy. Metformin reduces the amount of glucose released by the liver, improves the way muscles take up glucose from the blood, and reduces how much glucose is absorbed from food in the gut.

Metformin also activates an enzyme called AMPK, often described as the cell’s energy sensor. Enzymes are proteins that help chemical reactions happen in the body.

When AMPK is switched on, it reduces the liver’s production of new glucose, a process called gluconeogenesis, and encourages tissues such as muscle to take up and use more glucose. Unlike some other diabetes medicines, metformin does not usually cause weight gain, and on its own it rarely causes low blood sugar.

Beyond diabetes: promise and limits

Metformin’s strong reputation has also led researchers to explore possible uses beyond diabetes, although the evidence is mixed. One common off-label use, meaning a medicine is prescribed for a condition it has not officially been approved to treat, is polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).

Many people with PCOS have insulin resistance, which means their bodies do not respond properly to insulin and need to produce more of it to keep blood glucose stable. High insulin levels can stimulate the ovaries to produce more androgens, a group of hormones that includes testosterone.

Raised androgen levels can disrupt ovulation and contribute to irregular or absent periods. By improving insulin sensitivity, metformin can help reduce these effects and may help regulate the menstrual cycle.

Metformin has also been studied for its possible effects on ageing and longevity. Although early findings are intriguing, there is still no conclusive evidence that it slows ageing in humans, and it is not approved for that purpose.

Some research has suggested that metformin may have neuroprotective effects, meaning it could help protect the brain and nervous system, particularly with long-term use. But the evidence is inconsistent, and large, long-term clinical trials are still needed to determine whether metformin really can protect against dementia and other neurodegenerative diseases.

These possible uses highlight metformin’s versatility, but they also underline the importance of medical oversight. Metformin is generally well tolerated, but like all medicines, it can cause side-effects. The most common are nausea, stomach discomfort, diarrhoea, changes in taste, and loss of appetite. These often improve over time or when people switch to slow-release formulations, which release the drug more gradually. Taking metformin with food can also help.

Another recognised issue is vitamin B12 deficiency, which has repeatedly been observed in people with type 2 diabetes who take metformin. This may happen because the drug reduces how well vitamin B12 is absorbed in the gut.

Over time, low vitamin B12 can lead to anaemia or peripheral neuropathy. Anaemia means the body does not have enough healthy red blood cells to carry oxygen properly, while peripheral neuropathy refers to nerve damage, usually in the hands or feet, that can cause tingling, numbness, pain or weakness.

A rare but serious side-effect is lactic acidosis, a dangerous build-up of lactic acid in the blood. If too much builds up, it can make the blood dangerously acidic and, if untreated, may lead to organ failure. This is more likely in people with severe kidney or liver problems, which is why regular monitoring is important. Healthcare professionals may also advise temporarily stopping metformin before certain medical procedures or if someone becomes severely unwell.

For decades, the advice was simple: start with metformin. In 2026, however, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) updated its guidelines for type 2 diabetes, signalling a move towards earlier and more intensive treatment. The new guidance recommends that most people should be offered an SGLT-2 inhibitor, such as dapagliflozin, alongside metformin from the start.

SGLT-2 inhibitors are drugs that help the kidneys remove excess glucose from the body in urine. This approach aims not only to control blood sugar, but also to protect the heart and kidneys earlier in the course of disease, reflecting a broader shift towards more personalised treatment.

That does not mean metformin has been pushed aside. It remains a cornerstone of diabetes care and is still widely prescribed. But the landscape is changing, and treatment is becoming more tailored to the individual.

Metformin may be old, but it continues to adapt to modern medicine. As diabetes care becomes more personalised and new treatment options emerge, metformin remains a reliable, affordable and effective foundation. Its story is far from over. Sometimes the most transformative medicines are not the newest or the flashiest, but the ones that stand the test of time.

Dipa Kamdar does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The 10 pence pill that underpins diabetes care – and may do much more besides – https://theconversation.com/the-10-pence-pill-that-underpins-diabetes-care-and-may-do-much-more-besides-276136

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan R. Goodman, Assistant Research Professor, Psychiatry, University of Cambridge

Until a few years ago, no one had heard of bixonimania. Then, in 2024, a group of scientists posted findings online announcing the condition, which they claimed affected the eyes after computer use. However, the scientists had made it up – not just the work, but the authors’ names, affiliations, locations and funding, which was the University of Fellowship of the Ring and the Galactic Triad.

Large language models like ChatGPT and Gemini treated it as real anyway, and in doing so, helped turn a fictional disease into a legitimate-sounding health concern.

Bixonimania is not an isolated case. Being deceived – whether you are a person or an AI model – is concerningly common, in science and beyond. Whether we’re talking about AI hallucinations, state-backed disinformation or just everyday lies, humans have a remarkable knack for naivety, owing to our biases and increasing need to outsource learning to others. These are problems we – individually and collectively – urgently need to better understand and overcome.

Our shared fascination with deception may help explain the popularity of The Traitors, a TV programme built around the tension between trust and suspicion, where contestants must decide who among them is deceiving the group.

The show captures something intrinsic to being human: the persistent threat of being unsure about whether we’re placing trust effectively. Yet in the modern era of mass digital communication and AI, we’re now almost constantly faced with a similar threat, often without realising it.

At a recent event at the Cambridge Festival, we aimed to highlight this risk through a Traitors-themed science event. Four panellists presented work, all of which could have been a lie. The audience was asked to vote on which of the presenters was deceiving them and why.

We deliberately made the presenters and their work outlandish. From their varying backgrounds and with varying accents, the panellists presented their work in global health, climate, media and astrophysics. Some dressed formally, while one – a Nigerian researcher presenting her work on immigration in a healthcare context – wore clothes linked to her ethnic identity.

We were interested in exploring which of these signals – accent, gender, ethnicity, and dress and presentation style – influenced the audience’s decisions. Both content and presentation styles influenced them, but the signals they relied on led them to the wrong conclusions, rating the traitors as more credible than honest researchers.

The ones who received the most votes were the two “faithful” researchers (to use the language of The Traitors) – Ada, from the non-profit Development Media Initiative, and Sarah, an astrophysicist working in galactic archaeology.

Ada’s team had saved lives by sharing health information with communities in the global south through running ten radio broadcasts daily. The audience thought the results were implausibly impressive.

“Ada’s data is too good to be true,” one person reported in our questionnaire. She was also presenting work she hadn’t personally contributed to. Even though this is common in large collaborations, this distance led to perceptions of a lack of confidence, undermining her credibility.

Sarah, an astrophysicist, had presented her subfield of galactic archaeology – the study of the Milky Way’s formation history through the chemical signatures of ancient stars. Yet with only four minutes to speak, she was unable to convey significant depth. The audience read that as a lack of understanding.

The outlandishness of her field’s name also harmed perceptions of her legitimacy. “Galaxy [sic] archaeology is too cool a name to exist,” one audience member wrote.

By contrast, the two traitors, Jack and Joyce, received the fewest votes. Jack was an actor who created the persona of a climate researcher specialising in rain. Joyce presented her own work but falsified the results.

Interestingly, Joyce’s personal connection to her work – she is a Nigerian woman conducting research into Nigerian communities – helped to convince the audience of her authenticity. “Joyce’s presentation sounded very considered and genuine – the process of her research and recounts of her personal experiences sounded like she had lots of interest in the area,” one person wrote.

The event was meant to be fun and engaging. Yet we also wanted to illustrate the many ways people can misrepresent themselves, whether in science or beyond. Our traitors showed that lies don’t just have to be about who you are (Jack is an actor, not a researcher) but about what you say (Joyce is a researcher but falsified her results).

Misinformation has always existed. What’s new is the speed at which it spreads, the tools that generate it, and how convincingly it mimics the real thing.

Why maths isn’t enough

Our collective capacity to recognise false information is also at risk. This is because, as a society, we continue to promote the importance of hard science subjects at the expense of the critical thinking skills derived from studies of the arts, humanities and social sciences.

This can be seen, for example, in the 2023 UK governmental push to require all school students to take maths until age 18. No such push exists to promote and develop the critical thinking skills of young people. It’s easy to see how increasingly convincing falsehoods like bixonimania’s existence can be accepted as truth, especially when touted by AI models.

Tools are helpful. AI is a tool, the internet is a tool, the media is a tool. But it’s up to us to ensure that we are using them and not being manipulated by them.

In The Traitors, we have little to go on to determine what is true. Yet in the real world, we have the ability to check the truth of claims. With effective caution and critical thinking, it is entirely possible to determine what is trustworthy, but it requires thinking for ourselves. Trust is ours to give, and we need to learn to give it wisely.

Jonathan R. Goodman receives funding from the National Institute of Health Research, the Wellcome Sanger Institute, and the Wellcome Trust.

Mariam Rashid receives funding from the Isaac Newton Trust and the Kavli Foundation.

– ref. The fake disease that fooled the internet — and what it says about all of us – https://theconversation.com/the-fake-disease-that-fooled-the-internet-and-what-it-says-about-all-of-us-280615

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Esther Kettel, Senior Lecturer in Ecology and Conservation, Nottingham Trent University

England’s last recorded pair of golden eagles lived in the Lake District. After the female died in 2004, the male was left alone for 12 years before his death in 2016.

This marked the end of golden eagles across English skies. Though they have lived on in Scotland, the birds were largely wiped out across England about 150 years ago, with only a few nesting attempts during that time.

However, the UK government recently announced it will support reintroducing the species and has identified eight potential “recovery zones” across northern England and the south-west. This is good news for lots of reasons.

Reintroducing lost species aligns with the government’s 25-year environment plan to restore and recover nature. Golden eagles also have an important heritage as symbols of wilderness, freedom and power. We may even have a moral duty to return them to the landscape, since humans were largely responsible for their loss.

Reintroducing golden eagles would also benefit England’s natural environment, helping return it to a healthier and more dynamic state.

Restoring balance to the food chain

Golden eagles are apex predators, occupying the top of the food chain with no natural predators. The removal of a species like this can cause major shifts in ecosystems, as they exert top-down control.

When apex predators are missing from ecosystems, the middle predators of food chains – or “meso-predators” – become dominant. With its native bears, lynx and wolves long gone, England has a high number of meso-predators. These include badgers, red foxes and other birds of prey. These predators, in turn, can limit some populations of prey like seabirds, waders and gamebirds.

Meso-predators typically avoid areas where apex predators are due to fear of competition or being eaten themselves. So, if golden eagles return then the predation pressure from smaller birds might be altered. For example, on the Isle of Mull in Scotland, meso-predators like kestrels and buzzards tend to steer clear of areas where golden eagles are.

Controlling prey numbers

Golden eagles also have an important role in the ecosystem by regulating their prey species. They hunt various prey, mostly medium-sized birds and mammals like rabbits, hares and occasionally, young deer.

When not controlled by predators, prey populations can boom. This can lead to greater competition for resources and a higher risk of disease spread among these prey species. Prey populations may also overuse resources, which can negatively affect plant growth.

Because apex predators are absent in England, humans must take up the role of controllers. Deer are shot where they are preventing woodland regeneration and rabbits are widely controlled in agricultural landscapes, costing £5 million a year. Although golden eagles are unlikely to reduce deer and rabbit numbers substantially, they may bring some balance back.

Keeping the environment clean

In addition to being excellent predators, golden eagles also scavenge carcasses – the remains of dead animals. Researchers in Spain found that 90% of the golden eagles in their study fed on carcasses.

Carcasses can quickly become disease and toxin reservoirs that may enter the wider environment if left uneaten. This can have consequences for other species, including humans. So scavengers have a crucial role in maintaining a healthy ecosystem.

If reintroduced back to England, golden eagles would join the cleaning crew, which also includes species like red kites, crows and red foxes.

Indicators of a healthy ecosystem

If a pollutant is in an environment, this could affect top predators through a process called biomagnification, where the concentration of the pollutant increases the further up the food chain. If in high concentrations, the pollutant may become toxic and the predator may fail to reproduce, become unwell, or die.

In the 1960s, birds of prey played a pivotal role in making the environmental dangers of certain agricultural pesticides clear in the UK and globally, leading to the widescale ban. Golden eagles could do something similar today.

A complex picture

If golden eagles are successfully reintroduced in England, they could restore balance to food chains, control prey numbers, scavenge carcasses and act as indicators of environmental dangers.

They will join other birds of prey that have been successfully reintroduced to England, such as red kites, ospreys and white-tailed eagles, all of which have been deemed a success.

However, ecological systems are not straightforward and predicting the consequences of the return of golden eagles is complex. As indicated by the risk assessment conducted by Forestry England, at worst the impacts on biodiversity of golden eagles will be neutral. At best it will be beneficial.

Esther Kettel does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Golden eagles in England? Here’s the ecological case for bringing them back – https://theconversation.com/golden-eagles-in-england-heres-the-ecological-case-for-bringing-them-back-281040

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Justin Stebbing, Professor of Biomedical Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University

The idea that fruit and vegetables might cause cancer sounds bizarre. For decades, studies have shown that people who eat more plants tend to live longer, healthier lives, with lower rates of heart disease, stroke and several common cancers.

Lung cancer is no exception: in many large studies, higher intakes of fruits and vegetables are linked with lower risks, especially in smokers.

Against that backdrop, a new suggestion that fruit and veg might be driving lung cancer in young adults is surprising.

The story behind this latest wave of anxiety doesn’t come from a definitive, landmark trial. It comes from a brief presentation at a scientific conference, based on 187 people with early‑onset lung cancer.

Most had never smoked. When researchers asked about their diets, a lot of them reported eating plenty of fruits, vegetables and whole grains – the sort of pattern most of us would call “healthy”.

Instead of measuring pesticides in their food or blood, the team estimated probable pesticide exposure using average residue levels from other sources. From there, they speculated that pesticides on otherwise healthy foods might help explain why some young non‑smokers develop lung cancer.

That is a very long way from proving that fruit and vegetables themselves are harmful. Studies like this are meant to raise questions – “could pesticides be part of the story in young lung cancer?” – not to rewrite dietary advice on their own.

Crucially, this particular study looks backwards from people who already have cancer, rather than following healthy people forwards over time, so it cannot tell us whether their diet played any role in causing the disease. Nor does it show that these patients had higher pesticide exposures than comparable people without cancer. It only shows that they ate foods that, on average, can carry residues.

The bigger picture

When you zoom out from this single, tiny study to the broader body of evidence, the picture changes from alarming to reassuringly familiar. Large studies have followed tens or hundreds of thousands of people over many years, asked them what they ate, then waited to see who develops lung cancer. Time and again, those eating more fruit and vegetables either do better or, at very worst, no differently from those eating less.

Meta‑analyses that combine data from multiple studies find reductions in lung cancer risk with higher fruit intake and benefits from vegetables, too. These are the studies that inform official guidelines. They are not perfect – no nutrition study is – but they are far more informative than a single unpublished study of 187 patients.

So why do small studies like this latest one sometimes seem to say something different? One reason is simple statistical noise.

With small numbers, chance plays a huge role. If, for whatever reason, the particular group of young adults who turned up to that clinic happened to be unusually health-conscious, then fruit and vegetable intake will look high among people with lung cancer, even if diet has nothing to do with their disease.

Another issue is what scientists call “confounding”. People who eat more plants often differ in many other ways. They may exercise more, drink less, have different jobs, live in different neighbourhoods, or be more on the ball about seeking medical help.

When you start from patients and look backwards, it is very hard to disentangle these overlapping factors. That is why we place more weight on large, prospective studies that follow people forward in time and can better account for these differences.

Pesticides

Then there is the question of pesticides – the part of the story that understandably unnerves people. It is true that many conventionally grown fruits and vegetables carry measurable pesticide residues, and that people who eat a lot of produce tend to have higher levels of some pesticide breakdown products in their urine.

It is also true that farm workers who handle pesticides regularly and at high doses have higher rates of certain cancers, including some lung cancers. That tells us pesticides are not benign. But what it does not tell us is that eating sprayed apples or lettuce at normal dietary levels causes lung cancer in the general population.

That doesn’t mean we should be complacent: there is an ongoing discussion about cocktails of many different chemicals, about vulnerable groups such as children and pregnant women, and about longer‑term hormone or brain effects that might not show up in crude cancer rates. However, these are arguments for improving how we farm and regulate pesticides, not arguments for abandoning fruit and vegetables.

If you are still uneasy about pesticides, there are practical, proportionate things you can do that don’t involve swapping an orange for a packet of crisps. Washing produce under running water helps remove surface residues and soil, and varying the types of fruit and veg you eat means you are not relying heavily on any one item that tends to carry higher residues.

If your budget allows, choosing organic versions of a few “high‑residue” foods can make sense. But the key point is that these are tweaks at the margins. They don’t change the central message that a diet rich in plant foods is overwhelmingly associated with better health.

Perhaps the most important lesson from this episode is about how to read nutrition headlines. Whenever you see “X food causes cancer” or “Y ingredient is the next miracle cure”, it helps to ask a couple of simple questions. How big was the study? Was it in healthy people followed over time, or patients looked at after the fact? Did the researchers actually measure what they are claiming (like pesticide levels)? And how do the new findings sit alongside decades of existing research?

In the case of the early-onset lung cancer study, the answers are sobering: it was small, it was retrospective, it used indirect exposure estimates, and its suggestion that fruit and vegetables might be harmful sits awkwardly with a much larger body of work pointing the other way.

None of this means we should ignore the possibility that pesticides contribute in some way to cancers in non‑smokers, or that diet is irrelevant to lung health. But we should be wary of turning one provocative conference talk into a reason to fear the very foods that consistently show up as markers of better health.

Justin Stebbing does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Eating fruit is linked to lung cancer? Here’s what you need to know about that new study – https://theconversation.com/eating-fruit-is-linked-to-lung-cancer-heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-that-new-study-281003