The China Study (45 page)

295
THE ·SCIENCE" OF INDUSTRY
In 2002, this marketing Web site delivered over 70,000 lesson plans to
educators.s The dairy industry truly is teaching its version of nutrition
to the next generation of Americans.
The industry has been doing this for decades, and it has been suc-
cessful. I have encountered many people who, when they hear about the
potential adverse effects of dairy foods, immediately say, "Milk can't be
bad." Usually these people don't have any evidence to support their po-
sition; they just have a feeling that milk is good. They've always known
it to be that way, and they like it that way. You can trace some of their
opinions back to their school days, when they learned that there are
seven continents, two plus two equals four, and milk is healthy. If you
think about it this way, you will understand why the dairy industry has
had such exceptional influence in this country by using education for
its marketing purposes.
If this marketing program weren't such a widespread threat to our
children's health, it would be downright laughable that an industry
group would try to peddle its food product under such a thinly-veiled
"education" plan. Don't people wonder what's going on when almost ev-
ery single children's book advertised in the "Nutrition Bookshelf' por-
t i o n of this Web site revolved around either milk, cheese or ice cream,
with such titles as Ice Cream: Great Moments in Ice Cream History?9 After
all, during July 2003 there were no vegetable books anywhere to be
found on this "Nutrition Bookshelf'! Aren't they healthy?
At least when the dairy industry describes all of these school-related
activities in the official reports to Congress and in industry press re-
leases, it rightly refers to them as "marketing" activities.
CONJUGATED LINOLEIC ACID
The dairy industry doesn't stop with kids. For adults, the industry puts
a heavy emphasis on "science" and the communication of research re-
s u l t s that might be construed as showing health benefits from eating
dairy foods. The dairy industry spends $4 to $5 million a year to fund
research towards the goal of finding something healthy to talk about. 7,
10 In addition, the dairy industry promoters employ a Medical Advisory
Board made up of doctors, academics and other health professionals.
These scientists are the ones who appear as medical professionals in
the media, proViding science-based statements supporting the health
benefits of milk.
The Airport Club was a good example of industry efforts to maintain
~
I

296                          THE CHINA STUDY
favorable product image and "confidence." In addition to keeping an
eye on potentially damaging projects, the Club was trying to generate
research that might show that cancer could be prevented by drinking
cow's milk. What a coup that would be! At that time, the industry was
getting quite edgy about the growing evidence showing that the con-
s u m p t i o n of animal-based foods is associated with cancer and related
ailments.
Their hook for this research was an unusual group of fatty acids
produced by bacteria in the cow's rumen (the biggest of the four stom-
achs) . These fatty acids were collectively called conjugated linoleic acid
(CLA), which is produced from the linoleic acid commonly found in
corn that the cow eats. From the cow's rumen, CLA is then absorbed
and gets stored in the meat and milk of the animal, eventually to be
consumed by humans.
The big payday for The Airport Club was when initial tests on ex-
perimental mice suggested that CLA might help to block the formation
of stomach tumors produced by a weak chemical carcinogen called
benzo(a)pyrene. l l , 12 But there was a catch in this research. The catch
was that researchers gave CLA to the mice first, and then gave the car-
cinogen benzo(a)pyrene. The ordering of these chemical feedings was
backwards. In the body there is an enzyme system that works to minimize
the amount of cancer caused by a carcinogen. When a chemical such as
CLA is initially consumed, it "excites" that enzyme system so that it has
increased activity. So the trick was to administer CLA first, to excite the
enzyme system, and then administer the carcinogen. In this order, the en-
zyme system excited by CLA would be more effective at getting rid of the
carcinogen. As a result, CLA could be called an anticarcinogen.
Let me give you an analogous situation. Let's say you have a bag of a
potent pesticide in your garage. The pesticide bag says, "Do not swal-
low! In case of ingestion, contact your local poison control health au-
thorities," or some such warning. But let's say you're hungry and you eat
a handful of pesticide anyway. That pesticide in your body will "rev up"
the enzyme systems in all of your cells that are responsible for elimi-
n a t i n g nasty things. If you then go inside and eat a handful of peanuts
dripping with aflatoxin, your body's enzyme systems will be primed to
deal with the aflatoxin, and you'll end up with fewer aflatoxin-induced
tumors. So, the pesticide, which will ultimately do all sorts of nasty
things in your body, is an anticarcinogen! This scenario is obviously
absurd, and the research on mice that initially showed CLA to be an

297
THE "SCIENCE" OF INDUSTRY
anticarcinogen was similarly absurd. However, the end results of the
mice research sounded pretty good to people who don't know this
methodology (including most scientists).
Airport Club member Michael Pariza headed the research that stud-
ied CLA in some detail. 13- 1S Later, at Roswell Park Memorial Institute
for Cancer Research in Buffalo, a very good researcher and his group
extended the research still further and demonstrated that it did more
than merely block the first step in the formation of tumors. CLA also
appeared to slow down subsequent tumor growth 16, 17 when fed after
the carcinogen, This was a more convincing finding of the anticancer
properties of CLA than the initial studies,ll, 12 which showed only an
inhibition of tumor initiation.
Regardless of how promising these mouse and cow studies were be-
coming, this research remained two major steps removed from human
cancer, First, it had not been shown that cow's milk containing CLA,
as a whole food (as opposed to the isolated chemical CLA), prevents
cancer in mice. Second, even if such an effect existed in mice, it would
need to be confirmed in humans. In fact, as has been discussed earlier
in this book, if cow's milk has any effect at all, it has been shown to in-
crease, not decrease, cancer. The far more Significant nutrient in milk is
protein, whose potent cancer-promoting properties are consistent with
the human data,
In other words, to make any health claims regarding CLA in milk
and its effect on human cancer would require unreasonably large leaps
of faith, But never doubt the tenacity (i.e., money) of those who would
like to have the public believe that cow's milk prevents cancer. Lo and
behold, a recent front-page headline in our local newspaper, the Ithaca
Journal, stated "Changing Cows' Diets Elevates Milk's Cancer-Fight-
ing ."lB This article concerned the studies of a Cornell professor who was
instrumental in the development of bovine growth hormone now fed to
cows. He showed that he could increase CLA in cow's milk by feeding
the animals more corn oil.
The IthacaJournal article, although only in a local, hometown news-
paper, really was a dream come true for the sponsors of The Airport
Club. The headline delivers a powerful but very simple message to the
public: drinking milk reduces cancer risk I know that media people
like punchy statements so, initially, I suspected that the reporter had
made claims beyond what the researchers had said. But in the article the
enthusiasm expressed by Professor Bauman for the implications for this
..

298                          THE CHINA STUDY
research equaled that of the headline. The study cited in this article only
showed that CLA is higher in the milk of cows fed corn oil. That's a long
way from having any relevance to human cancer. No studies had yet
shown that humans or even mice drinking cow's milk had a lower risk
of cancer-of any kind. Yet Bauman, who is a technically competent
researcher, was quoted as saying that these findings have "good poten-
tial because CLA happens to be tal very potent [anticarcinogen]." The
journalist went on to say "CLA has been shown to suppress carcinogens
and inhibit the spread of colon, prostate, ovarian and breast cancers and
leukemia," and concluded that "all indications are that CLA is effec-
tive in humans even in low concentrations." According to the article,
Bauman says that this "research represents the new focus on designing
foods to enhance their nutritional and health qualities." These claims
could not be more dramatic, conSidering the absence of the necessary
human research.
Bauman, Pariza and their many other colleagues 19 have vigorously
pursued this line of research for fifteen years and have published a large
number of research papers. Although additional beneficial effects of
CLA are said to exist, the key research still has not been done, namely,
testing whether the consumption of milk from cows fed high-corn oil
diets really will reduce human cancer risk.
More recently, Bauman and his colleagues have attempted to take a
step toward finding this essential connection. They have shown that
the milk fat of cows fed high amounts of corn oil (i.e., linoleic acid, the
parent of CLA), like synthetic CLA, was able to decrease tumors in rats
treated with a carcinogen. 2o But again, they used the tricky experimental
method. They administered the milk fat before, not after the carcinogen.
Yet their claims will be as dramatic as ever, because this is the first time
that CLA, as present in food (i.e., the fat) , is shown to be as anticarcino-
genic as the isolated chemical. Translated: eat butter from cows fed corn
oil-it prevents cancer!
THE SCIENCE OF INDUSTRY
The CLA story is a good example of how industry uses science to in-
crease demand for its product in order to make more money. At the very
least, industry science often leads to public confusion (Are eggs good?
Are they bad?) , and at its worst, industry science leads unsuspecting
consumers to foods that are actually bad for them, all in the name of
better health.

299
THE "SCIENCE" OF INDUSTRY
Conflicts of interest abound in this science of industry. The CLA re-
search was created with special interest money and has grown and been
sustained with special interest money. The National Dairy Council,20--22
Kraft Foods, Inc.,2 the Northeast Dairy Foods Research Center,20. 21
0
the Cattlemen's Beef Board23 and the Cattlemen's Beef Association 23 are
groups that have frequently funded these studies.
Corporate influence in the academic research world can take many
forms, ranging from flagrant abuses of personal power to conflicts of
interest, all hidden from public view. This influence does not need to be
a crass payoff to researchers to fabricate data . That sort of behavior is
rare. The more Significant way for corporate interests to influence aca-
demic research is much more sophisticated and effective. As illustrated
by the CLA example, scientists investigate a detail out of context that
can be construed as a favorable message and industry exploits it for all
it's worth. Almost no one knows where the CLA hypothesis started and
who originally funded it.
Few people really question such research if it is published in the best
journals. Very few people, especially among the public, know which
studies are "benefiting" from direct corporate funding. Very few people
are able to sort out the technical details and recognize the missing in-
formation that would otherwise establish context. Almost everyone,
however, understands that headline in my local newspaper.
I could play this game, too. If I wanted to hurt the dairy industry and
be a little wild in my interpretation of study results, I could produce an-
o t h e r headline to say, "New birth control chemical discovered in cow's
milk." Recent research, for example, showed that CLA dramatically kills
chick embryos.13 Also, CLA increases the tissue level of saturated fats
that could (using our dramatic method of interpretation) exacerbate
heart disease risk. Of course, I have taken these two unrelated effects
grossly out of context in my example. I don't really know whether these
CLA effects actually translate into less fertility and more heart disease
for humans, but if I were playing the game the way industry enthusiasts
do, I wouldn't mind. It would make a great headline, and that can go a
long way.
I recently met with one of the members of The Airport Club, a scien-
tist who has been involved in the CLA effort, and he confessed that the
CLA effect will never be anything more than a drug effect. However, you
can bet that what is known in private will not be told in public.
I
•
!

THE CHINA STUDY
300
INDUSTRY'S LOVE OF TINKERING
Much of The Airport Club and the CLA story is a story about the "dark
side" of science, which I detailed in chapter thirteen. But the CLA story
is also about the dangers of reductionism, of taking details out of con-
t e x t and making claims about diet and health, which I discussed in the
previous chapter. Like academia, industry is also an essential player in
the system of scientific reductionism that undermines the knowledge
we have about dietary patterns and disease. Industry, you see, loves to
tinker. Securing patents based on details leads to marketing claims and,
ultimately, to greater revenues.
In a recent paper20 by several CLA researchers (including Professor
Dale Bauman, a long-time friend of the animal foods industry), the fol-
lowing sentence appeared, revealing much about how some industry
enthusiasts feel as we "tinker" our way to health:
The concept of CLA-enriched foods could be particularly appeal-
i n g to people who desire a diet-based approach to cancer preven-
t i o n without making radical changes in their eating habits. 20
I know that, for Bauman and others, "making radical changes
in ... eating habits" means consuming a diet rich in plant-based foods.
Rather than avoiding bad foods altogether, these researchers are sug-
gesting that we tinker with the existing, but problematic, foods to cor-
rect the problem. Instead of working with nature to maintain health,
they want us to rely on technology-their technology.
This faith in technological tinkering, in man over nature, is ever-
present. It is not limited to the dairy industry, or the meat industry, or
the processed foods industry. It has become part of every single food
and health industry in the country; from oranges to tomatoes, from cere-
als to vitamin supplements.
The plant food industry got carried away recently when another ca-
r o t e n o i d was "discovered." You've probably heard ofit. It is called lyco-
pene, and it provides the red color in tomatoes. In 1995, it was reported
that people who ate more tomatoes, including whole tomatoes and
tomato-containing foods like pasta sauces, had a lower risk for prostate
cancer,24 supporting an earlier report. 25
For those companies that make foods with tomato products, this was
a gift from above. Marketing people in the corporate world quickly got
the message. But what they zeroed in on was lycopene, not tomatoes.