Nutrition expert and author of The China Study, T. Colin Campbell, has recently published the first in a series of pieces detailing the ways in which we have ignored scientific research linking nutrition and cancer.
The researcher, who was part of the widely discredited National Academy of Science report ‘Diet, Nutrition and Cancer’ in 1982, is publishing this series as a way of presenting some of his unreleased work from the 1980s. The paper originally comprised of over 60 pages and was a result of a vast amount of research conducted by Campbell to try and understand why the 1982 NAS paper had been received so badly.
The first in the series is available to all online, and subsequent installments are expected to be in the public domain soon. Commenting on his decision, Campbell said ‘With more than three decades to reflect on it, I am now convinced that history has a lot to say about our current diet and healthcare system.’
His work aims to show ‘not only of why the association of nutrition with cancer has been so difficult to understand but also how our future will be bleak if we continue on the present path.’
The first section of his paper, titled ‘The Past, Present, and Future of Nutrition and Cancer: Part 1—Was A Nutritional Association Acknowledged a Century Ago?,’ refers to a report put together by Professor Frederick L. Hoffman in 1937. This report called ‘Cancer and Diet’ examined the reasons why cancer had become so much prevalent since the 1800s. Hoffman’s work concluded that of ‘the writings of almost two hundred authorities, more or less eminent in their respective fields of practice or research…most writers … are agreed that excessive nutrition if not the chief cause (of cancer) is at least a contributory factor of the first importance.’
These comments may come as a shock to many people today, who feel as though they are hearing about the links between nutrition and cancer only recently. Campbell believes that the subject of nutrition becomes particularly difficult for governments to swallow ‘especially when we questioned the consumption of meat.’
Many recent studies have suggested that the consumption of animal products, including eggs and dairy, are linked to an increased risk of contracting cancer. The largest study of its kind ever conducted has concluded that meat is linked with an increased risk of contracting nine major diseases, cancer included.
Additionally, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) are encouraging people this October to eat more fruit and vegetables with beta-carotene in, instead of supporting Breast Cancer Awareness Month by wearing a pink ribbon. Even Time Magazine has weighed in on the subject, claiming that a plant-based diet is both best for cancer recovery and cancer prevention.
Ultimately, Campbell’s report sets out to shed some light on why governments don’t want to hear that meat, eggs, and dairy are bad for our health. He doesn’t need to prove that they are because the science is already there and has been for over 100 years.