© 2005-2009 The China Study and BenBella Books, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Intro by Allan Bird
One of the biggest pieces of misinformation about switching to a Vegan Diet is in the area of protein. Not only do Americans consume way too much protein but the type of animal proteins we eat cause all kinds of health issues. I will be writing more in the future on plant based protein but just read the following excerpt from "The China Study" to get your attention.
"For ten years our primary goal in the Philippines was to improve childhood malnutrition among
the poor, a project funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development. Eventually, we
established about 110 nutrition “self-help” education centers around the country.
The aim of these efforts in the Philippines was simple: make sure that children were getting as
much protein as possible. It was widely thought that much of the childhood malnutrition in
the world was caused by a lack of protein, especially from animal-based foods. Universities
and governments around the world were working to alleviate a perceived “protein gap” in the
developing world.
In this project, however, I uncovered a dark secret. Children who ate the highest-protein diets were
the ones most likely to get liver cancer! They were the children of the wealthiest families.
W W W . B E N B E L L A B O O K S . C O M
T C S - B B B
5
I then noticed a research report from India that had some very provocative, relevant findings.
Indian researchers had studied two groups of rats. In one group, they administered the cancercausing
aflatoxin, then fed a diet that was composed of 20% protein, a level near what many of
us consume in the West. In the other group, they administered the same amount of aflatoxin,
but then fed a diet that was only composed of 5% protein. Incredibly, every single animal that
consumed the 20% protein diet had evidence of liver cancer, and every single animal that
consumed a 5% protein diet avoided liver cancer. It was a 100 to 0 score, leaving no doubt that
nutrition trumped chemical carcinogens, even very potent carcinogens, in controlling cancer.
This information countered everything I had been taught. It was heretical to say that protein
wasn’t healthy, let alone say it promoted cancer. It was a defining moment in my career.
Investigating such a provocative question so early in my career was not a very wise choice.
Questioning protein and animal-based foods in general ran the risk of my being labeled a
heretic, even if it passed the test of “good science.”
But I never was much for following directions just for the sake of following directions. When I
first learned to drive a team of horses or herd cattle, to hunt animals, to fish our creek or to
work in the fields, I came to accept that independent thinking was part of the deal. It had to
be. Encountering problems in the field meant that I had to figure out what to do next. It was a
great classroom, as any farm boy can tell you. That sense of independence has stayed with me
until today.
So, faced with a difficult decision, I decided to start an in-depth laboratory program that
would investigate the role of nutrition, especially protein, in the development of cancer. My
colleagues and I were cautious in framing our hypotheses, rigorous in our methodology and
conservative in interpreting our findings. I chose to do this research at a very basic science
level, studying the biochemical details of cancer formation. It was important to understand not
only whether but also how protein might promote cancer. It was the best of all worlds. By
carefully following the rules of good science, I was able to study a provocative topic without
provoking knee-jerk responses that arise with radical ideas. Eventually, this research became
handsomely funded for twenty-seven years by the bestreviewed and most competitive funding
sources [mostly the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the American Cancer Society and the
American Institute for Cancer Research]. Then our results were reviewed (a second time) for
publication in many of the best scientific journals.
What we found was shocking. Low-protein diets inhibited the initiation of cancer by aflatoxin,
regardless of how much of this carcinogen was administered to these animals. After cancer
initiation was completed, low-protein diets also dramatically blocked subsequent cancer
growth. In other words, the cancer-producing effects of this highly carcinogenic chemical were
rendered insignificant by a low-protein diet. In fact, dietary protein proved to be so powerful in its
effect that we could turn on and turn off cancer growth simply by changing the level consumed.
Furthermore, the amounts of protein being fed were those that we humans routinely consume.
We didn’t use extraordinary levels, as is so often the case in carcinogen studies.
But that’s not all. We found that not all proteins had this effect. What protein consistently and
strongly promoted cancer? Casein, which makes up 87% of cow’s milk protein, promoted all
stages of the cancer process. What type of protein did not promote cancer, even at high levels
of intake? The safe proteins were from plants, including wheat and soy. As this picture came
into view, it began to challenge and then to shatter some of my most cherished assumptions.
These experimental animal studies didn’t end there. I went on to direct the most
comprehensive study of diet, lifestyle and disease ever done with humans in the history of
biomedical research. It was a massive undertaking jointly arranged through Cornell
University, Oxford University and the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine. The New York
Times called it the “Grand Prix of Epidemiology.” This project surveyed a vast range of
diseases and diet and lifestyle factors in rural China and, more recently, in Taiwan. More
commonly known as the China Study, this project eventually produced more than 8,000
statistically significant associations between various dietary factors and disease!
What made this project especially remarkable is that, among the many associations that are
relevant to diet and disease, so many pointed to the same finding: people who ate the most
animal-based foods got the most chronic disease. Even relatively small intakes of animal-based
food were associated with adverse effects. People who ate the most plant-based foods were the
healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease. These results could not be ignored. From the
initial experimental animal studies on animal protein effects to this massive human study on
dietary patterns, the findings proved to be consistent. The health implications of consuming
either animal or plant-based nutrients were remarkably different."
No comments:
Post a Comment