Instead,	they	use
low-fat	and	nonfat	animal	products,	along	with	less	fat	during	cooking	and	at
the	table. Thus,	they	are	
not
	adopting	the	diets	that	were	shown,	in	the
international	correlation	studies	and	in	our	rural	China	study,	to	be	associated
with	low	breast	cancer	rates. This	is	a	very	important	discrepancy,	and	is	illustrated	by	the	correlation
between	the	consumption	of	dietary	animal	protein	and	dietary	fat	for	a	group
of	countries	(
Chart	14.6
). 8,	9,	18,	20–22
	The	most	reliable	comparison	was
published	in	1975
20
;	it	showed	a	highly	convincing	correlation	of	more	than
90%. This	means	that	as	fat	intake	goes	up	in	various	countries,	animal
protein	intake	increases	in	an	almost	perfectly	parallel	manner. Likewise,	in
the	China	Study,	the	intakes	of	fat	and	animal	protein	also	show	a	similar
correlation	of	84%. 8,	21
In	the	Nurses’	Health	Study,	this	is	not	the	case. The	correlation	between
animal	protein	and	total	fat	intakes	is	only	about	16%. 9
	In	the	Women’s
Health	Trial,	also	including	American	women,	it	is	even	worse,	at	−17%
18,	21,
22
;	as	fat	goes	down,	animal	protein	goes	up. This	practice	is	typical	of
American	women	who	have	been	led	to	believe	that,	by	decreasing	their	fat
intake,	they	are	changing	to	a	healthier	diet. A	nurse	consuming	a	“low-fat”
diet	in	the	Harvard	study,	like	American	women	everywhere,	is	likely	to
continue	eating	large	amounts	of	animal	protein,	as	shown	in	meal	#1	(
Chart
14.4
). Sadly,	this	evidence	on	the	effects	of	animal-based	food	on	cancer	and
other	diseases	of	affluence	has	been	ignored,	even	maligned,	as	we	continue
to	focus	on	fat	and	other	nutrients	in	isolation. Because	of	this,	the	Nurses’
Health	Study	and	virtually	every	other	human	epidemiological	study
published	to	date	have	been	seriously	shortchanged	in	their	investigations	of
diet	and	disease	associations. Virtually	all	the	subjects	under	study	consume
the	very	diet	that	causes	diseases	of	affluence. If	one	kind	of	animal-based
food	is	substituted	for	another,	then	the	adverse	health	effects	of	both	foods,
when	compared	to	plant-based	food,	are	easily	missed. To	make	matters
worse,	these	studies	often	focus	on	the	consumption	of	just	one	nutrient,	such
as	fat. Because	of	these	very	serious	flaws,	these	studies	have	been	a	virtual
disaster	for	discovering	the	really	significant	effects	of	diet	on	these	diseases.CHART	14.6:	PERCENT	CORRELATIONS	OF	TOTAL	FAT	AND
ANIMAL	PROTEIN	CONSUMPTION
THE	$100(+)	MILLION	RESULTS
So	now	that	you	know	how	I	interpret	the	Nurses’	Health	Study	and	its	flaws,
we	should	take	a	look	at	its	conclusions. After	more	than	$100	million	and
decades	of	work,	there	is	no	shortage	of	results. So	what	are	they? The	logical
place	to	start	is,	of	course,	the	question	of	whether	fat	intake	really	is	linked	to
breast	cancer. Here	are	some	of	the	findings,	cited	verbatim:
“these	data	provide	evidence	against	both	an	adverse	influence	of	fat
intake	and	a	protective	effect	of	fiber	consumption	by	middle-aged
women	on	breast	cancer	incidence	over	eight	years”
23
Translation:	The
	Nurses’	
Health	Study	did	not	detect	a	relationship
between	dietary	fat	and	fiber	and	breast	cancer	risk. “we	found	no	evidence	that	lower	intake	of	total	fat	or	specific	major
types	of	fat	was	associated	with	decreased	risk	of	breast	cancer”
10
Translation:	The	Nurses’	Health	Study	did	not	detect	a	relationship
between	reducing	fat,	whether	it	be	total	fat	or	certain	kinds	of	fat,	and
breast	cancer	risk. “existing	data,	however,	provide	little	support	for	the	hypothesis	that
reduction	in	dietary	fat	composition,	even	to	20%	of	energy	during
adulthood,	will	lead	to	a	substantial	reduction	in	breast	cancer	in	Western
cultures”
24
Translation:	The	Nurses’	Health	Study	did	not	detect	a	breast	cancer
association	with	fat	even	when	women	reduced	their	fat	consumption	all
the	way	down	to	20%	of	calories. “relative	risks	for	…	monounsaturated	and	polyunsaturated	fat	…	were
close	to	unity”
25
Translation:	The
	Nurses’	
Health	Study	did	not	detect	a	relationship
between	these	“good”	fats	and	breast	cancer	risk. “we	found	no	significant	associations	between	intake	of	meat	and	dairy
products	and	risk	of	breast	cancer”
26
Translation:	The	Nurses’	Heath	Study	did	not	detect	a	relationship
between	meat	and	dairy	consumption	and	breast	cancer	risk.“our	findings	do	not	support	a	link	between	physical	activity,	in	late
adolescence	or	in	the	recent	past,	and	breast	cancer	risk	among	young
adult	women”
27
Translation:	The	Nurses’	Health	Study	did	not	detect	a	relationship
between	exercise	and	breast	cancer	risk. “these	data	are	suggestive	of	only	a	weak	positive	association	with
substitution	of	saturated	fat	for	carbohydrate	consumption;	none	of	the
other	types	of	fat	examined	was	significantly	associated	with	breast
cancer	risk	relative	to	an	equivalent	reduction	in	carbohydrate
consumption”
28
Translation:	The	Nurses’	Health	Study	detected	little	or	no	effect	on
breast	cancer	when	women	substituted	fat	for	carbohydrates. “selenium	intake	later	in	life	is	not	likely	to	be	an	important	factor	in	the
etiology	of	breast	cancer”
29
Translation:	The	Nurses’	Health	Study	did	not	detect	a	protective	effect
of	selenium	on	breast	cancer	risk. “these	results	suggest	that	fruit	and	vegetable	consumption	during
adulthood	is	not	significantly	associated	with	reduced	breast	cancer
risk”
30
Translation:	The	Nurses’	Health	Study	did	not	detect	a	relationship
between	fruits	and	vegetables	and	breast	cancer	risk. So	there	it	is,	readers. Breast	cancer	risk	does	not	rise	with	increased
intakes	of	fat,	meat,	dairy	or	saturated	fat. Breast	cancer	is	not	prevented	
by
increased	intakes	of	fruits	and	vegetables,	or	reduced	by	exercise	(either
during	the	teenage	years	or	during	adulthood),	dietary	fiber,	monounsaturated
fats	or	polyunsaturated	fats. Also,	the	mineral	selenium,	long	considered	to	be
protective	of	certain	cancers,	has	no	effect	on	breast	cancer. In	other	words,
we	might	as	well	conclude	that	diet	is	completely	unrelated	to	breast	cancer. I	can	understand	the	frustration	of	Professor	Meir	Stampfer,	one	of	the
leading	researchers	in	this	group,	when	he	was	quoted	as	saying,	“This	has
been	our	greatest	failure	and	disappointment—that	we	have	not	learned	more
about	what	people	can	do	to	lower	their	risk.”
6
	He	was	making	his	comment
in	response	to	an	opinion	that	“the	single	biggest	challenge	for	the	future	[is]
sorting	out	the	mess	of	contradictory	findings	and	lack	of	information	onbreast	cancer.”
6
	I	applaud	Professor	Stampfer	for	his	candor,	but	it’s
unfortunate	that	so	much	money	has	been	spent	to	learn	so	little. Perhaps	the
most	rewarding	finding,	ironically,	was	the	demonstration	that	tinkering	with
one	nutrient	at	a	time,	while	maintaining	the	same	overall	dietary	patterns,
does	not	lead	to	better	health	or	to	better	health	information. Yet	Harvard	researchers	have	been	steadily	cranking	out	their	findings,
despite	these	challenges. From	their	slew	of	studies,	here	are	some	findings
that	I	would	consider	as	very	troubling	contradictions	when	comparing
disease	risks	for	men	versus	women:
Men	who	consume	alcohol	three	or	four	times	a	week	have	a	lower	heart
attack	risk. 31
Men	with	Type	2	diabetes	who	consume	a	moderate	amount	of	alcohol
have	a	lower	risk	of	coronary	heart	disease. 32
And	yet…
Alcohol	consumption	increases	breast	cancer	incidence	by	41%	for
women	consuming	30–60	g/day	of	alcohol	compared	to	non-drinking
women. 33
Apparently	alcohol	is	good	for	heart	disease	and	bad	for	breast	cancer. The
husband	can	have	a	drink	with	dinner	but	should	never	share	it	with	his	wife. Is	this	a	difference	between	men	and	women,	or	is	this	a	difference	in
response	between	heart	disease	and	cancer? Do	you	feel	more	informed	or
more	confused? Then	there	are	those	wonderful	omega-3	fatty	acids. Some	types	of	fish
contain	relatively	large	amounts	of	these	fats	and	have	been	getting	
their	share
of	positive	press	these	days. If	you’ve	heard	anything	about	omega-3	fatty
acids,	it’s	that	you	need	more	of	them	to	be	healthy. Again,	more	Harvard
findings:
“…	contrary	to	the	predominant	hypothesis,	we	found	an	increased	risk
of	breast	cancer	associated	with	omega-3	fat	from	fish”	(This	increased
risk	was	statistically	significant	and	was	associated	with	an	increase	of
only	0.1%	of	the	total	dietary	energy.) 10
“our	findings	suggest	that	eating	fish	once	per	month	or	more	can	reduce
the	risk	of	ischemic	stroke	in	men”
34
“data	suggest	that	consumption	of	fish	at	least	once	per	week	may	reduce
the	risk	of	sudden	cardiac	death	in	men	[but	not	reduce	the]	risk	of	total
myocardial	infarction,	non-sudden	cardiac	death	or	total	cardiovascularmortality”
33
	(In	other	words,	fish	may	prevent	some	aspects	of	heart
disease	but	ultimately	has	no	effect	on	mortality	from	heart	disease,	or
even	heart	attack	risk.) Is	this	yet	another	question	of	deciding	which	disease	you	fear	the	least? Or	is	this	another	man	versus	woman	difference? Here’s	an	even	older	story:	We	have	been	warned	for	a	long	time	to	cut
down	on	our	cholesterol	intake,	and	it	was	largely	for	this	reason	that
consumption	of	eggs	was	brought	into	question. One	egg	has	a	whopping	200
mg	or	more	of	cholesterol,
36
	which	takes	up	a	large	proportion	of	our	300	mg
recommended	daily	limit. So,	what	do	the	Harvard	studies	tell	us	on	this
timeworn	issue? …	consumption	of	up	to	one	egg	per	day	is	unlikely	to	have
substantial	overall	impact	on	the	risk	of	CHD	or	stroke	among
healthy	men	and	women
37
But,	for	breast	cancer,
Our	findings	[representing	eight	prospective	studies]	suggest	a
possible	modest	increase	in	[breast	cancer]	risk	with	egg
consumption…. breast	cancer	risk	was	found	to	increase	by	22%
with	every	100-g	per	day	increment	of	egg	consumption	[about	2
eggs]
26
	[There	was	a	67%	increase	in	risk	for	the	Nurses’	Health
Study.] 26
But	earlier,	the	Harvard	researchers	took	a	slightly	different
position:
…	among	healthy	men	and	women,	moderate	egg	consumption	can
be	part	of	a	nutritious	and	balanced	diet
38
Most	recently,	the	Nurses’	Health	Study	is	cited	as	having	come	up	with	an
even	more	powerful	endorsement	for	eggs. A	recent	news	item	stated:
Eating	eggs	during	adolescence	could	protect	women	against	breast
cancer…. 39
The	article	goes	on	to	quote	a	Harvard	researcher	as	saying:
Women	who	had,	during	adolescence,	a	higher	consumption	of	eggs…had	a	lower	risk	of	breast	cancer…. 39
Most	people	who	read	this	news	article	will	likely	say	that	eggs	are	back
in	favor—even	when	they	don’t	know	how	many	eggs	per	day	are	okay	or
whether	there	are	exceptions	to	this	generalization. Eggs	will	only	seem	to	be
more	healthful	when	the	henhouse	industry	adds	their	words	of	wisdom. But
wait	a	minute—evidence	says	egg	consumption	for	teenage	girls	is	okay,
maybe	even	good,	but	evidence	also	says	more	egg	consumption	overall
increases	breast	cancer	risk. By	the	way,	here’s	something	else	to	think	about. Multiple	studies	have	rather	consistently	shown	that	egg	consumption	can
increase	colon	cancer	risk,	more	so	for	women	than	for	men. 40
What	are	we	to	believe? One	minute	alcohol	intake	can	reduce	our	disease
risks,	the	next	minute	it	can	increase	them. One	minute	fish	consumption	can
help	to	reduce	our	disease	risks,	the	next	minute	it	can	hurt. One	minute	eggs
are	bad,	the	next	minute	they	can	be	healthy. It	seems	to	me	that	what	is
missing	here	is	the	larger	context. What	you	have	without	that	context	is	just	a
lot	of	confusion.UNRAVELING	DIET	AND	CANCER
In	addition	to	stating	that	diet	and	exercise	are	unrelated	to	breast	cancer,	the
Harvard	researchers	have	been	chipping	away	at	other	popular	notions
regarding	diet	and	cancer. For	example,	the	Harvard	studies	have	not	been
able	to	detect	any	association	between	colorectal	cancer	and	fiber	or	fruit	and
vegetable	intake. 4,	41,	42
Dietary	fiber,	of	course,	only	comes	from	plant-based	foods,	thus	these
findings	put	a	dent	in	the	idea	that	fiber	or	fruits,	vegetables	and	cereals
prevent	large	bowel	cancer. Keep	in	mind	that	the	Harvard	studies	are	dealing
with	uniformly	carnivorous	populations,	almost	none	of	which	are	using	a
whole	foods,	plant-based	diet	that	is	naturally	low	in	fat	and	high	in	fiber. It	is
likely	that	the	potential	protective	effect	of	
fiber	or	fruits	and	vegetables	does
not	kick	in	against	colorectal	cancer	until	there	is	a	complete	dietary	shift
away	from	an	animal-based	diet. Between	the	colon	cancer	and	breast	cancer	findings,	the	Nurses’	Health
Study	has	done	much	to	confuse,	if	not	discredit,	the	idea	that	diet	is	related	to
cancer. After	these	decades	of	work,	Professor	Walt	Willett	says:
…	increasing	fruits	and	vegetables	overall	appears	to	be	less	promising
as	a	way	to	substantially	reduce	cancer	risk.…	the	benefits	[of	these
foods]	appear	greater	for	cardiovascular	disease	than	for	cancer
4
This	statement	sounds	a	bit	ominous. Colon	cancer,	historically	one	of	the
first	cancers	said	to	be	prevented	by	a	plant-based	diet,
43–45
	now	is	being	said
to	be	unrelated	to	diet? And	low-fat	diets	don’t	prevent	breast	cancer? With
results	like	these,	it’s	only	a	matter	of	time	before	the	hypothesis	of	a	dietary
connection	to	cancer	starts	falling	apart. In	fact,	I	have	already	heard	people
within	the	scientific	community	beginning	to	say	that	diet	may	have	no	effect
on	cancer. These	are	the	reasons	that	I	believe	that	the	Nurses’	Health	Study	has	done
considerable	damage	to	the	nutrition	landscape. It	has	virtually	nullified	many
of	the	advances	that	have	been	made	over	the	past	fifty	years	without	actually
posing	a	scientifically	reliable	challenge	to	earlier	findings	regarding	diet	and
cancer. This	problem	of	studying	a	population	that	uniformly	consumes	a	high-
risk	diet	and	looking	at	the	differences	in	consumption	of	one	nutrient	at	a
time	is	not	unique	to	the	Nurses’	Health	Study. It	is	common	to	virtually	all
studies	using	Western	subjects. Furthermore,	there	is	little	or	no	value	to
pooling	the	results	of	many	large	studies	for	analysis	in	order	to	get	a	morereliable	result	if	all	the	studies	have	the	same	flaw. A	pooling	strategy	is	often
used	for	identifying	cause-and-effect	associations	that	are	more	subtle	and
uncertain	within	single	studies. This	is	a	reliable	assumption	when	each	study
is	properly	done,	but	obviously	it	is	not	when	all	the	studies	are	similarly
flawed. The	combined	results	only	give	a	more	reliable	picture	of	the	flaw. The	Harvard	researchers	have	done	several	of	these	multi-study	pooled
analyses. One	such	pooled	analysis	concerned	the	question	of	whether	meat
and	dairy	foods	had	any	effect	on	breast	cancer. 26
	A	previous	1993	pooling	of
nineteen	studies
46
	had	shown	a	modest,	statistically	significant	18%	increase
in	breast	cancer	risk	with	increased	meat	intake	
and	17%	increase	with
increased	milk	intake. 46
	The	Harvard	researchers	therefore	summarized	in
2002	a	more	recent	group	of	studies,	this	time	including	eight	large
prospective	studies	where	dietary	information	was	thought	to	be	more	reliable
and	where	a	much	larger	group	of	women	was	included. The	researchers
concluded:
We	found	no	significant	association	between	intake	of	meat	or	dairy
products	and	risk	of	breast	cancer. 26
Most	people	would	say	“Well,	that’s	it. There	is	no	convincing	evidence
that	meat	and	dairy	foods	are	associated	with	breast	cancer	risk.”	But	let’s
take	another	look	at	this	supposedly	more	sophisticated	analysis. All	eight	of	these	studies	represented	diets	that	had	a	high	proportion	of
animal-based	foods. In	effect,	each	study	in	this	pool	was	subject	to	the	same
flaw	from	which	the	Nurses’	Health	Study	suffered. It	makes	no	sense,	and
does	no	good,	to	combine	them. In	spite	of	there	being	351,041	women	and
7,379	breast	cancer	cases	in	this	mega-database,	these	results	cannot	detect
the	true	effect	of	diets	rich	in	meat	and	dairy	on	breast	cancer	risk. This	would
be	true	even	if	there	were	a	few	million	subjects	in	the	study. Like	the	Nurses’
Health	Study,	these	studies	all	involved	typical	Western	diets	highly	skewed
toward	the	consumption	of	animal-based	foods,	where	people	are	tinkering
with	the	intake	of	only	one	nutrient	or	one	food	at	a	time. Every	study	failed
to	take	into	account	a	broader	range	of	dietary	choices—including	those
which	demonstrated	positive	effects	on	breast	cancer	risk	in	the	past.IGNORING	MY	CRITIQUE
Once,	after	reading	a	publication	on	animal	protein	and	heart	disease	in	the
Nurses’	Health	Study,
9
	I	published	a	critique
47
	summarizing	some	of	the	same
points	that	I	am	making	in	this	chapter,	including	the	inability	of	the	Nurses’
Health	Study	to	advance	our	understanding	of	the	original	international
correlation	studies. They	responded,	and	our	exchange	is	as	follows. First,	my	comment:
Within	a	dietary	range	[so	rich	in	animal-based	foods],	it	makes	no
sense	to	me	that	it	is	possible	to	reliably	detect	the	so-called
independent	associations	of	the	individual	constituents	of	this	group
when	it	can	be	expected	that	they	share	the	same	disease	outcomes	
and
when	there	are	so	many	difficult-to-measure	and	interacting	risk	factor
exposures. When	will	it	be	understood	that	it	is	the	total	diet	and	the
aggregate	and	comprehensive	effects	of	large	food	groups	that	make
the	greatest	contribution	to	the	maintenance	of	health	and	prevention	of
disease? The	sort	of	reductionism	embodied	in	the	interpretation	of
data	from	this	[Nurses’	Health	Study]	cohort	runs	the	risk	of	severely
misleading	discourse	on	meaningful	public	health	and	public	policy
programs. 47
Then	the	response	from	Dr.	Hu	and	Professor	Willett:
Although	we	agree	that	overall	dietary	patterns	are	also	important	in
determining	disease	risk	(ref. cited),	we	believe	that	identification	of
associations	with	individual	nutrients	should	be	the	first	step	because	it
is	the	specific	compounds	or	groups	of	compounds	that	are
fundamentally	related	to	the	[disease	process]. Specific	components	of
diet	can	be	modified,	and	individuals	and	the	food	industry	are	actively
doing	so. Understanding	the	health	effects	of	specific	dietary	changes,
which	Campbell	refers	to	as	“reductionism,”	is	therefore	an	important
undertaking. 48
I	agree	that	studying	the	independent	effects	of	individual	food	substances
(their	identities,	functions,	mechanisms)	is	worthwhile,	but	Willett	and	I
sharply	disagree	with	how	to	interpret	and	use	these	findings. I	strongly	reject	the	implications	in	Willett’s	argument	that	“specific
components	of	the	diet	can	be	modified”	to	the	benefit	of	one’s	health. This	is
precisely	what	is	wrong	with	this	area	of	research. In	fact,	if	the	Nurses’Health	Study	shows	nothing	else,	it	demonstrates	that	modifying	the	intake	of
one	nutrient	at	a	time,	without	questioning	whole	dietary	patterns,	does	not
confer	significant	health	benefits. Women	who	tinker	with	fat,	while
maintaining	a	near-carnivorous	diet,	do	not	have	a	lower	breast	cancer	risk. This	gets	to	the	heart	of	reductionism	in	science. As	long	as	scientists
study	highly	isolated	chemicals	and	food	components,	and	take	the
information	out	of	context	to	make	sweeping	assumptions	about	complex	diet
and	disease	relationships,	confusion	will	result. Misleading	news	headlines
about	this	or	that	food	chemical	and	this	or	that	disease	will	be	the	norm. The
more	impressive	message	about	the	benefits	of	broad	dietary	change	will	be
muted	as	long	as	we	focus	on	relatively	trivial	details. On	occasions,	when	our	paths	have	crossed,	Professor	Willett	and	I	have
had	discussions	about	the	findings	on	fat	as	they	relate	to	the	China	Study	and
the	Nurses’	Health	Study. I	have	always	made	the	same	point:	whole	foods,
plant-based	diets,	naturally	low	in	fat,	are	not	included	in	the	Nurses’	Health
Study	cohort,	and	that	it	is	these	types	of	diets	that	are	the	most	beneficial	for
our	health. Professor	Willett	has	said	to	me,	in	response,	on	more	than	one
occasion,	“You	may	be	right,	Colin,	but	people	don’t	want	to	go	there.”	This
comment	has	disturbing	implications. Scientists	should	not	be	ignoring	ideas	just	because	we	perceive	that	the
public	does	not	want	to	hear	them. Too	often	during	my	career,	I	have	heard
comments	that	seem	to	be	more	of	an	attempt	to	please	the	public	than	to
engage	in	an	open,	honest	debate,	wherever	it	may	take	us. This	is	wrong. The
role	of	science	in	a	society	is	to	observe,	to	ask	questions,	to	form	and	test
hypotheses	and	to	interpret	the	findings	without	bias—not	to	kowtow	to
people’s	perceived	desires. Consumers	have	the	ultimate	choice	of	whether	to
integrate	our	findings	into	their	lifestyles,	but	we	owe	it	to	them	to	give	them
the	best	information	possible	with	which	to	make	that	decision	and	not	decide
for	them. It	is	they	who	paid	for	this	research	and	it	is	only	they	who	have	the
right	to	decide	what	to	do	with	it. The	perception	in	the	scientific	community	that	the	public	only	wants
magic	bullets	and	simple	dietary	tinkering	is	overrated. I	have	learned	in	my
public	lectures	that	there	is	more	interest	in	diet/lifestyle	change	than	the
academic	community	is	willing	to	admit. This	method	of	investigating	details	out	of	context,	what	I	call	reduction-
ism,	and	trying	to	judge	complex	relationships	from	the	results	is	deadly. It	is
even	more	damaging	than	the	misbehavior	of	the	small	minority	of	scientists	I
discussed	in	chapter	thirteen. Unfortunately,	this	flawed	way	of	investigating
nutrition	has	become	the	norm. As	a	consequence,	honest,	hardworking,	well-
intentioned	scientists	around	the	world	are	forced	to	make	judgments	aboutwhole	dietary	effects	on	the	basis	of	narrowly	focused	studies	on	individual
nutrients. The	greatest	danger	is	that	reductionism	science,	standing	naked
from	its	larger	environment,	has	come	to	be	the	gold	standard. Indeed,	I	know
many	researchers	who	would	even	say	that	this	is	what	defines	“good”
science. These	problems	are	especially	egregious	in	the	investigation	of	vitamin
supplements. As	I	noted	at	the	beginning	of	the	chapter,	I	spent	over	three
years	during	the	early	history	of	the	nutrient	supplement	
business	developing
testimony	for	the	Federal	Trade	Commission	and	the	National	Academy	of
Sciences	in	their	court	case	against	General	Nutrition,	Inc. I	argued	that
specific	health	benefits	for	chronic	diseases	could	not	be	claimed	for	isolated
vitamins	and	minerals	in	supplement	form. For	this,	I	took	a	lot	of	heat	from
my	colleagues	who	believed	otherwise. Now,	more	than	fifteen	years	later,
after	hundreds	of	millions	of	dollars	of	research	funding	and	billions	of
dollars	of	consumer	spending,	we	now	have	this	conclusion	from	a	recent
survey	of	the	evidence:
The	U.S.	Preventive	Services	Task	Force	(USPSTF)	concludes	that	the
evidence	is	insufficient	to	recommend	for	or	against	the	use	of
supplements	of	A,	C	or	E;	multivitamins	with	folic	acid;	or	antioxidant
combinations	for	the	prevention	of	cancer	or	cardiovascular	disease. 49,
50
How	many	more	billions	of	dollars	must	be	spent	before	we	understand
the	limitations	of	reductionist	research? Scientific	investigations	of	the	effects
of	single	nutrients	on	complex	diseases	have	little	or	no	meaning	when	the
main	dietary	effect	is	due	to	the	consumption	of	an	extraordinary	collection	of
nutrients	and	other	substances	found	in	whole	foods. This	is	especially	true
when	no	subjects	in	the	study	population	consume	a	whole	foods,	plant-based
diet	when	it	is	this	diet	that	is	most	consistent	with	the	biologically-based
evidence,	supported	by	the	most	impressive	array	of	professional	literature,
consonant	with	the	extremely	low	disease	rates	seen	in	the	international
studies,	far	more	harmonious	with	a	sustainable	environment,	possessed	of
the	power	to	heal	advanced	disease,	and	has	the	potential,	without	parallel,	for
supporting	a	new,	low-cost	health	care	system. I	categorically	reject	the	idea
of	doing	reductionism	research	in	this	held	without	seeking	or	understanding
the	larger	context. The	endless	stream	of	confusion	generated	by
misinterpreted	reductionism	undermines	not	only	the	entire	science	of
nutrition,	but	also	the	health	of	America.15
The	“Science”	of	Industry
W
HAT	DOES	EVERY
	A
MERICAN	SPEND
	money	on	several	times	a	day? Eating. After	a	lifetime	of	eating,	what	do	we	all	do? Die—a	process	that	usually
involves	large	costs	as	we	try	to	postpone	it	for	as	long	as	possible. We’re	all
customers	of	hunger	and	death,	so	there’s	a	lot	of	money	to	be	spent	and
made. Because	of	this,	the	food	and	health	industries	in	America	are	among	the
most	influential	organizations	in	the	world. The	revenue	generated	by	the
companies	that	produce	food	and	health	products	is	staggering. Many
individual	food	companies	have	over	$10	billion	in	annual	revenues. Kraft
has	revenues	of	roughly	$30	billion	a	year. The	Danone	Group,	an
international	dairy	company	based	in	France,	operates	the	Dannon	brand	and
has	revenues	of	$15	billion	a	year. And	of	course,	there	are	the	large	fast	food
companies. McDonald’s	has	revenues	in	excess	of	$15	billion	a	year,	and
Wendy’s	International	generates	almost	$3	billion	a	year. Total	food
expenditures,	including	food	bought	by	individuals,	government	and	business,
exceed	$700	billion	a	year
. 1
The	massive	drug	company	Pfizer	had	$32	billion	in	revenue	in	2002,
while	Eli	Lilly	&	Co.	chalked	up	over	$11	billion. Johnson	and	Johnson
collected	over	$36	billion	from	selling	their	products. It’s	not	an
overstatement	to	say	over	a	trillion	dollars	every	year	is	riding	on	what	we
choose	to	eat	and	how	we	choose	to	treat	sickness	and	promote	health. That’s
a	lot	of	money. There	are	powerful	players	that	compete	for	your	food	and	health	
dollars. Individual	companies,	of	course,	do	what	they	can	to	sell	more	of	their
products,	but	also	there	are	industry	groups	that	work	to	increase	generaldemand	for	their	products. The	National	Dairy	Council,	National	Dairy
Promotion	and	Research	Board,	National	Fluid	Milk	Processor	Promotion
Board,	International	Sprout	Growers	Association,	American	Meat	Institute,
Florida	Citrus	Processors	Association,	and	United	Egg	Producers	are
examples	of	such	industry	groups. These	organizations,	operating
independently	of	any	single	company,	wield	significant	influence—the	most
powerful	among	them	have	yearly	budgets	in	the	hundreds	of	millions	of
dollars. These	food	companies	and	associations	use	whatever	methods	they	can	to
enhance	their	products’	appeal	and	grow	their	market. One	way	to	accomplish
this	is	to	claim	nutritional	benefits	for	the	food	products	they	sell. At	the	same
time,	these	companies	and	associations	must	protect	their	products	from	being
considered	unhealthy. If	a	product	is	linked	to	cancer	or	some	other	disease,
profits	and	revenue	will	evaporate. So	food	business	interests	need	to	claim
that	their	product	is	good	for	you,	or,	at	least,	that	it’s	not	bad	for	you. In	this
process,	the	“science”	of	nutrition	becomes	the	“business”	of	marketing.THE	AIRPORT	CLUB
While	I	was	getting	the	China	Study	off	the	ground,	I	learned	of	a	committee
of	seven	prominent	research	scientists	who	had	been	retained	by	the	animal-
based	foods	industry	(the	National	Dairy	Council	and	the	American	Meat
Institute)	to	keep	tabs	on	any	research	projects	in	the	U.S.	likely	to	cause
harm	to	their	industry. I	knew	six	of	the	seven	members,	four	of	them	quite
well. A	graduate	student	of	mine	was	visiting	with	one	of	these	scientists	and
was	given	a	file	on	the	committee	activity. I	have	never	learned	exactly	why
the	file	passed	hands. Perhaps	the	scientist’s	conscience	was	getting	the	better
of	him. In	any	case,	the	file	was	ultimately	given	to	me. The	file	contained	minutes	of	committee	meetings,	the	latest	being	held	at
Chicago’s	O’Hare	Airport. From	then	on,	I	have	called	this	group	of	scientists
“The	Airport	Club.”	It	was	run	by	Professors	E.	M.	Foster	and	Michael
Pariza,	faculty	members	of	the	University	of	Wisconsin	(where	Alf	Harper
was	located),	and	was	funded	by	the	meat	and	dairy	industry. This
committee’s	main	objective	was	to	have	members	observe	projects	that	might
do	“harm”	to	their	industry. With	such	surveillance,	the	industry	could	more
effectively	respond	to	unexpected	discoveries	
from	researchers	that	might
make	otherwise	unanticipated	news. I	had	learned	well	that,	when	the	stakes
are	high,	industry	was	not	averse	to	putting	its	own	spin	on	a	story. They	listed	about	nine	potentially	damaging	projects,	and	I	had	the
dubious	distinction	of	being	the	only	researcher	responsible	for	two	of	the
projects. I	was	named	once	for	the	China	Study,	which	one	of	the	members
was	assigned	to	watch	over,	and	once	for	my	association	with	the	American
Institute	for	Cancer	Research	(AICR),	especially	my	chairing	of	the	review
panel	that	decided	which	research	applications	on	diet	and	cancer	got	funded. Another	panel	member	had	the	task	of	keeping	an	eye	on	the	AICR	activity. After	learning	of	The	Airport	Club,	and	of	the	individual	assigned	to
watch	over	me	at	the	AICR	grant	meetings,	I	was	in	a	position	to	see	how	his
spying	was	going	to	unfold. I	went	into	the	first	AICR	review	panel	meeting
after	learning	of	the	Club	with	an	eye	on	the	spy	who	was	keeping	an	eye	on
me! One	might	argue	that	this	industry-funded	“spying”	was	not	illegal,	and
that	it	is	prudent	for	a	business	to	keep	tabs	on	potentially	damaging
information	that	might	affect	its	future. I	agree	completely,	even	if	it	was
disconcerting	to	find	myself	on	the	list	of	those	being	spied	on. But	industry
does	more	than	just	keep	tabs	on	“dangerous”	research. It	actively	markets	its
version,	regardless	of	potentially	disastrous	health	effects,	and	corrupts	the
integrity	of	the	science	to	do	so. This	is	especially	troubling	when	academicscientists	do	the	spying	and	hide	their	intentions.POWERFUL	GROUPS
The	dairy	industry,	one	of	the	sponsors	of	The	Airport	Club,	is	particularly
powerful	in	this	country. Founded	in	1915,	the	well-organized,	well-funded
National	Dairy	Council	has	been	promoting	milk	for	almost	a	hundred	years. 2
In	1995,	two	major	milk	industry	groups	put	a	new	face	on	their	old
establishment,	renaming	it	Dairy	Management,	Inc. The	purpose	of	this	new
group	was	“to	do	one	thing:	increase	demand	for	U.S.-produced	dairy
products,”	to	cite	their	Web	site. 3
	They	had	a	2003	marketing	budget	of	more
than	$165	million	to	do	it. 4
	In	comparison,	the	National	Watermelon
Promotion	Board	has	a	budget	of	$1.6	million. 5
	A	Dairy	Management,	Inc.,
press	release	includes	the	following	items
4
:
Rosemont,	Illinois—National,	state	and	regional	dairy	producer
directors	have	approved	a	budget	of	$165.7	million	for	a	2003	Unified
Marketing	Plan	(UMP)	designed	to	help	increase	dairy	demand.…
…	Major	program	areas	include:
Fluid	Milk:	In	addition	to	key	ongoing	activities	in	advertising,
promotion	and	public	relations	efforts	targeted	to	children	ages	six	to
twelve	and	their	mothers,	2003	dairy	checkoff	efforts	will	focus	on
developing	and	extending	partnerships	with	major	food	mar	keters,
including	Kellogg’s®,	Kraft	foods®	and	McDonald’s®.…
…	School	Marketing:	As	part	of	an	effort	to	guide	school-age
children	to	become	life-long	consumers	of	dairy	products,	2003
activities	will	target	students,	parents,	educators	and	school	food-
service	professionals. Programs	are	underway	in	both	the	classroom
and	the	lunchroom,	where	dairy	checkoff	organizations	look	to	widen
the	success	of	last	year’s	School	Milk	Pilot	Test.…
…	Dairy	Image/Confidence:	This	ongoing	program	area	aims	to
protect	and	enhance	consumer	confidence	in	dairy	products	and	the
dairy	industry. A	major	component	involves	conducting	and
communicating	the	results	of	dairy	nutrition	research	showing	the
healthfulness	of	dairy	products,	as	well	as	issues	and	crisis
management.…
If	I	may	paraphrase	the	dairy	industry’s	efforts:	their	goals	are	to	1)	market
to	young	children	and	their	mothers;	2)	use	schools	as	a	channel	to	young
customers;	3)	conduct	and	publicize	research	favorable	to	the	industry. Many	people	are	not	aware	of	the	dairy	industry’s	presence	in	our	schools.But	make	no	mistake:	on	nutrition	information,	the	dairy	industry	reaches
young	children	more	effectively	than	any	other	industry. The	dairy	industry	has	enlisted	the	public	education	system	as	the	primary
vehicle	for	increasing	demand	for	its	products. The	2001	Dairy	Management,
Inc.,	annual	report	stated
6
:
As	the	best	avenue	to	increase	fluid	milk	consumption	long-term,
children	are	without	a	doubt	the	future	of	dairy	consumption. That’s
why	the	dairy	checkoff	continues	to	implement	school	milk	marketing
programs	as	one	way	to	help	increase	kids’	fluid	milk	consumption. Dairy	producers	…	launched	two	groundbreaking	initiatives	in
2001. A	yearlong	school	milk	research	program	that	began	in	the	fall	of
2001	examines	how	improved	packaging,	additional	flavors,	coolers
with	merchandising	and	better	temperature	regulation	can	affect	fluid
milk	consumption	and	kids’	attitudes	toward	milk	both	in	and	out	of
school. The	study	concludes	at	the	end	of	the	2001–02	school	year. Also,	dairy	producers	and	processors	worked	together	to	conduct	a
five-month	vending	study	in	middle	and	high	schools	in	five	major
U.S.	markets. The	study	revealed	that	many	students	would	choose
milk	over	competitive	beverages	if	it	were	available	when,	where	and
how	they	wanted. Many	other	successful	school	programs	continue	to	encourage	children	to
drink	milk. Nutrition	education	programs,	such	as	“Pyramid	Explorations”
and	“Pyramid	Cafe,”	teach	students	that	dairy	products	are	a	key	part	of	a
healthy	diet;	the	“Cold	Is	Cool”	program	teaches	school	cafeteria	managers
how	to	keep	milk	cold,	just	how	kids	like	it;	and	the	checkoff	is	helping
expand	dairy-friendly	school	breakfast	programs. In	addition,	the	popular	“got
milk”	campaign	continues	to	reach	children	at	school	and	through	such	kid-
focused	media	outlets	as	Nickelodeon	and	the	Cartoon	Network. These	activities	are	far	from	small-scale;	in	1999,	“Chef	Combo’s
Fantastic	Adventures,”	an	“educational”	(marketing)	set	of	lesson	plans
produced	by	the	dairy	industry,	“was	placed	in	76%	of	preschool	kindergarten
sites	nationally.”
7
	According	to	a	dairy	industry	report	to	Congress,
8
	the	dairy
industry’s	“nutrition	education”	programs	are	doing	quite	well:
“Pyramid	Cafe
®
”	and	“Pyramid	Explorations™,”	targeted	to	second
and	fourth	grades,	reach	over	12	million	students	with	messages	that
milk	and	dairy	products	are	a	key	part	of	a	healthy	diet. Survey	results
continue	to	show	a	very	high	utilization	rate	for	these	two	programs,currently	at	over	70%	of	the	instructors	that	have	the	programs. America	is	entrusting	the	important	task	of	educating	our	children	about
nutrition	and	health	to	the	dairy	industry. In	addition	to	ubiquitous	nutrition
lesson	plans	and	“educational”	kits,	the	industry	supplies	high	schools	with
videos,	posters	and	teaching	guides	regarding	nutrition;	it	runs	special
promotions	in	cafeterias	to	increase	milk	consumption	in	
thousands	of
schools;	it	distributes	information	to	principals	at	national	conferences;	it	runs
back-to-school	promotions	with	over	20,000	schools;	and	it	runs	sports
promotions	targeted	toward	youth. Should	we	be	worried? In	a	word,	yes. If	you	are	curious	as	to	what	kind
of	“education”	is	being	taught	by	the	dairy	industry,	take	a	look	at	their	Web
site. 9
	When	I	visited	the	site	in	July	2003,	one	of	the	first	bits	of	information
to	greet	me	was,	“July	is	National	Ice	Cream	Month.”	Upon	clicking	for	more
information	on	National	Ice	Cream	Month,	I	read,	“If	you’re	wondering	if
you	can	have	your	ice	cream	and	good	nutrition	too,	the	answer	is	‘yes’!”
9
Great. So	much	for	combating	childhood	obesity	and	diabetes! The	Web	site	is	divided	up	into	three	sections,	one	for	educators,	one	for
parents	and	one	for	food	service	professionals. When	I	looked	at	the	Web	site
in	July	2003	(the	Web	site	regularly	changes	its	content),	in	the	educator
portion	of	the	site,	teachers	could	download	lesson	plans	to	teach	nutrition	to
their	classrooms. Lesson	plans	included	making	hand	puppets	of	cows	and
dairy	foods	and	doing	a	finger	play. Once	the	puppets	are	made,	the	teacher
should	“[t]ell	the	students	they’re	going	to	meet	five	special	friends,	and	these
friends	want	boys	and	girls	to	grow	up	to	be	strong	and	healthy.”
9
	Another
lesson	was	“Dairy	Treat	Day,”	where	each	child	gets	to	taste	cheese,	pudding,
yogurt,	cottage	cheese	and	ice	cream. 9
	Or	teachers	could	lead	their	classes	in
making	“Moo	Masks.”
9
	For	the	more	advanced	fourth	grader,	teachers	could
do	a	lesson	plan	from	Pyramid	Explorations	in	which	students	explore	the
five	food	groups,	and	their	health	benefits,	as	follows
9
:
Milk	Group	(Build	strong	bones	and	teeth.) Meat	Group	(Build	strong	muscles.) Vegetable	Group	(Help	you	see	in	the	dark.) Fruit	Group	(Help	heal	cuts	and	bruises.) Grain	Group	(Give	us	energy.) Based	on	the	evidence	presented	in	the	previous	chapters,	you	know	that	if
this	is	what	our	children	are	learning	about	nutrition	and	health	then	we	are	in
for	a	painful	journey,	courtesy	of	Dairy	Management,	Inc.	Obviously	neitherkids	nor	their	parents	are	learning	about	how	milk	has	been	linked	to	Type	1
diabetes,	prostate	cancer,	osteoporosis,	multiple	sclerosis	or	other
autoimmune	diseases,	and	how	casein,	the	main	protein	in	dairy	foods,	has
been	shown	to	experimentally	promote	cancer	and	increase	blood	cholesterol
and	atherosclerotic	plaque. In	2002,	this	marketing	Web	site	delivered	
over	70,000	lesson	plans
	to
educators. 8
	The	dairy	industry	truly	is	teaching	its	version	of	nutrition	to	the
next	generation	of	Americans. The	industry	has	been	doing	this	for	decades,	and	it	has	been	successful. I
have	encountered	many	people	who,	when	they	hear	about	the	potential
adverse	effects	of	dairy	foods,	immediately	say,	“Milk	can’t	be	bad.”	Usually
these	people	don’t	have	any	evidence	to	support	their	position;	they	just	have
a	feeling	that	milk	is	good. They’ve	always	known	it	to	be	that	way,	and	they
like	it	that	way. You	can	trace	some	of	their	opinions	back	to	their	school
days,	when	they	learned	that	there	are	seven	continents,	two	plus	two	equals
four,	and	milk	is	healthy. If	you	think	about	it	this	way,	you	will	understand
why	the	dairy	industry	has	had	such	exceptional	influence	in	this	country	by
using	education	for	its	marketing	purposes. If	this	marketing	program	weren’t	such	a	widespread	threat	to	our
children’s	health,	it	would	be	downright	laughable	that	an	industry	group
would	try	to	peddle	its	food	product	under	such	a	thinly-veiled	“education”
plan. Don’t	people	wonder	what’s	going	on	when	almost	every	single
children’s	book	advertised	in	the	“Nutrition	Bookshelf”	portion	of	this	Web
site	revolved	around	either	milk,	cheese	or	ice	cream,	with	such	titles	as	
Ice
Cream:	Great	Moments	in	Ice	Cream	History
? 9
	After	all,	during	July	2003
there	were	no	vegetable	books	anywhere	to	be	found	on	this	“Nutrition
Bookshelf”! Aren’t	they	healthy? At	least	when	the	dairy	industry	describes	all	of	these	school-related
activities	in	the	official	reports	to	Congress	and	in	industry	press	releases,	it
rightly	refers	to	them	as	“marketing”	activities.CONJUGATED	LINOLEIC	ACID
The	dairy	industry	doesn’t	stop	with	kids. For	adults,	the	industry	puts	a
heavy	emphasis	on	“science”	and	the	communication	of	research	results	that
might	be	construed	as	showing	health	benefits	from	eating	dairy	foods. The
dairy	industry	spends	$4	to	$5	million	a	year	to	fund	research	towards	the
goal	of	finding	something	healthy	to	talk	about. 7,	10
	In	addition,	the	dairy
industry	promoters	employ	a	Medical	Advisory	Board	made	up	of	doctors,
academics	and	other	health	professionals. These	scientists	are	the	ones	who
appear	as	medical	professionals	in	the	media,	providing	science-based
statements	supporting	the	health	benefits	of	milk. The	Airport	Club	was	a	good	example	of	industry	efforts	to	maintain
favorable	product	image	and	“confidence.”	In	addition	to	keeping	an	eye	on
potentially	damaging	projects,	the	Club	was	trying	to	generate	research	that
might	show	that	cancer	could	be	prevented	by	drinking	cow’s	milk. What	a
coup	that	would	be! At	that	time,	the	industry	was	getting	quite	edgy	about
the	growing	evidence	showing	that	the	consumption	of	animal-based	foods	is
associated	with	cancer	and	related	ailments. Their	hook	for	this	research	was	an	unusual	group	of	fatty	acids	produced
by	bacteria	in	the	cow’s	rumen	(the	biggest	of	the	four	stomachs). These	fatty
acids	were	collectively	called	conjugated	linoleic	acid	(CLA),	which	is
produced	from	the	linoleic	acid	commonly	found	in	corn	that	the	cow	eats. From	the	cow’s	rumen,	CLA	is	then	absorbed	and	gets	stored	in	the	meat	and
milk	of	the	animal,	eventually	to	be	consumed	by	humans. The	big	payday	for	The	Airport	Club	was	when	initial	tests	on
experimental	mice	suggested	that	CLA	might	help	to	block	the	formation	of
stomach	tumors	produced	by	a	weak	chemical	carcinogen	called
benzo(a)pyrene. 11,	12
	But	there	was	a	catch	in	this	research. The	catch	was
that	researchers	gave	CLA	to	the	mice	first,	and	then	gave	the	carcinogen
benzo(a)pyrene. The	ordering	of	these	chemical	feedings	was	backwards. In
the	body	there	is	an	enzyme	system	that	works	to	minimize	the	amount	of
cancer	caused	by	a	carcinogen. When	a	chemical	such	as	CLA	is	initially
consumed,	it	“excites”	that	enzyme	system	so	that	it	has	increased	activity. So
the	trick	was	to	administer	CLA	first,	to	excite	the	enzyme	system,	and	then
administer	the	carcinogen. In	this	order,	the	enzyme	system	excited	by	CLA
would	be	more	effective	at	getting	rid	of	the	carcinogen. As	a	result,	CLA
could	be	called	an	anticarcinogen. Let	me	give	you	an	analogous	situation. Let’s	say	you	have	a	bag	of	a
potent	pesticide	in	your	garage. The	pesticide	bag	says,	“Do	not	swallow! In
case	of	ingestion,	contact	your	local	poison	control	health	authorities,”	orsome	such	warning. But	let’s	say	you’re	hungry	and	you	eat	a	handful	of
pesticide	anyway. That	pesticide	in	your	body	will	“rev	up”	the	enzyme
systems	in	all	of	your	cells	that	are	responsible	for	eliminating	nasty	things. If
you	then	go	inside	and	eat	a	handful	of	peanuts	dripping	with	aflatoxin,	your
body’s	enzyme	systems	will	be	primed	to	deal	with	the	aflatoxin,	and	you’ll
end	up	with	fewer	aflatoxin-induced	tumors. So,	the	pesticide,	which	will
ultimately	do	all	sorts	of	nasty	things	in	your	body,	is	an	anticarcinogen! This
scenario	is	obviously	absurd,	and	the	research	on	mice	that	initially	showed
CLA	to	be	an	
anticarcinogen	was	similarly	absurd. However,	the	end	results
of	the	mice	research	sounded	pretty	good	to	people	who	don’t	know	this
methodology	(including	most	scientists). Airport	Club	member	Michael	Pariza	headed	the	research	that	studied
CLA	in	some	detail. 13–15
	Later,	at	Roswell	Park	Memorial	Institute	for	Cancer
Research	in	Buffalo,	a	very	good	researcher	and	his	group	extended	the
research	still	further	and	demonstrated	that	it	did	more	than	merely	block	the
first	step	in	the	formation	of	tumors. CLA	also	appeared	to	slow	down
subsequent	tumor	growth
16,	17
	when	fed	after	the	carcinogen. This	was	a	more
convincing	finding	of	the	anticancer	properties	of	CLA	than	the	initial
studies,
11,	12
	which	showed	only	an	inhibition	of	tumor	initiation. Regardless	of	how	promising	these	mouse	and	cow	studies	were
becoming,	this	research	remained	two	major	steps	removed	from	human
cancer. First,	it	had	not	been	shown	that	cow’s	milk	containing	CLA,	as	a
whole	food	(as	opposed	to	the	isolated	chemical	CLA),	prevents	cancer	in
mice. Second,	even	if	such	an	effect	existed	in	mice,	it	would	need	to	be
confirmed	in	humans. In	fact,	as	has	been	discussed	earlier	in	this	book,	if
cow’s	milk	has	any	effect	at	all,	it	has	been	shown	to	increase,	not	decrease,
cancer. The	far	more	significant	nutrient	in	milk	is	protein,	whose	potent
cancer-promoting	properties	are	consistent	with	the	human	data. In	other	words,	to	make	any	health	claims	regarding	CLA	in	milk	and	its
effect	on	human	cancer	would	require	unreasonably	large	leaps	of	faith. But
never	doubt	the	tenacity	(i.e.,	money)	of	those	who	would	like	to	have	the
public	believe	that	cow’s	milk	prevents	cancer. Lo	and	behold,	a	recent	front-
page	headline	in	our	local	newspaper,	the	
Ithaca	Journal,
	stated	“Changing
Cows’	Diets	Elevates	Milk’s	Cancer-Fighting.”
18
	This	article	concerned	the
studies	of	a	Cornell	professor	who	was	instrumental	in	the	development	of
bovine	growth	hormone	now	fed	to	cows. He	showed	that	he	could	increase
CLA	in	cow’s	milk	by	feeding	the	animals	more	corn	oil. The	
Ithaca	Journal
	article,	although	only	in	a	local,	hometown	newspaper,
really	was	a	dream	come	true	for	the	sponsors	of	The	Airport	Club. Theheadline	delivers	a	powerful	but	very	simple	message	to	the	public:	drinking
milk	reduces	cancer	risk. I	know	that	media	people	like	punchy	statements	so,
initially,	I	suspected	that	the	reporter	had	made	claims	beyond	what	the
researchers	had	said. But	in	the	article	the	enthusiasm	expressed	by	Professor
Bauman	for	the	implications	for	this	
research	equaled	that	of	the	headline. The	study	cited	in	this	article	only	showed	that	CLA	is	higher	in	the	milk	of
cows	fed	corn	oil. That’s	a	long	way	from	having	any	relevance	to	human
cancer. No	studies	had	yet	shown	that	humans	or	even	mice	drinking	cow’s
milk	had	a	lower	risk	of	cancer—of	any	kind. Yet	Bauman,	who	is	a
technically	competent	researcher,	was	quoted	as	saying	that	these	findings
have	“good	potential	because	CLA	happens	to	be	[a]	very	potent
[anticarcinogen].”	The	journalist	went	on	to	say	“CLA	has	been	shown	to
suppress	carcinogens	and	inhibit	the	spread	of	colon,	prostate,	ovarian	and
breast	cancers	and	leukemia,”	and	concluded	that	“all	indications	are	that
CLA	is	effective	in	humans	even	in	low	concentrations.”	According	to	the
article,	Bauman	says	that	this	“research	represents	the	new	focus	on	designing
foods	to	enhance	their	nutritional	and	health	qualities.”	These	claims	could
not	be	more	dramatic,	considering	the	absence	of	the	necessary	human
research. Bauman,	Pariza	and	their	many	other	colleagues
19
	have	vigorously
pursued	this	line	of	research	for	fifteen	years	and	have	published	a	large
number	of	research	papers. Although	additional	beneficial	effects	of	CLA	are
said	to	exist,	the	key	research	still	has	not	been	done,	namely,	testing	whether
the	consumption	of	milk	from	cows	fed	high-corn	oil	diets	really	will	reduce
human	cancer	risk. More	recently,	Bauman	and	his	colleagues	have	attempted	to	take	a	step
toward	finding	this	essential	connection. They	have	shown	that	the	milk	fat	of
cows	fed	high	amounts	of	corn	oil	(i.e.,	linoleic	acid,	the	parent	of	CLA),	like
synthetic	CLA,	was	able	to	decrease	tumors	in	rats	treated	with	a
carcinogen. 20
	But	again,	they	used	the	tricky	experimental	method. They
administered	the	milk	fat	
before,
	not	
after
	the	carcinogen. Yet	their	claims
will	be	as	dramatic	as	ever,	because	this	is	the	first	time	that	CLA,	as	present
in	food	(i.e.,	the	fat),	is	shown	to	be	as	anticarcinogenic	as	the	isolated
chemical. Translated:	eat	butter	from	cows	fed	corn	oil—it	prevents	cancer!THE	SCIENCE	OF	INDUSTRY
The	CLA	story	is	a	good	example	of	how	industry	uses	science	to	increase
demand	for	its	product	in	order	to	make	more	money. At	the	very	least,
industry	science	often	leads	to	public	confusion	(Are	eggs	good? Are	they
bad? ),	and	at	its	worst,	industry	science	leads	unsuspecting	consumers	to
foods	that	are	actually	bad	for	them,	all	in	the	name	of	better	health. Conflicts	of	interest	abound	in	this	science	of	industry. The	CLA	research
was	created	with	special	interest	money	and	has	grown	and	been	sustained
with	special	interest	money. The	National	Dairy	Council,
20–22
	Kraft	Foods,
Inc.,
20
	the	Northeast	Dairy	Foods	Research	Center,
20,	21
	the	Cattlemen’s	Beef
Board
23
	and	the	Cattlemen’s	Beef	Association
23
	are	groups	that	have
frequently	funded	these	studies. Corporate	influence	in	the	academic	research	world	can	take	many	forms,
ranging	from	flagrant	abuses	of	personal	power	to	conflicts	of	interest,	all
hidden	from	public	view. This	influence	does	not	need	to	be	a	crass	payoff	to
researchers	to	fabricate	data. That	sort	of	behavior	is	rare. The	more
significant	way	for	corporate	interests	to	influence	academic	research	is	much
more	sophisticated	and	effective. As	illustrated	by	the	CLA	example,
scientists	investigate	a	detail	out	of	context	that	can	be	construed	as	a
favorable	message	and	industry	exploits	it	for	all	it’s	worth. Almost	no	one
knows	where	the	CLA	hypothesis	started	and	who	originally	funded	it. Few	people	really	question	such	research	if	it	is	published	in	the	best
journals. Very	few	people,	especially	among	the	public,	know	which	studies
are	“benefiting”	from	direct	corporate	funding. Very	few	people	are	able	to
sort	out	the	technical	details	and	recognize	the	missing	information	that	would
otherwise	establish	context. Almost	everyone,	however,	understands	that
headline	in	my	local	newspaper. I	could	play	this	game,	too. If	I	wanted	to	hurt	the	dairy	industry	and	be	a
little	wild	in	my	interpretation	of	study	results,	I	could	produce	another
headline	to	say,	“New	birth	control	chemical	discovered	in	cow’s	milk.”
Recent	research,	for	example,	showed	that	CLA	dramatically	kills	chick
embryos. 13
	Also,	CLA	increases	the	tissue	level	of	saturated	fats	that	could
(using	our	dramatic	method	of	interpretation)	exacerbate	heart	disease	risk. Of
course,	I	have	taken	these	two	unrelated	effects	grossly	out	of	context	in	my
example. I	don’t	really	know	whether	these	CLA	effects	actually	translate	into
less	fertility	and	more	heart	disease	for	humans,	but	if	I	were	playing	the
game	the	way	industry	enthusiasts	do,	I	wouldn’t	mind. It	would	make	a	great
headline,	and	that	can	go	a	long	way.I	recently	met	with	one	of	the	members	of	The	Airport	Club,	a	scientist
who	has	been	involved	in	the	CLA	effort,	and	he	confessed	that	the	CLA
effect	will	never	be	anything	more	than	a	drug	effect. However,	you	can	bet
that	what	is	known	in	private	will	not	be	told	in	public.INDUSTRY’S	LOVE	OF	TINKERING
Much	of	The	Airport	Club	and	the	CLA	story	is	a	story	about	the	“dark	side”
of	science,	which	I	detailed	in	chapter	thirteen. But	the	CLA	story	is	also
about	the	dangers	of	reductionism,	of	taking	details	out	of	context	and	making
claims	about	diet	and	health,	which	I	discussed	in	the	previous	chapter. Like
academia,	industry	is	also	an	essential	player	in	the	system	of	scientific
reductionism	that	undermines	the	knowledge	we	have	about	dietary	patterns
and	disease. Industry,	you	see,	loves	to	tinker. Securing	patents	based	on
details	leads	to	marketing	claims	and,	ultimately,	to	greater	revenues. In	a	recent	paper
20
	by	several	CLA	researchers	(including	Professor	Dale
Bauman,	a	long-time	friend	of	the	animal	foods	industry),	the	following
sentence	appeared,	revealing	much	about	how	some	industry	enthusiasts	feel
as	we	“tinker”	our	way	to	health:
The	concept	of	CLA-enriched	foods	could	be	particularly	appealing	to
people	who	desire	a	diet-based	approach	to	cancer	prevention	without
making	radical	changes	in	their	eating	habits. 20
I	know	that,	for	Bauman	and	others,	“making	radical	changes	in…	eating
habits”	means	consuming	a	diet	rich	in	plant-based	foods. Rather	than
avoiding	bad	foods	altogether,	these	researchers	are	suggesting	that	we	tinker
with	the	existing,	but	problematic,	foods	to	correct	the	problem. Instead	of
working	with	nature	to	maintain	health,	they	want	us	to	rely	on	technology—
their	technology. This	faith	in	technological	tinkering,	in	man	over	nature,	is	ever-present. It
is	not	limited	to	the	dairy	industry,	or	the	meat	industry,	or	the	processed
foods	industry. It	has	become	part	of	every	single	food	and	health	industry	in
the	country,	from	oranges	to	tomatoes,	from	cereals	to	vitamin	supplements. The	plant	food	industry	got	carried	away	recently	when	another	carotenoid
was	“discovered.”	You’ve	probably	heard	of	it. It	is	called	lycopene,	and	it
provides	the	red	color	in	tomatoes. In	1995,	it	was	reported	that	people	who
ate	more	tomatoes,	including	whole	tomatoes	and	tomato-containing	foods
like	pasta	sauces,	had	a	lower	risk	for	prostate	cancer,
24
	supporting	an	earlier
report. 25
For	those	companies	that	make	foods	with	tomato	products,	this	was	a	gift
from	above. Marketing	people	in	the	corporate	world	quickly	got	the
message. But	what	they	zeroed	in	on	was	lycopene,	not	tomatoes. The	media,
willing	to	oblige,	rose	to	the	occasion. It	was	lycopene	time! Suddenly
lycopene	became	widely	known	as	something	to	eat	more	of	if	you	don’t	wantprostate	cancer. The	scientific	world,	investigating	details,	escalated	its	efforts
to	decipher	the	“lycopene	magic.”	As	of	this	writing,	there	now	are	1,361(!) scientific	publications	on	lycopene	cited	by	the	National	Library	of
Medicine. 26
	A	major	market	is	developing,	with	trade	names	like	Lycopene
10	Cold	Water	Dispersion	and	Lyco	Vit	10%	to	be	used	as	food
supplements. 27
	Judging	by	the	health	claims,	we	might	be	on	the	way	to
bringing	prostate	cancer,	a	leading	cancer	among	men,	under	control. There	are,	though,	a	couple	of	disquieting	thoughts. First,	after	spending
millions	of	research	and	development	dollars,	there	is	some	doubt	whether
lycopene,	as	an	isolated	chemical,	can	prevent	prostate	cancer. According	to	a
more	recent	publication,	six	studies	now	have	shown	a	statistically	significant
decrease	in	prostate	cancer	risk	with	increased	lycopene	intake;	three	non-
statistically	significant	studies	agree;	and	seven	studies	do	not	show	any
association. 28
	But	these	studies	measured	lycopene	intake	from	
whole	foods,
namely	tomatoes. So,	while	these	studies	certainly	indicate	that	the	tomato	is
still	a	healthy	food,
28
	does	that	mean	we	can	assume	that	lycopene,	by	itself,
reduces	prostate	cancer	risk? There	are	hundreds,	even	thousands,	of
chemicals	in	tomatoes. Do	we	have	evidence	that	isolated	lycopene	will	do
what	tomatoes	do,	especially	for	those	who	don’t	like	tomatoes? The	answer
is	no. 29
There	is	no	evidence	for	a	lycopene-specific	effect	on	prostate	cancer,	and
I	seriously	doubt	whether	we	will	ever	have	convincing	evidence. Nonetheless	the	lycopene	business	is	up	and	running. In-depth	studies	are
underway	to	determine	the	most	effective	dose	of	lycopene	as	well	as	to
determine	whether	commercial	lycopene	preparations	are	safe	(when	tested	in
rats	and	rabbits,	that	is). 27
	Also,	consideration	is	being	given	to	the	possibility
of	genetically	modifying	plants	for	higher	levels	of	lycopene	and	other
carotenoids. 30
	It	is	a	real	stretch	to	call	this	series	of	lycopene	reports
legitimate	science. In	my	book,	this	is	what	I	call	technological	tinkering	and
marketing,	not	science. Five	years	before	the	latest	“discovery”	of	lycopene,	a	graduate	student	of
mine,	Youping	He,	compared	four	different	carotenoids	(beta-carotene,
lycopene	from	tomatoes,	canthaxanthin	from	carrots	and	cryptoxanthin	from
oranges)	regarding	their	ability	to	prevent	cancer	in	experimental	animals. 31,
32
	Depending	on	what	we	were	testing	and	how	
we	did	the	test,	single
carotenoids	could	have	widely	ranging	potencies. While	one	carotenoid	is
potent	in	one	reaction,	the	same	carotenoid	is	far	less	potent	for	another
reaction. This	variation	manifests	itself	in	countless	ways	involving	hundreds
of	antioxidants	and	thousands	of	different	reactions,	forming	a	nearlyindecipherable	network. Consuming	one	carotenoid	at	a	time	in	the	form	of	a
pill	will	never	be	the	same	as	eating	the	whole	food,	which	provides	the
natural	network	of	health-supporting	nutrients. Five	years	after	our	rather	obscure	work	on	these	antioxidants,
32
	a	Harvard
study
33
	effectively	kicked	off	the	lycopene	campaign. In	my	opinion,
lycopene,	as	a	cancer	fighter,	is	headed	for	an	already	overcrowded	magic
bullet	graveyard,	leaving	behind	a	trail	of	deep	confusion.FRUIT	CLAIMS
The	fruit	industry	plays	this	game	just	like	everyone	else. For	example,	when
you	think	of	vitamin	C,	what	food	product	comes	to	mind? If	you	don’t	think
of	oranges	and	orange	juice,	you	are	unusual. Most	of	us	have	heard	ad
nauseum	that	oranges	are	a	good	source	of	vitamin	C.
This	belief,	however,	is	just	another	result	of	good	marketing. How	much
do	you	know,	for	example,	about	vitamin	C’s	relationship	to	diet	and	disease? Let’s	start	with	the	basics. Although	you	probably	know	that	oranges	are	a
good	source	of	vitamin	C,	you	may	be	surprised	to	know	that	many	other
plant	foods	have	considerably	more. One	cup	of	peppers,	strawberries,
broccoli	or	peas	all	have	more. One	papaya	has	as	much	as	four	times	more
vitamin	C	than	one	orange. 34
Beyond	the	fact	that	many	other	foods	are	better	sources	of	vitamin	C,
what	can	we	say	about	the	vitamin	C	that	is	in	oranges? This	concerns	the
ability	of	the	vitamin	to	act	as	an	antioxidant. How	much	of	the	total
antioxidant	activity	in	an	orange	is	actually	contributed	by	its	vitamin	C? Probably	not	more	than	1–2%. 35
	Furthermore,	measuring	antioxidant	activity
by	using	“test	tube”	studies	does	not	represent	the	same	vitamin	C	activity
that	takes	place	in	our	bodies. Most	of	our	impressions	about	vitamin	C	and	oranges	are	a	mixture	of
conjectures	and	assumptions	about	out-of-context	evidence. Who	first
established	these	assumptions? Orange	merchants. Did	they	justify	their
assumptions	on	the	basis	of	careful	research? Of	course	not. Did	these
assumptions	(presented	as	fact)	sound	good	to	the	marketing	people? Of
course	they	did. Would	I	eat	an	orange	to	get	my	vitamin	
C? No. Would	I	eat
an	orange	because	it	is	a	healthy	plant	food	with	a	complex	network	of
chemicals	that	almost	certainly	offer	health	benefits? Absolutely. I	played	a	small	role	in	this	story	a	couple	of	decades	ago. In	the	1970s
and	1980s,	I	appeared	in	a	television	ad	for	citrus	fruits. A	New	York	public
relations	firm	for	the	Florida	Citrus	Commission	had	earlier	interviewed	me
about	fruit,	nutrition	and	health. This	interview,	unknown	to	me	at	the	time,
was	the	source	of	my	presence	on	the	ad. I	had	not	seen	the	ad	and	I	did	not
get	paid	for	it,	but,	nonetheless,	I	was	one	of	the	talking	heads	that	helped	the
Florida	Citrus	Commission	build	its	case	for	the	vitamin	C	content	of	oranges. Why	did	I	do	the	interview? At	that	point	in	my	career,	I	probably	thought
that	the	vitamin	C	in	oranges	was	important,	and,	regardless	of	vitamin	C,
oranges	were	very	healthy	foods	to	eat. It	is	very	easy	for	scientists	to	get	caught	in	the	reductionism	web	of
thinking,	even	if	they	have	other	intentions. It	has	not	been	until	recently,after	a	lifetime	of	research,	that	I	have	come	to	realize	how	damaging	it	is	to
take	details	out	of	context	and	to	make	subsequent	claims	about	diet	and
health. Industry	uses	these	details	extremely	well,	and	the	result	is	public
confusion. Every	year,	it	seems,	some	new	product	is	being	touted	as	the	key
to	good	health. The	situation	is	so	bad	that	“health”	sections	of	grocery	stores
are	often	stocked	more	with	supplements	and	special	preparations	of
seemingly	magic	ingredients	than	they	are	with	real	food. Don’t	be	tricked:
the	healthiest	section	of	any	store	is	the	place	where	they	sell	whole	fruits	and
vegetables—the	produce	section. Perhaps	worst	of	all,	industry	corrupts	scientific	evidence	even	when	its
product	has	been	linked	to	serious	health	problems. Our	kids	are	often	the
most	coveted	targets	of	their	marketing. The	American	government	has
passed	legislation	preventing	cigarette	and	alcohol	companies	from	marketing
their	products	to	children. Why	have	we	ignored	food? Even	though	it	is
accepted	that	food	plays	a	major	role	in	many	chronic	diseases,	we	allow	food
industries	not	only	to	market	directly	to	children,	but	also	to	use	our	publicly-
funded	school	systems	to	do	it. The	long-term	burden	of	our	short-sighted
indiscretion	is	incalculable.16
Government:	Is	It	for	the	People? D
URING	THE	PAST	TWO	TO	THREE	DECADES
,	we	have	acquired	substantial
evidence	that	most	chronic	diseases	in	America	can	be	partially	attributed	to
bad	nutrition. Expert	government	panels	have	said	it,	the	surgeon	general	has
said	it	and	academic	scientists	have	said	it. More	people	die	because	of	the
way	they	eat	than	by	tobacco	use,	accidents	or	any	other	lifestyle	or
environmental	factor. We	know	that	the	incidence	of	obesity	and	diabetes	is
skyrocketing	and	that	Americans’	health	is	slipping	away,	and	we	know	what
to	blame:	diet. So	shouldn’t	the	government	be	leading	us	to	better	nutrition? There	is	nothing	better	the	government	could	do	that	would	prevent	more	pain
and	suffering	in	this	country	than	telling	Americans	unequivocally	to	eat	less
animal	products,	less	highly-refined	plant	products	and	more	whole,	plant-
based	foods. It	is	a	message	soundly	based	on	the	breadth	and	depth	of
scientific	evidence,	and	the	government	could	make	this	clear,	as	it	did	with
cigarettes. Cigarettes	kill,	and	so	do	these	bad	foods. But	instead	of	doing	this,
the	government	is	saying	that	animal	products,	dairy	and	meat,	refined	sugar
and	fat	in	your	diet	are	good	for	you! The	government	is	turning	a	blind	eye
to	the	evidence	as	well	as	to	the	millions	of	Americans	who	suffer	from
nutrition-related	illnesses. The	covenant	of	trust	between	the	U.S.	government
and	the	American	citizen	has	been	broken. The	United	
States	government	is
not	only	failing	to	put	out	our	fires,	it	is	actively	fanning	the	flames.DIETARY	RANGES:	THE	LATEST	ASSAULT
The	Food	and	Nutrition	Board	(FNB),	as	part	of	the	Institute	of	Medicine
(IOM)	of	the	National	Academy	of	Sciences,	has	the	responsibility	every	five
years	or	so	to	review	and	update	the	recommended	consumption	of	individual
nutrients. The	FNB	has	been	making	nutrient	recommendations	since	1943
when	it	established	a	plan	for	the	U.S.	Armed	Forces	wherein	it
recommended	daily	allowances	(RDAs)	for	each	individual	nutrient. In	the	most	recent	FNB	report,
1
	published	in	2002,	nutrient
recommendations	are	presented	as	ranges	instead	of	single	numbers,	as	was
the	practice	until	2002. For	good	health,	we	are	now	advised	to	consume	from
45%	to	65%	of	our	calories	as	carbohydrates. There	are	ranges	for	fat	and
protein	as	well. A	few	quotes	from	the	news	release	announcing	this	massive	900+	page
report	say	it	all. Here	is	the	first	sentence	in	the	news	release
2
:
To	meet	the	body’s	daily	energy	and	nutritional	needs	while
minimizing	risk	for	chronic	disease,	adults	should	get	45%	to	65%	of
their	calories	from	carbohydrates,	20%	to	35%	from	fat	and	10%	to
35%	from	protein…. Further,	we	find:
…	added	sugars	should	comprise	no	more	than	25%	of	total	calories
consumed.…	added	sugars	are	those	incorporated	into	foods	and
beverages	during	production	[and]	major	sources	include	candy,	soft
drinks,	fruit	drinks,	pastries	and	other	sweets. 2
Let’s	take	a	closer	look. What	are	these	recommendations	really	saying? Remember,	the	news	release	starts	off	by	stating	the	report’s	objective	of
“minimizing	risk	for	chronic	disease.”
2
	This	report	says	that	we	can	consume
a	diet	containing	up	to	35%	of	calories	as	fat;	this	is	up	from	the	30%	limit	of
previous	reports. It	also	recommends	that	we	can	consume	up	to	35%	of
calories	as	protein;	this	number	is	far	higher	than	the	suggestion	of	any	other
responsible	authority. The	last	recommendation	puts	the	frosting	on	the	cake,	so	to	speak. We
can	consume	up	to	25%	of	calories	as	added	sugars. Remember,	sugars	are
the	most	refined	type	of	carbohydrates. In	effect,	although	
the	report	advises
that	we	need	a	minimum	of	45%	of	calories	as	carbohydrates,	more	than	half
of	this	amount	(i.e.,	25%)	can	be	the	sugars	present	in	candies,	soft	drinks	andpastries. The	critical	assumption	of	this	report	is	this:	the	American	diet	is	not
only	the	best	there	is,	but	you	should	now	feel	free	to	eat	an	even	richer	diet
and	still	be	confident	that	you	are	“minimizing	risk	for	chronic	disease.”
Forget	any	words	of	caution	you	may	find	in	this	report—with	such	a	range	of
possibilities,	virtually	any	diet	can	be	advocated	as	minimizing	disease	risk. You	may	have	trouble	getting	your	mind	around	what	these	figures	mean
in	everyday	terms,	so	I	have	prepared	the	following	menu	plan	that	supplies
nutrients	in	accordance	with	these	guidelines	(
Chart	16.1
). 3,	4
CHART	16.1:	SAMPLE	MENU	THAT	FITS	INTO	THE	ACCEPTABLE
NUTRIENT	RANGES
Meal
Foods
Breakfast
1	cup	Froot	Loops
1	cup	skim	milk
1	package	M&M	milk	chocolate	candies
Fiber	and	vitamin	supplements
Lunch
Grilled	cheddar	cheeseburger
Dinner
3	slices	pepperoni	pizza,	1	16	oz. soda,
1	serving	Archway	sugar	cookies
CHART	16.2:	NUTRIENT	PROFILE	OF	SAMPLE	MENU	PLAN	AND
REPORT	RECOMMENDATIONS
Nutrient
Sample	Menu
Content
Recommended
Ranges
Total	Calories
~1800
Varies	by
height/weight
Protein	(%	of	total	calories)
~18%
10–35%
Fat	(%	of	total	calories)
~31%
20–35%
Carbohydrates	(%	of	total	calories)
~51%
45–65%
Sugars	in	Sweets,	or	Added	Sugars	(%
of	total	calories)
~23%
Up	to	25%
Folks,	I’m	not	kidding. This	disastrous	menu	plan	fits	the
recommendations	of	the	report	and	is	supposedly	consistent	with	“minimizing
chronic	disease.”
What’s	amazing	is	that	I	could	put	together	a	variety	of	menus,	all
drenched	in	animal	foods	and	added	sugars,	that	conform	to	these
recommended	daily	allowances. At	this	point	in	the	book,	I	don’t	need	to	tellyou	that	when	we	eat	a	diet	like	this	day	in	and	day	out,	we	will	be	not	just
marching,	but	
sprinting
	into	the	arms	of	chronic	disease. In	sad	fact,	this	is
what	a	large	proportion	of	our	population	already	does.PROTEIN
Perhaps	the	most	shocking	figure	is	the	upper	limit	on	protein	intake.
_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:

        Instead,	they	use
low-fat	and	nonfat	animal	products,	along	with	less	fat	during	cooking	and	at
the	table. Thus,	they	are	
not
	adopting	the	diets	that	were	shown,	in	the
international	correlation	studies	and	in	our	rural	China	study,	to	be	associated
with	low	breast	cancer	rates. This	is	a	very	important	discrepancy,	and	is	illustrated	by	the	correlation
between	the	consumption	of	dietary	animal	protein	and	dietary	fat	for	a	group
of	countries	(
Chart	14. 6
). 8,	9,	18,	20–22
	The	most	reliable	comparison	was
published	in	1975
20
;	it	showed	a	highly	convincing	correlation	of	more	than
90%. This	means	that	as	fat	intake	goes	up	in	various	countries,	animal
protein	intake	increases	in	an	almost	perfectly	parallel	manner. Likewise,	in
the	China	Study,	the	intakes	of	fat	and	animal	protein	also	show	a	similar
correlation	of	84%. 8,	21
In	the	Nurses’	Health	Study,	this	is	not	the	case. The	correlation	between
animal	protein	and	total	fat	intakes	is	only	about	16%. 9
	In	the	Women’s
Health	Trial,	also	including	American	women,	it	is	even	worse,	at	−17%
18,	21,
22
;	as	fat	goes	down,	animal	protein	goes	up. This	practice	is	typical	of
American	women	who	have	been	led	to	believe	that,	by	decreasing	their	fat
intake,	they	are	changing	to	a	healthier	diet. A	nurse	consuming	a	“low-fat”
diet	in	the	Harvard	study,	like	American	women	everywhere,	is	likely	to
continue	eating	large	amounts	of	animal	protein,	as	shown	in	meal	#1	(
Chart
14. 4
). Sadly,	this	evidence	on	the	effects	of	animal-based	food	on	cancer	and
other	diseases	of	affluence	has	been	ignored,	even	maligned,	as	we	continue
to	focus	on	fat	and	other	nutrients	in	isolation. Because	of	this,	the	Nurses’
Health	Study	and	virtually	every	other	human	epidemiological	study
published	to	date	have	been	seriously	shortchanged	in	their	investigations	of
diet	and	disease	associations. Virtually	all	the	subjects	under	study	consume
the	very	diet	that	causes	diseases	of	affluence. If	one	kind	of	animal-based
food	is	substituted	for	another,	then	the	adverse	health	effects	of	both	foods,
when	compared	to	plant-based	food,	are	easily	missed. To	make	matters
worse,	these	studies	often	focus	on	the	consumption	of	just	one	nutrient,	such
as	fat. Because	of	these	very	serious	flaws,	these	studies	have	been	a	virtual
disaster	for	discovering	the	really	significant	effects	of	diet	on	these	diseases. CHART	14. 6:	PERCENT	CORRELATIONS	OF	TOTAL	FAT	AND
ANIMAL	PROTEIN	CONSUMPTION
THE	$100(+)	MILLION	RESULTS
So	now	that	you	know	how	I	interpret	the	Nurses’	Health	Study	and	its	flaws,
we	should	take	a	look	at	its	conclusions. After	more	than	$100	million	and
decades	of	work,	there	is	no	shortage	of	results. So	what	are	they. The	logical
place	to	start	is,	of	course,	the	question	of	whether	fat	intake	really	is	linked	to
breast	cancer. Here	are	some	of	the	findings,	cited	verbatim:
“these	data	provide	evidence	against	both	an	adverse	influence	of	fat
intake	and	a	protective	effect	of	fiber	consumption	by	middle-aged
women	on	breast	cancer	incidence	over	eight	years”
23
Translation:	The
	Nurses’	
Health	Study	did	not	detect	a	relationship
between	dietary	fat	and	fiber	and	breast	cancer	risk. “we	found	no	evidence	that	lower	intake	of	total	fat	or	specific	major
types	of	fat	was	associated	with	decreased	risk	of	breast	cancer”
10
Translation:	The	Nurses’	Health	Study	did	not	detect	a	relationship
between	reducing	fat,	whether	it	be	total	fat	or	certain	kinds	of	fat,	and
breast	cancer	risk. “existing	data,	however,	provide	little	support	for	the	hypothesis	that
reduction	in	dietary	fat	composition,	even	to	20%	of	energy	during
adulthood,	will	lead	to	a	substantial	reduction	in	breast	cancer	in	Western
cultures”
24
Translation:	The	Nurses’	Health	Study	did	not	detect	a	breast	cancer
association	with	fat	even	when	women	reduced	their	fat	consumption	all
the	way	down	to	20%	of	calories. “relative	risks	for	…	monounsaturated	and	polyunsaturated	fat	…	were
close	to	unity”
25
Translation:	The
	Nurses’	
Health	Study	did	not	detect	a	relationship
between	these	“good”	fats	and	breast	cancer	risk. “we	found	no	significant	associations	between	intake	of	meat	and	dairy
products	and	risk	of	breast	cancer”
26
Translation:	The	Nurses’	Heath	Study	did	not	detect	a	relationship
between	meat	and	dairy	consumption	and	breast	cancer	risk. “our	findings	do	not	support	a	link	between	physical	activity,	in	late
adolescence	or	in	the	recent	past,	and	breast	cancer	risk	among	young
adult	women”
27
Translation:	The	Nurses’	Health	Study	did	not	detect	a	relationship
between	exercise	and	breast	cancer	risk. “these	data	are	suggestive	of	only	a	weak	positive	association	with
substitution	of	saturated	fat	for	carbohydrate	consumption;	none	of	the
other	types	of	fat	examined	was	significantly	associated	with	breast
cancer	risk	relative	to	an	equivalent	reduction	in	carbohydrate
consumption”
28
Translation:	The	Nurses’	Health	Study	detected	little	or	no	effect	on
breast	cancer	when	women	substituted	fat	for	carbohydrates. “selenium	intake	later	in	life	is	not	likely	to	be	an	important	factor	in	the
etiology	of	breast	cancer”
29
Translation:	The	Nurses’	Health	Study	did	not	detect	a	protective	effect
of	selenium	on	breast	cancer	risk. “these	results	suggest	that	fruit	and	vegetable	consumption	during
adulthood	is	not	significantly	associated	with	reduced	breast	cancer
risk”
30
Translation:	The	Nurses’	Health	Study	did	not	detect	a	relationship
between	fruits	and	vegetables	and	breast	cancer	risk. So	there	it	is,	readers. Breast	cancer	risk	does	not	rise	with	increased
intakes	of	fat,	meat,	dairy	or	saturated	fat. Breast	cancer	is	not	prevented	
by
increased	intakes	of	fruits	and	vegetables,	or	reduced	by	exercise	(either
during	the	teenage	years	or	during	adulthood),	dietary	fiber,	monounsaturated
fats	or	polyunsaturated	fats. Also,	the	mineral	selenium,	long	considered	to	be
protective	of	certain	cancers,	has	no	effect	on	breast	cancer. In	other	words,
we	might	as	well	conclude	that	diet	is	completely	unrelated	to	breast	cancer. I	can	understand	the	frustration	of	Professor	Meir	Stampfer,	one	of	the
leading	researchers	in	this	group,	when	he	was	quoted	as	saying,	“This	has
been	our	greatest	failure	and	disappointment—that	we	have	not	learned	more
about	what	people	can	do	to	lower	their	risk. ”
6
	He	was	making	his	comment
in	response	to	an	opinion	that	“the	single	biggest	challenge	for	the	future	[is]
sorting	out	the	mess	of	contradictory	findings	and	lack	of	information	onbreast	cancer. ”
6
	I	applaud	Professor	Stampfer	for	his	candor,	but	it’s
unfortunate	that	so	much	money	has	been	spent	to	learn	so	little. Perhaps	the
most	rewarding	finding,	ironically,	was	the	demonstration	that	tinkering	with
one	nutrient	at	a	time,	while	maintaining	the	same	overall	dietary	patterns,
does	not	lead	to	better	health	or	to	better	health	information. Yet	Harvard	researchers	have	been	steadily	cranking	out	their	findings,
despite	these	challenges. From	their	slew	of	studies,	here	are	some	findings
that	I	would	consider	as	very	troubling	contradictions	when	comparing
disease	risks	for	men	versus	women:
Men	who	consume	alcohol	three	or	four	times	a	week	have	a	lower	heart
attack	risk. 31
Men	with	Type	2	diabetes	who	consume	a	moderate	amount	of	alcohol
have	a	lower	risk	of	coronary	heart	disease. 32
And	yet…
Alcohol	consumption	increases	breast	cancer	incidence	by	41%	for
women	consuming	30–60	g/day	of	alcohol	compared	to	non-drinking
women. 33
Apparently	alcohol	is	good	for	heart	disease	and	bad	for	breast	cancer. The
husband	can	have	a	drink	with	dinner	but	should	never	share	it	with	his	wife. Is	this	a	difference	between	men	and	women,	or	is	this	a	difference	in
response	between	heart	disease	and	cancer. Do	you	feel	more	informed	or
more	confused. Then	there	are	those	wonderful	omega-3	fatty	acids. Some	types	of	fish
contain	relatively	large	amounts	of	these	fats	and	have	been	getting	
their	share
of	positive	press	these	days. If	you’ve	heard	anything	about	omega-3	fatty
acids,	it’s	that	you	need	more	of	them	to	be	healthy. Again,	more	Harvard
findings:
“…	contrary	to	the	predominant	hypothesis,	we	found	an	increased	risk
of	breast	cancer	associated	with	omega-3	fat	from	fish”	(This	increased
risk	was	statistically	significant	and	was	associated	with	an	increase	of
only	0. 1%	of	the	total	dietary	energy. ) 10
“our	findings	suggest	that	eating	fish	once	per	month	or	more	can	reduce
the	risk	of	ischemic	stroke	in	men”
34
“data	suggest	that	consumption	of	fish	at	least	once	per	week	may	reduce
the	risk	of	sudden	cardiac	death	in	men	[but	not	reduce	the]	risk	of	total
myocardial	infarction,	non-sudden	cardiac	death	or	total	cardiovascularmortality”
33
	(In	other	words,	fish	may	prevent	some	aspects	of	heart
disease	but	ultimately	has	no	effect	on	mortality	from	heart	disease,	or
even	heart	attack	risk. ) Is	this	yet	another	question	of	deciding	which	disease	you	fear	the	least. Or	is	this	another	man	versus	woman	difference. Here’s	an	even	older	story:	We	have	been	warned	for	a	long	time	to	cut
down	on	our	cholesterol	intake,	and	it	was	largely	for	this	reason	that
consumption	of	eggs	was	brought	into	question. One	egg	has	a	whopping	200
mg	or	more	of	cholesterol,
36
	which	takes	up	a	large	proportion	of	our	300	mg
recommended	daily	limit. So,	what	do	the	Harvard	studies	tell	us	on	this
timeworn	issue. …	consumption	of	up	to	one	egg	per	day	is	unlikely	to	have
substantial	overall	impact	on	the	risk	of	CHD	or	stroke	among
healthy	men	and	women
37
But,	for	breast	cancer,
Our	findings	[representing	eight	prospective	studies]	suggest	a
possible	modest	increase	in	[breast	cancer]	risk	with	egg
consumption…. breast	cancer	risk	was	found	to	increase	by	22%
with	every	100-g	per	day	increment	of	egg	consumption	[about	2
eggs]
26
	[There	was	a	67%	increase	in	risk	for	the	Nurses’	Health
Study. ] 26
But	earlier,	the	Harvard	researchers	took	a	slightly	different
position:
…	among	healthy	men	and	women,	moderate	egg	consumption	can
be	part	of	a	nutritious	and	balanced	diet
38
Most	recently,	the	Nurses’	Health	Study	is	cited	as	having	come	up	with	an
even	more	powerful	endorsement	for	eggs. A	recent	news	item	stated:
Eating	eggs	during	adolescence	could	protect	women	against	breast
cancer…. 39
The	article	goes	on	to	quote	a	Harvard	researcher	as	saying:
Women	who	had,	during	adolescence,	a	higher	consumption	of	eggs…had	a	lower	risk	of	breast	cancer…. 39
Most	people	who	read	this	news	article	will	likely	say	that	eggs	are	back
in	favor—even	when	they	don’t	know	how	many	eggs	per	day	are	okay	or
whether	there	are	exceptions	to	this	generalization. Eggs	will	only	seem	to	be
more	healthful	when	the	henhouse	industry	adds	their	words	of	wisdom. But
wait	a	minute—evidence	says	egg	consumption	for	teenage	girls	is	okay,
maybe	even	good,	but	evidence	also	says	more	egg	consumption	overall
increases	breast	cancer	risk. By	the	way,	here’s	something	else	to	think	about. Multiple	studies	have	rather	consistently	shown	that	egg	consumption	can
increase	colon	cancer	risk,	more	so	for	women	than	for	men. 40
What	are	we	to	believe. One	minute	alcohol	intake	can	reduce	our	disease
risks,	the	next	minute	it	can	increase	them. One	minute	fish	consumption	can
help	to	reduce	our	disease	risks,	the	next	minute	it	can	hurt. One	minute	eggs
are	bad,	the	next	minute	they	can	be	healthy. It	seems	to	me	that	what	is
missing	here	is	the	larger	context. What	you	have	without	that	context	is	just	a
lot	of	confusion. UNRAVELING	DIET	AND	CANCER
In	addition	to	stating	that	diet	and	exercise	are	unrelated	to	breast	cancer,	the
Harvard	researchers	have	been	chipping	away	at	other	popular	notions
regarding	diet	and	cancer. For	example,	the	Harvard	studies	have	not	been
able	to	detect	any	association	between	colorectal	cancer	and	fiber	or	fruit	and
vegetable	intake. 4,	41,	42
Dietary	fiber,	of	course,	only	comes	from	plant-based	foods,	thus	these
findings	put	a	dent	in	the	idea	that	fiber	or	fruits,	vegetables	and	cereals
prevent	large	bowel	cancer. Keep	in	mind	that	the	Harvard	studies	are	dealing
with	uniformly	carnivorous	populations,	almost	none	of	which	are	using	a
whole	foods,	plant-based	diet	that	is	naturally	low	in	fat	and	high	in	fiber. It	is
likely	that	the	potential	protective	effect	of	
fiber	or	fruits	and	vegetables	does
not	kick	in	against	colorectal	cancer	until	there	is	a	complete	dietary	shift
away	from	an	animal-based	diet. Between	the	colon	cancer	and	breast	cancer	findings,	the	Nurses’	Health
Study	has	done	much	to	confuse,	if	not	discredit,	the	idea	that	diet	is	related	to
cancer. After	these	decades	of	work,	Professor	Walt	Willett	says:
…	increasing	fruits	and	vegetables	overall	appears	to	be	less	promising
as	a	way	to	substantially	reduce	cancer	risk. …	the	benefits	[of	these
foods]	appear	greater	for	cardiovascular	disease	than	for	cancer
4
This	statement	sounds	a	bit	ominous. Colon	cancer,	historically	one	of	the
first	cancers	said	to	be	prevented	by	a	plant-based	diet,
43–45
	now	is	being	said
to	be	unrelated	to	diet. And	low-fat	diets	don’t	prevent	breast	cancer. With
results	like	these,	it’s	only	a	matter	of	time	before	the	hypothesis	of	a	dietary
connection	to	cancer	starts	falling	apart. In	fact,	I	have	already	heard	people
within	the	scientific	community	beginning	to	say	that	diet	may	have	no	effect
on	cancer. These	are	the	reasons	that	I	believe	that	the	Nurses’	Health	Study	has	done
considerable	damage	to	the	nutrition	landscape. It	has	virtually	nullified	many
of	the	advances	that	have	been	made	over	the	past	fifty	years	without	actually
posing	a	scientifically	reliable	challenge	to	earlier	findings	regarding	diet	and
cancer. This	problem	of	studying	a	population	that	uniformly	consumes	a	high-
risk	diet	and	looking	at	the	differences	in	consumption	of	one	nutrient	at	a
time	is	not	unique	to	the	Nurses’	Health	Study. It	is	common	to	virtually	all
studies	using	Western	subjects. Furthermore,	there	is	little	or	no	value	to
pooling	the	results	of	many	large	studies	for	analysis	in	order	to	get	a	morereliable	result	if	all	the	studies	have	the	same	flaw. A	pooling	strategy	is	often
used	for	identifying	cause-and-effect	associations	that	are	more	subtle	and
uncertain	within	single	studies. This	is	a	reliable	assumption	when	each	study
is	properly	done,	but	obviously	it	is	not	when	all	the	studies	are	similarly
flawed. The	combined	results	only	give	a	more	reliable	picture	of	the	flaw. The	Harvard	researchers	have	done	several	of	these	multi-study	pooled
analyses. One	such	pooled	analysis	concerned	the	question	of	whether	meat
and	dairy	foods	had	any	effect	on	breast	cancer. 26
	A	previous	1993	pooling	of
nineteen	studies
46
	had	shown	a	modest,	statistically	significant	18%	increase
in	breast	cancer	risk	with	increased	meat	intake	
and	17%	increase	with
increased	milk	intake. 46
	The	Harvard	researchers	therefore	summarized	in
2002	a	more	recent	group	of	studies,	this	time	including	eight	large
prospective	studies	where	dietary	information	was	thought	to	be	more	reliable
and	where	a	much	larger	group	of	women	was	included. The	researchers
concluded:
We	found	no	significant	association	between	intake	of	meat	or	dairy
products	and	risk	of	breast	cancer. 26
Most	people	would	say	“Well,	that’s	it. There	is	no	convincing	evidence
that	meat	and	dairy	foods	are	associated	with	breast	cancer	risk. ”	But	let’s
take	another	look	at	this	supposedly	more	sophisticated	analysis. All	eight	of	these	studies	represented	diets	that	had	a	high	proportion	of
animal-based	foods. In	effect,	each	study	in	this	pool	was	subject	to	the	same
flaw	from	which	the	Nurses’	Health	Study	suffered. It	makes	no	sense,	and
does	no	good,	to	combine	them. In	spite	of	there	being	351,041	women	and
7,379	breast	cancer	cases	in	this	mega-database,	these	results	cannot	detect
the	true	effect	of	diets	rich	in	meat	and	dairy	on	breast	cancer	risk. This	would
be	true	even	if	there	were	a	few	million	subjects	in	the	study. Like	the	Nurses’
Health	Study,	these	studies	all	involved	typical	Western	diets	highly	skewed
toward	the	consumption	of	animal-based	foods,	where	people	are	tinkering
with	the	intake	of	only	one	nutrient	or	one	food	at	a	time. Every	study	failed
to	take	into	account	a	broader	range	of	dietary	choices—including	those
which	demonstrated	positive	effects	on	breast	cancer	risk	in	the	past. IGNORING	MY	CRITIQUE
Once,	after	reading	a	publication	on	animal	protein	and	heart	disease	in	the
Nurses’	Health	Study,
9
	I	published	a	critique
47
	summarizing	some	of	the	same
points	that	I	am	making	in	this	chapter,	including	the	inability	of	the	Nurses’
Health	Study	to	advance	our	understanding	of	the	original	international
correlation	studies. They	responded,	and	our	exchange	is	as	follows. First,	my	comment:
Within	a	dietary	range	[so	rich	in	animal-based	foods],	it	makes	no
sense	to	me	that	it	is	possible	to	reliably	detect	the	so-called
independent	associations	of	the	individual	constituents	of	this	group
when	it	can	be	expected	that	they	share	the	same	disease	outcomes	
and
when	there	are	so	many	difficult-to-measure	and	interacting	risk	factor
exposures. When	will	it	be	understood	that	it	is	the	total	diet	and	the
aggregate	and	comprehensive	effects	of	large	food	groups	that	make
the	greatest	contribution	to	the	maintenance	of	health	and	prevention	of
disease. The	sort	of	reductionism	embodied	in	the	interpretation	of
data	from	this	[Nurses’	Health	Study]	cohort	runs	the	risk	of	severely
misleading	discourse	on	meaningful	public	health	and	public	policy
programs. 47
Then	the	response	from	Dr. Hu	and	Professor	Willett:
Although	we	agree	that	overall	dietary	patterns	are	also	important	in
determining	disease	risk	(ref. cited),	we	believe	that	identification	of
associations	with	individual	nutrients	should	be	the	first	step	because	it
is	the	specific	compounds	or	groups	of	compounds	that	are
fundamentally	related	to	the	[disease	process]. Specific	components	of
diet	can	be	modified,	and	individuals	and	the	food	industry	are	actively
doing	so. Understanding	the	health	effects	of	specific	dietary	changes,
which	Campbell	refers	to	as	“reductionism,”	is	therefore	an	important
undertaking. 48
I	agree	that	studying	the	independent	effects	of	individual	food	substances
(their	identities,	functions,	mechanisms)	is	worthwhile,	but	Willett	and	I
sharply	disagree	with	how	to	interpret	and	use	these	findings. I	strongly	reject	the	implications	in	Willett’s	argument	that	“specific
components	of	the	diet	can	be	modified”	to	the	benefit	of	one’s	health. This	is
precisely	what	is	wrong	with	this	area	of	research. In	fact,	if	the	Nurses’Health	Study	shows	nothing	else,	it	demonstrates	that	modifying	the	intake	of
one	nutrient	at	a	time,	without	questioning	whole	dietary	patterns,	does	not
confer	significant	health	benefits. Women	who	tinker	with	fat,	while
maintaining	a	near-carnivorous	diet,	do	not	have	a	lower	breast	cancer	risk. This	gets	to	the	heart	of	reductionism	in	science. As	long	as	scientists
study	highly	isolated	chemicals	and	food	components,	and	take	the
information	out	of	context	to	make	sweeping	assumptions	about	complex	diet
and	disease	relationships,	confusion	will	result. Misleading	news	headlines
about	this	or	that	food	chemical	and	this	or	that	disease	will	be	the	norm. The
more	impressive	message	about	the	benefits	of	broad	dietary	change	will	be
muted	as	long	as	we	focus	on	relatively	trivial	details. On	occasions,	when	our	paths	have	crossed,	Professor	Willett	and	I	have
had	discussions	about	the	findings	on	fat	as	they	relate	to	the	China	Study	and
the	Nurses’	Health	Study. I	have	always	made	the	same	point:	whole	foods,
plant-based	diets,	naturally	low	in	fat,	are	not	included	in	the	Nurses’	Health
Study	cohort,	and	that	it	is	these	types	of	diets	that	are	the	most	beneficial	for
our	health. Professor	Willett	has	said	to	me,	in	response,	on	more	than	one
occasion,	“You	may	be	right,	Colin,	but	people	don’t	want	to	go	there. ”	This
comment	has	disturbing	implications. Scientists	should	not	be	ignoring	ideas	just	because	we	perceive	that	the
public	does	not	want	to	hear	them. Too	often	during	my	career,	I	have	heard
comments	that	seem	to	be	more	of	an	attempt	to	please	the	public	than	to
engage	in	an	open,	honest	debate,	wherever	it	may	take	us. This	is	wrong. The
role	of	science	in	a	society	is	to	observe,	to	ask	questions,	to	form	and	test
hypotheses	and	to	interpret	the	findings	without	bias—not	to	kowtow	to
people’s	perceived	desires. Consumers	have	the	ultimate	choice	of	whether	to
integrate	our	findings	into	their	lifestyles,	but	we	owe	it	to	them	to	give	them
the	best	information	possible	with	which	to	make	that	decision	and	not	decide
for	them. It	is	they	who	paid	for	this	research	and	it	is	only	they	who	have	the
right	to	decide	what	to	do	with	it. The	perception	in	the	scientific	community	that	the	public	only	wants
magic	bullets	and	simple	dietary	tinkering	is	overrated. I	have	learned	in	my
public	lectures	that	there	is	more	interest	in	diet/lifestyle	change	than	the
academic	community	is	willing	to	admit. This	method	of	investigating	details	out	of	context,	what	I	call	reduction-
ism,	and	trying	to	judge	complex	relationships	from	the	results	is	deadly. It	is
even	more	damaging	than	the	misbehavior	of	the	small	minority	of	scientists	I
discussed	in	chapter	thirteen. Unfortunately,	this	flawed	way	of	investigating
nutrition	has	become	the	norm. As	a	consequence,	honest,	hardworking,	well-
intentioned	scientists	around	the	world	are	forced	to	make	judgments	aboutwhole	dietary	effects	on	the	basis	of	narrowly	focused	studies	on	individual
nutrients. The	greatest	danger	is	that	reductionism	science,	standing	naked
from	its	larger	environment,	has	come	to	be	the	gold	standard. Indeed,	I	know
many	researchers	who	would	even	say	that	this	is	what	defines	“good”
science. These	problems	are	especially	egregious	in	the	investigation	of	vitamin
supplements. As	I	noted	at	the	beginning	of	the	chapter,	I	spent	over	three
years	during	the	early	history	of	the	nutrient	supplement	
business	developing
testimony	for	the	Federal	Trade	Commission	and	the	National	Academy	of
Sciences	in	their	court	case	against	General	Nutrition,	Inc. I	argued	that
specific	health	benefits	for	chronic	diseases	could	not	be	claimed	for	isolated
vitamins	and	minerals	in	supplement	form. For	this,	I	took	a	lot	of	heat	from
my	colleagues	who	believed	otherwise. Now,	more	than	fifteen	years	later,
after	hundreds	of	millions	of	dollars	of	research	funding	and	billions	of
dollars	of	consumer	spending,	we	now	have	this	conclusion	from	a	recent
survey	of	the	evidence:
The	U. S. Preventive	Services	Task	Force	(USPSTF)	concludes	that	the
evidence	is	insufficient	to	recommend	for	or	against	the	use	of
supplements	of	A,	C	or	E;	multivitamins	with	folic	acid;	or	antioxidant
combinations	for	the	prevention	of	cancer	or	cardiovascular	disease. 49,
50
How	many	more	billions	of	dollars	must	be	spent	before	we	understand
the	limitations	of	reductionist	research. Scientific	investigations	of	the	effects
of	single	nutrients	on	complex	diseases	have	little	or	no	meaning	when	the
main	dietary	effect	is	due	to	the	consumption	of	an	extraordinary	collection	of
nutrients	and	other	substances	found	in	whole	foods. This	is	especially	true
when	no	subjects	in	the	study	population	consume	a	whole	foods,	plant-based
diet	when	it	is	this	diet	that	is	most	consistent	with	the	biologically-based
evidence,	supported	by	the	most	impressive	array	of	professional	literature,
consonant	with	the	extremely	low	disease	rates	seen	in	the	international
studies,	far	more	harmonious	with	a	sustainable	environment,	possessed	of
the	power	to	heal	advanced	disease,	and	has	the	potential,	without	parallel,	for
supporting	a	new,	low-cost	health	care	system. I	categorically	reject	the	idea
of	doing	reductionism	research	in	this	held	without	seeking	or	understanding
the	larger	context. The	endless	stream	of	confusion	generated	by
misinterpreted	reductionism	undermines	not	only	the	entire	science	of
nutrition,	but	also	the	health	of	America. 15
The	“Science”	of	Industry
W
HAT	DOES	EVERY
	A
MERICAN	SPEND
	money	on	several	times	a	day. Eating. After	a	lifetime	of	eating,	what	do	we	all	do. Die—a	process	that	usually
involves	large	costs	as	we	try	to	postpone	it	for	as	long	as	possible. We’re	all
customers	of	hunger	and	death,	so	there’s	a	lot	of	money	to	be	spent	and
made. Because	of	this,	the	food	and	health	industries	in	America	are	among	the
most	influential	organizations	in	the	world. The	revenue	generated	by	the
companies	that	produce	food	and	health	products	is	staggering. Many
individual	food	companies	have	over	$10	billion	in	annual	revenues. Kraft
has	revenues	of	roughly	$30	billion	a	year. The	Danone	Group,	an
international	dairy	company	based	in	France,	operates	the	Dannon	brand	and
has	revenues	of	$15	billion	a	year. And	of	course,	there	are	the	large	fast	food
companies. McDonald’s	has	revenues	in	excess	of	$15	billion	a	year,	and
Wendy’s	International	generates	almost	$3	billion	a	year. Total	food
expenditures,	including	food	bought	by	individuals,	government	and	business,
exceed	$700	billion	a	year. 1
The	massive	drug	company	Pfizer	had	$32	billion	in	revenue	in	2002,
while	Eli	Lilly	&	Co. chalked	up	over	$11	billion. Johnson	and	Johnson
collected	over	$36	billion	from	selling	their	products. It’s	not	an
overstatement	to	say	over	a	trillion	dollars	every	year	is	riding	on	what	we
choose	to	eat	and	how	we	choose	to	treat	sickness	and	promote	health. That’s
a	lot	of	money. There	are	powerful	players	that	compete	for	your	food	and	health	
dollars. Individual	companies,	of	course,	do	what	they	can	to	sell	more	of	their
products,	but	also	there	are	industry	groups	that	work	to	increase	generaldemand	for	their	products. The	National	Dairy	Council,	National	Dairy
Promotion	and	Research	Board,	National	Fluid	Milk	Processor	Promotion
Board,	International	Sprout	Growers	Association,	American	Meat	Institute,
Florida	Citrus	Processors	Association,	and	United	Egg	Producers	are
examples	of	such	industry	groups. These	organizations,	operating
independently	of	any	single	company,	wield	significant	influence—the	most
powerful	among	them	have	yearly	budgets	in	the	hundreds	of	millions	of
dollars. These	food	companies	and	associations	use	whatever	methods	they	can	to
enhance	their	products’	appeal	and	grow	their	market. One	way	to	accomplish
this	is	to	claim	nutritional	benefits	for	the	food	products	they	sell. At	the	same
time,	these	companies	and	associations	must	protect	their	products	from	being
considered	unhealthy. If	a	product	is	linked	to	cancer	or	some	other	disease,
profits	and	revenue	will	evaporate. So	food	business	interests	need	to	claim
that	their	product	is	good	for	you,	or,	at	least,	that	it’s	not	bad	for	you. In	this
process,	the	“science”	of	nutrition	becomes	the	“business”	of	marketing. THE	AIRPORT	CLUB
While	I	was	getting	the	China	Study	off	the	ground,	I	learned	of	a	committee
of	seven	prominent	research	scientists	who	had	been	retained	by	the	animal-
based	foods	industry	(the	National	Dairy	Council	and	the	American	Meat
Institute)	to	keep	tabs	on	any	research	projects	in	the	U.
The study is flawed because it does not consider the impact of a whole diet and focuses on individual nutrients, which is misleading and can lead to incorrect conclusions.
What is the main issue with the Nurses' Health Study, according to the author?
The author disagrees with the Harvard researchers' approach, stating that it is flawed and misleading, as it does not consider the context of the entire diet and only focuses on individual nutrients.
What is the author's opinion on the Harvard researchers' approach to studying diet and disease?
The Airport Club is a group of scientists who work for the dairy industry and have a vested interest in promoting their products, which can lead to biased and misleading research.
What is the main issue with the Airport Club, as mentioned in the text?
The author argues that reductionism is a flawed approach, as it ignores the context and only focuses on individual nutrients, which can lead to incorrect conclusions and mislead the public.
What is the author's criticism of the reductionist approach in science?
The author believes that the government should be promoting a healthy diet and lifestyle, rather than simply providing vague recommendations, and that they have failed to do so.
What is the author's opinion on the role of the government in promoting healthy eating habits?