The China Study (46 page)

THE "SCIENCE" OF INDUSTRY                        301
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 want prostate 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 lO Cold Water Dispersion and LycoVit
lO% to be used as food supplementsY 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. 2 But these stud-
8
ies 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 stu-
d e n t 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. 3 1,32 Depending on what we were testing and how

302                         THE CHINA STUDY
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 nearly indecipherable network. Consum-
i n g 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-
s u p p o r t i n g nutrients.
Five years after our rather obscure work on these antioxidants,32 a
Harvard study33 effectively kicked off the lycopene campaign. In my
opinion, lycopene, as a cancer fighter, is headed for an already over-
c r o w d e d magic bullet graveyard, leaving behind a trail of deep confu-
sion .
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 con-
c e r n s 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 jus-
tify 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

THE "SCIENCE" OF INDUSTRY                         303
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 ben-
efits? 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 ear-
lier 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 in-
terview? 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 recent-
ly, 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 re-
s u l t 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 of-
t e n the most coveted targets of their marketing. The American govern-
m e n t 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 chil-
dren, but also to use our publicly-funded school systems to do it. The
long-term burden of our short-sighted indiscretion is incalculable.

..__...__.._ _.__...... _ ........____..... _ ...6...... .. _.......... __ ..... . .__.. .....__..
___ .. ______ .__1 ...._ _
Government:
Is It for the People?
we have acquired substantial evi-
DURING THE PAST TWO TO THREE DECADES,
dence 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 obe-
sity 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
305

306                          TH E CH I NA STU DY
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 Medi-
cine (lOM) of the National Academy of Sciences, has the responsibility
every five years or so to review and update the recommended consump-
t i o n of individual nutrients. The FNB has been making nutrient recom-
m e n d a t i o n s since 1943 when it established a plan for the u.s. Armed
Forces wherein it recommended daily allowances (RDAs) for each indi-
vidual nutrient.
In the most recent FNB report, 1 published in 2002, nutrient rec-
o m m e n d a t i o n s 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 mini-
mizing 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 calo-
ries 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 say-
ing? Remember, the news release starts off by stating the report's objec-
tive 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

GOVERNMENT: IS IT FOR THE PEOPLE?                         307
the report advises that we need a minimum of 45% of calories as car-
bohydrates, more than half of this amount (i.e., 25%) can be the sugars
present in candies, soft drinks and pastries. 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.l)yl
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
Grilled cheddar cheeseburger
lunch
3 slices pepperoni pizza, 1 16 oz. soda,
Dinner
1 serving Archway sugar cookies
CHART 16.2: NUTRIENT PROFILE OF SAMPLE MENU PLAN AND
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Nutrient                  Sample Menu           Recommended
Ranges
Content
Total Calories                                -1800            Varies by height/
weight
Protein (% of total calories)                -18%                   10-35%
Fat (% of total calories)                    -31%                  20-35%
45-65%
Carbohydrates (% of total calories)           -51%
Up to 25%
Sugars in Sweets, or Added Sugars             -23%
(% of total calories)
Folks, I'm not kidding. This disastrous menu plan fits the recommen-
d a t i o n s of the report and is supposedly consistent with "minimizing
chronic disease."

THE (HINA STUDY
308
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 rec-
o m m e n d e d daily allowances. At this point in the book, I don't need to
tell you 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.
Relative to total calorie intake, only 5-6% dietary protein is required
to replace the protein regularly excreted by the body (as amino acids).
About 9-10% protein, however, is the amount that has been recom-
m e n d e d for the past fifty years to be assured that most people at least get
their 5-6% "requirement." This 9-10% recommendation is equivalent
to the well-known recommended daily allowance, or RDA.5
Almost all Americans exceed this 9-10% recommendation; we con-
s u m e protein within the range of about 11-21 %, with an average of about
15-16%.6 The relatively few people consuming more than 21% protein
mostly are those who "pump iron," recently joined by those on high-pro-
tein diets.
It is extremely puzzling that these new government-sponsored 2002
FNB recommendations now say that we should be able to consume
protein up to the extraordinary level of 35% as a means of minimizing
chronic diseases like cancer and heart disease. This is an unbelievable
travesty, considering the scientific evidence. The evidence presented
in this book shows that increasing dietary protein within the range of
about 10-20% is associated with a broad array of health problems, espe-
cially when most of the protein is from animal sources.
As reviewed earlier in this book, diets with more animal-based
protein will create higher blood cholesterol levels and higher risks of
atherosclerosis, cancer, osteoporosis, Alzheimer's disease and kidney
stones, to name just a few chronic diseases that the FNB committee
mysteriously chooses to ignore.
Furthermore, the FNB panel had the audacity to say that this 10-35%
recommendation range is the same as previous reports. Their press re-
lease clearly states, "protein intake recommendations are the same [as
previous reports J." I know of no report that has even remotely suggested a
level as high as this.
When I initially saw this protein recommendation, I honestly thought