Every Body Needs Milk -- until weaning, that is.

http://www.ecotopia.com/webpress/milk/

Here are some links to articles on the web about the dangers of milk consumption by
adults.

NoMilk.Com! Lots of useful links on the subject.

Udder Madness: The rBGH Controversy

• Because You're Not A Calf Anymore...

• NLG is dedicated to making informed decisions based on sound knowledge and
honest assessment of the facts involved in the use of recombinant bovine
growth hormone (rBGH) to increase milk production in cows. The purpose of
this conference is to educate students and the community on important aspects
of the rBGH controversy. Representatives from all sides of the issue have been
invited. From Vermont Law, a link no longer available online.
• Pharming the Cow

Earaches and Tonsillitis

• "EARACHE (ear infections) like tonsillitis, sinusitis, and bronchitis are related
in cause, prevention and cure. Allergies to cow's milk is the most frequent
common denominator."
• Tonsillitis, dietary treatment "... to avoid recurrent attacks: reduce intake of
dairy produce: milk can be replaced with soya milk or goat's milk."
• The allopathic remedy to tonsillitis: Milk! "While the throat is very sore, feed
the child soft or liquid foods such as milk, milkshakes, ice cream, soups, or
instant-breakfast milk drinks..." [After I had my tonsils out, I was served ice
cream. Then I puked!]

Cancer

• "...Consuming dairy products is linked to an increased risk for breast cancer..."

• "IGF-I survives digestion and has been identified as the KEY FACTOR in
breast cancer's growth."
• On Colin Campbell by Charlotte Gerson: When T. Colin Campbell first started
as a young nutritionist, he was sent to the Philippines to help the poor starving
people. The main thing they were stressing was increasing protein, because at
the tiime they were taught that protein is nutrition. So they raised the protein
content of these children's foods from five to twenty percent. Lo and behold the
 kids developed liver cancers. Two physicians in India did similar experiments
with rats. They raised their content of milk proteins from five to twenty
percent. All thirty-five rats, 100 percent, developed liver cancer. Later on,
Campbell studied China and found that in certain provinces where no milk is
used, there is no cancer. He called milk the number one carcinogen in the
world.

Yahoo links on Lactose Intolerance

A new book by David Pimentel, Ecological Integrity. "Tax on eaters at top of food
chain would aid environmental sustainability, Cornell ecologist proposes in new
book...."

It can be expected that the incidence of infectious diseases will increase for young
people: Coke to add milk products to beverage line.

The following is
from http://www.mercurycenter.com/premium/opinion/columns/027986.htm

SECTIONS
Related Links
Perspective
Breaking News
Writing Techniques
Front Page
Special Reports
World Seven-Day Archives
National
Published Monday, March 27, 2000, in the San Jose Mercury News
Local & State
Business & Stocks
Technology
Sports
SV Life
Entertainment
Opinion
Columnists
Comics
Weather
SV Magazine
Nuevo Mundo
 Viet Mercury

CLASSIFIEDS & SERVICES

MILTON R. MILLS
Classifieds
Jobs: CareerPath
Homes: HomeHunter Got milk? For many people,
NewHomeNetwork.com
Apartments.com there are reasons to get rid of
Mortgage Link
Cars: Cars.com it
Personals
Yellow Pages BY MILTON R. MILLS
BayArea.com
Entertainment: Just Go In mid-March, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
S.F. Bay Traveler sparked controversy with its campaign promoting beer's
Archives: NewsLibrary advantages over cow's milk to college students. Certainly, few
E-mail Dispatches health professionals would advocate beer as a health tonic, yet
Contests & Events many mistakenly regard milk as a necessarily wholesome choice.
Indeed, saying ``don't drink your milk'' may initially sound as un-
ABOUT US American as ``don't eat apple pie.'' But PETA's anti-milk points
are well-taken.
Mercury Center
Advertising Information For generations, most parents and physicians have kept urging
Privacy Policy
children to drink their glasses of milk. To be sure, they generally
had good intentions-but they also had been flooded with endless
Site Index
promotions and ads from the financially well-set dairy industry.
San Jose Mercury News
More recently, it's hard to miss those here, there and everywhere
milk-mustache and ``Got Milk?'' billboards, bus ads, print ads,
Advertising Information
TV spots, and classroom promotions. The milk industry even hit
Newspaper Subscription
the road with its ``Better Bones Tour,'' visiting 100 U.S. cities
Mercury News
with trucks carrying displays claiming a beneficial relationship
Newsletter
between dairy and osteoporosis.
Mercury News Jobs
Science, however, has been raining on dairy's parade.
Observations in South African black townships, with virtually no
dairy consumption, showed residents there experience almost no
osteoporosis, while the chronic bone disease afflicts millions in
dairy-devouring places such as Scandinavia, Canada, and the
United States. In a finding published in the American Journal of
Public Health in June 1997, the 12-year Harvard Nurses' Study
of almost 78,000 people found those regularly consuming dairy
products had no protection at all against hip and forearm
fractures. Indeed, women drinking three glasses of milk daily had
more fractures than women who rarely or never touched milk.

Other studies are investigating dairy's links with breast cancer,

ovarian cancer, iron deficiency, insulin-dependent diabetes,
cataracts, food allergies, heart disease, asthma and colic.
Common toxic contaminants in dairy include pesticides, drugs
and antibiotic traces.

In attacking cow's milk, PETA actually echoes the growing

number of nutritionists and doctors -- the late pediatrician
Benjamin Spock among them -- wiping off their milk mustaches.

From my perspective as an African-American physician, there is

another troubling side to dairy promotions, and especially to
government recommendations that it be part of every school
lunch meal and similar nutrition programs.

While only about 15 percent to 20 percent of U.S. whites are

intolerant of the milk sugar lactose, some 95 percent of Asian
Americans, about 70 percent of African Americans and Native
Americans, and more than 50 percent of Mexican-Americans
cannot digest it. Many get quite sick from it. Nature starts to
remove the enzymes that digest milk sugar once we have passed
the age of weaning.

Indeed, one can call lactose intolerance nature's normal warning

signal not to ``do dairy,'' akin to the protective pain signals
prompting you to snatch your hand away from a hot stove. Of
course, some advocate taking lactose-tolerance pills or adding
small amounts of dairy at intervals throughout the day to ``trick''
the body into accepting milk, ice cream, and so on. But, if you
wouldn't want to trick your hand into not feeling a searingly
painful stove, why would you want to temporarily mask the
unhealthy downside of dairy? Being lactose-intolerant really
constitutes genetic good luck.

It's bad enough that current federal dietary guidelines encourage

meat consumption, though they do list nutritionally sound
alternatives, such as legumes (beans and peas). However, the
1992-issued federal Food Guide Pyramid's ``dairy section''
doesn't even bother to list substitutes, though the 2000 Dietary
Guidelines for Americans draft does finally mention soymilk.
Indeed, healthy dairy-free alternatives such as fortified soymilk
and calcium-set tofu have become increasingly available in
supermarkets, as well as in health food stores and food co-ops.

Calcium, dairy's big ``health'' selling point, does indeed

strengthen teeth and bones. But it's readily absorbable from
 broccoli, kale, mustard greens, turnip greens, Brussels sprouts,
pinto beans, navy beans, black-eyed peas, calcium-set tofu, and,
of course, the new fortified orange juice and apple juice
products. And none of those haul the health-damaging freight
that dairy does.

So, for your health's sake, why not replace cow's milk with
soymilk and other alternatives?

Milton R. Mills, M.D., a Stanford University-trained physician

specializing in nutrition, practices in Virginia and volunteers as
associate director of preventive medicine at the Washington-
based Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. He
wrote this column for the Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service.

*** Pharming the Cow

From Craig Holdrege

[Back in NF #31 I reviewed Craig Holdrege's remarkable book, Genetics and the
Manipulation of Life. One section of that book is quite unlike all the others; it's not so
much about genetics as about the life of the cow and how it is affected by the
scientific and engineering stances we take. Lindisfarne Press has kindly granted
permission to reprint the piece here. It offers, I think, a nice counterpoint to the
current news stories about Dolly and genetic engineering.

The following text is copyright 1996 by Craig Holdrege. Some technical references
have been removed. Genetics and the Manipulation of Life is available from
Lindisfarne for $14.95 by calling 518-851-2054. SLT]

Cows are grazers. They live in the midst of the food they eat. The cow lowers its head
to the ground and touches the meadow plants (or the hay in its stall) with the front end
of its soft, moist snout. The cow does not bite off the plants with its teeth or lips, but
reaches out with its rough, muscular tongue, enwraps the plants, and tears them off. It
clearly needs to use its tongue in this way -- cattle that receive soft feed begin to lick
their fellow cows much more than usual. The tongue needs the stimulation of
roughage.

After it has torn off a few portions and chewed a bit, the cow swallows a mouthful,
This activity continues for a few hours. The food reaches the rumen, the huge first
chamber of the four-chambered stomach. Occupying the entire left side of the
abdominal cavity, the rumen can hold forty-five gallons.
Digestion in the rumen is facilitated by microorganisms that break down cellulose, the
main, hard-to-digest component of roughage. Bacterial activity, the secretion of
digestive juices, and the muscle activity of the rumen are all stimulated by roughage.
In fact, the rumen only finishes its development and becomes functional when a calf
begins to feed on grass or hay.

When the rumen is about half-full, portions of the partially digested food are
regurgitated back into the mouth. Rumination begins. Cows usually lie on the ground
while ruminating. They grind their food between their large cheek teeth in rhythmical,
circling motions of the lower jaw. You are probably familiar with the picture of calm
presented by a herd of cows, lying in a meadow, their activity focused inwardly on
grinding and digestion.

Digestion involves an intensive production, circulation, and secretion of body fluids.

The process begins in the head. While the cow is ruminating, the saliva glands secrete
copious amounts of saliva -- up to forty gallons a day. The drier the feed (for example,
hay), the more the saliva, and the greater the amount of water a cow drinks. As [E.
M.] Kranich points out, functionally one can consider the mouth to be a fifth chamber
of the stomach.

After rumination, the food is swallowed, entering first the other three chambers of the
stomach and then the small intestine. In these organs, fluids are removed from the
food and new digestive juices are secreted until finally the cow has broken down its
food to a point where it can be taken up by the blood.

Characteristic for cows is their fluid dung, in contrast to the solid dung of other
ruminants like sheep or deer. The cow's large intestine does not absorb as much fluid
out of this final section of the digestive tract. In fact, from its moist snout, through the
whole digestive tract, and finally in its dung, the cow shows more fluidity than other
ruminants.

The digestive process is related to the blood -- a fluid organ that connects all organs of
the body. For every quart of saliva, three hundred quarts of blood pass through the
salivary glands. The other digestive organs are sustained by a similarly strong
circulation.

The intensive transformation of substances and secretion of fluids characterizing the

digestive process are heightened in the formation and secretion of milk. Substances
produced by digestion are withdrawn from the blood in the udder. For every quart of
milk, three to five hundred quarts of blood pass through the udder. Glands in the
udder then create a wholly new substance -- milk. This is not a substance that is used
by the cow or excreted; rather, it serves another growing organism -- the calf. The
cow only begins to produce milk after she has given birth to a calf, and the calf has
begun to suck on the teats.

When we build up a picture of the cow in this way, we begin to see the cow as a total
organism. We view each part in the context of other parts, so that the animal as a
whole comes into view, even if only in an elementary way. One result of this
endeavor is that milk loses its isolated status as a product we consume. As consumers
we tend to take for granted our relation to the cow. When we gain some insight into
the cow viewed as an organism, this relation is enhanced.

The domestication of cows by human beings goes back thousands of years. In the
course of time this interaction has led to many different breeds, each with its own
characteristics. These characteristics reflect in part the aims of the breeders. Breeders
try to realize in the domestic animal (or plant) a mental picture they carry within
themselves. Moreover, the way we now care for these animals stems in good part
from our points of view.

Until this century the cow gave about as much milk per day as her calf would have
drunk, had it not been weaned -- about two to three gallons in present-day breeds (in
India, about one-half gallon per day). In our time, the dairy cow's milk production can
exceed seven gallons per day. This increase has taken place essentially within the last
fifty years.

How has the increase been made possible? First, by breeding larger cows that by
virtue of their size eat more, digest more, and give more milk. Second, by feeding
them differently. When cows receive more high-protein grains in their feed, they
produce more milk. But since, as we have seen, cows need roughage, this dietary
change has its limits.

A simple method has been developed to circumvent the need for roughage in steers
bred for beef. The steers are "fed" plastic pot scrubbers -- the ones we buy in
supermarkets -- instead of roughage. In trials, pot scrubbers were wrapped in masking
tape and then, one after another, eight scrubbers were pushed down the steer's throat
into the rumen. The tape soon detached from the scrubbers, which "were observed to
float on the surface of the ruminal contents in these steers and to form a mat similar to
that observed when ruminants are fed roughage." The scrubbers remain in the rumen
for life.

The trials indicated that steers fed 100% concentrate plus pot scrubbers grew at
approximately the rate of cattle fed 85% concentrate with 15% roughage (corn silage).
Evidently, the scrubbers stimulate the rumen walls in a manner similar to roughage.
In undertaking his research, [S.] Loerch surmised that "because roughage is relatively
low in energy and is expensive, it would be beneficial if roughage could be eliminated
from cattle diets without sacrificing performance." It is by no means clear that a
farmer would actually save money using this method, since it is not a given that 15%
more concentrate would be cheaper than producing or buying a corresponding amount
of corn silage. But some farmers or feedlots have evidently used Loerch's method,
since, as a university animal scientist, he is reported to have received many phone
calls "from bewildered butchers who have found pot scrubbers in the guts of
slaughtered cattle" (New York Times, August 29, 1992).

In its starkness this example is illustrative. It shows not only how strongly the desire
to lower costs is a determining factor in agricultural research, but also in what narrow
terms the cow is viewed. The cow's need for roughage is reduced to a mechanical
function, and this can be substituted for. The sensory qualities of hay or silage -- taste,
smell, texture -- are not considered. Nutritional considerations are reduced to
ascertaining that roughage is low-calorie feed and therefore not effective for fast
growth. The steer can no longer ruminate because the scrubbers are too large to be
regurgitated. Has this no significance for the animal's well-being and physiology? The
cow as a mechanism and not the cow as an organism stands behind the roughage
substitute.

Perhaps a more enlightened age will discover that the nutritional quality of foodstuffs
such as milk or beef are dependent not only on the results of biochemical analysis, but
also on the way the animals are raised and cared for.

Coupling the view of the cow as a mechanism with a one-sided economic perspective
that emphasizes cost-effectiveness has become increasingly prevalent in our times.
This is particularly true in genetic engineering:

Producing human pharmaceutical proteins in the milk of transgenic livestock has been
an attractive possibility....Such "molecular pharming" technologies are appealing for a
number of reasons. They offer the potential of extremely high volumetric
productivity, low operating costs, and unlimited multiplication of the bioreactor [that
is, the animal]....In this issue of Bio/Technology three groups report significant
progress in realizing these benefits....Their results provide convincing demonstration
of the feasibility of using animals as commercial bioreactors. [Bio/Technology, vol. 9
(1991), pp. 786-788]
The attempt to continually increase milk production reflects the treatment of cows as
commercial bioreactors. This tuning of the bioreactor in a specific direction has
brought with it some unwanted side effects. These include fertility problems, mastitis,
and leg and hoof afflictions. High milk-producing cows are often slaughtered after
three years of lactation (five-year-old animals). Without the demand to produce as
much milk as possible in a short period of time, a cow will reach its peak of milk
production after three or four years of lactation, and will continue healthy lactation for
a number of years beyond that.

When we begin to think in terms of the organism, we learn to expect that the desired
effect of our manipulations will in all likelihood be only one among many changes.
From the point of view of the organism, there is no such thing as a side effect. The
organism is a whole. If we change a part, the whole is changed, and this change will
likely manifest in ways that go beyond any desired effects.

It is not, therefore, very surprising that mastitis can accompany increased milk
production. Mastitis is an inflammation of the udder. Since it is an infectious disease,
strict hygienic procedures are called for to prevent bacteria from entering the udder
via the openings in the teats. But this is only one side of the problem. Due to the
intensive circulation in the udder during lactation, the udder is susceptible to
inflammation. (Increased circulation always occurs in inflamed organs -- it calls forth
the warmth and redness of inflamed tissue.) When milk production is increased to the
utmost degree, the udder is almost on the verge of inflammation without bacteria. The
cow's physiology is stressed, and when bacteria do enter the udder, mastitis is likely.

In November, 1993, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the
commercial sale of milk, milk products, and meat from cows treated with recombinant
bovine growth hormone (rBGH). This hormone is produced by bacteria that have been
genetically altered by a cow-derived DNA that is related to the organism's production
of growth hormone. In some unknown way, growth hormone stimulates milk
production. Cows injected with this hormone produce 10 to 20% more milk.

Much controversy surrounds the use of rBGH, and in Europe its use has not been
approved. The FDA was concerned solely with the product's safety. FDA scientists
concluded that experimental evidence (provided by manufacturers of rBGH)
demonstrates that milk from treated cows is in essence chemically identical to milk
from untreated cows. Therefore, the FDA sees no reason for the milk to be labeled as
coming from rBGH-treated cows.

Extensive testing of rBGH was done on rats as part of the FDA's procedure for
establishing the safety of the substance. Although such experimental results cannot
simply be assumed to be valid for cows, they are in and of themselves interesting.
Researchers found that the whole organism was affected by rBGH. The treated
animals were larger than normal. When the researchers investigated the individual
organs, they found that some were proportionately smaller while others were
proportionately larger than normal. Such changes depended in part on the animal's
sex. "Ratios of organ weight to body weight were increased for spleen and adrenal
[gland] and decreased for testes in male rats, and increased for heart and spleen and
decreased for brain in the female rats."

Such detailed analyses have not been performed on cows, but the question of the
effects of rBGH has been a source of major controversy and concern. Monsanto, a
producer of rBGH, claims there are no significant side effects. Some independent
scientists have come to different conclusions. Most recently, a research group led by
Erik Millstone analyzed Monsanto data. The group concluded that milk from rBGH-
treated cows contained an average of 19% more white blood cells than milk from
untreated cows. White blood cells enter an organ as part of the inflammatory reaction.
An increase in white blood cells is "associated with increased risk of mastitis." The
researchers acknowledge that their analysis will remain incomplete until Monsanto
releases all the pertinent data. They also report that Monsanto blocked their original
attempt to publish their analysis of the data.

Out of what context is rBGH produced, and into what context do its effects radiate?
Clearly there is no consumer demand for more milk, nor is there a demand for rBGH
milk. "From 1987 to 1989 the [U.S.] government has spent between $600 million and
$1.3 billion a year to purchase surplus milk (Hastings Center Report, July/August,
1991, p. 3). Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that if only one in
five farmers were to use rBGH in the first year it is sold, "the government will have to
spend $15 million [more] to buy the [additional] surplus milk."

It is absurd to invent a product to increase milk production while milk itself is already
being produced in surplus. Such a total separation of production from actual needs is a
consequence of our economic system. In modern Western economic ideology there is
an emphasis on growth, higher production, and cost-cutting. The attempt to emphasize
such things in agriculture has led to the development of ever larger factory farms.
Higher productivity is achieved to the detriment of the connection between farmers
and the plants and animals upon which their work is based. And large government
subsidies reflect an approach to production that does not take into consideration real
consumer needs.

Large chemical companies continually grow. This growth is seen as the means to
counter rising costs of production (inflation, higher wages, and so on). When such a
company invests millions of dollars to develop a new product like rBGH, it must
aggressively market the product. Farmers (particularly those with large farms) who
seek further mechanization and ever higher production are most likely to use rBGH.
But others follow in fear of not being able to compete.
And what about the cow? As long as we treat it as a commercial bioreactor, there is no
reason not to continue trying to increase production. But if we remember that the cow
is an organism, then we must ask how far we can healthily push milk production. By
gaining insight into the cow as a "small world, existing for its own sake" [Goethe], we
can recognize its specific characteristics and needs, and begin to fit our actions into its
context.

Practicing this point of view is made extremely difficult by current economic realities.
This problem, where it is recognized, has led (to mention one example) to the
establishment of Community Supported Agriculture. Here farmers and consumers
enter an economic association that frees the farmer to some degree from the
compelling necessity to increase production and lower costs. The consumer
community provides the farmer with an income. At the same time, farm production is
related more directly to consciously affirmed consumer needs. Within this setting it
becomes possible to handle animals like the organisms they are. [See NF #30 for more
on Community Supported Agriculture. SLT]

Anyone who thinks in terms of commercial bioreactors and acts accordingly will of
necessity consider it uneconomic to worry over the fact that animals are living,
sentient beings.

Goto table of contents

 = Breast Cancer

The following ten references provide converging lines of evidence that focus upon one
central point.

There are hundreds of millions of different proteins in nature, and only one hormone that
is identical between any two species. That powerful growth hormone is insulin-like growth
factor, or IGF-I. IGF-I survives digestion and has been identified as the KEY FACTOR in
breast cancer's growth.

IGF-I is identical in human and cow.

If you believe that breast feeding "works" to protect lactoferrins and immunoglobulins
from digestion (and benefit the nursing infant), you must also recognize that milk is a
hormonal delivery system. By drinking cow's milk, one delivers IGF-I in a bioactive form
to the body's cells. When IGF-I from cow's milk alights upon an existing cancer...

"Human Insulin-like growth factor (IGF-I) and bovine IGF-I are identical. Both contain 70
amino acids in the identical sequence."

Judith C. Juskevich and C. Greg Guyer. SCIENCE, vol. 249. August 24, 1990.

"IGF-I is critically involved in the aberrant growth of human breast cancer cells."

M. Lippman. J. Natl. Inst. Health Res., 1991, 3.

"Estrogen regulation of IGF-I in breast cancer cells would support the hypothesis that
IGF-I has a regulatory function in breast cancer."

A.V. Lee, Mol-Cell- Endocrinol., March, 99(2).

"IGF-I is a potent growth factor for cellular proliferation in the human breast carcinoma
cell line."

J.C. Chen, J-Cell-Physiol., January, 1994, 158(1)

"Insulin-like growth factors are key factors for breast cancer growth."

J.A. Figueroa, J-Cell-Physiol., Nov., 1993, 157(2)

"IGF-I produces a 10-fold increase in RNA levels of cancer cells. IGF-I appears to be a
critical component in cellular proliferation."

X.S. Li, Exp-Cell-Res., March, 1994, 211(1)

"IGF-I plays a major role in human breast cancer cell growth."

E.A. Musgrove, Eur-J-Cancer, 29A (16), 1993

"IGF-I has been identified as a key factor in breast cancer."

Hankinson. The Lancet, vol. 351. May 9, 1998

"Serum IGF-I levels increased significantly in milk drinkers, an increase of about 10%
above baseline but was unchanged in the control group."

Robert P. Heaney, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, vol. 99, no. 10. October
1999

"IGF-1 accelerates the growth of breast cancer cells."

M. Lippman Science, Vol. 259, January 29, 1993

Robert Cohen author of: MILK A-Z

(201-871-5871)
Executive Director (notmilkman@notmilk.com)
Dairy Education Board
http://www.notmilk.com

Do you know of a friend or family member with one or more of these milk-related
problems? Do them a huge favor and forward the URL or this entire file to them.
Do you know of someone who should read these newsletters? If so, have them send an
empty Email to notmilk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com and they will receive it
(automatically)!

http://www.milksucks.com/breast.asp

Got Breast Cancer?

Breast cancer is the most common cancer-related death among women in most of the Western world and
the leading cause of death for women under 50. It strikes about 182,000 women in the U.S. each year
and kills 46,000. Consuming dairy products is linked to an increased risk for breast cancer because dairy
products are high in fat, animal protein, and hormones, each of which increases cancer risk. Since the
1980’s, study after study has linked dairy consumption to a high incidence of breast and other cancers.
Women seeking to minimize their chances of breast cancer should avoid milk, other dairy products, and
meat.

Just a few examples:

The American Cancer Society points out that "about one-third of the 500,000 cancer deaths that occur in
the United States each year is due to dietary factors … Although the committee recognizes that no diet
can guarantee full protection against any disease, we believe that our recommendations offer the best
nutrition information currently available to help Americans reduce their risk of cancer." The Society’s top
two recommendations are: "1. Choose most of the foods you eat from plant sources"; and "2. Limit your
intake of high-fat foods, particularly from animal sources."

The American Dietetic Association reports that breast cancer is most prevalent in countries where women
consume high-fat, animal-based diets. In Asia, where milk consumption is extremely rare, breast cancer is
almost unheard of. International renowned nutrition expert Dr. T. Colin Campbell points to China, a
basically nonmilk-drinking country, where cancer deaths among women aged 35 to 64 averaged less than
9 per 100,000, as opposed to 44 per 100,000 in the U.S.
Japanese women who follow a more Western-style, meat- and dairy-based diet are eight times more
likely to develop breast cancer than their counterparts who eat a plant-based diet not containing dairy
products.

There are numerous other studies to cite. For example, Dr. J.L. Outwater of Princeton University and Drs.
A. Nicholson and N. Barnard of The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine cite more than 12
epidemiological studies that show a positive correlation between dairy products and breast cancer.

An Italian study revealed that breast cancer risks increased as a result of the consumption of animal fat,
animal protein, most significantly with regard to dairy products. The authors of this study, published in
the British Journal of Cancer, indicate that the results are consistent with previous reports. Additionally,
doctors in Milan report data showing a strong correlation between dairy consumption and breast cancer.

Another Italian study, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, reported that adult women
who reduce their dietary intake of fat and animal protein substantially lower their risk of breast cancer.

A survey of 1,486 Danish women with breast cancer indicated that women who frequently consumed
"standard" (whole) milk or consumed three or more liters of low-fat milk per week prior to their diagnosis
significantly elevated their risk of developing breast cancer.

A report published in Cancer Research correlates breast cancer mortality with dairy consumption and
suggests that dairy products play a role in the development of breast cancer.

A comparison study published in Cancer shows that meat and milk consumption are positively associated
with breast cancer deaths. Doctors found a strong link between breast cancer and animal fat, but no
relationship between breast cancer and vegetable fat.

Researchers at Stanford University and the National Institutes of Health found that high concentrations of
the IGF-1 hormone stimulate cancer cell growth. IGF-1, a hormone that occurs naturally in humans and
cows and in all milk, is increasingly abundant in milk from cows treated with synthetic bovine growth
hormone (rBGH). In the International Journal of Health Sciences, University of Illinois scientist Dr. Samuel
Epstein warns that elevated levels of IGF-1 in milk from cows injected with rBGH is a potential risk factor
for breast cancer in humans who consume cow’s milk.

Studies published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association and the British Medical
Journal found that consuming three additional servings of nonfat or 1 percent milk for 12 weeks was
associated with a 10 percent increase in IGF-1 levels. The Food and Drug Administration reports that
IGF-1 is not destroyed by pasteurization. In fact, pasteurization actually increases its concentration in
rBGH milk.

Ready to reach for the soy milk? Click here for delicious dairy-free recipes.

For more information, visit these sites:

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, "Foods for Cancer Prevention"
http://pcrm.org/health/prevmed/foods_cancer_prev.html

Foods for Cancer Prevention download this factsheet

Of the many diseases that affect people these days, cancer is among the most feared. But despite a
wealth of scientific data, most people remain unaware of how they can reduce their risk of developing
cancer. According to the National Cancer Institute, as much as 80 percent of all cancers are due to
identified factors, and thus are potentially preventable. Thirty percent are due to tobacco use, and as
much as 35 to 50 percent are due to foods. It is easy to control these and other risk factors.

What Is Cancer?

Cancer begins as a single abnormal cell that begins to multiply out of control. Groups of such cells
form tumors and invade healthy tissue, often spreading to other parts of the body. Carcinogens are
substances that promote the development of cancerous cells. They may come from foods, from the
air, or even from within the body. Most carcinogens are neutralized before damage can occur, but
sometimes they attack the cell’s genetic material (DNA) and alter it. It takes years for a noticeable
tumor to develop. During this time, compounds known as inhibitors can keep the cells from growing.
Some vitamins in plant foods are known to be inhibitors. Dietary fat, on the other hand, is known to
be a promoter that helps the abnormal cells grow quickly.

Fiber Fights Cancer

In 1970, British physician, Dennis Burkitt, observed that a high-fiber diet reduces diseases of the
digestive tract. He observed that in countries where diets are high in fiber (that is, plant-based diets),
there were fewer cases of colon cancer. Around the world, this has proven true. The highest fiber
intakes are found in non-industrialized nations where meat is scarce and plant foods fill the menu.
Animal products contain no fiber. The U.S. and other Western nations whose diets are based upon
animal products have the highest rates of colon cancer.

While no one is certain exactly how fiber protects against digestive tract disorders, there are several
possibilities. By definition, fiber cannot be digested by humans early in the digestive process. It moves
food more quickly through the intestines, helping to eliminate carcinogens. It also draws water into
the digestive tract. The water and fiber make fecal matter bulkier, so carcinogens are diluted.

Bile acids are secreted into the intestine to help digest fat; there, bacteria can change the acids into
chemicals which promote colon cancer. Fiber may bind with these bile acids and evict them from the
intestines.1 Also, bacteria in the colon ferment the fiber creating a more acidic environment which may
make bile acids less toxic.

Fiber is also protective against other forms of cancer. Studies have shown that stomach cancer and
breast cancer are less common on high-fiber diets.2,3 Fiber affects levels of estrogens in the body.
Estrogens are normally secreted into the intestine, where the fiber binds with the hormone and moves
it out of the body.4 Without adequate fiber, the estrogen can be reabsorbed from the intestine into the
bloodstream. High levels of estrogen are linked to a higher risk of breast cancer.

In the U.S., the average daily fiber intake is 10 to 20 grams per day. Experts recommend 30 to 40
grams per day. The best sources of fiber are whole grains, beans, peas, lentils, vegetables, and fruits.
Foods that are closest to their natural state, unrefined and unpeeled, are highest in fiber.

Fat Raises Cancer Risks

Cross-cultural studies have revealed that the populations with the highest levels of fat consumption
are also the ones with the highest death rates from breast and colon cancer. The lowest rates are in
groups with the lowest consumption of fats.5 Migration studies help to rule out the influence of
genetics.6

Many studies indicate that fat in foods increases one’s risk for cancer, and it may also adversely affect
breast cancer survival rates for those who have cancer.7

Although the total amount of fat one eats is of concern, there is evidence that animal fat is much more
harmful than vegetable fat. One study noted a 200 percent increase in breast cancer among those
who consume beef or pork five to six times per week. Dr. Sheila Bingham, a prominent cancer
researcher form the University of Cambridge, notes that meat is more closely associated with colon
cancer than any other factor.8 Meat and milk are also linked to both prostate and ovarian cancers.9

How Fat Affects Cancer Risks

Fat has many effects within the body. It increases hormone production and thus raises breast cancer
risks. It also stimulates the production of bile acids which have been linked to colon cancer.

The average diet in the U.S. is about 37 percent fat. The National Cancer Institute suggests that
people lower that percentage down to 30 percent; however, studies have shown that fat intake should
be well below 30 percent to have an anti-cancer affect. Ten to 15 percent is more likely to be helpful.

The Importance of Vegetables

Not only are vegetables low in fat and high in fiber, they also contain many cancer-fighting
substances. Carotenoids, the pigment that gives fruits and vegetables their dark colors, have been
shown to help prevent cancer. Beta-carotene, present in dark green and yellow vegetables, helps
protect against lung cancer and may help prevent cancers of the bladder, mouth, larynx, esophagus,
breast, and other sites.

Vegetables such as cabbage, broccoli, kale, turnips, cauliflower, and Brussels sprouts contain flavones
and indoles which are thought to have anti-cancer activities.

Vitamin C, found in citrus fruits and many vegetables, may lower risks for cancers of the esophagus
and stomach. Vitamin C acts as an antioxidant, neutralizing cancer-causing chemicals that form in the
body. It also blocks the conversion of nitrates to cancer-causing nitrosamines in the stomach.

Selenium is found in whole grains and has the same antioxidant effects as vitamin C and beta-
carotene. Vitamin E also has this effect. Caution is advised in supplementing selenium, which is toxic
in large doses.

Alcohol
Excessive intake of alcohol raises one’s risks for cancers of the breast, mouth, pharynx, and
esophagus. When combined with smoking, these risks skyrocket. It also raises risks for stomach, liver,
and colon cancers.10

Vegetarians Are Better Off

All the evidence points to a low-fat, high-fiber diet that includes a variety of fruits, vegetables, whole
grains, and beans, as being the best for cancer prevention. Not surprisingly, vegetarians, whose diets
easily meet these requirements, are at the lowest risk for cancer. Vegetarians have about half the
cancer risk of meat-eaters.11

Vegetarians have higher blood levels of beta-carotene. They consume more vitamin C, beta-carotene,
indoles, and fiber than meat-eaters. Vegetarians also have stronger immune systems. German
researchers recently discovered that vegetarians have more than twice the natural killer cell activity of
meat-eaters.12 Natural killer cells are specialized white blood cells that attack and neutralize cancer
cells. Also, vegetarians tend to eat more soy products than meat-eaters. Soybeans contain many
substances that are anticarcinogens, including lignans and phytoestrogens. A diet that is rich in
soybeans may be one reason for the lower incidence of breast cancer in Asia.

Conclusion

A cancer prevention diet is one that is high in fiber, low in fat (especially animal fat), and includes
generous portions of fruits and vegetables. It also minimizes or excludes alcohol. The best diets are
pure vegetarian diets.

References

1. Kritchevsky D. Diet, nutrition, and cancer: the role of fiber. Cancer 1986;58:1830-6.

2. Risch HA, Jain M, Choi NW, et al. Dietary factors and the incidence of cancer of the stomach. Am J Epidemiol

1985;122:947-59.

3. Lubin F, Wax Y, Modan B, et al. Role of fat, animal protein and dietary fiber in breast cancer etiology: a case control

study. J Natl Cancer Inst 1986;77:605-12.

4. Goldin BR, Adlercreutz H, Gorbach SL, et al. Estrogen excretion patterns and plasma levels in vegetarian and

omnivorous women. N Engl J Med 1982;307:1542-7.

5. Lan HW, Carpenter JT. Breast cancer: incidence, nutritional concerns, and treatment approaches. J Am Diet Assoc

1987;87:765-9.

6. Minowa M, Bingham S, Cummings JH. Dietary fiber intake in Japan. Human Nutr Appl Nutr 1983;37A:113-9.

7. Wynder EL, Rose DP, Cohen LA. Diet and breast cancer in causation and therapy. Cancer 1986;58:1804-13.

8. Bingham SA. Meat, starch, and non-starch polysaccharides and bowel cancer. Am J Clin Nutr 1988;48:762-7.

9. Rose DP, Boyar AP, Wynder EL. International comparisons of mortality rates for cancer of the breast, ovary, prostate,

and colon, and per capita food consumption. Cancer 1986;58:2363-71.

10. Breslow NE, Enstrom JE. Geographic correlations between cancer mortality rates and alcohol-tobacco consumption in

the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst 1974;53:631-9.

11. Phillips RL. Role of lifestyle and dietary habits in risk of cancer among Seventh-day Adventists. Cancer Res

1975;35(Suppl):3513-22.
12. Malter M. Natural killer cells, vitamins, and other blood components of vegetarian and omnivorous men. Nutr and

Cancer 1989;12:271-8.

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, "What’s Wrong with Dairy Products"
http://pcrm.org/health/prevmed/foods_cancer_prev.html

111898
1

Foods for Cancer

Prevention
PHYSICIANSCOMMITTEEFORRESPONSIBLEMEDICINE
5 1 0 0 W I S C O N S I N A V E., N. W., S U I T E 4 0 4 • W A S H I N G T O N, D C 2 0 0 1 6
PHONE(202)686-2210•FAX(202)686-2216•PCRM@PCRM.ORG•WWW.PC
RM.ORG
Of the many diseases that affect people these days, cancer
is among the most feared. But despite a wealth of
scientific data, most people remain unaware of how
they can reduce their risk of developing cancer. According to
the National Cancer Institute, as much as 80 percent of all
cancers are due to identified factors, and thus are potentially
preventable. Thirty percent are due to tobacco use, and as
much as 35 to 50 percent are due to foods. It is easy to control
these and other risk factors.

What Is Cancer?
Cancer begins as a single abnormal cell that begins to multiply
out of control. Groups of such cells form tumors
and invade healthy tissue, often spreading to other parts of the
body. Carcinogens are substances that promote the development
of cancerous cells. They may come from foods, from the
air, or even from within the body. Most carcinogens are neutralized
before damage can occur, but sometimes they attack
the cell’s genetic material (DNA) and alter it. It takes years for a
noticeable tumor to develop. During this time, compounds
known as inhibitors can keep the cells from growing. Some
vitamins in plant foods are known to be inhibitors. Dietary fat,
on the other hand, is known to be a promoter that helps the
abnormal cells grow quickly.

Fiber Fights Cancer

In 1970, British physician, Dennis Burkitt, observed that a
high-fiber diet reduces diseases of the digestive tract. He
observed that in countries where diets are high in fiber (that is,
plant-based diets), there were fewer cases of colon cancer.
Around the world, this has proven true. The highest fiber
intakes are found in non-industrialized nations where meat is
scarce and plant foods fill the menu. Animal products contain
no fiber. The U.S. and other Western nations whose diets are
based upon animal products have the highest rates of colon
cancer.
While no one is certain exactly how fiber protects against
digestive tract disorders, there are several possibilities. By definition,
fiber cannot be digested by humans early in the digestive
process. It moves food more quickly through the intestines,
helping to eliminate carcinogens. It also draws water into the
digestive tract. The water and fiber make fecal matter bulkier,
so carcinogens are diluted.
Bile acids are secreted into the intestine to help digest fat;
there, bacteria can change the acids into chemicals which promote
colon cancer. Fiber may bind with these bile acids and
evict them from the intestines.1 Also, bacteria in the colon
ferment the fiber creating a more acidic environment which
may make bile acids less toxic.
Fiber is also protective against other forms of cancer. Studies
have shown that stomach cancer and breast cancer are less
common on high-fiber diets.2,3 Fiber affects levels of estrogens
in the body. Estrogens are normally secreted into the intestine,
where the fiber binds with the hormone and moves it out of the
body.4 Without adequate fiber, the estrogen can be reabsorbed
from the intestine into the bloodstream. High levels of estrogen
are linked to a higher risk of breast cancer.
In the U.S., the average daily fiber intake is 10 to 20 grams
per day. Experts recommend 30 to 40 grams per day. The best
sources of fiber are whole grains, beans, peas, lentils, vegetables,
and fruits. Foods that are closest to their natural state, unrefined
and unpeeled, are highest in fiber.

Fat Raises Cancer Risk

Cross-cultural studies have revealed that the populations
with the highest levels of fat consumption are also the ones
with the highest death rates from breast and colon cancer. The
lowest rates are in groups with the lowest consumption of fats.5
Migration studies help to rule out the influence of genetics.6
Many studies indicate that fat in foods increases one’s risk
for cancer, and it may also adversely affect breast cancer survival
rates for those who have cancer.7
Although the total amount of fat one eats is of concern,
there is evidence that animal fat is much more harmful than
vegetable fat. One study noted a 200 percent increase in breast
cancer among those who consume beef or pork five to six times
per week. Dr. Sheila Bingham, a prominent cancer researcher
form the University of Cambridge, notes that meat is more
closely associated with colon cancer than any other factor.8
111898
2
Meat and milk are also linked to both prostate and ovarian
cancers.9

How Fat Affects Cancer Risks

Fat has many effects within the body. It increases hormone
production and thus raises breast cancer risks. It also stimulates
the production of bile acids which have been linked to
colon cancer.
The average diet in the U.S. is about 37 percent fat. The
National Cancer Institute suggests that people lower that percentage
down to 30 percent; however, studies have shown that
fat intake should be well below 30 percent to have an anticancer
affect. Ten to 15 percent is more likely to be helpful.
The Importance of Vegetables
Not only are vegetables low in fat and high in fiber, they also
contain many cancer-fighting substances. Carotenoids,
the pigment that gives fruits and vegetables their dark colors,
have been shown to help prevent cancer. Beta-carotene, present
in dark green and yellow vegetables, helps protect against lung
cancer and may help prevent cancers of the bladder, mouth,
larynx, esophagus, breast, and other sites.
Vegetables such as cabbage, broccoli, kale, turnips, cauliflower,
and Brussels sprouts contain flavones and indoles which
are thought to have anti-cancer activities.
Vitamin C, found in citrus fruits and many vegetables,
may lower risks for cancers of the esophagus and stomach.
Vitamin C acts as an antioxidant, neutralizing cancer-causing
chemicals that form in the body. It also blocks the conversion
of nitrates to cancer-causing nitrosamines in the stomach.
Selenium is found in whole grains and has the same antioxidant
effects as vitamin C and beta-carotene. Vitamin E also
has this effect. Caution is advised in supplementing selenium,
which is toxic in large doses.
Alcohol
Excessive intake of alcohol raises one’s risks for cancers of
the breast, mouth, pharynx, and esophagus. When combined
with smoking, these risks skyrocket. It also raises risks
for stomach, liver, and colon cancers.10
Vegetarians Are Better Off
All the evidence points to a low-fat, high-fiber diet that includes
a variety of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and
beans, as being the best for cancer prevention. Not surprisingly,
vegetarians, whose diets easily meet these requirements, are at
the lowest risk for cancer. Vegetarians have about half the
cancer risk of meat-eaters.11
Vegetarians have higher blood levels of beta-carotene.
They consume more vitamin C, beta-carotene, indoles, and
fiber than meat-eaters. Vegetarians also have stronger immune
systems. German researchers recently discovered that
vegetarians have more than twice the natural killer cell activity
of meat-eaters.12 Natural killer cells are specialized white blood
cells that attack and neutralize cancer cells. Also, vegetarians
tend to eat more soy products than meat-eaters. Soybeans
contain many substances that are anticarcinogens, including
lignans and phytoestrogens. A diet that is rich in soybeans
may be one reason for the lower incidence of breast cancer in
Asia.
Conclusion
Acancer prevention diet is one that is high in fiber, low in fat
(especially animal fat), and includes generous portions of
fruits and vegetables. It also minimizes or excludes alcohol.
The best diets are pure vegetarian diets.
References
1. Kritchevsky D. Diet, nutrition, and cancer: the role of fiber. Cancer
1986;58:1830-6.
2. Risch HA, Jain M, Choi NW, et al. Dietary factors and the incidence
of cancer of the stomach. Am J Epidemiol 1985;122:947-59.
3. Lubin F, Wax Y, Modan B, et al. Role of fat, animal protein and
dietary fiber in breast cancer etiology: a case control study. J Natl
Cancer Inst 1986;77:605-12.
4. Goldin BR, Adlercreutz H, Gorbach SL, et al. Estrogen excretion
patterns and plasma levels in vegetarian and omnivorous women. N
Engl J Med 1982;307:1542-7.
5. Lan HW, Carpenter JT. Breast cancer: incidence, nutritional concerns,
and treatment approaches. J Am Diet Assoc 1987;87:765-9.
6. Minowa M, Bingham S, Cummings JH. Dietary fiber intake in Japan.
Human Nutr Appl Nutr 1983;37A:113-9.
7. Wynder EL, Rose DP, Cohen LA. Diet and breast cancer in causation
and therapy. Cancer 1986;58:1804-13.
8. Bingham SA. Meat, starch, and non-starch polysaccharides and
bowel cancer. Am J Clin Nutr 1988;48:762-7.
9. Rose DP, Boyar AP, Wynder EL. International comparisons of mortality
rates for cancer of the breast, ovary, prostate, and colon, and
per capita food consumption. Cancer 1986;58:2363-71.
10. Breslow NE, Enstrom JE. Geographic correlations between cancer
mortality rates and alcohol-tobacco consumption in the United States.
J Natl Cancer Inst 1974;53:631-9.
11. Phillips RL. Role of lifestyle and dietary habits in risk of cancer
among Seventh-day Adventists. Cancer Res 1975;35(Suppl):3513-22.
12. Malter M. Natural killer cells, vitamins, and other blood components
of vegetarian and omnivorous men. Nutr and Cancer

1989;12:271-8.

"Cancer and the Vegetarian Diet," by William Harris,

M.D.
http://www.vegsource.com/harris/cancer_vegdiet.htm

December 21, 1999

Cancer and the Vegetarian Diet

by William Harris, M.D.

Cancer is not caused by bacteria, faulty diet, inadequate exercise,

environmental contaminants, ionizing radiation, tobacco, viruses,
nor heredity. Cancer is caused by a series of genetic mutations in DNA which may be
either germline (inherited) or somatic (acquired during life). However, the chances of
these mutations occurring in sufficient number to result in cancer is affected by all of
the preceding factors.

DNA is the critical target molecule in carcinogenesis (1). Although DNA has various
repair mechanisms, some types of damage persist and become the basis of the
defective molecular biology that is cancer. Oncogenes (tumor genes), tumor
suppressing genes, and aptotic genes (causing programmed cell death) normally
interact to build normal cells, to prevent excessive growth, and finally to kill the cell
before genetic mutations cause it to malfunction.

Table 1. U.S. cancer rates.

Cancer is the second most common cause of

death in the United States, where over 1.3
million new cases of cancer are diagnosed
annually, with 550,000 deaths. Current
United States incidence figures for the ten
leading types of cancer are shown (2).
Women have an approximately 1:8 lifetime
chance of developing breast cancer, and men
have an approximately 1:5 chance of
developing prostate cancer. Rates above are
per 100,000 in 1992. Both Hodgkin's disease and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma are
included under lymphoma.

There are three categories of evidence suggesting that a veg*n (vegetarian or vegan)
diet reduces risk for various types of cancer.

Epidemiologically, the intake of animal source food correlates with the country-by-
country incidence of six types of cancer. Although none of the reporting countries can
be assumed to have large vegan or even vegetarian populations, it appears that the less
animal source food per capita, the lower the cancer rate.

In the graphs below, the Y axis contains the disease, the X axis contains the animal
source dietary risk factor. R is the correlation coefficient which reflects the "goodness
of fit" of the data points to the sloping regression line. The p-value is the probability
the apparent relationship is merely a mathematical coincidence. An R of 1 would
indicate a direct linear relationship, while an R of zero would indicate no relationship.
A p-value of .05 indicates a 5% chance of mathematical coincidence but numbers less
than .05 are traditionally taken to suggest a non-coincidental relationship.
A. Breast Cancer

The etiology of breast cancer, as with most cancer, is multi-factorial, with a strong
hereditary component. Using BMDP (3) statistical software, I performed multiple
regression analysis on breast cancer incidence(4) country by country using Food and
Agriculture Organization food consumption data (5) for animal source calcium,
animal Calories, animal fat, animal protein, butter and ghee, cheese, eggs, milk
production (metric tons/yr), plant source calcium, plant fat, plant protein, plant
Calories, total calcium, total fat, total Calories, and total protein.

I included additional vital statistics from The Book of World Rankings (6,7) for birth
rate, female life expectancy, GNP/caput($), infant mortality, male life expectancy,
male/female cancer ratios, meat consumption (kg/caput/yr early 70's), sugar
consumption (kg/caput/yr -1976), and total population.

Of these (sometimes not independent) variables, the highest correlation ( R=.76,

p<.001) with breast cancer incidence was from animal source Calories, (with animal
fat and the other animal constituents close behind).

Plant protein consumption had a moderate negative (protective) correlation (R= -.36,
p=.046).
Of the other positive correlations, animal source calcium had an R value of .62 and
p=.0026. This would support the contention that dairy hormones are a risk for human
breast cancer (8). Insulin-like growth factor (ISGF-1), present in both cow milk and
human milk is known to stimulate the growth of human breast cancer cells (9, 10).

The vegetarian diet has been shown to lower the level of estradiol (11) (an estrogen)
and raise sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) levels (12). Some forms of breast
cancer are estrogen-receptor (ER) sensitive and the phytoestrogens from plant foods
(13, 14), particularly soy products, are thought to block ERs in a manner similar to
tamoxifen. Lower post-treatment ER-rich breast cancer survival rates in women who
reported higher dietary fat intake have been found.(15)

Although the most recent pooled-analysis of fat intake as a risk factor for breast
cancer produced negative results (16), a case-control study (17) conducted in Italy on
2,569 incident cases of breast cancer and 2,588 controls found an odds ratio (OR) of
1.22 for saturated fat, and 0.89 for unsaturated fat.

B. Intestinal cancer
Intestinal cancer also correlates with animal food consumption (R=.83, p<.001) (18).
Suggested explanations here are that meat increases the rate of carcinogenic bile acid
formation (19), lack of fiber has an adverse effect on colonic bacteria (20), and
additionally lengthens the intestinal transit time so that both dietary carcinogens in
meat (21), and endogenous ones (the bile acids), are in contact with the intestinal
mucosa for a longer period.

C. Lung Cancer.
Lung cancer mortality correlates with animal fat consumption (R=.71, p<.01) (22) and
with the consumption of animal source protein and calcium. Plant nutrients had
negative (protective) R values but p values were above .05, so they were not deemed
statistically significant. However, the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) (23)
judges that "diets high in a variety of vegetables and fruit, and the microconstituents
they contain, may prevent 20-33% of cases of lung cancer in both smokers and non-
smokers."

Data on tobacco use was not available, but there is little doubt that it would prove to
be the most important predictor of lung cancer mortality, exceeding dietary factors by
a wide margin.

D. Lymphatic Cancer
In 1977 Cunningham (24) examined the correlation between age-adjusted lymphoma
mortality as reported by the WHO (25), and food intake as reported by the O.E.C.D.
(26). Using multiple regression analysis for the intake of cereal grain, eggs, fish, nuts,
pork, potatoes, poultry, pulses, seeds, starches, animal protein, crop protein, and total
protein, he found the highest positive correlation with beef and dairy protein intake
(R=.78, p<.001). Fish and all of the plant foods had a slight negative correlation.

A 1997 case-control study conducted in Northern Italy between 1983 and 1992
involving 829 cases and 1,157 controls (27) found that "Compared with the lowest
tertile, the odds ratio (OR) for the highest tertile of milk intake was 1.8 for Non-
Hodgkins Lymphoma (NHL) and 1.9 for sarcomas. Liver intake was an indicator of
the risk of Hodgkins Disease (HD) (OR = 1.8), NHL (OR = 1.6), and myelomas (OR
= 2.0), ham another indicator of HD (OR = 1.7), and butter an indicator of myelomas
(OR = 2.8). A high consumption of green vegetables was inversely related to
myelomas (OR = 0.4), and frequent use of whole-grain foods was inversely related to
NHL (OR = 0.4) and soft tissue sarcomas (OR = 0.2). The OR for the highest tertile of
intake of beta-carotene ranged between 0.5 and 0.7, whereas the OR for retinol ranged
between 1.5 and 2.3."

E. Ovarian Cancer
Ovarian cancer also appears related to animal food consumption (28). Animal source
Calorie intake showed the highest positive correlation (R=.81, p<.007). Plant source
Calories were protective, with an R value of -.62 and p<.005. Animal source calcium
intake was also a risk, with an R value of .72, p=.0005.

This latter finding is consistent with the hypothesis that consumption of milk lactose
may be a dietary risk factor for ovarian cancer in women with a an inherited
deficiency of the enzyme galactose-1-phosphate uridyl transferase. (29). Additionally,
insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) present in both cow and human milk, is elevated
in the cystic fluid of ovarian cancer (30). A study from Canada (31) implicated
saturated fat and egg cholesterol consumption as risk factors for ovarian cancer, with
reduced risk from vegetable fiber consumption.

F. Prostate Cancer.
Surprisingly, multiple regression analysis of prostate cancer incidence (32) versus the
same dietary and social variables showed the highest correlation with animal source
calcium intake (R=.74, p<.01) (33), which in general means dairy products. Animal
source Calories came in second and plant protein had the highest negative correlation
coefficient (R= -.49, p=.0052). This finding is consistent with a cohort study of
20,316 men of various ethnicities interviewed between 1975 and 1980 in Hawaii (34)
that found beef and milk consumption to increase risk for prostate cancer. Prostate
cancer, once again, is a sex hormone dependent cancer (35). A more recent study
again identified animal source fat as a risk factor for prostate cancer, particularly in
blacks (36).

The World Cancer Research Fund (37) recommends a "predominantly plant-based

diet" and lists fruits and vegetables as [convincing, probable, or possible] risk
reducers for cancer of the bladder, breast, cervix, colon, endometrium, esophagus,
kidney, larynx, liver, lung, mouth and pharynx, ovary, pancreas, prostate, rectum,
stomach, and thyroid. This organization recommends five or more portions of
vegetables and fruit daily, and "if eaten at all, red meat to provide no more than 10%
of total energy" (Calories).

There are biochemical studies that suggest how plant foods protect against cancer.
Since DNA damage is crucial to cancer, its cause and prevention should be reviewed.
Important in current thinking is the effect of lipid peroxidation in the generation of
free radicals, small molecular fragments of fat with incorporated oxygen. Lipid
peroxidation is a branching chain reaction with devastating side effects due to the
ability of the oxidized fat fragments to covalently bond with DNA, damaging its
structure and function.

There is a large category of antioxidants, many of them man-made such as the food
preservatives BHA and BHT. Naturally occurring antioxidants include vitamins C, E,
the carotenoids (lycopene-[tomatoes], luteins and beta-carotene [leafy greens]) ellagic
acid (4-carbon ring metabolic artifacts found in berries) (38), and saponins ( plant
sterols attached to a short chain of sugars) (39). All of these substances help to quench
the free radical chain reaction.

Not all of these antioxidants are listed in the USDA database,

but of the ones that are, I sorted by nutrient/Calorie ratio to find
the highest plant source and the highest animal source for
-carotene, vitamin C, and vitamin E. Included were 232 foods
including beans, dairy, eggs, fish, fruit, grains, meat, nuts,
poultry, and vegetables. Sorting by nutrient/weight ratio
produces roughly similar results.

Clearly animal source food is no anti-oxidant match for plant

foods. It's likely that by the time animal source food reaches the table the animal's
tissues have already utilized most of the anti-oxidants that were synthesized by the
plants the animal ate. A diet high in plant food, particularly fruits and vegetables, will
be high in these anti-oxidants, thus protective against cancer. A diet high in animal
food will be low in these anti-oxidants, since the food itself is low and its presence in
the diet displaces the fruits and vegetables that might otherwise be present.

It should be noted that of 20 flours, breads, grains, and grain products included in the
232 foods, all were well below 100% of the RDA/Calorie for these three antioxidants
with the exception of wheat germ oil (vitamin E). This may bear slightly on a recent
study showing no reduction in colon cancer by high fiber intake (40). Admittedly
grains are high in fiber, but they are not high in cancer-protective anti-oxidants. The
respondents with high fiber intake may have been consuming large amounts of cereals
and grains as they had been advised to, but the cancer-preventive agents are mostly in
fruits and vegetables. The same grain products added in 100 gram increments and
averaged, also proved to have less than 100% of the RDA/Calorie for calcium, folate,
and riboflavin. Ninety three vegetables treated in the same manner were well over
100% RDA/Cal for 18 common nutrients except for vitamin B12 and had 800% of the
RDA/Cal for -carotene, 1250% for vitamin C, and 300% for Vitamin E.
Fiber, plentiful in grains, is not a nutrient since it is not absorbed. It acts, in the words
of one medical editor, as "a sort of colonic broom" and while this may be
advantageous, a repeat of the study, this time using fruits and vegetables, rather than
fiber, as dietary intake markers might produce more favorable results.

Steinmetz and Potter (41) report that the cancer protective substances in fruits and
vegetables include, in addition to antioxidants, the following: allium compounds
(diallyl sulfide, allyl methyl trisulfide), coumarins, dietary fiber, dithiolthiones,
flavonoids (quercetin, kaempferol), folic acid, indole-3-carbinol, inositol
hexaphosphate, genistein, biochanin A, isothiocyanates, sulphorophane, d-limonene,
phytosterols, protease inhibitors, and selenium.

The means by which these substances protect against cancer cell initiation include
effects on cell differentiation, increased activity of enzymes that detoxify carcinogens,
blocked formation of nitrosamines, altered estrogen metabolism, altered colonic
milieu (including bacterial flora, bile acid composition, pH, fecal bulk), preserved
integrity of intracellular matrixes, effects on DNA methylation, maintenance of
normal DNA repair, increased apoptosis (programmed cell death) of cancer cells, and
decreased cell proliferation.

Cancer cell metastasis may be blocked by a plant-based diet. German investigators

have shown that vegetarian men have roughly twice the natural killer cell activity as
age-matched omnivorous controls (42).

A recent study from Britain (43) concluded that: "Vegetables and fruit are almost
invariably protective for the major cancers. The evidence is best for a protective effect
of vegetables in the large bowel and for fruits and vegetables in stomach cancer....
High consumption of meat, especially red meat and processed meat, is linked with
higher risk of bowel, breast, prostate, and pancreatic cancer. There is some evidence
of an association with lung cancer, and of an association of barbecued meat and
oesophageal cancer." This study also concluded that "up to 80% of bowel and breast
cancer may be preventable by dietary change."

Practical aspects of the veg*n (vegetarian or vegan) diet.

A straightforward and simple dictum is:

"Eat as wide a variety of plant foods in as unprocessed a form as possible."

-Susan Havala, R.D.

All the essential amino acids, essential fatty acids, and vitamins required in the human
diet are synthesized either by plants or micro-organisms (44), not by animals. The
essential inorganic nutrients (iron, calcium, zinc, etc.) were synthesized in nuclear
fusion reactions that occurred in stars that blew up more than 5 billion years ago (45).
The notion that veg*n diets are more likely than omnivorous ones to be nutrient
deficient is the result of sorting foods by nutrient/weight ratio. Since there is no RDA
for weight in the diet, while there is an RDA for Calories, a more rational approach to
food analysis is by nutrient/Calorie ratio, in which case it is seen that animal source
foods, because of their high fat content, have little advantage over plant foods (46).
Although poorly designed veg*n diets have produced reports of nutritional deficiency,
particularly in children (47), the notion that vegans are more likely than omnivores to
suffer nutrient deficiencies is not supported by the literature (48). In general, a diet
centered on vegetables and fruit, preferably raw, with grains, nuts, seeds, and starches
used to fill in Calorie requirements will satisfy nutrient requirements, with the
exception of Vitamin B12, which must be supplemented, at least until the scientific
dust settles. Numerous vegetarian and vegan cookbooks and handbooks are available
and should be consulted by new veg*ns.

Conclusion

Evidence from a broad scientific literature suggests:

A. Rates for at least six common types of cancer, country by country, correlate with
the consumption of animal source food.

B. There is a modest negative correlation with these cancers and plant source food
consumption.

C. A variety of phytochemicals present in plant foods have been demonstrated to be

protective against the DNA damage that leads to cancer.

D. The veg*n diet, extolled by its advocates for at least 150 years as a cancer
preventive strategy, is the logical end point of the dietary recommendations, now
made by scientific organizations, to reduce animal food consumption.

E. A recent clinical review (49) concluded: "Up to 80% of bowel and breast cancer
may be preventable by dietary change... Diet contributes to varying extent to the risk
of many other cancers, including cancers of the lung, prostate, stomach, oesophagus,
and pancreas... Generally, fruit, vegetables, and fibre have a protective effect, whereas
red and processed meat increase the risk of developing cancer."
There are no logical arguments for the continued use of animal source food in the
human diet. However, logic is not the key factor here. The United States Department
of Agriculture (USDA) has shielded the meat and dairy industries from normal market
forces since at least the beginning of the Commodities Credit Corporation (CCC) in
1933 (50), by giving direct price supports to dairy production, and de facto supports to
the meat industry in the form of feed grain price supports (51, 52).. In 1998 USDA
Secretary Dan Glickman bought up at least $250 million worth of beef, chicken, dairy,
eggs, fish, lamb, and pork that could not be sold on an already flooded market. These
goods will be dumped into public feeding troughs such as the National School Lunch
Program (53).

This is contrary to advice given by the National Cancer Institute, the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services (DHHS), and the USDA itself, to consume daily at
least five servings of fruit and vegetables. Only a third of the U.S. public is aware of
the "5-A-Day" recommendation (54).

Vegetable and fruit growers have for the most part been excluded from support
programs..."All crops may be harvested on flex acreage except...fruits and
vegetables..." (55), and apparently don't want government assistance or large ad
campaigns(56) to market their products. Evidence indicates that animal industries
have exerted enormous pressure on the government for continuation of their supports
(57). These industries then plow their profit margins into massive ad campaigns,
nutritional "education", and political action to insure that their benefits will continue.

A glance at IRS Corporate Income Tax Form 1120 and most state corporate tax forms
shows also that advertising is a tax deductible business expense. There is little doubt
that the animal food interests are taking full advantage of this as they suborn the
media, the nutritional establishment, and the government to push their wares on a
naive public.

Until the government stops using public tax moneys to bail out the animal food
interests and stops giving tax breaks for their massive advertising programs that
virtually freeze vegetarian information out of the public consciousness, there is not
much chance that we will see a reduction in cancer rates.

William Harris, M.D.

Medical Director

Kaiser-Permanente Vegan Lifestyle Clinic (VLC)

1765 Ala Moana Blvd. #1880

Honolulu, HI 96815

INTERNET:vegidoc@compuserve.com

ENDNOTES

1 Murray RK, Granner DK, Mayes PA, and Rodwell VW.Harper's

Biochemistry.Appleton and Lange Norwalk, CT 1990. ISBN 0-8385-3640-9 p 653.

2 McPhee SJ, Papadakis, Gonzales, Tierney. Current Medical Diagnosis &

Treatment(CMDT) on CD-ROM 1998. Appleton Lange 1998. Norwalk, 1990. ISBN
0-8385-1480-4.

3 BMDP Statistical Software. BMDP New System for Windows v1.0 Los
Angeles,1994. ISBN 0-935386-30-0.

4 Tominaga S., Aoki K, Fujimoto I, Kurihara M. Cancer Mortality and Morbidity

Statistics Japan and the World -1994. Age adjusted breast cancer
incidence/100,000/year 1983-87. Japan Scientific Societies Press CRC Press 2000
Corporate Blvd., N.W. Boca Raton Fl 33431ISBN 0-8493-7748-X . Table I-13. p194.

5 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO Production

Yearbook.Rome,1987

6 Kurian, George Thomas. The Book of World Rankings. Facts on File Inc. 119 West
57th St. New York,N.Y.10019. 1979.ISBN 0-87196-394-9.

7 Kurian, George Thomas. The New Book of World Rankings. Facts on File Inc. 460
Park Ave. So. New York, N.Y. 10016. 1991 ISBN 0-8160-1931-2.

8 Outwater JL; Nicholson A; Barnard N. Dairy products and breast cancer: the IGF-
I, estrogen, and bGH hypothesis. Med Hypotheses (ENGLAND) Jun 1997, 48 (6)
p453-61, ISSN 0306-9877.

9 Musgrove EA, Sutherland RL. Acute effects of growth factors on T-47D breast
cancer cell cycle progression. Eur J Cancer 1993;29A(16):2273-9.

10 Figueroa JA, Sharma J, Jackson JG, McDermott MJ, Hilsenbeck SG, Yee
D.Recombinant insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1 inhibits IGF-I, serum,
and estrogen-dependent growth of MCF-7 human breast cancer cells. J Cell Physiol
1993 Nov;157(2):229-36.
11 Prentice R, Thompson D, Clifford C, Gorbach S, Goldin B, Byar D. Dietary fat
reduction and plasma estradiol concentration in healthy postmenopausal women. The
Women's Health Trial Study Group. J Natl Cancer Inst 1990 Jan 17;82(2):129-34.

12 Bennett FC; Ingram DM. Diet and female sex hormone concentrations: an
intervention study for the type of fat consumed. Am J Clin Nutr Nov 1990, 52 (5) p
808-12, ISSN 0002-9165.

13 Reinli K, Block G. Phytoestrogen content of foods--a compendium of literature

values. Nutr Cancer 1996;26(2):123-48.

14 Adlercreutz H; Mousavi Y; Clark J; Hockerstedt K; Hamalainen E; Wahala K;

Makela T; Hase T. Dietary phytoestrogens and cancer: in vitro and in vivo studies. J
Steroid Biochem Mol Biol Mar 1992, 41 (3-8) p331-7, ISSN 0960-0760.

15 Holm LE, Nordevang E, Hjalmar ML, Lidbrink E, Callmer E, Nilsson

B. Treatment failure and dietary habits in women with breast cancer. J Natl Cancer
Inst 1993 Jan 6;85(1):32-6.

16 Hunter DJ, Spiegelman D, Adami HO, Beeson L, van den Brandt PA, Folsom AR,
Fraser GE, Goldbohm RA, Graham S, Howe GR, et al. Cohort studies of fat intake
and the risk of breast cancer--a pooled analysis. N Engl J Med 1996 Feb
8;334(6):356-61.

17 Decarli A, Favero A, La Vecchia C, Russo A, Ferraroni M, Negri E, Franceschi

SMacronutrients, energy intake, and breast cancer risk: implications from different
models. Epidemiology 1997 Jul;8(4):425-8

18 Wynder EL. The Dietary Environment and Cancer. J Amer Dietetic Assoc.
1977;71:385-92.

19 Shils ME, Olson JA., Shike M. Modern nutrition in health and disease-8th ed. Lea
& Febiger Malvern, PA. 1994. ISBN 0-8121-1485-X. p 580.

20 van Faassen A; Bol J; van Dokkum W; Pikaar NA; Ockhuizen T; Hermus RJ. Bile
acids, neutral steroids, and bacteria in feces as affected by a mixed, a lacto-
ovovegetarian, and a vegan diet. Am J Clin Nutr Dec 1987, 46 (6) p 962-7, ISSN
0002-9165.

21 Bingham SA, Pignatelli B, Pollock JRA, Ellul A, Mallaveille C, Gross G, et

al. Does increased endogenous formation of N-nitroso compounds in the human colon
explain the association between red meat and colon cancer? Carcinogenesis
1996;17:515-23.

22 National Institutes of Health. National Cancer Institute. Cancer Rates and Risks:
Cancer Death Rates Among 50 Countries (Age adjusted to the world standard)
4thEdition. Source: World Health Organization data as adapted by the American
Cancer Society 1996. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Lung cancer p
39.

23 World Cancer Research Fund / American Institute for Cancer Research. Food,
Nutrition and the Prevention of Cancer: a global perspective. 1997 1759 R St. NW
Washington, DC 20009. 178-FNS/F27 p 12.

24 Cunningham AS. Lymphomas and Animal-Protein

Consumption.Lancet.1976;Nov.27:1184-86.ISSN 0023-7507.

25 World Health Organization. Mortality from Malignant Neoplasms 1955-

1965.Geneva, 1970.

26 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (O.E.C.D.) Food

Consumption Statistics 1955-1971. Paris, 1973.

27 Tavani A; Pregnolato A; Negri E; Franceschi S; Serraino D; Carbone A; La

Vecchia C.Diet and risk of lymphoid neoplasms and soft tissue sarcomas. Nutr Cancer
(UNITED STATES) 1997, 27 (3) p256-60, ISSN 0163-5581.

28 Tominaga S, Aoki K, Fujimoto I, Kurihara M. Cancer Mortality and Morbidity

Statistics. Japan and the World-1994. Japan Scientific Societies Press CRC Press
2000 Corporate Blvd., N.W. Boca Raton Fl 33431. ISBN 0-8493-7748-X. Table I-15
p 196. 1983-87.

29 Cramer DW; Harlow BL; Willett WC; Welch WR; Bell DA; Scully RE; Ng WG;
Knapp RC. Galactose consumption and metabolism in relation to the risk of ovarian
cancer . Lancet Jul 8 1989, 2 (8654) p 66-71, ISSN 0023-7507.

30 Karasik A, Menczer J, Pariente C, Kanety H. Insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I)

and IGF-binding protein-2 are increased in cyst fluids of epithelial ovarian cancer. J
Clin Endocrinol Metab 1994 Feb;78(2):271-6.
31 Risch HA; Jain M; Marrett LD; Howe GR Dietary fat intake and risk of epithelial
ovarian cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst Sep 21 1994, 86 (18) p 1409-15, ISSN 0027-8874.

32 Tominaga S., Aoki K, Fujimoto I, Kurihara M. Cancer Mortality and Morbidity

Statistics. Japan and the World-1994. Japan Scientific Societies Press CRC Press
2000 Corporate Blvd., N.W. Boca Raton Fl 33431ISBN 0-8493-7748-X . Table I-16.
p 197. 1983-87. "Cancer mortality statistics in 33 countries of the world were
compiled and calculated from data edited from a magnetic tape copy of the WHO data
base of cancer mortality." All figures are age-adjusted and represent death rate per
100,000 population.

33 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO Production

Yearbook.Rome, 1987. Calcium/caput/day-milligrams 1983-85. Table 109. p 252.

34 Le Marchand L; Kolonel LN; Wilkens LR; Myers BC; Hirohata T. Animal fat
consumption and prostate cancer: a prospective study in Hawaii. Epidemiology May
1994, 5 (3) p 276-82, ISSN 1044-3983.

35 Mousavi Y, Adlercreutz H. Genistein is an effective stimulator of sex hormone-

binding globulin production in hepatocarcinoma human liver cancer cells and
suppresses proliferation of these cells in culture. Steroids. Jul 1993, 58 (7) p 301-4,
ISSN 0039-128X.

36 Mousavi Y, Adlercreutz H. Genistein is an effective stimulator of sex hormone-

binding globulin production in hepatocarcinoma human liver cancer cells and
suppresses proliferation of these cells in culture. Steroids. Jul 1993, 58 (7) p 301-4,
ISSN 0039-128X.

37 World Cancer Research Fund / American Institute for Cancer Research. Food,
Nutrition and the Prevention of Cancer: a global perspective. 1997 1759 R St. NW
Washington, DC 20009. 178-FNS/F27 pgs 10, 14.

38 Goodwin and Mercer. Introduction to Plant Biochemistry. Pergamon Press.Oxford,

1983. p 562.

39 Salisbury FB, and Ross CW. Plant Physiology. Wadsworth Publishing Co.
Belmont 1985. ISBN 0-534-04482-4 p 276.

40 Fuchs CS, Giovannucci E., Colditz GA, Hunter DJ, Stampfer MJ, Rosner BR,
Speizer FE, Willett WC. Dietary Fiber and the Risk of Colorectal Cancer and
Adenoma in Women. N Engl J Med 1999;340:169-76.
41 Steinmetz (1)KA, Potter JD. Vegetables, fruit, and cancer prevention: a review.
Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Oct 1996;(10): 1027(13).

42 Malter M; Schriever G; Eilber U. Natural killer cells, vitamins, and other blood
components of vegetarian and omnivorous men. Nutr Cancer (UNITED STATES)
1989, 12 (3) pp 271-8, ISSN 0163-5581.

43 Cummings, JH, Bingham,SA. Diet and the prevention of cancer. BMJ

1998;317:1636-1640.

44 Lindner M. Nutritional Biochemistry and Metabolism. Elsevier Science Publishing

Co. New York, 1985. ISBN 0-444-01241-9 pp 70-71.

45 Random House. Random House Encyclopedia. New York, 1977. ISBN 0-394-
40730-X. p 48.

46 Harris W. The Scientific Basis of Vegetarianism. Hawaii Health Publishers. 1415

Victoria St. Suite 1106. Honolulu, HI 96822-3663. ISBN 0-9646538-0-X. p 91.

47 Jacobs C, and Dwyer T. Vegetarian children: appropriate and inappropriate

diets.Am J Clin Nutr. 1988;48(3):811.

48 Langley G. Vegan Nutrition, a Survey of Research. The Vegan Society. Oxford,

1988. ISBN 0-907337-15-5.

49 Cummings JH, Bingham SA. Diet and the prevention of cancer. BMJ
1998;317:1636-1640.

50 Luttrell, Clifton B. The High Cost of Farm Welfare. Cato Institute. Washington,
1989. ISBN 0-932790-70-4. p 15.

51 United States Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Statistics, 1989. United

States Government Printing Office. Washington, 1989. Table 623.

52 United States Department of Agriculture. History of Budgetary Expenditures of the

Commodity Credit Corporation: Fiscal Year 1990-1991 Actual. ASCS/BUD/CPB
Book 3.p 2.

53 http://www.ams.usda.gov/cp/index.htm

54 http://dcp.nci.nih.gov/5aday/week98/CommunityKit98.html
55 ASCS Commodity Fact Sheet. Feed Grains: Summary of Support Program and
Related Information. United States Department of Agriculture. June 1991.

56 GAO/RCED-92-15. Generic Promotion of Produce. Resources,Community, and

Economic Division. United States General Accounting Office. Washington, 1991. P 2.

57 McMenamin M, and McNamara W. Milking the Public: Political Scandals of the

Dairy Lobby from L.B.J. to Jimmy Carter. Nelson-Hall. Chicago, 1980. ISBN 0-
88229-552-7.

Statistics comparing breast cancer diagnoses to

animal-food intake
http://www.vegsource.com/harris/b_cancer.htm

Breast Cancer Statistics

"Cancer mortality statistics in 33 countries of the world were compiled and
calculated from data edited from a magnetic tape copy of the World Health
Organization (WHO) data base of cancer mortality." (1.)

Using this, I checked for correlations between female breast cancer mortality
rates in the 30 countries for which data was available, and food and
environmental factors collected from various other sources (2, 3, 4).

The highest correlation (R=.79, p much less than .01) was between breast cancer
and animal source Calorie consumption (see graph below).
There was a lower but still significant correlation between breast cancer
mortality and milk production (R=.55, p=.001). This would support the
hypothesis (5.) that estrogens and insulin-like growth factor (IGF-I) in cow's milk
stimulate breast cancer. (see graph below)
Multiple regression analysis showed some additional correlations. A large
correlation coefficient (R) and a p value less than .05 suggests that there is a
significant statistical relationship between the dietary factor and the disease,
although it does not prove that the one causes the other. Negative R values
indicate an inverse relationship (e.g. the more vegetable source protein
consumption, the lower the incidence of breast cancer).

Multiple regression by BMDP (5.):

Variable Partial_R p value
animal source calories/day 0.7897 1.3E-07
Animal fat/day (gm) 0.7807 2.1E-07
Total fat/day (gm) 0.7767 2.1E-07
Animal protein (gm/day) 0.7029 1.0E-05
Meat Kg/caput/year 0.6937 1.5E-05
Animal source calcium (mg/day) 0.6401 0.0001
Total Calories/day 0.6071 0.0003
Milk production (lbs/caput/day) 0.5521 0.0013
Total protein (gm/day) 0.533 0.002
GNP/cap($) 0.5268 0.0023
Female life expectancy (years) 0.4661 0.0082
 Hen eggs (lbs/caput/day) 0.353 0.0514
Vegetable source calcium (mg/day) -0.1682 0.3657
Vegetable source Calories/day -0.2864 0.1182
Vegetable source protein (gm/day) -0.3607 0.0462
Infant mortality -0.4123 0.0212

William Harris, M.D.

Medical Director
Kaiser-Permanente Vegan Lifestyle Clinic (VLC)
1010 Pensacola Street
Honolulu, HI 96814
(808) 597-2100 (W)
vegidoc@compuserve.com

REFERENCES

(1.) Tominaga S., Aoki K, Fujimoto I, Kurihara M. Cancer Mortality and Morbidity
Statistics, Japan and the World-1994.
Japan Scientific Societies Press. CRC Press. 2000 Corporate Blvd., N.W. Boca Raton
Fl 33431. ISBN 0-8493-7748-X

(2.)Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO Production

Yearbook. Rome, 1987.

(3.) Kurian, George Thomas. The Book of World Rankings. Facts on File Inc.119
West 57th St. New York, N.Y. 10019.
1979. ISBN 0-87196-394-9

(4.) Kurian, George Thomas. The New Book of World Rankings. Facts on File
Inc.460 Park Ave. So. New York, N.Y.
10016. 1991. ISBN 0-8160-1931-2.

(5.) Dairy products and breast cancer: the IGF-I, estrogen, and bGH hypothesis.
Outwater JL; Nicholson A; Barnard N. Med
Hypotheses (ENGLAND) Jun 1997, 48 (6) p453-61, ISSN 0306-9877.

(6.) BMDP Statistical Software. BMDP New System for Windows. Los Angeles,
1994. ISBN 0-935386-30-0.
Tonsillitis
http://www.healthsquare.com/mc/fgmc1303.htm
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW
Tonsillitis (TON-sill-EYE-tis) is an infection of the tonsils--lumps of tissue at the back of the
throat that fight nose and throat infections and keep them from spreading to the neck,
lungs, and bloodstream. Tonsillitis is a common problem in young children.

Causes
The infection can be caused by a variety of viruses and bacteria. It is spread from person to
person by coughing, sneezing, and touching.

Signs/Symptoms
There may be fever, sore throat, painful swallowing, headache, and sore muscles. The
youngster may vomit, have a stomach ache, or be sleepy. The tonsils may look red and
swollen and feel tender.

Care
The first step is a throat culture. If the culture is positive for strep germs, the doctor will
prescribe the child an antibiotic.

WHAT YOU SHOULD DO

• Have the child rest as much as possible and get plenty of sleep.
• Children older than 8 years may suck on hard candy or frozen juice bars or gargle
with a warm or cold liquid to help soothe the throat. For gargling, use 1 teaspoon salt
mixed in 8 ounces of water or strong tea. A younger child can be given a teaspoon of corn
syrup or honey several times a day (do not give honey to children younger than 1 year of
age).
• Use a cool-mist humidifier to help decrease throat irritation and cough.
• You may give over-the-counter medicines such as acetaminophen to relieve the pain.
• Encourage your child to drink plenty of fluids. While the throat is very sore, feed the
child soft or liquid foods such as milk, milkshakes, ice cream, soups, or instant-breakfast
milk drinks.
• If the child has swollen, tender lumps in the neck, you may apply a moist, warm
towel or wash cloth several times a day for 30 to 60 minutes. Keep the compresses warm,
but be careful not to burn the child.
• Family members who develop a sore throat or fever should have a medical exam or
throat culture.
• If the child is on antibiotics, wait 24 hours before returning him or her to school or
daycare.
Call Your Doctor If...
• The child has a high temperature or a fever that lasts more than 48 hours.
• The child has large, tender lumps in the neck.
• A rash develops.
• The child coughs up green, yellow-brown, or bloody sputum.
Seek Care Immediately If...
• The child develops new symptoms such as vomiting, earache, severe headache, stiff
neck, chest pain, or trouble breathing or swallowing.
• The child develops more severe throat pain along with drooling or voice changes.