Page 24 - Spring2012

Although this startling thesis was hard for ings with powerful simplicity. in a series of
some to swallow, the book appeared credible experiments, Campbell and his team exposed
due to its exhaustive references and the author’s rats to very high levels of aflatoxin—a carcino-
laundry list of credentials—including a PhD gen produced by mold that grows on peanuts
from Cornell, authorship of over three hundred and corn—and then fed them a diet containing
scientific papers, and decades of direct research varying levels of the milk protein casein. in
experience. Perhaps not surprisingly, The China study after study, the rats eating only 5 percent
Study was quickly absorbed into the vegan com- of their total calories as casein remained tumor-
munity as a bible of sorts—the final word on the free, while the rats eating 20 percent of their
harmfulness of animal foods, and indisputable calories as casein developed abnormal growths
proof that a plant-only diet is best for mankind. that marked the beginning of liver cancer. As
To the exasperation of meat lovers everywhere Campbell described, he could control cancer in
(especially those who enjoy arguing for sport), those rodents “like flipping a light switch on and
once lively debates with vegans were now extin- off,” simply by altering the amount of casein they
guished with one simple phrase: Just read The consumed.
4
China Study! Despite these provocative findings, Camp-
But despite the book’s black-and-white bell wasn’t ready to declare all protein a threat
declarations about animal products—and its to public health and stamp the peanut butter aisle
seemingly well-referenced arguments—The with mr. Yuk stickers. Animal protein, it turned
China Study is not a work of scientific vigor. out, seemed to be uniquely villainous. in several
As we’ll see in this article, the book’s most of his experiments, when the aflatoxin-exposed
widely repeated claims, particularly involving rats were fed wheat protein or soy protein in place
Campbell’s cancer research and the results of of casein, they didn’t develop any cancer—even
the China-Cornell-Oxford Project, are victims at the 20 percent level that proved so detrimental
of selection bias, cherry picking, and woefully with casein. it seemed that those plant proteins
5
misrepresented data. were not only PeTA-approved, but also the least
likely to turn rat livers into tumor factories.
DOes AnimAl PrOTein These findings led Campbell to his firm and
CAuse CAnCer? famous conclusion: that all animal protein—but
The seeds of animal-food doubt were first not plant protein—could uniquely promote can-
Despite the planted early in Campbell’s career, while he was cer growth. Out with the steak, in with the tofu!
6,7
book’s black- working in the Philippines on a project to help But as several critics have pointed out, that
combat malnutrition. A colleague informed him proclamation required a few somersaults of logic
and-white of a startling trend: liver cancer was plaguing (and maybe some cartwheels of delusion). The
declarations affluent Filipinos at a much higher rate than effects of casein—particularly isolated casein,
about animal their less-wealthy counterparts—a phenomenon separated from other components of dairy that
that, despite a slew of other lifestyle differences, often work synergistically—can’t be generalized
products— Campbell believed was linked to their higher to all forms of milk protein, much less all forms
and its intake of animal protein. Bolstering his suspi- of animal protein. An impressive number of
1
seemingly cions, Campbell also learned of a recent study studies shows that the other major milk protein,
from india showing that a high protein intake whey, consistently suppresses tumor growth
well- spurred liver cancer in rats, while a low protein rather than promoting it, likely due to its ability to
referenced intake seemed to prevent it. intrigued by this raise glutathione levels. Another of Campbell’s
2
8,9
arguments— gem of little-known research, Campbell decided own studies suggests that fish protein acts as a
to investigate the role of nutrition in cancer cancer-promoter when paired with corn oil, but
The China growth himself—an endeavor that ended up not when paired with fish oil—highlighting the
Study is not a lasting several decades and producing over one importance of dietary context (and the never-
10
work of hundred publications (none of which pertained ending terribleness of vegetable oils).
And the kicker: one of Campbell’s most
to Fight Club).

3
scientific vigor. The China Study relayed Campbell’s find- relevant experiments—which sadly received
24 Wise Traditions SPRING 2012 SPRING 2012 Wise Traditions

89494_text.indd 24 3/13/12 1:47 AM