T. Colin Campbell

I was flicking through the books in Kinokunia and came across the charts in the current book showing correlations between animal proteins and heart disease, cancer, etc. They were ranged by country, and whilst the correlations seemed fairly strong, only one statistic was cited and I found myself wondering if there was also an effect here of increased life expectancy in the affluent countries. In other words, were people now dying in their late 80's of cancer, when they might have died in a show more developing country of malaria at a much younger age. Anyway, I was curious so I bought a copy and found myself fascinated. Basically the author is claiming a major link between eating whole plant foods and very low incidence of cancer. I started off pretty skeptical and still have a lot of questions and I'm now ploughing my way through his more detailed "The China Study" which provides the backbone of his current arguments.
Much of the story is all about how established medicine ( basically surgeons, pharmaceutical and radiation guys) steered all the funding into their own institutions and denied any link between nutrition and cancer…. Despite very strong statistical evidence published way back......in the 1800s.....The author, In conjunction with chinese researchers and an Oxford academic, did a major study in China on nutrition that provided support for his thesis.
I'm still reserving judgement until I read to the end of both books and have done some more research. I'd like to see why other experts don't seem to have adopted his ideas as enthusiastically as Campbell thinks they should. . I had thought that the increasing incidence of cancer was an offshoot of other medical advances such as vaccination, eliminating the other causes of death, but seems he is well aware of this. Also seems to have worked closely with a biostatistician so that increases my confidence a bit.
Anyway, all a bit late for me. And not sure that I want to become vegetarian either. But if he’s right, then the medical establishment stands condemned.
After some further reading....including in his book "The China Study", was impressed with the correlations found. But also impressed that these were followed up with animal studies and plausible biochemical pathways etc. so he's not just drawing on the China Study. Both books are written for non scientists so no measures of standard deviations etc., but he has recorded levels of significance.
I was asking myself…. Let’s assume that he is right and there is a direct relationship between western diseases and animal protein in our diets…… How would you show this. And, I think the China Study methodology would be about the best way to show it.
I was a bit doubtful about them pooling the blood samples by counties but realised that they only lose the ability for individual comparisons. (No different to taking a sample of 1000 grains of wheat etc). I assume they did analysis of variance on their data as well as just correlation but this is not shown.
I also thought that, if he’s right, then vegetarians should show very low rates of these diseases. So I checked data for the Seventh Day Adventists (SDA). Sure enough they show lower incidence of cancer, heart disease etc. pattern is consistent in various countries. I think incidence was about 40% less than rest of population. So good, but not fantastic. I then checked how many SDA actually are vegetarian and it seems only about 40% with just 2-5% being vegan. So maybe the data is still consistent with Campbell’s claim.
Anyway, I’m half convinced. Need to think about it a bit more. In meantime I’ve just switched from skim milk to oat milk and switched my standard coffee from skim flat white to long black.
I also wondered about dogs who eat mainly meat and yes they get cancers but also can apparently live ok on vegetarian diets. But, if our biochemistry is similar then why aren't all dogs dying of cancer early? Is it worth changing habits at my age? Not sure about that. If symptoms are reversed (as Cambell claims) then, maybe.
And if meat-derived proteins are the problem what is the difference between meat derived and plant-derived proteins in terms of their chemical structure and biological activity. I've just cross-checked with a few biochemistry text books and can find nothing. (Though there is some evidence of an evolutionary sequence. For example, an evolutionary sequence for the protein cytochrome-c has been traced in three kingdoms (fungi, plants and animals) with the differences in number of amino acid differences along the branches of the tree....but it doesn't identify any structural differences that might be involved in cancer or heart disease).
I'm still wondering about some of those regressions he has published as charts. For example, if we take Chart 4: Colon Cancer incidence: .....there is a nice straight-line relationship between colon cancer incidence in women and per capita daily meat consumption. Nigeria is right at the bottom in terms of both factors. (Which always helps lock-down one end of a correlation). But, when we look at a few other measures, the picture is not so clear cut. For example, The healthy life expectancy for Nigerian women is only 55 years and total life expectancy about 65 years (in 2021). So they are dying much earlier than people in NZ and Australia (where the comparable figures for healthy life expectancy are 71 years and total life expectancy 85 years ). And, when one looks at the major causes of death in Nigeria they are neonatal conditions (mainly malaria). lower respiratory conditions, diarrhoeal conditions,TB, malaria, and only then do we encounter the western diseases (heart disease and stroke), followed by congenital abnormalities, HIV/AIDS, and meningitis. (And the deaths from homicide at 21.7 per 100K inhabitants, are about the same as deaths from meningitis). The bottom line here, is that people in Nigeria are dying from a whole lot of causes that are virtually not present in Australia and they are dying before they reach 65 years of age. Whereas, in Australia deaths from colorectal cancer are just starting to kick up when a female is over 65 (about 90 per 100K inhabitants). Low meat consumption in Nigeria presumably has little to do with deaths from malaria, or HIV and high meat consumption in Australia doesn't mean deaths from HIV or malaria. So maybe, Nigeria's position on the chart is really a function of the fact that Nigerians (whether or not they eat a lot of meat) are just dying before they reach the age at which colorectal cancers might start to show up. One could make similar arguments about most of these data points.
A lot of the book is repetitive and a bit self-justifying. Though I have some sympathy for a pre-veterinary science/molecular biology guy moving into the medical world. He’s an outsider to a very arrogant group of experts who have always seen themselves as an elite. They treated the statistician Hoffman the same way early in the 1900's. I'm not going to even try to summarise the evidence Campbell amasses. Sometimes I was wondering whether he was hoping to turn public opinion around and get a Nobel Prize but suspect that he's rather miffed (and concerned) that his research and others has been overlooked or buried for a variety of reasons which he spells out.
Here is a summary of some of his main conclusions (his words):
"All of the evidence discussed so far indicates the same thing: we should minimize our consumption of animal foods and increase our consumption of whole plant foods......You may wonder why I suggest a complete removal of animal protein from the diet, rather than, say, an 80 or 95 percent WFPB diet. This is a reasonable question that deserves further consideration.....In some Chinese counties, the average number of heart disease deaths was fewer than 1 case per 1,000 death certificates (compared to the nearly 200 cases per 1,000 death certificates in the United States!).
This disease group (e.g., heart disease, cancers, diabetes, etc.), common to Western countries, was highly correlated with blood cholesterol, which was, in turn, highly correlated with animal protein consumption.
Western-type diseases appeared and began to rise as blood cholesterol rose, within a range of 88 to 165 milligrams per deciliter (mg/ dL; mean = 127 mg/ dL). [Multiply Australian Figures of mmol/L by 18 to get mg/dL]....That range of blood cholesterol corresponds to small amounts of animal protein consumption, about 1 to 12 grams per day. To give some perspective, we in the West tend to consume about 30-65 grams per day of animal protein, with blood cholesterol ranging from 150-300 mg/ dL.
In other words, even the most voracious consumers of animal protein in rural China were consuming about 10 percent that of Western countries. Yet even within that range of minimal consumption, we observed that animal protein contributed to increased mortality from Western-type diseases....Theoretically the most minimal disease risk would be characterized by a complete absence of foods containing animal-based protein (i.e., a WFPB diet) and a baseline blood cholesterol level of about 90 mg/ dL.
For decades, the Western blood cholesterol range of 150 to 300 mg/ dL has been considered normal. Most authorities today suggest that anything less than 200 mg/ dL is "desirable.....A graph of one of the most famous studies on heart disease and blood cholesterol, the MRFIT trial of 361,662 men, shows the same association between blood cholesterol and heart disease that we observed in rural Chinese villages. However, it shows this association within a much higher range one considered "normal" by Western standards.....Indeed, one rural county in China reported only one death from heart disease per 265,000 death certificates!.....It was with this "normal" range in mind (150-300 mg/ dL) that we tested blood cholesterol levels in China and discovered a mean of 127 mg/ dL, which we feared, given our Western mindset, might be dangerously low....We felt it necessary to retest our samples in different labs and using different methodologies. What we discovered is that these Chinese cholesterol levels were not dangerous at all,.......The WFPB diet, is a case study of how we should approach science by both wholistic and reductionist methods. It is controversial in that approach, just as it is controversial for the reasons introduced in the first two sections of this book......The dismissal of the evidence in favour of a WFPB diet, on the grounds that it is controversial, is not an honest engagement with science....We should consider the totality of evidence in favour of a WFPB diet against the totality of evidence in favour of any other dietary lifestyle (including the standard American diet)......What we should not do is dismiss the overall lesson of that evidence based on lazy critiques of individual pieces of evidence.
If all that existed were correlation studies they would be compelling and raise many questions, but they would not necessarily be conclusive. Put all of these pieces together, however, and you see that the totality of evidence in favour of a WFPB diet is broad, diverse, and supported by plentiful context.......You would do well to ask for the dietary lifestyle for which the evidence is more sufficient....... Ask always whether they're selling a product, and whether the health effects of that product have been well documented in both short-and long-term studies.....All straight lines (linear regressions) except for one (in chart 8) were approximated based on an equal number of data points appearing on both sides of the line. [I assume that they have actually fitted the lines statistically though this comment makes me wonder]. Note that the lines are straight and that they intercept the x-y origin for animal protein, suggesting that a diet without animal protein reduces the rate of cancer incidence and mortality to zero. The numbers used for this range [in the China Study] are county means, meaning some individuals' blood cholesterols were even lower than 88 mg/ dL.
The question, then, is not how to obliterate these [health] institutions, but how to flip the script of history and radically transform our systems so that they no longer hinder growth, but rather accelerate it. Whenever there is a power imbalance between an institution and the people it affects, that institution's role must be justified.......There is a vast difference between an institution that pursues its agenda honestly but ineffectively and an institution that serves hidden agendas.....In the disease-maintenance system of today, virtually all of our institutions must face greater scrutiny and skepticism.
Any institution that affects the clarity or accessibility of nutrition-this empowering egalitarian science— should therefore be held to the highest possible standard........There has been an assumption that institutions can be more or less trusted to police themselves.......But I have seen this "policing" firsthand, and it is more often than not the opposite of the kind of policing that one might hope for......The ACS viewed the AICR as potential competition for public funding, and they were dogmatically opposed to any mention whatsoever of nutrition as a potential factor in the control of cancer......I am convinced by these and many other experiences that if we leave our institutions to watch over each other, these kinds of activities will continue. Nobody will demand a higher standard of legitimacy among the powerful".
As I said, I've found the book fascinating....maybe even life changing. But, as he correctly points out, the whole field of nutrition is thoroughly overwhelming and confusing....apparently even for experts. Can I trust Campbell when he says that cholesterol in the diet is not a problem. Nor is the amount of fat in the diet if it comes from plant sources. I'm thinking of cutting out cow's milk and drinking oat milk....but can I do this without impacting my fat-cholesterol status? Or without compromising my calcium intake. Campbell skirts around this problem by blithely stating that one should adopt his WFPB in entirety so you don't have to make complex choices. Well that might be great for him when his whole family follows the diet....but what about people where the rest of the family is enjoying a steak once or twice a week and where preparing a different meal is a serious logistical issue. But he certainly has me thinking and doing additional research. So five stars from me. show less

Imagine that, in the United States, there were an excess of one million deaths every year that could be prevented, relatively easily, with only a few lifestyle adjustments. You would imagine this to be a top public health priority, and that our health care professionals would be trained to offer the requisite counseling and advice. This would be reasonable for you to think, but you would be wrong.

In The Future of Nutrition, nutritional biochemist and Cornell University professor T. Colin show more Campbell describes the link between nutrition and disease and why nutrition has been downplayed as an integral part of disease care for decades. Campbell—in synthesizing 60 years of his own and others’ research—details the personal and institutional biases—along with the food industry’s profound influence over nutrition science—in creating an environment where disease care is focused on surgical and pharmaceutical interventions at the expense of long-term health through proper nutrition.

As Campbell explains, the leading causes of death in the US (as of 2017) are:

1. Heart disease (647,000)
2. Cancer (599,000)
3. Accidents (170,000)
4. Chronic lower respiratory disease (160,000)
5. Stroke (146,000)
6. Medical errors (250,000–440,000)

What you will notice about this list is the preventable nature of many of these diseases, which result from malnutrition or, more specifically, excess nutrition. The over-consumption of processed foods high in simple sugars and fat (and animal protein) results in obesity, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, and other pathophysiology that has been shown to increase one’s risk for heart disease, stroke, and even some forms of cancer.

As Campbell demonstrates, if adjusted for malnutrition, the leading causes of death in the US would look as follows (these are conservative estimates):

1. Heart disease (65,000)
2. Cancer (180,000)
3. Accidents (170,000)
4. Chronic lower respiratory disease (160,000)
5. Stroke (73,000)
6. Medical errors (50,000)

All told, with proper nutrition, more than 1.2 million lives could be saved in the US every year (or more). Heart disease and stroke have an obvious link to nutrition; cancer is less obvious but supported by extensive research (much of it conducted by the author); and medical errors would be reduced as fewer people required surgical and medical care.

Yet despite the nutritional origin of these excess deaths, our health care professionals are largely untrained in the role of nutrition in the promotion of general health. In the United States, disease prevention and treatment is centered on surgical and pharmaceutical interventions, not on the underlying cause of disease.

Campbell shows that, in 2017, 55 percent of Americans took prescription drugs, taking four per day on average and spending an average of $1,162 every year. The United States is also one of only two countries in the world to permit direct-to-consumer TV advertising of drugs instead of advertising to qualified physicians. Pharmaceutical interventions, of course, in many cases act only as band aids—you can take medication to lower your blood pressure, but the underlying cause of your high blood pressure is likely to be based on your lifestyle choices (diet and exercise).

So the US spends more money on health care and medications than almost any other country and yet our life expectancy is decreasing. As Campbell wrote:

“Our declining life expectancy leaves America ranked forty-fourth in the world, an astonishing and disturbing rank considering that we have the highest per capita health care costs in the world, by an eye popping margin.”

How could we have allowed this to happen? As Campbell explains, the profession has neglected the role of nutrition “not as a matter of conspiracy, but due to a combination of more mundane human defects like stubbornness, bias, and conformity.” Campbell discusses at length how, for example, cancer institutes were founded on a local theory of disease by surgeons that preferred and were more familiar with surgery, rather than on a constitutional theory of disease that recognized nutrition’s larger role in the prevention and treatment of cancer. This, along with bias, public confusion, and the influence of the agricultural and dairy industry on nutrition science and research has all contributed to our underestimation of the role of nutrition across the spectrum of disease care.

The science does seem to strongly support Campbell’s claims, even if they seem, at times in the book, to be a bit exaggerated. For instance, Campbell asserts that “our ability to treat cancer has not improved, despite an extraordinary amount of resources dedicated to this mission.” While cancer is still a leading cause of death, with nutrition as an integral component of its prevention and treatment, to say that we haven’t made any progress outside of nutrition science in its treatment seems to be a bit of a stretch.

Further, not every type of cancer can be prevented or treated with nutrition (think childhood cancers, which could not possibly be the result of a lifetime of poor nutrition). Even by Campbell’s own estimation, and even if corrected for malnutrition, there would still be around 180,000 cases of cancer every year in the US that we would have to figure out how to treat outside of nutritional recommendations.

Campbell also states that “not a single US medical school trains doctors in nutrition.” A quick look at the curriculum at my local medical school—The University of New England College of Osteopathic Medicine—shows classes devoted specifically to nutrition.

Having spent decades with fellow researchers and scientists challenging the legitimacy of his work, Campbell might (justifiably) feel the need to make categorical statements such as these, but it can come across as dogmatic and exaggerated—which isn’t necessarily helping his case.

Still, Campbell seems to be largely correct in that nutrition takes a back seat in the US in terms of both disease care and the education of our health care providers. And the public remains just as confused, as conflicting information is presented, nutritional guidance neglects the science (particularly in regard to protein consumption recommendations), and fad diets come and go.

As just one example, consider that in 2015 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization labeled processed meat as carcinogenic and red meat as “probably carcinogenic.” However, as Campbell wrote:

“In a 2018 update on those findings [meat as carcinogenic], the IARC reminded the public that ‘red meat contains proteins of high biological value, as well as important micronutrients such as B-vitamins, iron...and zinc.’ Why would IARC go out of its way to sing the praises of a food that they labeled ‘probably carcinogenic,’ when all the available evidence suggests a diet free of red meat could provide the same nutrients, if not more safely and effectively. Besides their long-time concern for chemical carcinogens and long-time disregard for nutrition, perhaps it’s also because they’re unable to see beyond the so-called biological value of animal-based protein, even when contradictions arise?”

Campbell then outlines a series of animal studies that shows that animal protein—specifically casein, which is found in milk—has been found to be among the most powerful carcinogens ever discovered.

And that’s why Campbell has consistently advocated for a simple, scientifically-backed whole foods, plant-based (WFPB) diet. The WFPB diet avoids the types of foods and nutrients shown to be carcinogenic and disease-producing and recommends the types of foods and nutrients shown to lead to better health and, in some cases, shown to be actually carcinostatic (capable of inhibiting the growth of malignant tumors).

Why should this simple, common-sense diet consisting of fruits and vegetables (validated by numerous scientific studies) be so controversial? Because we’ve been repeatedly fed the myth that animal protein is of a higher quality than plant protein when, in fact, this is not the case.

Despite the link between animal protein and disease, including cancer, we instead blame fat, cholesterol, environmental toxins, and anything and everything else simply so that we can delude ourselves into continuing to enjoy our favorite foods—while the marketing arms of the agricultural, dairy, and pharmaceutical industries are more than happy to appease these delusions.

The underlying problem here is the reductionist nature of nutrition research and the search for single nutrients as the cause of health or disease. As Campbell explains, nutrition and metabolism are too complex to be fully understood in reductionist terms, and it’s more beneficial to look at overall eating habits and the correlations between complete diets and health.

When you do, you can see that Western diets correlate highly with disease and cancer, and that the staple of Western diets is animal-based products. Denying this link—on the grounds that it is not “conclusive”—is like denying the link between smoking and lung cancer. Clearly, there is something wrong with the Western diet when compared to almost any other.

Campbell is asserting that animal protein is in fact the driver of the link between Western diets and disease and cancer, but, admittedly, there is some question as to whether he has the right idea here. While there is a correlation between animal protein and disease and cancer, people that consume large quantities of meat and animal products are also likely to consume large quantities of processed foods, refined sugars, and fats. Since it’s hard to tease out all of these ingredients and physiological reactions, it’s more than possible that processed foods, rather than animal protein, is the real driver of disease and cancer. Campbell seems to be too quick to dismiss this possibility (although there is laboratory research to support the case for animal protein as a driver of cancer growth).

Either way, what’s incredible about the research in this book is that there has not been a single study that links whole plant foods with any increased prevalence of disease or cancer. It seems pretty clear that adopting a whole food, plant-based diet will decrease your risk of disease and cancer and that there seems to be no research available contradicting this claim. Therefore, even if you don’t want to give up meat, animal products, or processed foods entirely—as Campbell recommends—the degree to which you can replace these foods with plant-based foods is the degree to which you can improve your health. show less

i think if i hadn't read and the band played on and fast food nation already, i'd have been blown away by how much sway private industry has over the medical field. what a travesty it is that we've let so many private corporations and shareholders control so much, and enrich so few. ("The distinctions between government, industry, science, and medicine have become blurred. The distinctions between making a profit and promoting health have become blurred.")

this is a comprehensive book that show more lays out the case for whole foods and plant based eating. he talks about all the science, with easy explanations without making the reader feel he's dumbed it down at all. the writing is easy to read and it even moves relatively quickly. (i'd expected to be bogged down with this book for weeks at least.) it can be repetitive as he discusses different diseases (heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease, ms, alzheimers, macular degeneration, etc) and the science that explains why a whole foods plant based diet works better than medicine, and how science or academia or medicine has failed people who suffer from that specific illness. the science differs for each disease, but the answer is the same, and so it can feel a bit redundant. but it probably is a good way to drive the point home. (he really doesn't address how hard it can be - or at least feel - to make big changes toward healthy eating; so i really can't say if it's something i'll be able to do or not, but certainly this is the first book that has made me think i can at least try.)

this is an impressive book. he puts forward his ideas, reasoning, data, arguments so logically and cogently. i can't imagine not being in the pocket of the dairy or meat industry and finding fault with just about any of this. an important work. i do wish he would give more examples of specifics to eat or an example of a meal plan or something.

"...genetics only determines about 2-3% of total cancer risk."

"...eating a low-fat, low-protein diet high in complex carbohydrates from fruits and vegetables will help you lose weight."

"...casein, and very likely all animal proteins, may be the most relevant cancer-causing substance that we consume. Adjusting the amount of dietary casein has the power to turn on and turn off cancer growth..."

on how american ranges for recommended daily allowances/blood levels are the basis worldwide...
"We too often have come to the view that U.S. values are "normal" because we have a tendency to believe that the Western experience is likely to be right."

"There are virtually no nutrients in animal-based foods that are not better provided by plants." ("...Eating animals is a markedly different nutritional experience from eating plants.")

"...a chronic disease like cancer takes years to develop. Those chemicals that initiate cancer are often the ones that make headlines. What does not make headlines, however, is the fact that the disease process continues long after initiation, and can be accelerated or repressed during its promotion stage by nutrition. In other words, nutrition primarily determines whether the disease will ever do its damage."

"The recommendations coming from the published literature are so simple that we can state them in one sentence: eat a whole foods, plant-based diet, while minimizing the consumption of refined foods, added salt, and added fats."

"We believe that the health value of a diet is best indicated by the relative amounts of fat, protein, and carbohydrates it contains, and that the optimal diet gets approximately 10% of calories from fat, 10% from protein, and 80% from total carbohydrate (although we also believe that it is permissible for most healthy people to stray somewhat from these benchmarks, as long as their diet still relies on whole, intact fruits, grains, legumes, and vegetables.)"

[really interesting section about how most of the science is reductionist - so they study a nutrient or vitamin or chemical in isolation, and the studies show what they show, but that has no bearing on how that nutrient or vitamin or chemical acts when it is ingested in the fruit or vegetable it was extracted from. so a supplement that has the same chemical as you might find in a tomato, for example, won't act the same or benefit you in the same way if taken as a supplement versus just eating the tomato.]

"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."

"The American government has passed legislation preventing cigarette and alcohol companies from marketing their product 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. Th long-term burden of our short-sighted indiscretion is incalculable."

"John would ask, 'Doesn't diet have something to do with heart disease?' and his colleagues would tell him that the science was controversial. John continued to read the scientific research and to talk to his colleagues but only became even more baffled. 'When I looked at the literature, I couldn't find the controversy. It was absolutely clear what the literature said.' Through those years, John came to understand why so many physicians claimed diet was controversial: 'The scientist is sitting down at the breakfast table and in the one hand he has a paper that says that cholesterol will rot your arteries and kill you, and in the other hand he has a fork shoveling bacon and eggs into his mouth, and he says, "There's something confusing here. I'm confused.' And that's the controversy. That's all it is.'"

"...there is only a small difference in the nutritional properties of non-vegetarian and vegetarian diets as consumed in Western countries."

minimize animal protein (specifically casein)
lower cholesterol (under 150mg/dL)
lower fat
higher fiber show less

What Is the China Study?: The actual China Study actually makes up only a small part of this book, although the implications of the study permeate everything else in it. This is how Campbell explains the China Study: In the 1970s the Premier Chou of China initiated a vast survey to collect information on cancer in the country. Involving 650,000 people, it is considered the most ambitious biomedical research project ever undertaken. This study showed that types of cancers were localized. Back show more in the US, Campbell works with a leading Chinese scientist, and fast forward . . . their team gathers 8,000 statistically significant associations between lifestyle, diet, and disease.

The Rest of the Book: Fast forward some more and Campbell concludes that the diseases of affluence (colon, lung, breast, stomach cancers, etc., diabetes, coronary heart disease) are caused by the Western diet, specifically, linked to animal protein. From the study, the Chinese with the lowest rates of these diseases ate a plant-based diet. Based on his many years of research on diet, Campbell advises a vegan diet of whole foods (one can eat an unhealthy vegan diet too—white flour, sugar, processed foods). This reminds me of Michael Pollan’s advice: “Eat food, not too much, mostly plants” (although Pollan is not vegan)

Why I Read This Now : Last autumn, my husband and I met with a friend and her husband for dinner. He had recently dropped 40 lbs over a few months, and could not stop talking about the China Study and how much better he felt. He was raised on a farm in Alberta and played semi-pro ball for years—as close to a “good ol’ boy” as you’re going to find in Canada. We found his finding religion (veganism) rather amusing. He harassed my husband to read the book, and Mr Skeptical was surprised at how credible it actually was, so I had to read it too.

I actually didn’t find that much new in it though—over the past 30 years I’ve read a lot about nutrition. For a time I followed the Pritikin program, which is very similar (except Pritikin names the culprit to be fat instead of animal protein). That wasn’t an easy program to follow, but wow did I feel fabulous! I’ve always wanted to return to it. There is also an extensive section on science, the food industry, consumerism, and government that is important, but again, not new as I’ve read about these problems elsewhere (most recently in Marion Nestle What to Eat). After several hours of hearing him preach about the China Study, I turned to his wife and asked her what she thought, and she rolled her eyes and said, “I’ve always had healthy eating habits.” Exactly.

Credibility: Campbell is a biochemist specializing in nutrition. He has written over 300 research papers on the subject. His list of credentials and experience is too long to list here, but I have to say that I can’t remember reading a book by an author with so bona fide a track record in his or her field. I did some searching on the internet, and came across a few claims that this study has been “debunked,” but none of the links had an iota of the credibility that he has. Also, his findings are not in the interests of the gajillion dollar a year food industry, so I can see that he attracts naysayers who find him threatening. Put it this way: What’s the downside of following his dietary recommendations?

Recommended for: If you too have read a lot about nutrition, this isn’t going to surprise you all that much. If reading about nutrition is a new thing for you, or you’re concerned about diseases of affluence, this may be exactly what you need. Campbell writes in a conversational way that makes all the science understandable, so you don’t need a biology degree to read this book. show less