Cancer Prevention vs. Cancer Cures Few diseases strike more fear than a diagnosis of cancer. Today, cancer is the second leading cause of death after heart disease. Based on the money spent searching for cancer cures you might expect amazing discoveries. Unfortunately, despite spending 2-3 times more on cancer research than heart disease, progress preventing and curing cancer has been pretty underwhelming. Considerable progress has been made in detecting cancer. Unfortunately, once cancer is detected, the dilemma often faced is what to do. While there are amazing treatments for some cancers, for many the available cures can sometimes be worse than the disease in terms of years lived and quality of life during those years. The story of cancer can be told two ways. From a cancer researcher’s perspective, it’s easy to speculate that miracle cures may only be a few years away. This would be a very encouraging prediction had it not become a tired prediction that’s been repeated for over 50 years. The alternative perspective comes from lifestyle medicine. From this alternate perspective one begins by asking, “What causes cancer and if known, why not try to avoid getting cancer in the first place?” In fairness to cancer researchers and oncologists, not all cancers are the same and in some areas, significant advances have been made. Unfortunately, for the most common cancers, the odds for a miracle drug becoming a slam dunk cure anytime soon still remains a pretty slim chance. Given the state of cancer cures, the smart strategy would be to avoid getting cancer. Excessive sunlight and a wide range of carcinogens can damage DNA and in turn set the stage for cancer to develop. As a result, everyone has cancers forming and being dissipated by their immune system while the cancers are still at the microscopic level. So, if cancer is a part of normal life, then why can some people sweep away the microscopic seeds of cancer before they grow and other develop life-threatening cancers? As it happens, observations of large populations over time have provided insight into why some cancer cells die, some grow, and strategies for augmenting traditional cures when they do grow. Contrary to popular opinion, inherited genetics plays a very small part in who gets cancer. While the rate of incidences for a few cancers does correlate with inherited genetics, these cancers are few and relatively rare. The flawed belief that cancer was mostly of inherited genetic origin became clear when immigrants that came from places where cancer was rare became equally likely as Americans to get cancer after adopting the Standard American Diet (SAD) and sedentary lifestyle. Interestingly, the diet change that made the largest difference was in immigrants that changed from a predominantly plant- based whole food diet to a refined carbohydrate/animal protein diet. One problem with laying the blame for cancer on any specific cause is the difficulty in explaining the complex processes that prove a connection. For over 50 years, lack of a provable cause was used effectively by the tobacco industry to delay regulations. Today, similar arguments come from the agribusiness community. In the campaign to regulate tobacco, millions died between the time researchers had fingered tobacco and when rules addressing public health became law. Today, this pattern is repeating as vested interests deny a link to food. You might be wondering, what credible links have been found between foods commonly eaten and occurrence of cancer. • In a study of 190,000 residents of Hawaii, researchers found that subjects consuming the most meat had 50% more pancreatic cancer. • For people eating minimal amounts of fiber, doubling their fiber intake can cut the rate of colon cancer by 40% • In a National Institutes of Health (NIH) study of 500,000 people, an increased consumption of red meat correlated positively with an increased rate of cancers of the colon, esophagus, and liver. • An NIH-AARP study showed that increased amounts of fruits and vegetables positively correlated with decreases in renal cancer. • People eating broccoli and cauliflower typically have 40% less bladder cancer. In hindsight, ignoring research during the 40s and 50s about the dangers associated with smoking was a bad idea. Granted, during those years, anyone who wanted to hear good news about their bad habit could have found plenty of consolation in tobacco industry advertising. Remember the healthily looking guy on the horse with a Marlboro cigarette? Today the barrage of research reports about foods is suspiciously similar to what the public most often heard during the 40s and 50s about tobacco. The difference this time is the food industry’s opportunity to target everyone that eats – men, women and children alike. Now consider what research tells us about how to minimize our chance of having cancer and for treating it if detected? First of course, if cancer has already occurred and is treatable by a method that’s not worse than cancer, do it. However, to improve your chances of avoiding cancer, here are recommended strategies. • Aim for the lower end of normal body mass index (BMI) by eating a plant-based whole food diet. Five servings each of fruits and vegetables a day is a good starting point. • Keep yourself physically active as part of daily activities. If leashed to a chair, then learn the skills of exercising in your confined area. • Limit consumption of energy-dense foods. Typically these are the refined carbohydrate foods or foods high in fat. Nuts and seed are ok in small quantities • Limit alcohol • Avoid cereals with any sign (discoloration or odor) of mold. The carcinogens created by mold cannot be destroyed by cooking. • Limit added salt, oil, and sugar • Aim to get all nutrition from the foods you eat. In particular, resist the marketing suggestion that supplements are superior to the nutrition in real plant-based whole foods. More often, supplements lack the complex nutritional benefits of a quality plant-based whole food diet. • Don’t believe that dairy and animal protein provides the best nutrition unless you are starving with little else to eat. For most, meat and dairy provide excess protein and fat that is linked to cancer promotion. • Learn to manage blood pressure and control cholesterol with plant-based whole foods that are naturally low in fat, high in micronutrients and high in fiber. • If you smoke, get help to stop smoking. Should you be clinging to the latest ’good news’ about meats and dairy products, keep in mind that for every independent research report that gets published, the food industry will inevitably follow with studies that cloud the facts. History tells us the food industry has a strategy that works. Hundreds of independent research reports were not enough to awaken the public to the dangers of tobacco. Before action was taken to protect the public, thousands of independent research report had to be published. As a parting thought about the state of cancer cures, watch the five-minute video from Dr. Michael Greger titled, “How to Win the War on Cancer.” For more about the role diet can play in preventing cancer watch another short video (6 minutes), “The Best Advice on Diet and Cancer.” Nancy Neighbors, MD Huntsville, Alabama How America Got Hooked The story of how America got hooked on tobacco products has striking similarities to the story of how many today became hooked on addictive foods. Just as cigarettes were formulated to enhance their addictive qualities, today, many foods are formulated with the same objective. For the tobacco industry, selling a profitable product that caused cancer created a moral dilemma. No doubt, food companies today ponder how to create deceptive message much like cigarette companies did in the years between discovering the cancer link and a full public disclosure of what they knew. For more about the duplicity of tobacco companies during the decades when the tobacco-cancer link had been established but not fully revealed to the public, read “Cigarette Makers Debated the Risks They Denied.” Creating addictive products with negative health effects is hardly a new business model. In the 1920s, advertising for the Marlboro cigarette targeted women with a message that promoted how ladylike it would be to smoke filter cigarettes. These just for ladies brands had a printed red band around it to hide lipstick stains with the tagline "Beauty Tips to Keep the Paper from Your Lips". Following a report in the 1950s that cigarette smoking might be linked to cancer, marketing efforts shifted to filtered brands with a suggestion they were safer. To that end, a campaign featuring a rugged looking cowboy was launched. Despite the growing awareness of a possible cancer link to cigarettes, the campaign was enormously successful and raised Marlboro's market share from less than one percent to the fourth best-selling brand. Even when the dangers of tobacco became more obvious and words like ‘cancer sticks’ and ‘coffin nails’ became synonymous with cigarettes, sales held up just fine. It seemed that no matter how unhealthy a product was if it was addictive and presented with a positive message the public would continue to buy so long as there was plausible deniability about the fact it could kill you. To minimize brand damage, the tobacco industry churned out endless research reports casting doubt about the accumulating scientific studies. It's sad to think how many people these marketing campaigns influenced to use tobacco. It was an easy message for consumers to believe once they were addicted. So many had shortened lives and so many had little quality of life as they suffered cancer, emphysema, heart disease, and a host of other chronic conditions. For most, there was a bias in the information they chose to trust. Really, who wanted to hear bad news about their preferred addiction? Today, food companies use product promotion techniques that are eerily similar to the product promotion technique used by the tobacco industry a century ago. In essence, keep food addictive, keep people eating more of it, and keep the health effects elusive. In the event scientific studies call the health value of a product into question, just release more research that looks favorable. Unfortunately, just as with tobacco products prior to the requirement for warning labels, most consumers believe that food products on store shelves are for the most part safe. Based on rates of cancer and heart disease, an assumption that food is safe is quite a stretch. What we know now is that the Standard American Diet (SAD) can be as lethal as tobacco products. For some, it can be even more lethal. Understandably, all companies want to sell more of their product and can be expected to give their product a positive spin. Without consumers educated in food nutrition and useful food labeling, there is little that’s likely to change the status quo. This is where public education could have a positive effect although it could take several decades before habits changed. Why did it take so many years to educate the public about tobacco? To be sure, vested interest slowed the process in many ways. Today we see food companies with ad campaigns hinting at better health, success, glamour, strength, etc. that remind us that we very much live in a society where the buyer must beware. For an entertaining trip down memory lane find a magazine in the library archives from a time before 1950. This was a time when America had not awakened to the need for truth in advertising. In another 50 years, food industry advertising of today will likely look as silly as the tobacco industry ads of the 50s look today. The story of how America was sold on addictive tobacco products could make a great comedy were it not for the realities of suffering and loss of life that followed. Now follow that thought to the produce section of your favorite grocery store and load up! |