Actress Angelina Jolie is in the news again for her radical approach to health.
In May 2013, she revealed the shocking news that she had opted for a double mastectomy in an attempt to ward off breast cancer.
Ms. Jolie’s reasons? Her genetic history of inheriting the defective gene BRCA1 which apparently increases her breast cancer risk to 87%.
Angelina’s own mother tragically died of ovarian cancer at the age of 56 after a courageous and hard fought 10 year battle. Jolie’s aunt died of breast cancer at the age of 61.
Both women had the defective gene BRCA1. Defective mutation of the BRCA2 gene also results in increased risk.
Now, Ms. Jolie is making headlines again for hinting that she plans additional preventative surgery. This next round of going under the knife would involve a hysterectomy and an oophorectomy to remove her ovaries. These surgeries will eliminate the estimated 50% chance she may develop ovarian cancer, again due to the BRCA1 gene.
However you may feel about Ms. Jolie’s health decisions, one thing is clear: some women will go to extreme lengths to avoid the risk of female cancers.
While I am not personally of the philosophy that we are a slave to our genes and need to remove body parts to be healthy over the long term, knowing our genetic history and biological tendencies can indeed be helpful as we navigate our life choices, including dietary and environmental influences.
While I admire Ms. Jolie’s determination and gumption, it’s not at all certain that undergoing surgery will actually prevent cancer. The harmful mutation of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes may also increase the risk of other types of cancer such as pancreatic.
Would reducing cancer risk for the breasts and ovaries by surgically removing them in fact spike the risk for the more deadly pancreatic cancer, the third most common cancer for those with a defective version of these genes? Pancreatic cancer can’t be avoided by surgically removing it as the pancreas is a vital organ. Worse, it is a silent disease with few if any symptoms and is difficult to screen for.
In fact, this is exactly what happened to one BRCA2 positive woman with a strong family history of ovarian cancer. She had her tubes and ovaries removed in what she thought was a smart preventative move only to be diagnosed with the more deadly pancreatic cancer.
Time will tell if a surgical approach for preventing cancer is truly effective, but until that time, it seems wise to manage cancer risk with appropriate diet and lifestyle choices, not by removing body parts and organs.
How to Protect Yourself With a Cancer Prevention Lifestyle
According to the Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF), Traditional Diets, which all contained both animal and plant foods farmed by nontoxic methods, are rich in factors that are highly protective against cancer. Many of these protective factors are found only in animal fats such as butter, cream, tallow, lard, egg yolks and organ meats.
Below is a list of the nutrients suggested by the WAPF that are especially critical for preventing cancer and the foods that contain them in high amounts. Please note that obtaining these nutrients via supplements manufactured in a factory setting is not an optimal way to consume them.
Co-enzyme Q10: Highly protective against cancer. Found only in animal foods.
Vitamin A: Beta carotene in plant foods is not Vitamin A, is not easily converted to Vitamin A in the body and never converted in quantities to support optimal health. True Vitamin A strengthens the immune system. Essential for mineral metabolism and endocrine function. Helps detoxify. True vitamin A is found only in animal foods such as cod liver oil; fish and shellfish; and liver, butter and egg yolks from pasture-fed animals. Traditional diets contained ten times more vitamin A than the typical modern American diet.
Vitamin C: An important antioxidant that prevents damage by free radicals. Found in many fruits and vegetables but also in certain organ meats valued by primitive peoples.
Vitamin B6: Deficiencies are associated with cancer. Contributes to the function of over 100 enzymes. Most available from animal foods especially grassfed raw milk.
Vitamin B12: Deficiencies are associated with cancer. Found only in animal foods. Liver is the best source by far.
Vitamin B17: Protects against cancer. Found in a variety of organically grown grains, legumes, nuts and berries.
Vitamin D: Required for mineral absorption. Strongly protective against breast and colon cancer. Found only in animal foods such as cod liver oil, lard, shellfish and butterfat, organ meats and egg yolks from grass-fed animals. Traditional diets contained ten times more vitamin D than the typical modern American diet.
Vitamin E: Works as an antioxidant at the cellular level. Found in unprocessed oils as well as in animal fats like butter and egg yolks.
Conjugated Linoleic Acid (CLA): Strongly protective against breast cancer. Found in the butterfat and meat fat of grass-fed ruminant animals.
Cholesterol: A potent antioxidant that protects against free radicals in cell membranes. Found only in animal foods.
Minerals: The body needs generous amounts of a wide variety of minerals to protect itself against cancer. Minerals like zinc, magnesium and selenium are vital components of enzymes that help the body fight carcinogens. Minerals are more easily absorbed from animal foods.
Lactic Acid and Friendly Bacteria: Contribute to the health of the digestive tract. Found in old fashioned lacto-fermented foods.
Saturated Fats: Strengthen the immune system. Needed for proper use of the essential fatty acids. The lungs cannot function without saturated fats. Found mostly in animal foods.
Long-Chain Fatty Acids: Arachidonic acid (AA), eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) help fight cancer on the cellular level. They are found mostly in animal foods such as butter, organ meats, cod liver oil and seafood.
Additives in Processed Foods that Can Cause Cancer
While a cancer prevention lifestyle includes eating a whole foods diet rich in the nutrients above, it is equally as important to avoid the chemicals, additives and other dangerous substances in processed foods that contribute to its development.
The list below provided by the Weston A. Price article How to Protect Yourself Against Cancer with Food summarizes what to avoid:
Trans Fatty Acids: Imitation fats in shortenings, margarines and most commercial baked goods and snack foods. Strongly associated with cancer of the lungs and reproductive organs.
Rancid fats: Industrial processing creates rancidity (free radicals) in commercial vegetable oils which are in nearly all processed cookies, crackers and chips.
Omega-6 fatty acids: Although needed in small amounts, an excess can contribute to cancer. Dangerously high levels of omega-6 fatty acids are due to the overuse of vegetable oils in modern diets.
MSG: Associated with brain cancer. Found in almost all processed foods, even when “MSG” does not appear on the label. Flavorings, spice mixes and hydrolyzed protein contain MSG.
Aspartame: Imitation sweetener in diet foods and beverages. Associated with brain cancer.
Pesticides: Associated with many types of cancer. Found in most commercial vegetable oils, fruit juices, vegetables and fruits.
Hormones: Found in animals raised in confinement on soy and grains. Plant-based hormones are plentiful in soy foods.
Artificial Flavorings and Colors: Associated with various types of cancers, especially when consumed in large amounts in a diet of junk food.
Refined Carbohydrates: Sugar, high fructose corn syrup and white flour are devoid of nutrients. The body uses up nutrients from other foods to process refined carbohydrates. Tumor growth is associated with sugar consumption.
What Do You Think?
Do you think it’s a good idea to have surgery to remove breasts and ovaries if one has a defective, mutated gene that raises cancer risk considerably? Or, is a cancer prevention lifestyle which includes emphasis on Traditional Diet a better approach?
More Information
How to Protect Yourself Against Cancer with Food
Angelina Jolie Reveals Plans for More Surgery after Double Masectomy
Would You Ever Do Chemo or Radiation for Cancer?
To many she is a role model. I question the wisdom of making her choices public. It serves the surgeons if people follow in her footsteps. Who has influenced her decisions… to have the ops and to make the information public knowledge?
I am 56, still have all my organs, we have cancer in the family. I supplement with Tissue Salts and vegetable/fruit juice. I don’t see the need to live in fear.
She should definitely do some more research!
HDR Sup – Source, please?
It has been recently studied and proven that over 75% of elective mastectomies do not prevent cancer including both women who do it because they are told they have “the gene” and woman who have breast cancer in one breast and are told to remove both.
Guys she’s scared. That’s it. Plain and simple. Please don’t judge her if it wouldn’t be your personal choice. This makes me sad 🙁
proves you don’t have to have brains to have money
Sorry, but with time most of medical science is found to be disputable. One day I fear we will be seen as living in the dark ages. If you think it’s dangerous or doesn’t serve a purpose… Cut it out or chop it off! Sounds logical to me…
wouldn’t a complete turnaround in diet be more efective and less risky? something tells me there is more going on than just trying to prevent cancer. couldn’t she aford to hire somebody to feed her a diet that will eliminate most of the rusks to getting cancer in the first place.
As a Registered Dietitian, Physician and PhD in Nutrition Sarah, I can tell you that there is no scientifically proven diet (nor will there likely ever be) that will un-do the risks of the BRCA gene. I’m the first one to believe in the power of food – and yes, we have many studies that show that diet can prevent many cancers and other diseases – but BRCA is it’s own animal.
Given that the last California Dietetic Association conference was catered by McDonalds, I don’t think your definition of healthy diet and mine are on the same page.
Here’s a doctor who disagrees with you: An article by Dr. Daniela Drake titled “Why I’m Not Having a Preventive Mastectomy” presents the other side of the preventive mastectomy argument, and highlights the problems of our current paradigm:
“Lobular Carcinoma In Situ (LCIS)… increases my odds of developing cancer from 12 percent to 30 percent. But still, my options, my doctor explained, include immediate bilateral mastectomy… She tells me that my chances of developing cancer are 80 percent and that if she were in my shoes she would ‘just have them both removed.’ …Her offhand manner suggests something deeply unserious—like a manicure…
Although I used to be a vociferous advocate for aggressive medical interventions, my perspective changed radically when I began working as a house-call physician. My patients are too debilitated to go to the doctor’s office—and many were disabled by botched surgeries… I’m concerned about my surgeon’s flippancy and I suggest alternatives: ‘There’s growing data that this is a lifestyle disease. You know the Women’s Health Initiative shows exercise can greatly decrease risk.’
‘I don’t know. That may be true,’ she shrugs. ‘If we don’t do surgery, then we’ll just do mammograms every six months.’ When I object, saying that LCIS doesn’t show up on mammogram, she responds, ‘I know. It doesn’t make sense to me either.’ It becomes evident that we don’t know how to deal with my condition. The medical system does not tolerate ambiguity well, so breast amputation has become the answer…
Now I know why patients are so mad at us. This is supposed to be patient-centered care. But it feels more like system-centered care: the medical equivalent of a car wash. I’m told incomplete and inaccurate information to shuttle me toward surgery; and I’m not being listened to. I came to discuss nutrition, exercise and close follow-up. I’m told to get my breasts removed—the sooner the better.
Mastectomy may be appropriate in some cases, like in those where your risk of cancer is virtually 100 percent. But the risk of surgery—operative complications, infections, device and graft complications—remains significant. It’s callous and irresponsible to elide the risks to the public.”
For one, I don’t agree with the Academy’s decisions on sponsorship and have spoken out against it. For two, my own personal diet is probably exactly along the lines of what you’re thinking. We eat almost exclusively what we can grow/hunt on our 80acres of (organic of course) land or buy from local CSA’s/farmers that I know and trust treat their land and their food the same. I’m an outspoken critic of the “food system” and in fact teach a large university class using the principles of authors like that who wrote Fair Food to show how broken the system is. I fully agree that the food system needs to change and that diet/exercise/lifestyle can go a long way toward preventing MANY cancers (and other diseases). However, you’re still comparing apples and oranges here and that’s what has me frustrated and concerned. Even your article that you posted here by Dr. Drake – is (a) mostly about her frustration with the medical “system” which is in and itself growing amongst even the physicians themselves, who are leaving medical practice in droves! ………. and (b) is about someone with LCIS and again, that’s apples. She herself says that mastectomy might be called for if your risk is 100% – and BRCA gets some women to 90%, which in science is about as close as you can get to 100 (a scientist would rarely say anything is 100). I fully agree, Dr. Drake needs another physician! That was not at all my personal experience and I know for a fact that’s not the experience that many of my “sisters” in this journey have had. I’ve known my surgical/oncological team (at a High Risk Breast Clinic) for 7 years (see them every 6 mos) – we’ve spent FOUR YEARS discussing my decision and if anything, they were cautious. But in the end, I chose to do the surgery last month and it was the best decision of my life. Which is really what this boils down to, is a personal, well-thought out, well-researched but STILL PERSONAL decision by a woman. And for those who think she shouldn’t be speaking out about it lest it “influence others”, I say let her because for those of us who HAVE walked in these shoes (and thus have a right to really have an opinion here), there are far too many critics speaking against us and not enough championing our right to protect ourselves from a horrible disease that most of us have watched several close loved ones die from.
I don’t understand the “logic/reasoning” that because McDonald’s catered the last California Dietetic Association conference that therefore anyone who is a Dietitian must recommend McDonald’s as healthy. Do you believe people are really STUPID enough to follow that lack of logic????
Also referencing a single case where someone got cancer after having her tubes and ovaries removed doesn’t seem like a very large sample to prove much of anything. She may have very well gotten ovarian cancer if she had kept them.
No idea if Jolie is eating healthy or not, seems like a poorly written/researched write up. Just like the single case Costco coconut oil write up you did before. Please post things that you do know or research and let people make their own decisions based on facts not your beliefs that you can’t back with more than a hearsay story about a single person/incident.
I say God Bless her.