Campbell book

Campbells' new book blasts corporate-governmental-academic ties

By Roger Segelken

Part medical-science history, part diet book and part rant against alleged corruption in the corporate-governmental-academic research axis, a forthcoming book by Cornell's outspoken advocate of plant-based foods to prevent the so-called diseases of affluence answers several questions:

T. Colin Campbell, right, professor of nutritional biochemistry emeritus, and his son, 1999 Cornell grad Thomas M. Campbell II, co-authored the new book The China Study: Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-term Health. G. Hodges/www.jonreis.com

For one, The China Study: Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-term Health (BenBella Books, January 2005) tells how a dairy farmer's son who came to Cornell to study animal nutrition -- now professor of nutritional biochemistry emeritus T. Colin Campbell -- became the target of influential food and dairy trade groups.

Or why -- if evidence is so clear that animal-based foods (the fats and proteins in meats, eggs and dairy products) cause diseases of affluence (not just the expected cardiovascular diseases, but also many cancers and diabetes, he says) and if a diverse diet of whole plant foods is the antidote to animal-based food poisoning -- aren't America's doctors telling us this?

And finally the take-home message from the diet book part of his publication, which is co-authored with his son, 1999 Cornell graduate Thomas M. Campbell II, answers the question: How can I lose weight in a healthful manner, live a vigorous life and dodge the diseases-of-affluence bullet that will kill most Americans while bankrupting our health care system?

The "China Study" in the book's title is the monumental survey conducted in the 1980s across 65 Chinese counties with 6,500 adults and their families by China's Academy of Preventive Medicine and Academy of Medical Sciences, Oxford University and Cornell. Directed by Campbell and funded in part by the U.S. government, that study found more than 8,000 statistically significant associations between lifestyle, diet and disease variables among Chinese people living mostly in rural and semirural areas, as well as in cities. And it confirmed, at least in Campbell's mind, what he was seeing in laboratory feeding studies with rats: Animal-based proteins promote cancer, whereas plant-based diets (with lots of fiber, healthful fats and just enough protein) produce healthy, lean, long-lived rats.

The Chinese people in Campbell's study were dying of so-called diseases of poverty, due to nutritional inadequacy and poor sanitation. But overall they were a healthy lot, managing by dint of ultra-low-meat diets to avoid the diseases of affluence. That is, until some Chinese moved to the city and began to adopt more Western eating habits.

So why aren't we told this by our doctors?

Partly because of professional ignorance, says Campbell, who notes that a Cornell undergraduate majoring in nutrition learns more about the relationship between food and disease than most medical-school graduates will ever know.

Then there's "the dark side" of science. Campbell deliberately avoids crying "conspiracy" and says "corruption" only once or twice. But he sees almost unethical collusion in the research and health-care establishment that thrives on the status quo. He names professorial names in what he calls "The Airport Club" of seven prominent research scientists who reportedly are supported by the meat and dairy industries to "keep tabs on any research projects in the U.S. likely to cause harm to their industry." From the leaked proceedings of one such airport meeting (at O'Hare, and probably not over veggie burgers), Campbell learned he has the dubious distinction of being the only researcher to appear twice on the club's dangerous-projects list.

Most heart surgeons aren't about to give up $100,000 procedures to counsel patients on disease prevention through better eating habits, Campbell says before naming one ex-Cleveland clinic exception: "Dr. Sprouts," who became famous for reversing heart disease in seriously ill patients who switched to low-fat, plant-based diets.

And "Big Medicine" -- as Campbell calls the pharmaceutical industry plus the academic researchers it supports -- knows it can't patent spinach so it pushes billion-dollar medicines that treat symptoms and prolong disease. He rails against "scientific reductionism" that capitalizes on the phyto-chemical du jour -- lycopene, for instance -- to market lycopene pills when the whole tomato neatly packages that chemical and many others responsible for the purported health benefit.

Much of Campbell's indignation is directed at his fellows (not colleagues, which would imply collegiality) in academia. Only university-based researchers can move freely between industry and government, collecting funding support, consulting fees and honoraria at every step, he says. A government official with unrevealed financial ties to the industry he regulates would be in big trouble, Campbell notes. But an academic with similar links, according to Campbell, goes on government advisory panels that set policy guidelines and bring profits to the same industries that feed him.

"The entire system of developing public nutrition information ... has been invaded and co-opted by industry sources that have the interest and resources to do so," Campbell writes. "They run the show. They buy a few academic hacks that have gained positions of power and exercise considerable influence, both within academia and government."

If that causes loss of appetite, the reader might turn back to two succinct chapters in the middle of the book, "Eight Principles of Food and Health" and "How to Eat." There are no dieters' recipes (Campbell tried that once before with a short-lived vegetarian newsletter) but he thinks readers can figure it out themselves.

Aware that his book, with its detailed discussion of corporate-governmental-academic malfeasance, ends on a sour grapes (or rather, sour milk) note, Campbell comments: "I do get exercised over the lack of integrity in our research and policy communities. But I don't want to lose sight of the positive message in the China Study and in the book. I really hope this helps people to be well."

January 20, 2005