When T. Colin Campbell’s The China Study was released in 2006, it quickly rocketed to best seller status primarily propelled by word of mouth given its small, relatively unknown publisher not exactly renowned for works of scientific rigor.
In short order, The China Study became firmly established as the de facto nutritional bible of the plant based diet posse. A similar phenomenon has occurred with the 2017 release of the Netflix documentary What The Health.
“Just read The China Study!” became the new vegan mantra, confidently and often scornfully spoken to anyone who questioned Campbell’s startling contention that all animal foods, regardless of the source or processing, are responsible for the modern epidemics of cancer and heart disease.
No matter whether your animal food of choice is a KFC Value Pack or wild caught salmon, Campbell claims that you would be better off shunning all sources of animal foods and instead embracing a diet of whole plant foods.
Denise Minger of rawfoodsos has suggested that Campbell’s Ivy League PhD and his authorship of over 300 scientific papers combined with The China Study‘s long list of references make it appear credible. With such an impressive list of credentials and sources, the stern warnings against animal foods must be grounded in factual, objective scientific analysis, right?
At first blush, The China Study seems so utterly credible – so bulletproof if you will.
Unfortunately, like much of the nutritional dogma presented today all in the name of supposedly scientific rigor, The China Study is actually far from it with misrepresented data the order of the day.
Perhaps the biggest hole in Campbell’s work is one that he identified himself in one of his own scientific papers published only two years before The China Study. Despite Campbell’s claim that near vegan rural Chinese exhibit superior health to those consuming animal foods, the paper concludes from the epidemiological survey of 6500 subjects from 65 rural counties in China:
“it is the largely vegetarian, inland communities who have the greatest all risk mortalities and morbidities and who have the lowest LDL cholesterols.”
Whoops! Campbell finds that “… the protective effect of fish consumption as validated by red cell DHA is universal.” It doesn’t look like that large epidemiological analysis known as The China Study is so compelling regarding the benefits of plant based diets after all! Pretty hard to get sick if you’re actually already dead, right?
Now, a new study involving over one hundred thousand subjects further bolsters the argument that animal proteins are not the ticking time bomb to your health so erroneously argued by Campbell.
Meat Eating Inversely Associated with Death from Cancer and Heart Disease
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition published in July 2013 the results of a huge analysis of ecological data from the United Nations comparing country-specific meat consumption in Asia, specifically the countries of Bangladesh, China, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan.
112,310 men and 184,411 women were followed for 6.6 to 15.6 years. During that time, 24,283 all-cause, 9558 cancer, and 6373 cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths were recorded.
The researchers concluded that while meat intake in Asian countries has increased in recent years, there was no evidence of a higher risk of mortality as a result. In fact, the analysis provided evidence of an inverse association with red meat, poultry, and fish/seafood consumption and cardiovascular mortality in men and cancer mortality in women!
This means that higher meat consumption has actually been correlated with fewer heart disease deaths in Asian men and fewer cancer deaths in Asian women:
“Red meat intake was inversely associated with CVD mortality in men and with cancer mortality in women in Asian countries.”
It seems the vegan bible has suffered yet another blow to its cherry picked conclusions. Unlike The China “Study”, this large analysis of Asian ecological data is a Real Study published in a Real (peer-reviewed) Scientific Journal. Not a blockbuster work of fiction designed to sell books through promotion of outrageous black and white nutritional propaganda.
Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist
Sources:
The China Study Myth
Meat intake and cause-specific mortality: a pooled analysis of Asian prospective cohort studies
Fish consumption, blood docosahexaenoic acid and chronic diseases in Chinese rural populations
Erythrocyte fatty acids, plasma lipids, and cardiovascular disease in rural China
Cow’s milk is just that: COW’s milk. Raw or not, it doesn’t matter. It is not essential for human health, but it is essential for cow’s health.
Also, you shouldn’t “cherry pick” (using your wording) a couple of sentences out of an extremely long article by Campbell and conclude that it was a “work of fiction”.
Here’s what drives me crazy about “articles” like this one. They take a few sentences from a much longer paper, provide their own interpretation, and then link the original article, but most people can’t read the whole original article because you have to purchase access. Since I am at a university that has a subscription and understand the basics of research, I can evaluate the claims more fully, but most people can’t. There are many important things you should know in interpreting this:
1. The authors state outright that higher meat consumption is associated with higher mortality in Western states based on previous research, they are trying to see if that relationship persists in Asian countries.
2. There are no entirely plant based individuals in their study, all participants consume some amount of meat, so they are testing the relative effects of additional meat.
3. They don’t control for income, which is a huge issue in this case. Typically as the income of an Asian household rises, so does meat consumption, but they also, typically, get greater access to healthcare, move to safer/less polluted communities, change other lifestyle habits, etc. So those changes positive changes can completely mask any negative changes you would see from eating more meat.
From the article itself: “Overall cancer and CVD mortality has increased in Asian countries (24—26), and mortality rates from some cancers are approaching those in Western countries (24, 27). Given the trend of increasing meat consumption over time in Asia, a westernized diet heavy in animal products has been invoked as a cause of this increasing incidence and mortality from cancer and CVD (28). However, Asian prospective cohort studies (29—33), most of which were included in our pooled analysis, have not supported
the hypothesis that meat intake is involved in all-cause, cancer,
or CVD mortality, unlike the pattern seen in Europe and North America (5, 6, 34, 35).
The absence of a positive association between meat intake and mortality in Asia may be related to several factors. First, Asia has been experiencing a dramatic change in many other chronic disease risk factors, including physical activity, adiposity, and
access to medical care. At this stage, it is possible that meat consumption may not be as large a contributor to risk of death as socioeconomic status, a sedentary lifestyle (36, 37), or adiposity. Furthermore, other risk factors such as obesity (12), hypertension(38), and smoking (39) could largely explain the increasing risksof cancer or CVD in Asia to date. Second, the null, and eveninverse, association between meat consumption and mortalityobserved in our data warrants further study because the dietarytransition is still under way in many parts of Asia. Residual orunmeasured confounding factors, such as socioeconomic status related to meat availability, could be important because food accessibility and availability is related to income levels in the Asia-Paciï¬c region (40); ie, even though we failed to detect differences by education, a higher intake of meat at this point in the epidemiologic transition may be a marker for other protective factors, including a sufï¬cient intake of energy and access to medical care. Third, nondifferential measurement error in dietary assessments could have led to bias toward the null, although all the FFQs used in each study have been validated with modest to good correlation with a reference method (13—18). Although the absence of a positive association can be partly explained by aforementioned reasons, we still cannot rule out the hypothesis that total meat intake is not related to mortality in Asian populations, given the ï¬ndings we observed in this pooled analysis.
Not being able to rule out a hypothesis and supporting a hypothesis are two different things. I believe in making informed decisions about our health based on all available research, not just those that promote my ideological position, but you have to be able to evaluate evidence critically and appropriately. From my reading of many articles and studies, some of which are published in the same journal as this one, a plant based diet promotes longer, healthier lives while also being better for the environment.
Sarah,
I find your article intriguing. My son has sensitivities to eggs, milk, soy, and corn. We cute them all out with wonderful results! We have removed meat from our diet for personal beliefs. Did you know there is also a vegan form of DHA found in algae? I guess my main question is how exactly do you feel that (both my children are plant-based, 7yr old and 14mo(nursing)) I am harming my child. Is it a fat intake issue? We consume nuts and seeds on a daily basis. Also most sources of food do contain fat. A protein issue? We consume legumes, pastas, whole wheat grains, oatmeals, all of which contain protein. You stated that it is damaging to children so I would like to know exactly why you said this so I can research it myself. I should mention that at both my sons and daughters check-ups our family Doctor never seems concerned, in fact she supports our decision exclaiming our children are some of the healthiest she sees! They draw blood yearly and there has never been an issue with lab #’s. Thank you for your time 🙂
Melissa
Same here, Melissa. 🙂 Although none of my children have sensitivities to eggs, soy or corn.
I would really recommend that you read Nutrition and Physical Degeneration and draw your own conclusions. The problem that I see with vegan diets for children (in my personal dealings with a few) agrees absolutely with the findings in the book. The vegan children I know have very narrow faces and crowded teeth. This narrowing of the bone structure can also be particularly bad for girls, as it can narrow the pelvis, making natural/vaginal birth difficult or impossible. Weston price found that nutrient dense animal products like shellfish, fish eggs, raw milk, organ meats, etc were particularly rationed to pregnant women and children because it was known that these especially conferred health to babies and children. The fat soluble nutrients in these foods cannot be found in plants.
The toddler that I babysat also had signs of other deficiencies, although her mom was a “good”vegan in that she prepared nearly all of the food, supplemented with yeast, and didn’t rely on soy. Her 4 year old already had a marked lengthening of the face and the t toddler never slept, was cranky much of the time, underweight, and always had huge dark circles under her eyes 🙁
Thank you for the article, Sarah, but I am not understanding why people don’t get the fact that NO animals drink milk (or eat milk products) after infancy. We clearly are not meant to drink milk after a certain age (and I’m sorry, but 4.5 years old really freaked me out! If your kid is old enough to talk, should it still be suckling your breast?!). But especially cow’s milk. The majority of the population simply lacks the ability to digest this, although I do understant that raw milk contains lactase which helps with lactose intolerance, but lactose tolerance is a specific trait that developed only in a small section of the world. So, why are we debating this?
Furthermore, fluoride is a poison, and I’m sorry if I sound like I am instigating here. Look it up. Chemo therapy is also a poison, so I guess you roll the dice with that one. Kill the good cells with the bad and hope for the best. And meanwhile spend your last days sicker than sick. Until you’ve watched someone die that way, you have no idea.
I generally do enjoy your blog very much, but I feel there is a lot of oversimplification going on here. I also (and again, I apologize, because I’m usually not argumentative) think you are incorrect in your response to the person who asked about the body processing calcium. The protein acidifies the body’s ph, which the body then needs to correct which, you guessed it, is calcium, which then gets leached from the bones. Campell may have gotten a lot wrong in his study, but I’m sorry, so have a lot of you. I wish people would do their research.
Humans have the ability to shape and change their environment unlike animals. The fact that animals don’t drink milk after infancy is an empty argument … if they could, they most definitely would! Humans have relied on milk for thousands of years, even before agriculture to sustain themselves. This modern argument against milk doesn’t hold water historically. Most people can digest raw milk just fine – it’s processed milk that the majority can’t tolerate. I would suggest delving into the history of milk to see that the “milk is only for baby cows” argument is modern propaganda and doesn’t tell the whole story by a long shot. I agree that processed milk is best avoided but raw grassfed dairy is extremely healthy and traditional peoples who relied on it did not suffer from chronic illnesses of today which provides strong evidence that the modern warning against dairy is an incorrect nutritional conclusion and not supported through anthropological study.
https://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/why-milk-matters-and-why-its-not-just-for-baby-cows/
Ummm…what animals have you personally spoken to that said they would definitely drink milk after weaning?
ALL humans have not relied on milk for thousands of years…particularly in the Eastern hemisphere. And before agriculture? In the Garden of Eden they ate plants only according to the Bible, an historical record.
Animals will drink milk as adults if given the chance. Look how cats lap up cow milk. If they had the intelligence and wherewithal to manage a herd and get milk as humans have figured out with reasoning, they would. Because animals can’t figure out how to build a house and live inside, does that mean humans shouldn’t do it either? There are many things humans do that animals don’t but that doesn’t make them wrong.
A grown cow does not go over to a heifer & start sucking from her utters b/c the cow instinctively knows that it no longer needs breast milk…it needs grass to thrive. Sounds pretty intelligent to me that they don’t let their (supposed, according to you) wants override their common sense.
Yes, a cat may lick cow’s milk if they have a chance b/c it is sweet & fattening not b/c they think it’s good for them. Humans are stupid enough to do the same thing…eat something fattening & sweet b/c it tastes good & not b/c it has some health value…but we are dumb enough to justify why we SHOULD eat it. Also, if cats drank cow’s milk only, they would become anemic & sick. Why? B/c the cow’s milk is not meant for the cat.
Animals don’t NEED houses either as they have fur to help them weather the elements &/or the cow knows to stand under a tree when it gets too hot.
Yes there are many things that humans do that animals don’t do, i.e. drink milk from another species & exploit animals just b/c we CAN…but that doesn’t mean we SHOULD.
My cats won’t lap up any UHT cream – absolutely ignore it. And I am, too, now by the way…..
Go put some milk in front of a pig of any age and watch them go bonkers for it! Ditto for chickens, dogs and cats! And for whomever claimed that a cow would not go suck on another’s udder is completely wrong on that account as well. There is a device to put on a young cow after weaning to keep them from doing just that! Let’s just quit using that soundbite about no other species drinking milk past infancy. Many would love to, but they are missing the hands to do the milking! 😉
I would like to see you offer nearly any omnivorous animal a bowl of milk and see if they walk away. The fact that we have opposing thumbs enables us to milk an animal. What do you think happens in the wild when carnivores take down an antelope that is still feeding it’s baby? When that udder is broken open, do you really suppose those animals are not lapping up that milk? Do you honestly suppose they avoid it because they “don’t drink the milk of other animals”??
Lots of animals will drink the milk of other animals. Just give them the chance. You are supposing that it’s always a matter of them taking the milk from the teat. Think outside the box.
In response to david….vaccines don’t cause autism. vaccines plus unhealthy gut plus sensitive system causes it. (which is all caused by poor nutrition and toxicity) and yes there is toxic mercury STILL in a lot of them. and some of them — like the chicken pox vax for example — are causing more issues than they are protecting. if the vaccines were made without toxicity, without live viruses, were delayed and regularly given one at a time, not given en mass to tiny babies who have not even had a chance yet to open up their own immune systems, as if somehow the vaccine was all important and the space for the immune system to bloom was disposable… and also if they were only used on concerns that truly merit vaccination and not just for…more convenience. and if the govt also outlawed poor nutrition and made good nutrition classes a requirement for getting a marriage license or at least a strong suggestion. perhaps only a strong suggestion to study nutrition before marriage… and if people worked on the health of their guts in childhood and beyond…then maybe the vaccines could be truly a good thing.
also…flouride in toothpaste that is carefully spit out may be helpful. but drinking it is NOT helpful! it is time to recognize this and start doing the real work of real health in this culture that is leading the way for the whole lot of us. the first attempt at using the tooth benefits of flouride has been…misguided. and it is time for a more apt use of this knowledge to take hold. enough already!
also, thank you david for deepening the discussion. i don’t want to be the one who is right. I want the conversation, made up by all involved, to lead us all to the right answers. a right conversation is always better than a single right individual. i wish more people…could recognize this and be comfortable and even happy with it. if being only partly right can lead me into a chat that builds the true answers, and deepens them for more than just me and whoever hears me talk, then I prefer that partial knowing to being a know it all any day of the week. thank you for your part in this right conversation. its nice someone spoke up and got things really rolling! Well, someone besides Sarah herself.
It’s been almost a year since I’ve discovered your blog and began eating a more nutrient dense diet. The more closely I follow the diet, the healthier I feel! Thank you, Sarah, for this blog and everything you do. Recently I read on a vegan website that W.A.P. had actually recommended a vegan or vegetarian diet in one of his books or writings. What information do you have on his views regarding that issue?
There is a lot of misinformation about Dr. Price on vegan websites. Dr. Price never recommended a vegan or vegetarian diet! He was however very surprised that he was unable to find any vegetarian cultures that were as healthy as the omnivore cultures he studied during his 10 year travels around the world. The balanced cultures that ate both meat and plants were far healthier overall and exhibited significantly less tooth decay and oral issues in general.
Hi! Thank you for this article. I love reading all of your articles and have learned so much from you. I consider myself a recovering vegan. I was a vegan for fifteen years. Yes..years not months. I was absolutely dedicated and meticulous about my diet and getting everything “right”. I had a nutritionist working with me and was basically blown off by my primary care physician. Any time I brought up my difficulties that I was having with any vegans in person or on line, I was told I wasn’t “doing it right”, that I needed to “try harder and be a better vegan”. I had such a horrible downhill slide with medical problems that I seriously thought I was not long for this world. My family supported me, but were not vegan. They respected my vegan ways but didn’t participate. I got really sick. Really, really sick. If only I could’ve found you earlier, i would not have done the damage that I did. My hair is still trying to grow back in, I had spinal fractures, tooth and gum decay,…I could go on and on. I wish I could get through to all that believe this garbage about the vegan diet being the best.
I thank you once again for all that you do!! I hope this gets through to others. I embarrassingly bought that vegan diet garbage hook line and sinker.
It says much that Campbell found it necessary to go to China to effect his study. Firstly the people he likely studied have little or no meat available for consumption on a regular basis. Secondly they are likely much more active than any westerner. Thirdly they have a genetic adaptation to their diet, not likely replicated in a western setting. So to reach conclusions about this diet and its applicability to a US resident or westerner is something only an elitist academic is capable of doing with any authority. The only points I take away from this study are that physical activity and calorie restriction are likely more responsible for the effects of the study than anything eaten.
I’m always confused about the counsel to not drink even low temp pasteurized dairy, since many recipes include milk and are cooked at much higher temperatures than some milk is pasteurized. i have lost my milkshare currently and in the interim i am buying snowville creamery, which is grassfed and only heated to 140 for less than 20 seconds. Why is that bad if cooking with raw milk is okay?
When milk is pasteurized, it is brought to a sudden and very violent increase in temperature which denatures the proteins. Cooking with raw milk gently raises the temperature slowly which is less damaging (but still does eliminate enzymes and cause the milk to be more mucous forming which doesn’t agree with some folks).
Thank you im an ex vegan too. But I can’t get raw dairy here. Should I avoid dairy all together now?
Pasteurized butter and low temp pasteurized yogurt and cheeses are ok. I personally won’t drink pasteurized or certainly ultrapasteurized milk as the milk proteins are too damaged by the process. Milkfats stand up pretty well to heat however which is why butter is fine pasteurized (although raw is better) and yogurt and cheese are cultured which brings them back to life somewhat by adding enzymes after pasteurization.
At Trader Joe’s, I have a choice between organic cheese from grassfed cows, or raw cheese that is not organic and comes from cows fed 90% grass and 10% grain. I’m always puzzled about which is the better choice. Grassfed and organic sounds great, but it’s not raw. Raw sounds great, but the cows are fed some grain (which isn’t organic, apparently), and the grain makes it contain more omega-6, right? Any thoughts on which is the better choice?
I think most cows, even grassfed, will get some supplemental feed, likely including grain and/or some forms of hay. I don’t believe grass is always available at all times to keep cows fed and there are usually a large number on farms. For example the winter season in most areas would require some supplemental feeding. If cows are getting only 10% grain (non GMO), I would think that is very good. I mean, who can be perfect about this stuff, or anything. I will have to look for the raw, grassfed cheese at Trader Joe’s. They do have a decent selection for being such a large chain.
Jen, yes, I understand about winter months, but it still seems preferable for them to receive hay rather than grain at that time, though maybe I’m mistaken about that. I have the 10% grain info because I contacted Trader Joe’s with my question; I don’t think you’ll find anything on the packaging that indicates this. (I don’t have any in the fridge at the moment or I’d check for you.) What they told me is that any products that are 100% grassfed will have this clearly indicated on the labeling, and otherwise, the diet of dairy cattle in the U.S. typically consists of about 90% grass because they are pastured, and they are given supplemental grain as well. No mention was made about GMO or non-GMO. So I am contacting them again to inquire about that, now that you mentioned it. And it wasn’t stated whether the grain was just during the winter, or if it’s all the time, though I suspect that doesn’t really matter. Anyway, your mention of GMO highlights my concern again; the raw cheese isn’t organic, so the 10% grain could be GMO (and I’m afraid it probably is). Whereas the organic variety is grassfed (stated on the label) and because it’s organic AND grassfed, GMOs wouldn’t be an issue. But that organic/grassfed variety is pasteurized. So that’s what makes me wonder which is the better choice. Is grain-feeding, possibly with GMO feed, more important than the pasteurization issue? Which is more important to avoid? FYI, if you look for the raw cheese at Trader Joe’s, they have a raw milk cheddar that is a lighter whitish color and is very good (and the label on all of these products indicates no growth hormones), and a darker/brighter yellow colored New York sharp cheddar. I’ve also found raw parmesan, which seems rather hard to find, and a few other things, though they don’t all seem to be available all of the time.