The	bottom	line	is	that	you	can	eat	a	plant-based	diet	with	great	pleasure
and	satisfaction. But	making	the	transition	is	a	challenge. There	arepsychological	barriers	and	practical	ones. It	takes	time	and	effort. You	may
not	get	support	from	your	friends	and	family. But	the	benefits	are	nothing
short	of	miraculous. And	you’ll	be	amazed	at	how	easy	it	becomes	once	you
form	new	habits. Take	the	one-month	challenge. You’ll	not	only	do	great	things	for	yourself,
you’ll	be	part	of	the	vanguard	working	toward	moving	America	into	a
healthier,	leaner	future. Glenn	is	an	associate	of	mine	who,	until	recently,	was	a	dedicated
meat-eater. In	fact,	he	was	recently	on	the	Atkins	diet,	lost	some
weight,	but	dropped	off	it	when	his	cholesterol	went	through	the	roof. He’s	forty-two	and	overweight. I	gave	him	a	draft	of	the	manuscript	for
the	China	Study	and	he	agreed	to	take	the	one-month	challenge. Here
are	a	few	of	his	observations:GLENN’S	TIPS
The	first	week	is	quite	challenging. It’s	hard	to	figure	out	what	to	eat. I’m	not
much	of	a	cook,	so	I	got	some	recipe	books	out	and	tried	creating	some	vegan
dishes. As	someone	who	would	swing	through	McDonald’s	or	heat	up	a
frozen	dinner,	I	found	it	annoying	to	have	to	cook	meals	each	evening. At
least	half	of	them	were	a	disaster	and	had	to	be	thrown	out. But	over	time	I
found	a	few	that	were	fantastic. My	sister	gave	me	a	recipe	for	West	African
peanut	stew	that	was	incredible	and	like	nothing	I	ever	tasted. My	mom	gave
me	a	vegetarian	chili	recipe	that	was	great. And	I	stumbled	on	a	great	whole
wheat	spaghetti	dish	with	lots	of	vegetables	and	a	faux	meat	sauce	(made
from	soy)	that	was	amazing. I	challenge	anyone	to	know	that	this	was	a	vegan
dish. But	all	of	this	does	take	time. I’m	rediscovering	fruit. I’ve	always	loved	fruit,	but	for	some	reason	I
don’t	really	eat	much	of	it. Maybe	it’s	not	eating	meat,	but	I’m	finding	that
I’m	enjoying	fruit	more	than	ever. I	now	cut	up	a	grapefruit	and	eat	it	as	a
snack. I	really	like	it! I	would	have	never	done	that	before;	I	actually	think	my
tastes	are	getting	more	sensitive. I	was	avoiding	eating	out—something	I	used	to	do	constantly—for	fear	of
not	having	a	vegan	option. But	I’m	getting	more	adventurous	now. I’ve	found
some	new	restaurants	that	have	some	great	vegan	side	dishes,	including	a
wonderful	local	Vietnamese	place	(I	know	that	most	Vietnamese	food	isn’t
strictly	vegan,	since	they	use	a	fish	sauce	in	many	dishes,	but	for	nutritional
purposes	it’s	very	close). The	other	day	I	got	dragged	into	a	pizza	place	with	a
large	group;	there	was	nothing	I	could	do,	and	I	was	starved. I	ordered	a
cheese-less	pizza	with	lots	of	vegetables. They	even	made	it	with	a	whole
wheat	crust. I	was	prepared	to	choke	it	down	but	actually	it	was	surprisingly
good. I’ve	brought	that	home	a	few	times	since. I’m	finding	that	cravings	for	meat	products	are	pretty	much	gone,
particularly	if	I	don’t	let	myself	get	hungry. And,	honestly,	I’m	eating	
like	a
pig. Being	overweight,	I’ve	always	been	self-conscious	about	what	I	eat. Now
I	eat	like	a	madman,	and	feel	virtuous	to	boot. I	can	honestly	say	I’m	enjoying
the	food	I’m	eating	now	a	lot	more	than	before,	partly	because	I’m	fussier
now	in	what	I	eat. I	only	eat	foods	I	really	like. The	first	month	went	by	quicker	than	I	thought	it	would. I’ve	lost	eight
pounds	and	my	cholesterol	has	dropped	dramatically. I’m	spending	a	lot	less
time	on	this	now,	particularly	since	I’ve	found	so	many	restaurants	I	can	eat
at,	plus	I	cook	huge	meals	and	then	freeze	them. My	freezer	is	stocked	with
vegan	goodies. The	experiment	is	over	but	I	stopped	thinking	of	it	as	an	experiment	weeksago. I	can’t	imagine	why	I	would	go	back	to	my	old	eating	patterns.Part	IV
WHY	HAVEN’T	YOU	HEARD	THIS
BEFORE? O
FTEN	WHEN	PEOPLE	HEAR
	of	scientific	information	that	justifies	a	radical	shift
in	diet	to	plant	foods,	they	can’t	believe	their	ears. “If	all	that	you	say	is	true,”
they	wonder,	“why	haven’t	I	heard	it	before? In	fact,	why	do	I	usually	hear
the	opposite	of	what	you	say:	that	milk	is	good	for	us,	that	we	need	meat	to
get	protein	and	that	cancer	and	heart	disease	are	all	in	the	genes?”	These	are
legitimate	questions,	and	the	answers	are	a	crucial	part	of	this	story. In	order
to	get	to	these	answers,	however,	I	believe	that	it	is	essential	for	us	to	know
how	information	is	created	and	how	it	reaches	the	public	consciousness. As	you	will	come	to	see,	much	is	governed	by	the	Golden	Rule:	he	who
has	the	gold	makes	the	rules. There	are	powerful,	influential	and	enormously
wealthy	industries	that	stand	to	lose	a	vast	amount	of	money	if	Americans
start	shifting	to	a	plant-based	diet. Their	financial	health	depends	on
controlling	what	the	public	knows	about	nutrition	and	health. Like	any	good
business	enterprise,	these	industries	do	everything	in	their	power	to	protect
their	profits	and	their	shareholders. You	might	be	inclined	to	think	that	industry	pays	scientists	under	the	table
to	“cook	the	data,”	bribes	government	officials	or	conducts	illegal	activities. Many	people	love	a	sensational	story. But	the	powerful	interests	that	maintain
the	status	quo	do	not	usually	conduct	illegal	
business. As	far	as	I	know,	they
do	not	pay	scientists	to	“cook	the	data.”	They	do	not	bribe	elected	officials	or
make	sordid	underhanded	deals. The	situation	is	much	worse. The	entire	system—government,	science,	medicine,	industry	and	media—
promotes	profits	over	health,	technology	over	food	and	confusion	over	clarity. Most,	but	not	all,	of	the	confusion	about	nutrition	is	created	in	legal,	fully
disclosed	ways	and	is	disseminated	by	unsuspecting,	well-intentioned	people,
whether	they	are	researchers,	politicians	or	journalists. The	most	damagingaspect	of	the	system	is	not	sensational,	nor	is	it	likely	to	create	much	of	a	stir
upon	its	discovery. It	is	a	silent	enemy	that	few	people	see	and	understand. My	experiences	within	the	scientific	community	illustrate	how	the	entire
system	generates	confusing	information	and	why	you	haven’t	heard	the
message	of	this	book	before. In	the	following	chapters,	I	have	divided	the
“system”	of	problems	into	the	entities	of	science,	government,	industry	and
medicine,	but,	as	you	will	come	to	see,	there	are	instances	where	it	is	nearly
impossible	to	distinguish	science	from	industry,	government	from	science	or
government	from	industry.13
Science—The	Dark	Side
W
HEN
	I	
WAS	LIVING	IN	A	MOUNTAIN	VALLEY
	outside	of	Blacksburg,	Virginia,	my
family	enjoyed	visiting	a	retired	farmer	down	the	road,	Mr.	Kinsey	who
always	had	a	funny	story	to	tell. We	used	to	look	forward	to	evenings
listening	to	his	stories	on	his	front	porch. One	of	my	favorites	was	the	great
potato	bug	scam. He	told	us	of	his	farm	days	before	pesticides,	and	recounted	that	when	a
potato	crop	became	infested	with	potato	bugs,	the	bugs	had	to	be	removed
and	killed,	one	by	one,	by	hand. One	day,	Mr.	Kinsey	noticed	an
advertisement	in	a	farm	magazine	for	a	great	potato	bug	killer,	on	sale	for	five
dollars. Although	five	dollars	was	no	small	sum	of	money	in	those	days,	Mr.
Kinsey	figured	the	bugs	were	enough	of	a	hassle	to	warrant	the	investment. A
short	while	later,	when	he	received	the	great	potato	bug	killer,	he	opened	the
package	and	found	two	blocks	of	wood	and	a	short	list	of	three	instructions:
Pick	up	one	block	of	wood. Place	the	potato	bug	on	the	flat	face	of	the	wood. Pick	up	the	second	block	of	wood	and	press	firmly	onto	the	potato	bug. Scams,	tricks	and	outright	deception	for	personal	gain	are	as	old	as	history
itself,	and	perhaps	no	discipline	in	our	society	has	suffered	more	from	this
affliction	than	the	discipline	of	health. Very	few	experiences	are	as	personal
and	as	powerful	as	those	of	people	who	have	lost	their	health	prematurely. Understandably,	they	are	willing	to	believe	and	try	just	about	anything	that
might	help. They	are	a	highly	vulnerable	group	of	consumers. In	the	mid-1970s,	along	came	a	prime	example	of	a	health	scam,	at	least
according	to	the	medical	establishment. It	concerned	an	alternative	cancertreatment	called	Laetrile,	a	natural	compound	made	largely	from	apricot	pits. If	you	had	cancer	and	had	been	unsuccessfully	treated	by	your	regular	doctors
here	in	the	United	States,	you	may	have	considered	heading	to	Tijuana,
Mexico. Washington	Post	Magazine
	documented	the	story	of	Sylvia	Dutton,	a
fifty-three-year-old	woman	from	Florida,	who	had	done	just	that	as	a	last
attempt	to	thwart	a	cancer	that	had	already	spread	from	her	ovaries	to	her
lymph	system. 1
	Friends	and	fellow	churchgoers	had	told	her	and	her	husband
about	the	Laetrile	treatment	and	its	ability	to	cure	advanced	cancer. In	the
magazine	article,
1
	Sylvia’s	husband	said,	“There	are	at	least	a	dozen	people	in
this	area	who	were	told	they	were	going	to	be	dead	from	cancer	who	used
Laetrile	and	now	they’re	out	playing	tennis.”
The	catch,	however,	was	that	Laetrile	was	a	highly	contentious	treatment. Some	people	in	the	medical	establishment	argued	that	animal	studies	had
repeatedly	shown	Laetrile	to	have	no	effect	on	tumors. 1
	Because	of	this,	the
U.S.	Food	and	Drug	Administration	had	decided	to	suppress	the	use	of
Laetrile,	which	gave	rise	to	the	popular	clinics	south	of	the	border. One
famous	hospital	in	Tijuana	treated	“as	many	as	20,000	American	patients	a
year.”
1
	One	of	those	patients	was	Sylvia	Dutton,	for	whom	Laetrile
unfortunately	did	not	work. But	Laetrile	was	only	one	of	many	alternative	health	products. By	the	end
of	the	1970s,	Americans	were	spending	$1	billion	a	year	on	various
supplements	and	potions	that	promised	magical	benefits. 2
	These	included
pangamic	acid,	which	was	touted	as	a	previously	undiscovered	vitamin	with
virtually	unlimited	powers,	various	bee	concoctions	and	other	supplement
products	including	garlic	and	zinc. 2
At	the	same	time	in	the	scientific	community,	more	and	more	health
information,	specifically	nutrition	information,	was	being	generated	at	a
furious	pace. In	1976,	Senator	George	McGovern	had	convened	a	committee
that	drafted	dietary	goals	recommending	decreased	consumption	of	fatty
animal	foods	and	increased	consumption	of	fruits	and	vegetables	because	of
their	effects	on	heart	disease. The	first	draft	of	this	report,	linking	heart
disease	and	food,	caused	such	an	uproar	that	a	major	revision	was	required
before	it	was	released	for	publication. In	a	personal	conversation	McGovern
told	me	that	he	and	five	other	powerful	senators	from	agricultural	states	lost
their	respective	elections	in	1980	in	part	because	they	had	dared	to	take	on	the
animal	foods	industry. At	the	end	of	the	1970s,	the	McGovern	report	succeeded	in	prodding	the
government	to	produce	its	first-ever	dietary	guidelines,	which	were	rumored
to	promote	a	message	similar	to	that	of	McGovern’s	committee. At	about	thesame	time,	there	were	widely	publicized	government	debates	about	whether
food	additives	were	safe,	and	whether	saccharin	caused	cancer.PLAYING	MY	PART
In	the	late	1970s	I	found	myself	in	the	middle	of	this	rapidly	changing
environment. By	1975	my	program	in	the	Philippines	had	ended,	and	I	was
well	into	my	experimental	laboratory	work	here	in	the	United	States,	after
having	accepted	a	full	professorship	with	tenure	at	Cornell	University. Some
of	my	early	work	on	aflatoxin	and	liver	cancer	in	the	Philippines	(chapter
two)	had	garnered	widespread	interest,	and	my	subsequent	laboratory	work
investigating	nutritional	factors,	carcinogens	and	cancer	(chapter	three)	was
attracting	national	attention. At	that	time,	I	had	one	of	only	two	or	three
laboratories	in	the	country	doing	basic	research	on	nutrition	and	cancer. It	was
a	novel	endeavor. From	1978	to	1979	I	took	a	year-long	sabbatical	leave	from	Cornell	to	go
to	the	epicenter	of	national	nutritional	activity,	Bethesda,	Maryland. The
organization	that	I	was	working	with	was	the	Federation	of	American
Societies	for	Experimental	Biology	and	Medicine,	or	FASEB. Six	individual
research	societies	made	up	the	federation,	representing	pathology,
biochemistry,	pharmacology,	nutrition,	immunology	and	physiology	The
FASEB	sponsored	the	annual	joint	meetings	of	all	six	societies,	and	upwards
of	more	than	20,000	scientists	attended. I	was	a	member	of	two	of	these
societies,	nutrition	and	pharmacology,	and	was	particularly	active	in	the
American	Institution	of	Nutrition	(now	named	the	American	Society	for
Nutritional	Sciences). My	principle	work	was	to	chair,	under	contract	to	the
Food	and	Drug	Administration,	a	committee	of	scientists	investigating
potential	hazards	of	using	nutrient	supplements. While	there,	I	also	was	invited	to	be	on	a	public	affairs	committee	that
served	as	liaison	between	the	FASEB	and	Congress. The	committee’s	charge
was	to	stay	on	top	of	congressional	activity	and	represent	our	societies’
interests	in	dealings	with	lawmakers. We	reviewed	policies,	budgets	and
position	statements,	met	with	congressional	staffs,	and	held	meetings	around
big,	impressive	“boardroom”	tables	in	distinguished,	august	meeting	rooms. I
often	got	the	feeling	I	was	in	the	citadel	of	science. As	a	prerequisite	to	representing	my	nutrition	society	on	this	public	affairs
committee,	I	first	had	to	decide,	for	myself,	how	nutrition	is	best	defined. It’s
a	far	more	difficult	question	than	you	may	think. We	had	scientists	who	were
interested	in	applied	nutrition,	which	involves	people	and	communities. We
had	medical	doctors	interested	in	isolated	food	compounds	as
pharmacological	drugs	and	research	scientists	who	only	worked	with	isolated
cells	and	well-identified	chemicals	in	the	laboratory. We	even	had	people	who
thought	nutrition	studies	should	focus	on	livestock	as	well	as	people. Theconcept	of	nutrition	was	far	from	clear;	clarification	was	critical. The	average
American’s	view	of	nutrition	was	even	more	varied	and	confused. Consumers
were	constantly	being	duped	by	fads,	yet	remained	intensely	interested	in
nutrient	supplements	and	dietary	advice	coming	from	any	source,	whether
that	source	was	a	diet	book	or	a	government	official. One	day	in	late	spring	of	1979,	while	doing	my	more	routine	work,	I	got	a
call	from	the	director	of	the	public	affairs	office	at	the	FASEB	who
coordinated	the	work	of	our	congressional	“liaison”	committee. Ellis	informed	me	that	there	was	yet	another	new	committee	being	formed
within	one	of	the	FASEB	Societies,	the	American	Institute	of	Nutrition,	that
might	interest	me. “It’s	being	called	the	Public	Nutrition	Information	Committee,”	he	told
me,	“and	one	of	its	responsibilities	will	be	to	decide	what	is	sound	nutritional
advice	to	give	to	the	public. “Obviously,”	he	said,	“there’s	a	big	overlap	between	what	this	new
committee	wants	to	do	and	what	we	do	on	the	public	affairs	committee.”
I	agreed. “If	you’re	interested,	I	would	like	to	have	you	join	this	new	committee	as	a
representative	of	the	public	affairs	office,”	he	said. The	proposal	sounded	good	to	me	because	it	was	early	in	my	career	and	it
meant	getting	a	chance	to	hear	the	scholarly	views	of	some	of	the	“big	name”
nutrition	researchers. It	also	was	a	committee,	according	to	its	organizers,	that
could	evolve	into	a	“supreme	court”	of	public	nutrition	information. It	might
serve,	for	example,	to	identify	nutrition	quackery.A	BIG	SURPRISE
At	the	time	that	this	new	Public	Nutrition	Information	Committee	was	being
formed,	a	maelstrom	was	developing	across	town	at	the	prestigious	National
Academy	of	Sciences	(NAS). A	public	dispute	was	taking	place	between	the
NAS	president,	Phil	Handler,	and	the	internal	NAS	Food	and	Nutrition	Board. Handler	wanted	to	bring	in	a	group	of	distinguished	scientists	from	outside	of
the	NAS	organization	to	deliberate	on	the	subject	of	diet,	nutrition	and	cancer
and	to	write	a	report. This	did	not	please	his	internal	Food	and	Nutrition
Board,	which	wanted	control	over	this	project. Handler’s	NAS	was	being
offered	funding,	from	Congress,	to	produce	a	report	on	a	subject	that	had	not
been	previously	considered	in	this	way. Within	the	scientific	community	it	was	widely	known	that	the	NAS	Food
and	Nutrition	Board	was	strongly	influenced	by	the	meat,	dairy	and	egg
industries. Two	of	its	leaders,	Bob	Olson	and	Alf	Harper,	had	strong
connections	to	these	industries. Olson	was	a	well-paid	consultant	to	the	egg
industry,	and	Harper	acknowledged	that	10%	of	his	income	came	from
offering	his	services	to	food	companies,	including	large	dairy	corporations. 3
Ultimately	Handler,	as	president	of	the	NAS,	went	around	his	Food	and
Nutrition	Board	and	arranged	for	a	panel	of	expert	scientists	from	outside	of
his	organization	to	write	the	1982	report	
Diet,	Nutrition,	and	Cancer
. 4
	As	it
turned	out,	I	was	one	of	thirteen	scientists	chosen	to	be	on	the	panel	to	write
the	report. As	could	be	expected,	Alf	Harper,	Bob	Olson	and	their	Food	and	Nutrition
Board	colleagues	were	not	happy	about	losing	control	of	this	landmark	report. They	knew	that	the	report	could	greatly	influence	national	opinion	about	diet
and	disease. Mostly,	they	feared	that	the	great	American	diet	was	going	to	be
challenged,	perhaps	even	called	a	possible	cause	of	cancer. James	S.	Turner,	chairman	of	a	related	Consumer	Liaison	Panel	within	the
NAS,	was	critical	of	the	Food	and	Nutrition	Board	and	wrote,	“We	can	only
conclude	that	the	[Food	and	Nutrition]	Board	is	dominated	by	a	group	of
change-resistant	scientists	who	share	a	rather	isolated	view	about	diet	and
disease.”
3
After	being	denied	control	of	this	promising	new	report	on	diet,	nutrition
and	cancer,	the	pro-industry	Board	needed	to	do	some	damage	control. An
alternate	group	was	quickly	established	elsewhere:	the	
new	Public	Nutrition
Information	Committee. Who	were	the	leaders	of	the	new	Public	Nutrition
Information	Committee? Bob	Olson,	Alfred	Harper	and	Tom	Jukes,	a	long-
time	industry	scientist,	each	of	whom	held	a	university	faculty	position. I	wasinitially	innocent	of	the	group’s	purpose,	but	by	our	first	meeting	in	the	spring
of	1980,	I	had	discovered	that,	of	the	eighteen	members	on	that	committee,	I
was	the	only	individual	who	did	not	have	ties	to	the	commercial	world	of
food	and	drug	companies	and	their	coalitions. This	committee	was	a	stacked	deck;	its	members	were	entrenched	in	the
status	quo. Their	professional	associations,	their	friends,	the	people	they
fraternized	with,	were	all	pro-industry. They	enjoyed	the	meaty	American	diet
themselves	and	were	unwilling	to	consider	the	possibility	that	their	views
were	wrong. In	addition,	some	of	them	enjoyed	handsome	benefits,	including
first-class	travel	expenses	and	nice	consulting	fees,	paid	by	animal	foods
companies. Although	there	was	nothing	illegal	about	any	of	these	activities,	it
certainly	laid	bare	a	serious	conflict	of	interest	that	put	most	of	the	committee
members	at	odds	with	the	public	interest. This	is	analogous	to	the	situation,	as	it	unfolded,	surrounding	cigarettes
and	health. When	scientific	evidence	first	emerged	to	show	that	cigarettes
were	dangerous,	there	were	hordes	of	health	professionals	who	vigorously
defended	smoking. For	example,	the	
Journal	of	the	American	Medical
Association
	continued	to	advertise	tobacco	products,	and	many	others	played
their	part	to	staunchly	defend	tobacco	use. In	many	cases,	these	scientists
were	motivated	by	understandable	caution. But	there	were	quite	a	few	others,
particularly	as	the	evidence	against	tobacco	mounted,	whose	motivations
were	clearly	personal	bias	and	greed. So	there	I	was,	on	a	committee	that	was	to	judge	the	merit	of	nutrition
information,	a	committee	that	was	comprised	of	some	of	the	most	powerful
pro-industry	scientists. I	was	the	only	one	not	hand-picked	by	the	industry
cronies,	as	I	was	there	at	the	behest	of	the	director	of	the	FASEB	public
affairs	office. At	that	point	in	my	career,	I	had	not	formed	any	particularly
strong	views	for	or	against	the	standard	American	diet. More	than	anything,	I
was	interested	in	promoting	honest,	open	debate—something	that	would
immediately	put	me	at	odds	with	this	new	organization.THE	FIRST	MEETING
From	the	first	moment	of	the	first	meeting	in	April	1980,	I	knew	I	was	the
chicken	who	had	wandered	into	a	fox’s	den,	although	I	went	in	with	high
hopes	and	an	open,	though	naive,	mind. After	all,	lots	of	scientists,	myself
included,	have	consulted	with	companies	while	working	to	maintain	an
objective	mind	in	the	best	interest	of	the	public	health. In	the	second	session	of	our	first	committee	meeting	the	chairman,	Tom
Jukes,	passed	around	a	proposed	news	release,	handwritten	by	himself,
regarding	the	mission	of	the	committee. In	addition	to	announcing	our
formation,	the	news	release	listed	examples	of	the	kind	of	nutrition	frauds	that
our	committee	intended	to	expose. As	I	scanned	the	list	of	so-called	frauds,	I	was	stunned	to	see	the	1977
McGovern	dietary	goals
5
	on	the	list. First	drafted	in	1976,	these	relatively
modest	goals	suggested	that	less	meat	and	fat	consumption	and	more	fruit	and
vegetable	consumption	might	prevent	heart	disease. In	this	proposed	news
release,	they	were	described	as	nothing	more	than	simple	quackery,	just	like
the	widely	condemned	Laetrile	and	pangamic	acid	preparations. In	essence,
the	recommendation	to	shift	our	eating	habits	to	more	fruits	and	vegetables
and	whole	grains	was	a	fraud. This	was	the	committee’s	attempt	to
demonstrate	their	ability	to	be	the	supreme	arbiter	of	reliable	scientific
information! Having	looked	forward	to	my	membership	on	this	new	committee,	I	was
shocked	to	see	what	was	emerging. Although	I	had	no	particular	predilection
toward	any	one	type	of	diet	at	the	time,	I	knew	that	the	landmark	diet,
nutrition	and	cancer	panel	that	I	was	on	at	the	National	Academy	of	Sciences
would	likely	recommend	something	similar	to	McGovern’s	goals,	this	time
citing	cancer	research	instead	of	heart	disease	research. The	scientific	results
with	which	I	was	familiar	very	clearly	seemed	to	justify	the	moderate
recommendations	made	by	McGovern’s	dietary	goals	committee. Sitting	next	to	me	at	our	first	meeting	was	Alf	Harper,	whom	I	had	held	in
high	esteem	since	our	days	at	MIT	where	he	was	the	General	Foods	Professor
of	Nutritional	Sciences. Early	in	the	meeting,	when	this	handwritten	proposed
news	release	was	passed	out	to	the	committee	members,	I	leaned	over	to
Harper	and	pointed	to	the	place	where	it	listed	McGovern’s	dietary	goals
amongst	other	common	scams	and	whispered	incredulously,	“Do	you	see
this?”
Harper	could	sense	my	unease,	even	disbelief,	and	so	quickly	spoke	
up. In
a	patronizing	tone,	he	said	to	the	group,	“There	are	honorable	people	in	our
society	who	may	not	necessarily	agree	with	this	list. Perhaps	we	should	put	iton	hold.”	A	reluctant	discussion	ensued,	and	they	decided	to	forgo	the
proposed	press	release. With	the	conclusion	of	the	news	release	issue,	the	meeting	came	to	an	end. As	far	as	I	was	concerned,	it	was	a	dubious	beginning,	at	best. A	couple	of	weeks	later,	back	in	upstate	New	York,	I	turned	on	a	morning
TV	news	show	and	Tom	Brokaw	appeared	on	the	screen	and	started	talking
about	nutrition	with	Bob	Olson,	of	all	people. They	were	discussing	a	recent
report	that	Olson	and	friends	had	produced	at	the	National	Academy	of
Sciences	called	“Toward	Healthful	Diets.”	This	report,	which	was	one	of	the
briefest,	most	superficial	reports	on	health	ever	produced	by	the	NAS,
extolled	the	virtues	of	the	high-fat,	high-meat	American	diet	and	basically
confirmed	that	all	was	well	with	how	America	was	eating. From	a	scientific	point	of	view,	the	message	was	a	doozy. I	remember	one
exchange	where	Tom	Brokaw	asked	about	fast	food,	and	Olson	confidently
stated	that	McDonald’s	hamburgers	were	fine. With	millions	of	viewers
watching	this	“expert”	praise	the	health	value	of	McDonald’s	hamburgers,	it’s
no	wonder	that	consumers	around	the	country	were	confused. Only	a	handful
of	insiders	could	possibly	know	that	his	views	did	not	even	come	close	to
reflecting	the	best	understanding	of	the	science	at	the	time.THE	SECOND	MEETING
We	were	back	for	round	two	in	Atlantic	City	at	our	annual	meeting	in	late
spring	of	1981. From	our	correspondence	over	the	past	year,	the	committee
already	had	an	informal	agenda	in	place. First,	we	were	to	establish	the
proposition	that	nutrition	scams	were	eroding	the	public’s	trust	in	the	nutrition
research	community. Second,	we	needed	to	publicize	the	idea	that	advocating
more	vegetable	and	fruit	consumption	and	less	meat	and	high-fat	foods	was,
itself,	a	scam. Third,	we	intended	to	position	our	committee	as	a	permanent,
standing	organization. Up	to	this	point,	our	group	had	only	served	in	a
temporary	capacity,	as	an	exploratory	committee. Now	it	was	time	to	get	on
with	our	job	of	becoming	the	permanent,	principle	source	of	reliable	nutrition
information	in	the	U.S. Within	the	first	few	days	of	arriving	at	the	convention,	a	fellow	member	of
the	committee,	Howard	Applebaum,	told	me	of	the	developing	
gossip. “Did
you	hear?”	he	whispered. “Olson’s	decided	that	they’re	going	to	reconstitute
the	committee	and	you	are	going	to	be	removed.”	At	that	time,	Olson	was	still
serving	his	one-year	term	as	president	of	the	parent	society,	the	American
Institute	of	Nutrition,	and	had	the	power	to	do	such	things. I	remember	thinking	that	this	news	was	neither	surprising	nor
disappointing. I	knew	I	was	the	black	sheep	of	the	committee	and	had	already
stepped	out	of	line	at	our	inaugural	meeting	the	previous	year. My	continued
involvement	in	this	particular	group	was	going	to	amount	to	nothing	more
than	trying	to	swim	up	Niagara	Falls. The	only	reason	I	was	involved	in	the
first	place	was	because	the	director	of	the	public	affairs	office	at	the	FASEB
had	secured	me	the	spot. I	had	thought	the	first	year’s	committee	meeting	was	dubious,	but	I	ran
into	an	even	more	bizarre	beginning	at	that	second	meeting	a	year	later,
before	Olson	had	the	chance	to	remove	me. When	the	proposal	to	become	a
permanent	organization	within	our	society	was	put	forth,	I	was	the	only	one	to
challenge	the	idea. I	expressed	concern	that	this	committee	and	its	activities
reeked	of	McCarthyism,	which	had	no	place	in	a	scientific	research	society. What	I	was	saying	made	the	chair	of	the	committee	intensely	angry	and
physically	hostile,	and	I	decided	it	was	best	to	just	leave	the	room. I	was
clearly	a	threat	to	everything	the	committee	members	wanted	to	achieve. After	relating	the	whole	ordeal	to	the	newly-elected	incoming	president	of
the	society,	Professor	Doris	Calloway	of	UC	Berkeley,	the	committee	was
abolished	and	reformed,	with	me	as	the	chair. Fortunately,	I	persuaded	our
six-member	committee	to	disband	after	less	than	a	year,	and	the	whole	sorry
affair	came	to	an	end.To	stay	and	“fight	the	good	fight,”	so	to	speak,	was	not	an	option. It	was
early	in	my	career	and	the	awesome	power	wielded	by	the	seniors	in	my
society	was	stark	and	intellectually	brutal. For	many	of	these	characters,
searching	for	a	truth	that	promoted	public	health	over	the	status	quo	was	not
an	option. I	am	absolutely	convinced	that	had	I	busied	myself	with	tackling
these	issues	so	early	in	my	career,	I	would	not	be	writing	this	book. Research
funding	and	publications	would	have	been	difficult	if	not	impossible	to
obtain. Meanwhile,	Bob	Olson	and	some	of	his	colleagues	turned	their	attention
elsewhere,	focusing	on	a	relatively	new	organization	founded	in	1978	called
the	American	Council	on	Science	and	Health	(ACSH). Headquartered	in	New
York	City,	the	ACSH	bills	itself,	still	today,	as	a	
“consumer	education
consortium	concerned	with	issues	related	to	food,	nutrition,	chemicals,
pharmaceuticals,	lifestyle,	the	environment	and	health.”	The	group	also
claims	to	be	an	“independent,	nonprofit,	tax-exempt	organization,”
6
	but	they
receive	76%	of	their	funding	from	corporations	and	corporate	donors,
according	to	the	National	Environmental	Trust	who	cite	the	Congressional
Quarterly’s	Public	Interest	Profiles. 7
According	to	the	National	Environmental	Trust,
7
	the	ACSH	has	claimed,
in	their	reports,	that	cholesterol	is	not	related	to	coronary	heart	disease,	“the
unpopularity	of	food	irradiation	…	is	not	based	in	science,”	“endocrine
disruptors”	(e.g.,	PCBs,	dioxins,	etc.) are	not	a	human	health	problem,
saccharin	is	not	carcinogenic	and	implementation	of	fossil-fuel	restrictions	to
control	global	warming	should	not	be	implemented. Searching	for	a	serious
critique	of	the	food	industry	from	the	ACSH	is	like	searching	for	a	needle	in	a
haystack. Although	I	believe	that	some	of	their	arguments	may	have	merit,	I
seriously	question	their	claim	to	be	an	objective	broker	of	“consumer
education.”FALLING	ON	MY	PETARD
During	the	entire	experience	with	the	Public	Nutrition	Information
Committee,	I	continued	to	work	on	the	National	Academy	of	Sciences	report
on	diet,	nutrition	and	cancer,	which	was	released	in	June	1982. 4
	As	might
have	been	expected,	when	this	report	was	published	all	hell	broke	loose. Being	the	first	such	report	on	diet	and	cancer,	it	received	extensive	publicity,
fast	becoming	the	most	sought-after	report	in	NAS	history. It	was	establishing
high-profile	goals	for	the	dietary	prevention	of	cancer	which	were	very
similar	to	those	of	the	1976	McGovern	Committee	report	on	diet	and	heart
disease. Principally,	we	were	encouraging	the	consumption	of	fruits,
vegetables	and	whole	grain	cereal	products,	while	decreasing	total	fat	intake. The	fact	that	this	report	was	concerned	with	cancer	instead	of	heart	disease,
however,	elevated	emotions. The	stakes	were	high	and	getting	higher;	cancer
incites	a	far	greater	fear	than	heart	disease. Given	the	stakes,	some	powerful	enemies	came	out	of	the	woodwork. Within	two	weeks,	the	Council	on	Agriculture,	Science	and	Technology
(CAST),	an	influential	lobbying	group	for	the	livestock-based	farming
industry,	produced	a	report	summarizing	the	views	of	fifty-six	“experts”	who
were	concerned	about	the	effect	of	our	NAS	report	on	the	agriculture	and
food	industries. Olson,	Jukes,	Harper	and	their	like-minded	colleagues	on	the
now	defunct	Public	Nutrition	Information	Committee	weighed	in	as	experts. Their	report	was	quickly	published,	then	
placed	in	the	hands	of	all	535	U.S.
congressional	members. It	was	clear	that	the	CAST	was	deeply	concerned
about	the	possible	impact	that	our	report	might	have	on	the	public. The	CAST	wasn’t	the	only	group	that	stepped	up	to	criticize	the	report. In
addition,	there	were	the	American	Meat	Institute,	National	Broiler	Council,
National	Cattlemen’s	Association,	National	Livestock	and	Meat	Board,
National	Meat	Association,	National	Milk	Producers	Federation,	National
Pork	Producers	Council,	National	Turkey	Federation	and	United	Egg
Producers. 3
	I	wouldn’t	presume	to	know	how	much	cancer	research	the
National	Turkey	Federation	conducts,	but	I’m	guessing	that	their	criticism	of
our	report	was	not	born	out	of	their	desire	for	truth	in	science. It	was	ironic	that	I	had	learned	some	of	my	most	valuable	lessons	growing
up	on	a	dairy	farm,	and	yet	the	work	I	was	doing	was	portrayed	as	being	at
odds	with	agricultural	interests. Of	course,	these	mammoth	corporate	interests
were	far	removed	from	the	farmers	I	knew	growing	up—the	hardworking,
honest	families	that	maintained	small	farms,	just	big	enough	to	get	by
comfortably. I	often	have	wondered	whether	these	Washington	agricultural
interests	truly	represent	America’s	great	farming	tradition,	or	whether	theyonly	represent	agricultural	conglomerates	with	operations	worth	tens	of
millions	of	dollars. Alf	Harper,	who	had	written	a	strong	letter	of	support	for	my	first	faculty
position	after	leaving	MIT,	wrote	me	a	stern	personal	letter	in	which	he
declared	that	I	had	“fallen	on	[my]	own	petard.”	A	petard	is	a	type	of	bomb	or
firecracker. Apparently,	my	involvement	in	the	Public	Nutrition	Information
Committee	and	the	NAS	
Diet,	Nutrition	and	Cancer
	report	was	finally	too
much	for	even	him	to	bear. Times	were	hot,	to	be	sure. Congressional	hearings,	in	which	I	testified,
were	held	on	the	NAS	report	itself;	
People
	magazine	featured	me	in	a
prominent	article,	and	an	endless	series	of	news	media	reports	continued	over
the	next	year.AMERICAN	INSTITUTE	FOR	CANCER
RESEARCH
It	seemed	that	for	the	first	time	in	our	history,	the	government	was	seriously
thinking	about	what	we	eat	as	a	means	of	controlling	cancer. This	was	fertile
territory	for	doing	something	new,	and	something	new	did	indeed	fall	into	my
lap. I	was	invited	to	assist	a	new	organization	called	the	American	Institute
for	Cancer	Research	(AICR)	in	Falls	Church,	Virginia. The	founders	of	this
organization	were	fund-raisers	and	had	
learned	that	it	was	possible	to	raise,
through	mailing	campaigns,	large	sums	of	money	for	cancer	research. It
seemed	that	many	people	were	interested	in	learning	something	new	about
cancer	beyond	the	usual	model	of	surgery,	radiation	and	cytotoxic	drugs. This	budding	organization	was	well	aware	of	our	1982	NAS	report
4
	that
focused	on	diet	and	cancer,	and	so	invited	me	to	join	them	as	their	senior
science	advisor. I	encouraged	them	to	focus	on	diet	because	the	nutrition
connection	with	cancer	was	becoming	an	important	area	of	research,	yet	was
receiving	very	little,	if	any,	support	from	the	major	funding	agencies. I
especially	encouraged	them	to	emphasize	whole	foods	as	a	source	of
nutrition,	not	nutrient	supplements,	partly	because	this	was	the	message	of	the
NAS	report. As	I	began	to	work	with	the	AICR,	two	challenges	simultaneously	arose. First,	the	AICR	needed	to	get	established	as	a	credible	organization	to
promote	the	message	and	to	support	research. Second,	the	NAS
recommendations	needed	to	be	publicized. Therefore,	I	thought	it	made	sense
for	the	AICR	to	help	publicize	the	NAS	recommendations. Dr.	Sushma
Palmer,	executive	director	of	the	NAS	project,
4
	and	Harvard	professor	Mark
Hegsted,	who	was	the	key	advisor	to	the	McGovern	Committee,	agreed	to
join	me	in	endorsing	this	AICR	project. Simultaneously,	the	AICR	president,
Marilyn	Gentry,	suggested	that	the	AICR	could	publish	the	NAS	report	and
send	free	copies	to	50,000	physicians	in	the	U.S. These	projects,	which
seemed	to	me	to	be	logical,	useful	and	socially	responsible,	were	also	highly
successful. The	associations	we	were	making	and	the	exposure	we	were
generating	were	aimed	at	increasing	the	public’s	health. As	I	was	quick	to
find	out,	however,	creating	an	organization	focused	on	diet	as	a	central	link	in
cancer	causation	was	seen	as	a	threat	to	a	great	many	people. It	was	clear	that
the	AICR’s	projects	were	beginning	to	hit	the	mark	because	of	the	hostile
feedback	coming	from	the	food,	medical	and	drug	industries. It	seemed	that
every	effort	was	being	made	to	discredit	them. I	was	surprised	that	government	interference	was	particularly	harsh.National	and	state	attorney	general	offices	questioned	the	AICR’s	status	and
its	fund-raising	procedures. The	U.S.	Post	Office	joined	in	the	fray,
questioning	whether	the	AICR	could	use	the	mail	to	spread	“junk”
information. We	all	had	our	suspicions	as	to	who	were	encouraging	these
government	offices	to	quash	the	dissemination	of	this	diet	and	cancer
information. Collectively,	these	public	agencies	were	making	life	very
difficult. Why	were	they	attacking	a	nonprofit	organization	promoting	
cancer
research? It	all	came	down	to	the	fact	that	the	AICR,	like	the	NAS,	was
pushing	an	agenda	that	connected	diet	and	cancer. The	American	Cancer	Society	became	an	especially	vigorous	detractor. In
its	eyes,	the	AICR	had	two	strikes	against	it:	it	might	compete	for	the	same
funding	donors,	and	it	was	trying	to	shift	the	cancer	discussion	toward	diet. The	American	Cancer	Society	had	not	yet	acknowledged	that	diet	and
nutrition	were	connected	to	cancer. (It	wasn’t	until	many	years	later	in	the
early	1990s	that	it	developed	dietary	recommendations	to	control	cancer	when
the	idea	was	receiving	considerable	currency	with	the	public.) It	was	very
much	a	medically-based	organization	invested	in	the	conventional	use	of
drugs,	radiation	and	surgery. A	short	while	before,	the	American	Cancer
Society	had	contacted	our	NAS	committee	about	the	possibility	of	our	joining
them	to	produce	dietary	recommendations	to	prevent	cancer. As	a	committee,
we	declined,	although	a	couple	of	the	people	on	our	committee	did	offer	their
individual	services. The	American	Cancer	Society	seemed	to	sense	a	big	story
on	the	horizon	and	didn’t	like	the	idea	that	another	organization,	the	AICR,
might	get	the	credit.MISINFORMATION
It	may	seem	that	I	am	coming	down	a	tad	harshly	on	an	organization	that
most	people	regard	as	purely	benevolent,	but	the	American	Cancer	Society
acted	differently	behind	the	scenes	than	it	did	in	public. On	one	occasion,	I	traveled	to	an	upstate	New	York	town	where	I	had	been
invited	to	give	a	lecture	to	the	local	chapter	of	the	American	Cancer	Society,
as	I	had	done	elsewhere. During	my	lecture,	I	showed	a	slide	that	made
reference	to	the	new	AICR	organization. I	did	not	mention	my	personal
association,	so	the	audience	was	not	aware	that	I	was	their	senior	science
advisor. After	the	lecture,	I	took	questions	and	my	host	asked	me,	“Do	you	know
that	AICR	is	an	organization	of	quacks?”
“No,”	I	said,	“I	don’t.”	I’m	afraid	I	didn’t	do	such	a	good	job	of	hiding	my
skepticism	of	her	comment,	because	she	felt	obliged	to	explain,	“That
organization	is	being	run	by	a	group	of	quacks	and	discredited	doctors. Some
of	them	have	even	served	time	in	prison.”
Prison	time? This	was	news	to	me! Again,	without	revealing	my	association	with	the	AICR,	I	asked,	“How	do
you	know	that?”	She	said	she	saw	a	memo	that	had	been	circulated	to	local
American	Cancer	Society	offices	around	the	country. Before	leaving,	I
arranged	for	her	to	send	me	a	copy	of	the	memo	she	was	referring	to,	and,	in	a
day	or	so,	she	did. The	memo	had	been	sent	from	the	office	of	the	national	president	of	the
American	Cancer	Society,	who	also	was	a	senior	executive	of	the	prestigious
Roswell	Park	Memorial	Institute	for	Cancer	Research	in	Buffalo. This	memo
alleged	that	the	scientific	“chair”	of	the	organization,	without	naming	me,	was
heading	up	a	group	of	“eight	or	nine”	discredited	physicians,	several	of	whom
had	spent	time	in	prison. It	was	total	fabrication. I	didn’t	even	recognize	the
names	of	these	discredited	physicians	and	had	no	idea	how	something	so
vicious	could	have	gotten	started. After	snooping	around	a	little	more,	I	discovered	the	person	in	the
American	Cancer	Society	office	in	Buffalo	who	was	responsible	for	the
memo. I	phoned	him. Not	surprisingly,	he	was	evasive	and	only	said	that	he
had	gotten	this	information	from	an	unnamed	reporter. It	was	impossible	to
trace	the	original	source. The	one	thing	I	do	know	for	sure	was	that	this	memo
was	distributed	by	the	office	of	the	American	Cancer	Society’s	president. I	also	learned	that	the	National	Dairy	Council,	a	powerful	industry
lobbying	group,	had	obtained	a	copy	of	the	same	memo	and	proceeded	to
distribute	a	notice	of	its	own	to	its	local	offices	around	the	country. The	smearcampaign	against	the	AICR	was	widespread. The	food,	pharmaceutical	and
medical	industries	through	and/or	parallel	to	the	American	Cancer	Society
and	the	National	Dairy	Council	were	showing	their	true	colors. Prevention	of
cancer	with	low-cost,	low-profit	plant	foods	was	not	welcomed	by	the	food
and	pharmaco-medical	industries. With	support	from	a	trusting	media,	their
combined	power	to	influence	the	public	was	overwhelming.PERSONAL	CONSEQUENCES
The	ending	of	this	story,	however,	is	a	happy	one. Although	the	AICR’s	first
couple	of	years	were	turbulent	and	difficult	for	me	both	personally	and
professionally,	the	smear	campaigns	finally	started	to	wane. No	longer
considered	“on	the	fringe,”	the	AICR	has	now	expanded	to	England	(the
World	Cancer	Research	Fund,	WCRF,	in	London)	and	elsewhere. For	over
twenty	years	now,	the	AICR	has	run	a	program	that	funds	research	and
education	projects	on	the	link	between	diet	and	cancer. I	initially	organized
and	chaired	that	grant	program,	and	then	continued	as	the	AICR’s	senior
science	advisor	for	several	years,	in	a	few	different	stints,	after	its	initial
founding. One	more	unfortunate	affair,	however,	bears	mention. I	was	informed	by
my	nutrition	society’s	Board	of	Directors	that	two	society	members	(Bob
Olson	and	Alf	Harper)	had	proposed	to	have	me	expelled	from	the	society,
supposedly	because	of	my	association	with	the	AICR. It	would	have	been	the
first	expulsion	in	the	history	of	the	society. I	had	to	go	to	Washington	to	be
“interviewed”	by	the	president	of	the	society	and	the	director	of	nutrition	at
the	FDA. Most	of	their	questions	concerned	the	AICR. The	whole	ordeal	proved	stranger	than	fiction. Expel	a	prominent	society
member—shortly	after	I	was	nominated	to	be	the	organization’s	president—
for	being	involved	with	a	cancer	research	organization? Later,	I	found	myself
reflecting	on	the	whole	ordeal	with	a	colleague	who	knew	the	inner	workings
of	our	society,	Professor	Sam	Tove	of	North	Carolina	State	University. He,	of
course,	knew	all	about	the	investigation,	as	well	as	other	shenanigans. In	our
discussion,	I	told	him	about	AICR	being	a	worthy	organization	with	good
intentions. His	response	has	resonated	with	me	ever	since. “It’s	not	about
AICR,”	he	said. “It’s	about	what	you	did	on	the	National	Academy	of
Sciences	report	on	diet,	nutrition	and	cancer.”
When	the	NAS’s	report	concluded	in	June	1982	that	a	lower	intake	of	fat
and	a	higher	intake	of	fruits,	vegetables	and	whole	grain	products	would	make
for	a	healthier	diet,	I	had	betrayed,	in	the	eyes	of	some,	the	nutrition	research
community. Supposedly,	as	one	of	the	two	diet	and	cancer	experimental
researchers	on	the	panel,	it	was	my	job	to	protect	the	reputation	of	the
American	diet	as	it	was. After	my	failure	to	do	so,	my	subsequent
involvement	with	the	AICR	and	its	promotion	of	the	NAS	report	only	made
matters	worse. Luckily,	reason	prevailed	in	this	whole	farcical	encounter. A	board
meeting	was	held	to	vote	on	whether	I	should	be	expelled	from	my	society,
and	I	handily	survived	the	vote	(6-0,	with	two	abstentions).It	was	hard	not	to	take	all	of	this	personally,	but	there’s	a	larger	point	here,
and	it’s	not	personal. In	the	world	of	nutrition	and	health,	scientists	are	not
free	to	pursue	their	research	wherever	it	leads. Coming	to	the	“wrong”
conclusions,	even	through	first-rate	science,	can	damage	your	career. Trying
to	disseminate	these	“wrong”	conclusions	to	the	public,	for	the	sake	of	public
health,	can	destroy	your	career. Mine	was	not	destroyed—I	was	lucky,	and
some	good	people	stood	up	for	me. But	it	could	have	gone	much	worse. After	all	of	these	numerous	ordeals,	I	have	a	better	understanding	of	
why
my	society	did	the	things	it	did. The	awards	funded	by	Mead	Johnson
Nutritionals,	Lederle	Laboratories,	BioServe	Biotechnologies	and	previously
Procter	and	Gamble	and	the	Dannon	Institute—all	food	and	drug	outfits—
represented	a	strange	marriage	between	industry	and	my	society. 8
	Do	you
believe	that	these	“friends”	of	the	society	are	interested	in	pursuing	scientific
investigation,	no	matter	what	the	conclusions	may	be?CONSEQUENCES	FOR	THE	PUBLIC
Ultimately,	the	lessons	I	learned	in	my	career	had	little	to	do	with	specific
names	or	specific	institutions. These	lessons	have	more	to	do	with	what	goes
on	behind	the	scenes	of	any	large	institution. What	happens	behind	the	scenes
during	national	policy	discussions,	whether	it	happens	in	scientific	societies,
the	government	or	in	industry	boardrooms,	is	supremely	important	for	our
health	as	a	nation. The	personal	experiences	I	have	talked	about	in	this
chapter—only	a	sample	of	such	experiences—have	consequences	far	greater
than	personal	aggravation	and	damage	to	my	career. These	experiences
illustrate	the	dark	side	of	science,	the	side	that	harms	not	just	individual
researchers	who	get	in	the	way,	but	all	of	society. It	does	this	by
systematically	attempting	to	conceal,	defeat	and	destroy	viewpoints	that
oppose	the	status	quo. There	are	some	people	in	very	influential	government	and	university
positions	who	operate	under	the	guise	of	being	scientific	“experts,”	whose
real	jobs	are	to	stifle	open	and	honest	scientific	debate. Perhaps	they	receive
significant	personal	compensation	for	attending	to	the	interests	of	powerful
food	and	drug	companies,	or	perhaps	they	merely	have	an	honest	personal
bias	toward	a	company-friendly	viewpoint. Personal	bias	is	stronger	than	you
may	think. I	know	scientists	with	family	members	who	died	from	cancer	and
it	angers	them	to	entertain	the	possibility	that	personal	choices,	like	diet,
could	have	played	a	role	in	the	death	of	their	loved	ones. Likewise,	there	are
scientists	for	whom	the	high-fat,	high	animal-based	food	diet	they	eat	every
day	is	simply	what	they	learned	was	healthy	at	a	young	age;	they	love	the
habit,	and	they	don’t	want	to	change. The	vast	majority	of	scientists	are	honorable,	intelligent	and	dedicated	to
the	search	for	the	common	good	rather	than	personal	gain. However,	there	are
a	few	scientists	who	are	willing	to	sell	their	souls	to	the	highest	bidder. They
may	not	be	many	in	number,	but	their	influence	can	be	
vast. They	can	corrupt
the	good	name	of	institutions	of	which	they	are	a	part	and,	most	importantly,
they	can	create	vast	confusion	among	the	public,	which	often	cannot	know
who	is	who. You	might	turn	on	the	TV	one	day	to	see	an	expert	praising
McDonald’s	hamburgers,	and	then	read	a	magazine	the	same	day	that	you
should	eat	less	high-fat	red	meat	to	protect	yourself	against	cancer. Who	is	to
be	believed? Institutions	also	are	part	of	the	dark	side	of	science. Committees	like	the
Public	Nutrition	Information	Committee	and	the	American	Council	on
Science	and	Health	generate	lopsided	panels	and	committees	and	institutions
that	are	far	more	interested	in	promoting	their	point	of	view	than	debatingscientific	research	with	an	open	mind. If	a	Public	Nutrition	Information
Committee	report	says	that	low-fat	diets	are	fraudulent	scams,	and	a	National
Academy	of	Sciences	report	says	the	opposite,	which	one	is	right? In	addition,	this	closed-mindedness	in	science	spreads	across	entire
systems. The	American	Cancer	Society	was	not	the	only	health	institution	that
worked	to	make	life	difficult	for	the	AICR. The	National	Cancer	Institute
public	information	office,	Harvard	Medical	School	and	a	few	other
universities	with	medical	schools	were	highly	skeptical	of	the	AICR	and,	in
some	cases,	outright	hostile. The	hostility	of	medical	schools	first	surprised
me,	but	when	the	American	Cancer	Society,	a	very	traditional	medical
institution,	also	joined	the	fray,	it	became	obvious	that	there	really	was	a
“Medical	Establishment.”	The	behemoth	did	not	take	kindly	to	the	idea	of	a
serious	connection	between	diet	and	cancer	or,	for	that	matter,	virtually	any
other	disease. Big	Medicine	in	America	is	in	the	business	of	treating	disease
with	drugs	and	surgery	after	symptoms	appear. This	means	that	you	might
have	turned	on	the	TV	to	see	that	the	American	Cancer	Society	gives	almost
no	credence	to	the	idea	that	diet	is	linked	to	cancer,	and	then	opened	the	paper
to	see	that	the	American	Institute	for	Cancer	Research	says	what	you	eat
impacts	your	risk	of	getting	cancer. Who	do	you	trust? Only	someone	familiar	with	the	inside	of	the	system	can	distinguish
between	sincere	positions	based	in	science	and	insincere,	self-serving
positions. I	was	on	the	inside	of	the	system	for	many	years,	working	at	the
very	top	levels,	and	saw	enough	to	be	able	to	say	that	science	is	not	always
the	honest	search	for	truth	that	so	many	believe	it	to	be. It	far	too	often
involves	money,	power,	ego	and	protection	of	personal	interests	above	the
common	good. Very	few,	if	any,	illegal	acts	need	to	
occur. It	doesn’t	involve
large	payoffs	being	delivered	to	secret	bank	accounts	or	to	private
investigators	in	smoky	hotel	lobbies. It’s	not	a	Hollywood	story;	it’s	just	day-
to-day	government,	science	and	industry	in	the	United	States.14
Scientific	Reductionism
W
HEN	OUR
	N
ATIONAL
	A
CADEMY	OF
	S
CIENCES
	(NAS)	Diet,	Nutrition	and
Cancer	Committee	was	deciding	how	to	summarize	the	research	on	diet	and
cancer,	we	included	chapters	on	individual	nutrients	and	nutrient	groups. This
was	the	way	research	had	been	done,	one	nutrient	at	a	time. For	example,	the
chapter	on	vitamins	included	information	on	the	relationships	between	cancer
and	vitamins	A,	C,	E	and	some	B	vitamins. However,	in	the	report	summary,
we	recommended	getting	these	nutrients	from	foods,	not	pills	or	supplements. We	explicitly	stated	that	“These	recommendations	apply	only	to	foods	as
sources	of	nutrients—not	to	dietary	supplements	of	individual	nutrients.”
1
The	report	quickly	found	its	way	to	the	corporate	world,	which	saw	a
major	money-making	opportunity. They	ignored	our	cautionary	message
distinguishing	foods	from	pills	and	began	advertising	vitamin	pills	as
products	that	could	prevent	cancer,	arrogantly	citing	our	report	as
justification. This	was	a	great	opening	to	a	vast	new	market—commercial
vitamin	supplements. General	Nutrition,	Inc.,	the	company	with	thousands	of	General	Nutrition
Centers,	started	selling	a	product	called	“Healthy	Greens,”	a	multivitamin
supplement	of	vitamins	A,	C	and	E,	beta-carotene,	selenium	and	a	miniscule
half-gram	of	dehydrated	vegetables. Then	they	advertised	their	product	by
making	the	following	claims
2
:
[The	
Diet,	Nutrition	and	Cancer
	report]	recommended	we	increase
among	other	things	our	amounts	of	specific	vegetables	to	help
safeguard	our	bodies	against	the	risk	of	certain	forms	of	cancer. These
vegetables	recommended	by	the	[National	Academy	of	Sciencesreport]…	are	the	ones	we	should	increase[:]	cabbages,	Brussels
sprouts,	cauliflower,	broccoli,	carrots	and	spinach…. Mom	was	right! Research	scientists	and	technicians	at	General	Nutrition	Labs,
realizing	the	importance	of	the	research,	instantly	went	to	work	to
harness	all	of	the	vegetables	and	combined	all	of	them	into	a	natural,
easy	to	take	potent	tablet. [T]he	result	is	Health	Greens	[sic],	a	new	potent	breakthrough	in
nutrition	that	millions	of	people	can	now	help	safeguard	their	well-
being	with	…	the	greens	that	the	[National	Academy	of	Sciences
Committee]	recommends	we	eat	more	of! GNC	was	advertising	an	untested	product	and	improperly	using	a
government	document	to	support	its	sensational	claims. So	the	Federal	Trade
Commission	went	to	court	to	bar	the	company	from	making	these	claims. It
was	a	battle	that	lasted	years,	a	battle	that	was	rumored	to	cost	General
Nutrition,	Inc.	about	$7	million. The	National	Academy	of	Sciences
recommended	me	as	their	expert	witness	because	of	my	co-authorship	of	the
report	in	question	and	because	of	my	harping	on	this	point	during	our
committee	deliberations. A	research	associate	in	my	group,	Dr.	Tom	O’Connor,	and	I	spent	three
intellectually	stimulating	years	working	on	this	project,	including	my	three
full	days	on	the	witness	stand. In	1988,	General	Nutrition,	Inc.,	settled	the
false	advertising	charges	relating	to	Healthy	Greens	and	other	food
supplements	by	agreeing	to	pay	$600,000,	divided	equally,	to	three	different
health	organizations. 3
	This	was	a	small	price	for	the	company	to	pay,
considering	the	ultimate	revenues	that	were	generated	by	the	exploding
nutrient	supplement	market.FOCUS	ON	FAT
The	focus	on	individual	nutrients	instead	of	whole	foods	has	become
commonplace	in	the	past	two	decades,	and	part	of	the	blame	can	be	put	on	our
1982	report. As	mentioned	before,	our	committee	organized	the	scientific
information	on	diet	and	cancer	by	nutrients,	with	a	separate	chapter	for	each
nutrient	or	class	of	nutrients. There	were	individual	chapters	for	fat,	protein,
carbohydrate,	vitamins	and	minerals. I	am	convinced	it	was	a	great	mistake
on	our	part. We	did	not	stress	enough	that	our	recommendations	were
concerned	with	
whole
	foods	because	
many	people	still	regarded	the	report	as
cataloging	the	specific	effects	of	individual	nutrients. The	nutrient	that	our	committee	focused	on	the	most	was	fat. The	first
guideline	in	the	report	explicitly	stated	that	high	fat	consumption	is	linked	to
cancer,	and	recommended	reducing	our	fat	intake	from	40%	to	30%	of
calories,	although	this	goal	of	30%	was	an	arbitrary	cutoff	point. The
accompanying	text	said,	“[T]he	data	could	be	used	to	justify	an	even	greater
reduction. However,	in	the	judgment	of	the	committee,	the	suggested
reduction	is	a	moderate	and	practical	target,	and	is	likely	to	be	beneficial.”
One	of	the	committee	members,	the	director	of	the	United	States	Department
of	Agriculture	(USDA)	Nutrition	Laboratory,	told	us	that	if	we	went	below
30%,	consumers	would	be	required	to	reduce	animal	food	intake	and	that
would	be	the	death	of	the	report. At	the	time	of	this	report,	all	of	the	human-based	studies	showing	fat	to	be
related	to	cancer	(mostly	breast	and	large	bowel)	were	actually	showing	that
the	populations	with	more	cancer	consumed	not	just	more	fat,	but	also	more
animal-based	foods	and	less	plant-based	foods	(see	chapter	four). This	meant
that	these	cancers	could	just	as	easily	be	caused	by	animal	protein,	dietary
cholesterol,	something	else	exclusively	found	in	animal-based	foods,	or	a	lack
of	plant-based	foods	(discussed	in	chapters	four	and	eight). But	rather	than
wagging	the	finger	at	animal-based	foods	in	these	studies,	dietary	fat	was
given	as	the	main	culprit. I	argued	against	putting	the	emphasis	on	specific
nutrients	in	the	committee	meetings,	but	only	with	modest	success. (It	was
this	point	of	view	that	landed	me	the	expert	witness	opportunity	at	the	FTC
hearings.) This	mistake	of	characterizing	whole	foods	by	the	health	effects	of
specific	nutrients	is	what	I	call	reductionism. For	example,	the	health	effect	of
a	hamburger	cannot	be	simply	attributed	to	the	effect	of	a	few	grams	of
saturated	fat	in	the	meat. Saturated	fat	is	merely	one	ingredient. Hamburgers
also	include	other	types	of	fat,	in	addition	to	cholesterol,	protein	and	very
small	amounts	of	vitamins	and	minerals. Even	if	you	change	the	level	ofsaturated	fat	in	the	meat,	all	of	the	other	nutrients	are	still	present	and	may
still	have	harmful	effects	on	health. It	is	a	case	of	the	whole	(the	hamburger)
being	greater	than	the	sum	of	its	parts	(the	saturated	fat,	the	cholesterol,	etc.). One	scientist	especially	took	note
4
	of	our	focused	critique	of	dietary	fat,
and	decided	to	test	the	hypothesis	that	fat	causes	breast	cancer	in	a	large
group	of	American	women. He	was	Dr.	Walter	Willett	of	the	
Harvard	School
of	Public	Health,	and	the	study	he	used	is	the	famous	Nurses’	Health	Study. Starting	in	1976,	researchers	at	the	Harvard	School	of	Public	Health	had
enrolled	over	120,000	nurses	from	around	the	country	for	a	study	that	was
intended	to	investigate	the	relationship	between	various	diseases	and	oral
contraceptives,	post-menopausal	hormones,	cigarettes	and	other	factors,	such
as	hair	dyes. 3
	Beginning	in	1980,	Professor	Willett	added	a	dietary
questionnaire	to	the	study	and	four	years	later,	in	1984,	expanded	the	dietary
questionnaire	to	include	more	food	items. This	expanded	dietary
questionnaire	was	mailed	to	nurses	again	in	1986	and	1990. Data	now	have	been	collected	for	over	two	decades. The	Nurses’	Health
Study	is	widely	known	as	the	longest-running,	premier	study	on	women’s
health. 6
	It	has	spawned	three	satellite	studies,	all	together	costing	$4-5	million
per	year. 6
	When	I	give	lectures	to	health	conscious	audiences,	upwards	of
70%	of	the	people	have	heard	of	the	Nurses’	Health	Study. The	scientific	community	has	followed	this	study	closely. The	researchers
in	charge	of	the	study	have	produced	hundreds	of	scientific	articles	in	the	best
peer-reviewed	journals. The	design	of	the	study	makes	it	a	prospective	cohort
study,	which	means	it	follows	a	group	of	people,	a	cohort,	and	records
information	on	diets	before	disease	events	are	diagnosed,	making	the	study
“prospective.”	Many	regard	a	prospective	cohort	study	as	the	best
experimental	design	for	human	studies. The	question	of	whether	diets	high	in	fat	are	linked	to	breast	cancer	was	a
natural	outgrowth	of	the	fierce	discussion	going	on	in	the	mid-1970s	and	the
early	1980s. High-fat	diets	not	only	were	associated	with	heart	disease	(the
McGovern	dietary	goals),	but	also	with	cancer	(the	
Diet,	Nutrition	and
Cancer
	report). What	better	study	to	answer	this	question	than	the	Nurses’
Health	Study? It	has	a	good	design,	massive	numbers	of	women,	top-flight
researchers	and	a	long	follow-up	period. Sounds	perfect,	right? Wrong. The	Nurses’	Health	Study	suffers	from	flaws	that	seriously	doom	its
results. It	is	the	premier	example	of	how	reductionism	in	science	can	create
massive	amounts	of	confusion	and	misinformation,	even	when	the	scientists
involved	are	honest,	well	intentioned	and	positioned	at	the	top	institutions	in
the	world. Hardly	any	study	has	done	more	damage	to	the	nutritionallandscape	than	the	Nurses’	Health	Study,	and	it	should	serve	as	a	warning	for
the	rest	of	science	for	what	not	to	do.CARNIVOROUS	NURSES
In	order	to	understand	my	rather	harsh	criticism,	it	is	necessary	to	obtain
some	perspective	on	the	American	diet	itself,	especially	when	compared	with
the	international	studies	that	gave	impetus	to	the	dietary	fat	hypothesis. 7
Americans	eat	a	lot	of	meat	and	fat	compared	to	developing	countries. We	eat
more	total	protein,	and	even	more	significantly	70%	of	our	protein	comes
from	animal	sources. The	fact	that	70%	of	our	total	protein	comes	from
animal	sources	means	only	one	thing:	we	are	consuming	very	few	fruits	and
vegetables. To	make	matters	worse,	when	we	do	eat	plant-based	foods,	we	eat
a	large	amount	of	highly	processed	products	that	often	have	more	added	fat,
sugar	and	salt. For	example,	the	United	States	Department	of	Agriculture
(USDA)	national	school	lunch	program	counts	French	fried	potatoes	as	a
vegetable! In	contrast,	people	in	rural	China	eat	very	little	animal	foods;	they	provide
only	about	10%	of	their	total	protein	intake. The	striking	difference	between
the	two	dietary	patterns	is	shown	in	two	ways	in	
Chart	14.1
. 8
These	distinctions	are	typical	of	the	dietary	differences	between	Western
cultures	and	traditional	cultures. In	general,	people	in	Western	countries	are
mostly	meat	eaters,	and	people	in	traditional	countries	are	mostly	plant	eaters. So	what	about	the	women	in	the	Nurses’	Health	Study? As	you	might
guess,	virtually	all	of	these	women	consume	a	diet	very	rich	in	animal-based
foods,	even	richer	than	the	average	American. Their	average	protein	intake
(as	%	of	calories)	is	around	19%,	compared	with	a	U.S.	
average	of	about	15–
16%. To	give	these	figures	some	perspective,	the	recommended	daily
allowance	(RDA)	for	protein	is	only	about	9–10%. CHART	14.1:	PROTEIN	INTAKE	IN	THE	U.S.	AND	RURAL	CHINA
8
CHART	14.2:	PERCENTAGE	OF	TOTAL	PROTEIN	THAT	COMES
FROM	ANIMAL	FOOD
But	even	more	importantly,	
of	the	protein	consumed	by	the	nurses	in	this
study,	between	78%	and	86%	comes	from	animal-based	foods
,
9
	as	shown	in
Chart	14.2
. 8,	9
	Even	in	the	group	of	nurses	that	eat	the	lowest	amount	of	total
protein,	79%	of	it	comes	from	animal-based	foods. 9
	
In	other	words,	virtually
all	of	these	nurses	are	more	carnivorous	than	an	average	American	woman. They	consume	very	few	whole,	plant-based	foods. This	is	a	crucially	important	point. To	get	further	perspective,	I	must
return	to	the	1975	international	comparison	by	Ken	Carroll	shown	earlier	in
Charts	4.7
	to	
4.9
. Chart	4.7
	is	reproduced	here	in	
Chart	14.3
. This	chart	became	one	of	the	most	influential	observations	on	diet	and
chronic	disease	of	the	last	fifty	years. Like	other	studies,	it	was	a	significant
part	of	the	reason	why	the	1982	
Diet,	Nutrition	and	Cancer
	report
recommended	that	Americans	cut	their	fat	intake	to	30%	of	total	caloric
intake	in	order	to	prevent	cancer. This	report	and	other	consensus	reports	that
followed	thereafter	eventually	set	the	stage	for	an	explosion	of	low-fat
products	in	the	marketplace	(“low-fat”	dairy	products,	lean	cuts	of	meat,
“low-fat”	sweets	and	snack	foods). Unfortunately,	the	emphasis	on	fat	alone	was	misguided. Carroll’s	study,
like	all	the	other	international	comparisons,	was	comparing	populations	that
mostly	ate	meat	and	dairy	to	populations	that	mostly	ate	plants. There	were
many	more	differences	between	the	diets	of	these	countries	than	just	the	fat
intake! What	Carroll’s	graph	really	shows	is	
that	the	closer	a	population	gets
to	consuming	a	plant-based	diet,	the	lower	its	risk	of	breast	cancer.CHART	14.3:	FAT	INTAKE	AND	BREAST	CANCER	MORTALITY
But	because	the	women	in	the	Nurses’	Health	Study	are	so	far	from	a
plant-based	diet,	
there	is	no	way	to	study	the	diet	and	breast	cancer
relationship	originally	suggested	by	the	international	studies. There	are
virtually	no	nurses	that	eat	a	diet	typical	of	the	countries	at	the	bottom	of	this
graph. Make	no	mistake	about	it:	virtually	this	entire	cohort	of	nurses	is
consuming	a	high-risk	diet. Most	people	who	look	at	the	Nurses’	Health
Study	miss	this	flaw	because,	as	Harvard	researchers	will	point	out,	there	is	a
wide	range	of	fat	intake	among	the	nurses. The	group	of	nurses	who	consume	the	least	fat	eat	20-25%	of	their	calories
as	fat,	and	the	group	of	nurses	who	consume	the	most	fat	eat	50-55%	of	their
calories	as	fat. 10
	At	a	casual	glance,	this	range	appears	to	indicate	substantial
differences	in	their	diets,	but	this	is	just	not	true,	as	almost	all	women
uniformly	eat	a	diet	very	rich	in	animal-based	foods. That	begs	the	question,
how	can	their	fat	intake	vary	dramatically	while	they	all	uniformly	consume
large	amounts	of	animal-based	foods? Ever	since	“low-fat”	became	synonymous	with	“healthy,”	technology	has
created	many	of	the	same	foods	that	you	know	and	love,	without	the	fat. You
can	now	have	all	kinds	of	low-fat	or	no-fat	dairy	products,	low-fat	processed
meats,	low-fat	dressings	and	sauces,	low-fat	crackers,	low-fat	candies	and
low-fat	“junk	food,”	like	chips	and	cookies. In	other	
words,	you	can	eat
mostly	the	same	foods	as	you	did	twenty-five	years	ago,	while	substantially
reducing	your	fat	intake. But	you	still	retain	the	same	proportion	of	animal-
and	plant-based	food	intakes. In	practical	terms	this	means	that	beef,	pork,	lamb	and	veal	consumption	isdecreasing	while	lower-fat	chicken,	turkey	and	fish	consumption	is
increasing. In	fact,	by	consuming	more	poultry	and	fish,	people	have	been
increasing	their	total	meat	intake	to	record-high	amounts,
11
	while	trying	(and
largely	failing
12
)	to	reduce	their	fat	intake. In	addition,	whole	milk	is	being
consumed	less,	but	low-fat	and	skim	milk	are	being	consumed	more. Cheese
consumption	has	increased	by	150%	in	the	past	thirty	years. 13
Overall,	we	are	as	carnivorous	now	as	we	were	thirty	years	ago,	but	we	are
able	to	selectively	lower	our	fat	intake	if	we	so	desire,	due	to	the	wonders	of
food	technology. To	illustrate,	we	need	only	to	look	at	two	typical	American	meals. 14,	15
Meal	#1	is	served	in	a	health-conscious	home,	where	the	main	grocery
shopper	in	the	family	reads	the	nutrition	labels	on	every	food	item	he	or	she
buys. The	result:	a	low-fat	dining	experience. Meal	#2	is	served	in	a	home	where	the	standard	American	fare	is
everyone’s	favorite. When	they	cook	at	home,	they	make	the	meal	“rich.”	The
result:	a	high-fat	dining	experience. CHART	14.4:	LOW-FAT	AND	HIGH-FAT	AMERICAN	DINNERS
(ONE	PERSON’S	DINNER)
Low-Fat	Meal	#1
High-Fat	Meal	#2
Dinner
8	oz. roasted	turkey
4.5	oz. pan-seared	steak
Low-fat	gravy
Green	beans	almondine
Golden	roasted	potatoes
Herb-seasoned	potato	pockets
Beverage
1	cup	skim	milk
Water
Dessert
Nonfat	yogurt
Apple	crisp
Reduced-fat	cheesecake
Both	meals	provide	roughly	1,000	calories,	but	are	markedly	different	in
their	fat	content. The	low-fat	meal	(#1)	contains	about	twenty-five	grams	of
fat,	and	the	high-fat	meal	(#2)	contains	just	over	sixty	grams	of	fat. In	the
low-fat	meal,	22%	of	the	total	calories	come	from	fat,	and	in	the	high-fat
meal,	54%	of	the	calories	come	from	fat. The	health-conscious	home	has	managed	to	create	a	meal	that	is	much
lower	in	fat	than	the	average	American	dinner,	but	they’ve	done	it	without
adjusting	their	proportionate	intakes	of	animal-	and	plant-based	foods. Both
meals	are	centered	on	animal-based	foods. In	fact,	the	low-fat	meal	actually
has	more	animal-based	foods	than	the	high-fat	meal. In	effect,	this	is	how	the
nurses	in	the	Nurses’	Health	Study	achieved	such	a	wide	variation	in	fat
intake. Some	nurses	simply	are	more	diligent	about	choosing	low-fat	animalproducts. Many	people	would	consider	the	low-fat	meal	to	be	a	triumph	of	healthy
meal	planning,	but	what	about	the	other	nutrients	in	these	meals? What	about
protein	and	cholesterol? As	
it	turns	out,	the	low-fat	meal	contains	more	than
double	the	protein	of	the	high-fat	meal,	and	almost	all	of	it	comes	from
animal-based	foods. In	addition,	the	low-fat	meal	contains	almost	twice	as
much	cholesterol
	(
Chart	14.5
). 14,	15
CHART	14.5:	NUTRIENT	CONTENTS	OF	TWO	SAMPLE	MEALS
Low-Fat
Meal	#1
High-Fat
Meal	#2
Fat	(percent	of	total	calories)
22%
54%
Protein	(percent	of	total	calories)
36%
16%
Percentage	of	total	protein	derived	from
animal-based	foods
93%
86%
Cholesterol
307
165
An	overwhelming	amount	of	scientific	information	suggests	that	diets	high
in	animal-based	protein	can	have	unfavorable	health	consequences,	as	can
diets	high	in	cholesterol. In	the	low-fat	meal,	the	amount	of	both	of	these
unhealthy	nutrients	is	significantly	
higher.FAT	VERSUS	ANIMAL	FOOD
When	women	in	America,	such	as	those	in	the	Nurses’	Health	Study	and	the
billion-dollar
4
	Women’s	Health	Trial,
16–19
	reduce	their	fat	intake,	they	
do	not
do	it	by	reducing	their	consumption	of	animal-based	foods.
_OceanofPDF.com_The_China_Study__The_Most_Comprehensive_St_-_T_Colin_Campbell.txt
Summarize the following text section accurately and concisely. Maintain specific details and numerical information, and use anti-repetition mechanisms:

        The	bottom	line	is	that	you	can	eat	a	plant-based	diet	with	great	pleasure
and	satisfaction. But	making	the	transition	is	a	challenge. There	arepsychological	barriers	and	practical	ones. It	takes	time	and	effort. You	may
not	get	support	from	your	friends	and	family. But	the	benefits	are	nothing
short	of	miraculous. And	you’ll	be	amazed	at	how	easy	it	becomes	once	you
form	new	habits. Take	the	one-month	challenge. You’ll	not	only	do	great	things	for	yourself,
you’ll	be	part	of	the	vanguard	working	toward	moving	America	into	a
healthier,	leaner	future. Glenn	is	an	associate	of	mine	who,	until	recently,	was	a	dedicated
meat-eater. In	fact,	he	was	recently	on	the	Atkins	diet,	lost	some
weight,	but	dropped	off	it	when	his	cholesterol	went	through	the	roof. He’s	forty-two	and	overweight. I	gave	him	a	draft	of	the	manuscript	for
the	China	Study	and	he	agreed	to	take	the	one-month	challenge. Here
are	a	few	of	his	observations:GLENN’S	TIPS
The	first	week	is	quite	challenging. It’s	hard	to	figure	out	what	to	eat. I’m	not
much	of	a	cook,	so	I	got	some	recipe	books	out	and	tried	creating	some	vegan
dishes. As	someone	who	would	swing	through	McDonald’s	or	heat	up	a
frozen	dinner,	I	found	it	annoying	to	have	to	cook	meals	each	evening. At
least	half	of	them	were	a	disaster	and	had	to	be	thrown	out. But	over	time	I
found	a	few	that	were	fantastic. My	sister	gave	me	a	recipe	for	West	African
peanut	stew	that	was	incredible	and	like	nothing	I	ever	tasted. My	mom	gave
me	a	vegetarian	chili	recipe	that	was	great. And	I	stumbled	on	a	great	whole
wheat	spaghetti	dish	with	lots	of	vegetables	and	a	faux	meat	sauce	(made
from	soy)	that	was	amazing. I	challenge	anyone	to	know	that	this	was	a	vegan
dish. But	all	of	this	does	take	time. I’m	rediscovering	fruit. I’ve	always	loved	fruit,	but	for	some	reason	I
don’t	really	eat	much	of	it. Maybe	it’s	not	eating	meat,	but	I’m	finding	that
I’m	enjoying	fruit	more	than	ever. I	now	cut	up	a	grapefruit	and	eat	it	as	a
snack. I	really	like	it. I	would	have	never	done	that	before;	I	actually	think	my
tastes	are	getting	more	sensitive. I	was	avoiding	eating	out—something	I	used	to	do	constantly—for	fear	of
not	having	a	vegan	option. But	I’m	getting	more	adventurous	now. I’ve	found
some	new	restaurants	that	have	some	great	vegan	side	dishes,	including	a
wonderful	local	Vietnamese	place	(I	know	that	most	Vietnamese	food	isn’t
strictly	vegan,	since	they	use	a	fish	sauce	in	many	dishes,	but	for	nutritional
purposes	it’s	very	close). The	other	day	I	got	dragged	into	a	pizza	place	with	a
large	group;	there	was	nothing	I	could	do,	and	I	was	starved. I	ordered	a
cheese-less	pizza	with	lots	of	vegetables. They	even	made	it	with	a	whole
wheat	crust. I	was	prepared	to	choke	it	down	but	actually	it	was	surprisingly
good. I’ve	brought	that	home	a	few	times	since. I’m	finding	that	cravings	for	meat	products	are	pretty	much	gone,
particularly	if	I	don’t	let	myself	get	hungry. And,	honestly,	I’m	eating	
like	a
pig. Being	overweight,	I’ve	always	been	self-conscious	about	what	I	eat. Now
I	eat	like	a	madman,	and	feel	virtuous	to	boot. I	can	honestly	say	I’m	enjoying
the	food	I’m	eating	now	a	lot	more	than	before,	partly	because	I’m	fussier
now	in	what	I	eat. I	only	eat	foods	I	really	like. The	first	month	went	by	quicker	than	I	thought	it	would. I’ve	lost	eight
pounds	and	my	cholesterol	has	dropped	dramatically. I’m	spending	a	lot	less
time	on	this	now,	particularly	since	I’ve	found	so	many	restaurants	I	can	eat
at,	plus	I	cook	huge	meals	and	then	freeze	them. My	freezer	is	stocked	with
vegan	goodies. The	experiment	is	over	but	I	stopped	thinking	of	it	as	an	experiment	weeksago. I	can’t	imagine	why	I	would	go	back	to	my	old	eating	patterns. Part	IV
WHY	HAVEN’T	YOU	HEARD	THIS
BEFORE. O
FTEN	WHEN	PEOPLE	HEAR
	of	scientific	information	that	justifies	a	radical	shift
in	diet	to	plant	foods,	they	can’t	believe	their	ears. “If	all	that	you	say	is	true,”
they	wonder,	“why	haven’t	I	heard	it	before. In	fact,	why	do	I	usually	hear
the	opposite	of	what	you	say:	that	milk	is	good	for	us,	that	we	need	meat	to
get	protein	and	that	cancer	and	heart	disease	are	all	in	the	genes. ”	These	are
legitimate	questions,	and	the	answers	are	a	crucial	part	of	this	story. In	order
to	get	to	these	answers,	however,	I	believe	that	it	is	essential	for	us	to	know
how	information	is	created	and	how	it	reaches	the	public	consciousness. As	you	will	come	to	see,	much	is	governed	by	the	Golden	Rule:	he	who
has	the	gold	makes	the	rules. There	are	powerful,	influential	and	enormously
wealthy	industries	that	stand	to	lose	a	vast	amount	of	money	if	Americans
start	shifting	to	a	plant-based	diet. Their	financial	health	depends	on
controlling	what	the	public	knows	about	nutrition	and	health. Like	any	good
business	enterprise,	these	industries	do	everything	in	their	power	to	protect
their	profits	and	their	shareholders. You	might	be	inclined	to	think	that	industry	pays	scientists	under	the	table
to	“cook	the	data,”	bribes	government	officials	or	conducts	illegal	activities. Many	people	love	a	sensational	story. But	the	powerful	interests	that	maintain
the	status	quo	do	not	usually	conduct	illegal	
business. As	far	as	I	know,	they
do	not	pay	scientists	to	“cook	the	data. ”	They	do	not	bribe	elected	officials	or
make	sordid	underhanded	deals. The	situation	is	much	worse. The	entire	system—government,	science,	medicine,	industry	and	media—
promotes	profits	over	health,	technology	over	food	and	confusion	over	clarity. Most,	but	not	all,	of	the	confusion	about	nutrition	is	created	in	legal,	fully
disclosed	ways	and	is	disseminated	by	unsuspecting,	well-intentioned	people,
whether	they	are	researchers,	politicians	or	journalists. The	most	damagingaspect	of	the	system	is	not	sensational,	nor	is	it	likely	to	create	much	of	a	stir
upon	its	discovery. It	is	a	silent	enemy	that	few	people	see	and	understand. My	experiences	within	the	scientific	community	illustrate	how	the	entire
system	generates	confusing	information	and	why	you	haven’t	heard	the
message	of	this	book	before. In	the	following	chapters,	I	have	divided	the
“system”	of	problems	into	the	entities	of	science,	government,	industry	and
medicine,	but,	as	you	will	come	to	see,	there	are	instances	where	it	is	nearly
impossible	to	distinguish	science	from	industry,	government	from	science	or
government	from	industry. 13
Science—The	Dark	Side
W
HEN
	I	
WAS	LIVING	IN	A	MOUNTAIN	VALLEY
	outside	of	Blacksburg,	Virginia,	my
family	enjoyed	visiting	a	retired	farmer	down	the	road,	Mr. Kinsey	who
always	had	a	funny	story	to	tell. We	used	to	look	forward	to	evenings
listening	to	his	stories	on	his	front	porch. One	of	my	favorites	was	the	great
potato	bug	scam. He	told	us	of	his	farm	days	before	pesticides,	and	recounted	that	when	a
potato	crop	became	infested	with	potato	bugs,	the	bugs	had	to	be	removed
and	killed,	one	by	one,	by	hand. One	day,	Mr. Kinsey	noticed	an
advertisement	in	a	farm	magazine	for	a	great	potato	bug	killer,	on	sale	for	five
dollars. Although	five	dollars	was	no	small	sum	of	money	in	those	days,	Mr. Kinsey	figured	the	bugs	were	enough	of	a	hassle	to	warrant	the	investment. A
short	while	later,	when	he	received	the	great	potato	bug	killer,	he	opened	the
package	and	found	two	blocks	of	wood	and	a	short	list	of	three	instructions:
Pick	up	one	block	of	wood. Place	the	potato	bug	on	the	flat	face	of	the	wood. Pick	up	the	second	block	of	wood	and	press	firmly	onto	the	potato	bug. Scams,	tricks	and	outright	deception	for	personal	gain	are	as	old	as	history
itself,	and	perhaps	no	discipline	in	our	society	has	suffered	more	from	this
affliction	than	the	discipline	of	health. Very	few	experiences	are	as	personal
and	as	powerful	as	those	of	people	who	have	lost	their	health	prematurely. Understandably,	they	are	willing	to	believe	and	try	just	about	anything	that
might	help. They	are	a	highly	vulnerable	group	of	consumers. In	the	mid-1970s,	along	came	a	prime	example	of	a	health	scam,	at	least
according	to	the	medical	establishment. It	concerned	an	alternative	cancertreatment	called	Laetrile,	a	natural	compound	made	largely	from	apricot	pits. If	you	had	cancer	and	had	been	unsuccessfully	treated	by	your	regular	doctors
here	in	the	United	States,	you	may	have	considered	heading	to	Tijuana,
Mexico. Washington	Post	Magazine
	documented	the	story	of	Sylvia	Dutton,	a
fifty-three-year-old	woman	from	Florida,	who	had	done	just	that	as	a	last
attempt	to	thwart	a	cancer	that	had	already	spread	from	her	ovaries	to	her
lymph	system. 1
	Friends	and	fellow	churchgoers	had	told	her	and	her	husband
about	the	Laetrile	treatment	and	its	ability	to	cure	advanced	cancer. In	the
magazine	article,
1
	Sylvia’s	husband	said,	“There	are	at	least	a	dozen	people	in
this	area	who	were	told	they	were	going	to	be	dead	from	cancer	who	used
Laetrile	and	now	they’re	out	playing	tennis. ”
The	catch,	however,	was	that	Laetrile	was	a	highly	contentious	treatment. Some	people	in	the	medical	establishment	argued	that	animal	studies	had
repeatedly	shown	Laetrile	to	have	no	effect	on	tumors. 1
	Because	of	this,	the
U. S. Food	and	Drug	Administration	had	decided	to	suppress	the	use	of
Laetrile,	which	gave	rise	to	the	popular	clinics	south	of	the	border. One
famous	hospital	in	Tijuana	treated	“as	many	as	20,000	American	patients	a
year. ”
1
	One	of	those	patients	was	Sylvia	Dutton,	for	whom	Laetrile
unfortunately	did	not	work. But	Laetrile	was	only	one	of	many	alternative	health	products. By	the	end
of	the	1970s,	Americans	were	spending	$1	billion	a	year	on	various
supplements	and	potions	that	promised	magical	benefits. 2
	These	included
pangamic	acid,	which	was	touted	as	a	previously	undiscovered	vitamin	with
virtually	unlimited	powers,	various	bee	concoctions	and	other	supplement
products	including	garlic	and	zinc. 2
At	the	same	time	in	the	scientific	community,	more	and	more	health
information,	specifically	nutrition	information,	was	being	generated	at	a
furious	pace. In	1976,	Senator	George	McGovern	had	convened	a	committee
that	drafted	dietary	goals	recommending	decreased	consumption	of	fatty
animal	foods	and	increased	consumption	of	fruits	and	vegetables	because	of
their	effects	on	heart	disease. The	first	draft	of	this	report,	linking	heart
disease	and	food,	caused	such	an	uproar	that	a	major	revision	was	required
before	it	was	released	for	publication. In	a	personal	conversation	McGovern
told	me	that	he	and	five	other	powerful	senators	from	agricultural	states	lost
their	respective	elections	in	1980	in	part	because	they	had	dared	to	take	on	the
animal	foods	industry. At	the	end	of	the	1970s,	the	McGovern	report	succeeded	in	prodding	the
government	to	produce	its	first-ever	dietary	guidelines,	which	were	rumored
to	promote	a	message	similar	to	that	of	McGovern’s	committee. At	about	thesame	time,	there	were	widely	publicized	government	debates	about	whether
food	additives	were	safe,	and	whether	saccharin	caused	cancer. PLAYING	MY	PART
In	the	late	1970s	I	found	myself	in	the	middle	of	this	rapidly	changing
environment. By	1975	my	program	in	the	Philippines	had	ended,	and	I	was
well	into	my	experimental	laboratory	work	here	in	the	United	States,	after
having	accepted	a	full	professorship	with	tenure	at	Cornell	University. Some
of	my	early	work	on	aflatoxin	and	liver	cancer	in	the	Philippines	(chapter
two)	had	garnered	widespread	interest,	and	my	subsequent	laboratory	work
investigating	nutritional	factors,	carcinogens	and	cancer	(chapter	three)	was
attracting	national	attention. At	that	time,	I	had	one	of	only	two	or	three
laboratories	in	the	country	doing	basic	research	on	nutrition	and	cancer. It	was
a	novel	endeavor. From	1978	to	1979	I	took	a	year-long	sabbatical	leave	from	Cornell	to	go
to	the	epicenter	of	national	nutritional	activity,	Bethesda,	Maryland. The
organization	that	I	was	working	with	was	the	Federation	of	American
Societies	for	Experimental	Biology	and	Medicine,	or	FASEB. Six	individual
research	societies	made	up	the	federation,	representing	pathology,
biochemistry,	pharmacology,	nutrition,	immunology	and	physiology	The
FASEB	sponsored	the	annual	joint	meetings	of	all	six	societies,	and	upwards
of	more	than	20,000	scientists	attended. I	was	a	member	of	two	of	these
societies,	nutrition	and	pharmacology,	and	was	particularly	active	in	the
American	Institution	of	Nutrition	(now	named	the	American	Society	for
Nutritional	Sciences). My	principle	work	was	to	chair,	under	contract	to	the
Food	and	Drug	Administration,	a	committee	of	scientists	investigating
potential	hazards	of	using	nutrient	supplements. While	there,	I	also	was	invited	to	be	on	a	public	affairs	committee	that
served	as	liaison	between	the	FASEB	and	Congress. The	committee’s	charge
was	to	stay	on	top	of	congressional	activity	and	represent	our	societies’
interests	in	dealings	with	lawmakers. We	reviewed	policies,	budgets	and
position	statements,	met	with	congressional	staffs,	and	held	meetings	around
big,	impressive	“boardroom”	tables	in	distinguished,	august	meeting	rooms. I
often	got	the	feeling	I	was	in	the	citadel	of	science. As	a	prerequisite	to	representing	my	nutrition	society	on	this	public	affairs
committee,	I	first	had	to	decide,	for	myself,	how	nutrition	is	best	defined. It’s
a	far	more	difficult	question	than	you	may	think. We	had	scientists	who	were
interested	in	applied	nutrition,	which	involves	people	and	communities. We
had	medical	doctors	interested	in	isolated	food	compounds	as
pharmacological	drugs	and	research	scientists	who	only	worked	with	isolated
cells	and	well-identified	chemicals	in	the	laboratory. We	even	had	people	who
thought	nutrition	studies	should	focus	on	livestock	as	well	as	people. Theconcept	of	nutrition	was	far	from	clear;	clarification	was	critical. The	average
American’s	view	of	nutrition	was	even	more	varied	and	confused. Consumers
were	constantly	being	duped	by	fads,	yet	remained	intensely	interested	in
nutrient	supplements	and	dietary	advice	coming	from	any	source,	whether
that	source	was	a	diet	book	or	a	government	official. One	day	in	late	spring	of	1979,	while	doing	my	more	routine	work,	I	got	a
call	from	the	director	of	the	public	affairs	office	at	the	FASEB	who
coordinated	the	work	of	our	congressional	“liaison”	committee. Ellis	informed	me	that	there	was	yet	another	new	committee	being	formed
within	one	of	the	FASEB	Societies,	the	American	Institute	of	Nutrition,	that
might	interest	me. “It’s	being	called	the	Public	Nutrition	Information	Committee,”	he	told
me,	“and	one	of	its	responsibilities	will	be	to	decide	what	is	sound	nutritional
advice	to	give	to	the	public. “Obviously,”	he	said,	“there’s	a	big	overlap	between	what	this	new
committee	wants	to	do	and	what	we	do	on	the	public	affairs	committee. ”
I	agreed. “If	you’re	interested,	I	would	like	to	have	you	join	this	new	committee	as	a
representative	of	the	public	affairs	office,”	he	said. The	proposal	sounded	good	to	me	because	it	was	early	in	my	career	and	it
meant	getting	a	chance	to	hear	the	scholarly	views	of	some	of	the	“big	name”
nutrition	researchers. It	also	was	a	committee,	according	to	its	organizers,	that
could	evolve	into	a	“supreme	court”	of	public	nutrition	information. It	might
serve,	for	example,	to	identify	nutrition	quackery. A	BIG	SURPRISE
At	the	time	that	this	new	Public	Nutrition	Information	Committee	was	being
formed,	a	maelstrom	was	developing	across	town	at	the	prestigious	National
Academy	of	Sciences	(NAS). A	public	dispute	was	taking	place	between	the
NAS	president,	Phil	Handler,	and	the	internal	NAS	Food	and	Nutrition	Board. Handler	wanted	to	bring	in	a	group	of	distinguished	scientists	from	outside	of
the	NAS	organization	to	deliberate	on	the	subject	of	diet,	nutrition	and	cancer
and	to	write	a	report. This	did	not	please	his	internal	Food	and	Nutrition
Board,	which	wanted	control	over	this	project. Handler’s	NAS	was	being
offered	funding,	from	Congress,	to	produce	a	report	on	a	subject	that	had	not
been	previously	considered	in	this	way. Within	the	scientific	community	it	was	widely	known	that	the	NAS	Food
and	Nutrition	Board	was	strongly	influenced	by	the	meat,	dairy	and	egg
industries. Two	of	its	leaders,	Bob	Olson	and	Alf	Harper,	had	strong
connections	to	these	industries. Olson	was	a	well-paid	consultant	to	the	egg
industry,	and	Harper	acknowledged	that	10%	of	his	income	came	from
offering	his	services	to	food	companies,	including	large	dairy	corporations. 3
Ultimately	Handler,	as	president	of	the	NAS,	went	around	his	Food	and
Nutrition	Board	and	arranged	for	a	panel	of	expert	scientists	from	outside	of
his	organization	to	write	the	1982	report	
Diet,	Nutrition,	and	Cancer. 4
	As	it
turned	out,	I	was	one	of	thirteen	scientists	chosen	to	be	on	the	panel	to	write
the	report. As	could	be	expected,	Alf	Harper,	Bob	Olson	and	their	Food	and	Nutrition
Board	colleagues	were	not	happy	about	losing	control	of	this	landmark	report. They	knew	that	the	report	could	greatly	influence	national	opinion	about	diet
and	disease. Mostly,	they	feared	that	the	great	American	diet	was	going	to	be
challenged,	perhaps	even	called	a	possible	cause	of	cancer. James	S. Turner,	chairman	of	a	related	Consumer	Liaison	Panel	within	the
NAS,	was	critical	of	the	Food	and	Nutrition	Board	and	wrote,	“We	can	only
conclude	that	the	[Food	and	Nutrition]	Board	is	dominated	by	a	group	of
change-resistant	scientists	who	share	a	rather	isolated	view	about	diet	and
disease. ”
3
After	being	denied	control	of	this	promising	new	report	on	diet,	nutrition
and	cancer,	the	pro-industry	Board	needed	to	do	some	damage	control. An
alternate	group	was	quickly	established	elsewhere:	the	
new	Public	Nutrition
Information	Committee. Who	were	the	leaders	of	the	new	Public	Nutrition
Information	Committee. Bob	Olson,	Alfred	Harper	and	Tom	Jukes,	a	long-
time	industry	scientist,	each	of	whom	held	a	university	faculty	position. I	wasinitially	innocent	of	the	group’s	purpose,	but	by	our	first	meeting	in	the	spring
of	1980,	I	had	discovered	that,	of	the	eighteen	members	on	that	committee,	I
was	the	only	individual	who	did	not	have	ties	to	the	commercial	world	of
food	and	drug	companies	and	their	coalitions. This	committee	was	a	stacked	deck;	its	members	were	entrenched	in	the
status	quo. Their	professional	associations,	their	friends,	the	people	they
fraternized	with,	were	all	pro-industry. They	enjoyed	the	meaty	American	diet
themselves	and	were	unwilling	to	consider	the	possibility	that	their	views
were	wrong. In	addition,	some	of	them	enjoyed	handsome	benefits,	including
first-class	travel	expenses	and	nice	consulting	fees,	paid	by	animal	foods
companies. Although	there	was	nothing	illegal	about	any	of	these	activities,	it
certainly	laid	bare	a	serious	conflict	of	interest	that	put	most	of	the	committee
members	at	odds	with	the	public	interest. This	is	analogous	to	the	situation,	as	it	unfolded,	surrounding	cigarettes
and	health. When	scientific	evidence	first	emerged	to	show	that	cigarettes
were	dangerous,	there	were	hordes	of	health	professionals	who	vigorously
defended	smoking. For	example,	the	
Journal	of	the	American	Medical
Association
	continued	to	advertise	tobacco	products,	and	many	others	played
their	part	to	staunchly	defend	tobacco	use. In	many	cases,	these	scientists
were	motivated	by	understandable	caution. But	there	were	quite	a	few	others,
particularly	as	the	evidence	against	tobacco	mounted,	whose	motivations
were	clearly	personal	bias	and	greed. So	there	I	was,	on	a	committee	that	was	to	judge	the	merit	of	nutrition
information,	a	committee	that	was	comprised	of	some	of	the	most	powerful
pro-industry	scientists. I	was	the	only	one	not	hand-picked	by	the	industry
cronies,	as	I	was	there	at	the	behest	of	the	director	of	the	FASEB	public
affairs	office. At	that	point	in	my	career,	I	had	not	formed	any	particularly
strong	views	for	or	against	the	standard	American	diet. More	than	anything,	I
was	interested	in	promoting	honest,	open	debate—something	that	would
immediately	put	me	at	odds	with	this	new	organization. THE	FIRST	MEETING
From	the	first	moment	of	the	first	meeting	in	April	1980,	I	knew	I	was	the
chicken	who	had	wandered	into	a	fox’s	den,	although	I	went	in	with	high
hopes	and	an	open,	though	naive,	mind. After	all,	lots	of	scientists,	myself
included,	have	consulted	with	companies	while	working	to	maintain	an
objective	mind	in	the	best	interest	of	the	public	health. In	the	second	session	of	our	first	committee	meeting	the	chairman,	Tom
Jukes,	passed	around	a	proposed	news	release,	handwritten	by	himself,
regarding	the	mission	of	the	committee. In	addition	to	announcing	our
formation,	the	news	release	listed	examples	of	the	kind	of	nutrition	frauds	that
our	committee	intended	to	expose. As	I	scanned	the	list	of	so-called	frauds,	I	was	stunned	to	see	the	1977
McGovern	dietary	goals
5
	on	the	list. First	drafted	in	1976,	these	relatively
modest	goals	suggested	that	less	meat	and	fat	consumption	and	more	fruit	and
vegetable	consumption	might	prevent	heart	disease. In	this	proposed	news
release,	they	were	described	as	nothing	more	than	simple	quackery,	just	like
the	widely	condemned	Laetrile	and	pangamic	acid	preparations. In	essence,
the	recommendation	to	shift	our	eating	habits	to	more	fruits	and	vegetables
and	whole	grains	was	a	fraud. This	was	the	committee’s	attempt	to
demonstrate	their	ability	to	be	the	supreme	arbiter	of	reliable	scientific
information. Having	looked	forward	to	my	membership	on	this	new	committee,	I	was
shocked	to	see	what	was	emerging. Although	I	had	no	particular	predilection
toward	any	one	type	of	diet	at	the	time,	I	knew	that	the	landmark	diet,
nutrition	and	cancer	panel	that	I	was	on	at	the	National	Academy	of	Sciences
would	likely	recommend	something	similar	to	McGovern’s	goals,	this	time
citing	cancer	research	instead	of	heart	disease	research. The	scientific	results
with	which	I	was	familiar	very	clearly	seemed	to	justify	the	moderate
recommendations	made	by	McGovern’s	dietary	goals	committee. Sitting	next	to	me	at	our	first	meeting	was	Alf	Harper,	whom	I	had	held	in
high	esteem	since	our	days	at	MIT	where	he	was	the	General	Foods	Professor
of	Nutritional	Sciences. Early	in	the	meeting,	when	this	handwritten	proposed
news	release	was	passed	out	to	the	committee	members,	I	leaned	over	to
Harper	and	pointed	to	the	place	where	it	listed	McGovern’s	dietary	goals
amongst	other	common	scams	and	whispered	incredulously,	“Do	you	see
this. ”
Harper	could	sense	my	unease,	even	disbelief,	and	so	quickly	spoke	
up. In
a	patronizing	tone,	he	said	to	the	group,	“There	are	honorable	people	in	our
society	who	may	not	necessarily	agree	with	this	list. Perhaps	we	should	put	iton	hold. ”	A	reluctant	discussion	ensued,	and	they	decided	to	forgo	the
proposed	press	release. With	the	conclusion	of	the	news	release	issue,	the	meeting	came	to	an	end. As	far	as	I	was	concerned,	it	was	a	dubious	beginning,	at	best. A	couple	of	weeks	later,	back	in	upstate	New	York,	I	turned	on	a	morning
TV	news	show	and	Tom	Brokaw	appeared	on	the	screen	and	started	talking
about	nutrition	with	Bob	Olson,	of	all	people. They	were	discussing	a	recent
report	that	Olson	and	friends	had	produced	at	the	National	Academy	of
Sciences	called	“Toward	Healthful	Diets. ”	This	report,	which	was	one	of	the
briefest,	most	superficial	reports	on	health	ever	produced	by	the	NAS,
extolled	the	virtues	of	the	high-fat,	high-meat	American	diet	and	basically
confirmed	that	all	was	well	with	how	America	was	eating. From	a	scientific	point	of	view,	the	message	was	a	doozy. I	remember	one
exchange	where	Tom	Brokaw	asked	about	fast	food,	and	Olson	confidently
stated	that	McDonald’s	hamburgers	were	fine. With	millions	of	viewers
watching	this	“expert”	praise	the	health	value	of	McDonald’s	hamburgers,	it’s
no	wonder	that	consumers	around	the	country	were	confused. Only	a	handful
of	insiders	could	possibly	know	that	his	views	did	not	even	come	close	to
reflecting	the	best	understanding	of	the	science	at	the	time. THE	SECOND	MEETING
We	were	back	for	round	two	in	Atlantic	City	at	our	annual	meeting	in	late
spring	of	1981. From	our	correspondence	over	the	past	year,	the	committee
already	had	an	informal	agenda	in	place. First,	we	were	to	establish	the
proposition	that	nutrition	scams	were	eroding	the	public’s	trust	in	the	nutrition
research	community. Second,	we	needed	to	publicize	the	idea	that	advocating
more	vegetable	and	fruit	consumption	and	less	meat	and	high-fat	foods	was,
itself,	a	scam. Third,	we	intended	to	position	our	committee	as	a	permanent,
standing	organization. Up	to	this	point,	our	group	had	only	served	in	a
temporary	capacity,	as	an	exploratory	committee. Now	it	was	time	to	get	on
with	our	job	of	becoming	the	permanent,	principle	source	of	reliable	nutrition
information	in	the	U.
According to the passage, the main challenges are both psychological and practical. The author mentions that it's hard to figure out what to eat, and it's annoying to have to cook meals every evening. However, it's also mentioned that with time, one can find a few new habits and enjoy the food more.
What is the main challenge in transitioning to a plant-based diet?
The purpose of the committee was to establish a permanent organization to promote the NAS report's message, which encouraged a diet that is high in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, and low in animal-based foods.
What was the purpose of the Public Nutrition Information Committee?
The American Cancer Society did not take kindly to the report's findings and tried to discredit it. They claimed that the report was wrong and that the diet recommended by the report was not healthy.
What was the reaction of the American Cancer Society to the AICR's report?
The purpose of the study was to investigate the relationship between diet and cancer, particularly breast cancer. The study was designed to follow a large group of nurses and record their diets before disease events occurred.
What was the purpose of the Nurses' Health Study?
The author is critical of the study's design, stating that it is flawed and misleading. He argues that the study does not take into account the overall diet and instead focuses on individual nutrients, which can lead to misinformation and confusion.
What is the author's criticism of the Nurses' Health Study?