considerable uncertainty about the reliability and interpretation of the fiber and colorectal cancer association. This uncertainty is augmented by the absence of support from the cited intervention trials of colorectal adenoma recurrence Although measurement error modeling issues in nutritional epidemiology may seem esoteric to some readers, these issues appear to be fundamental to the reliability of dietary association reports. Specifically, available information indicates that individuals tend to report dietary data quite differently depending on such characteristics as age, body mass index, and ethnicity, at least for FFQ assessments of energy and protein ( 6 ). These types of systematic assessment biases can play havoc with association studies: In one of the few nutritional epidemiology study published to date that made provision for these types of systematic biases, FFQ-assessed energy consumption among postmenopausal women was unrelated to the incidence of total invasive cancer or site-specific cancer, whereas after energy consumption was corrected using a doubly labeled water biomarker, strong positive associations were evident for total cancer and for various cancer sites, including breast, colon, endometrium, and kidney ( 7 ). Also, FFQ-assessed protein density was not associated with total invasive cancer incidence before biomarker calibration but inversely associated after biomarker calibration ( 7 ), with protein assessed by a urinary nitrogen biomarker. The fact that Dahm et al. could not correct the fiber consumption odds ratios for these types of systematic biases casts a shadow over the interpretation of their reported inverse association. Unfortunately, this shadow extends to virtually the entire body of the existing nutritional epidemiology literature and may well contribute to the fact that few associations between diet and cancer are regarded as established or probable ( 8 ). The explicit use of biomarkers to correct nutritional epidemiology associations for systematic and random measurement error in dietary assessment seems a logical next step in the nutritional epidemiology research agenda. Measurement error procedures that instead use one self-reported estimate to correct another are unlikely to be adequate because the availability of consumption estimates with measurement errors that are independent of those for the self-report estimates available for the study cohort is key to the correction procedure, and differing self-report assessment procedures can be expected to have some common sources of systematic bias. Instead, a major research effort is needed, using human feeding studies and other strategies, to develop suitable consumption biomarkers for additional nutrients and dietary components. The need for a vigorous and innovative research agenda to yield reliable information on diet and chronic disease risk seems imperative, given our ongoing epidemic of obesity and of obesity-related diseases. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case–control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction,