lose weight or to get their cholesterol down. But after they have been on a plant-based diet a little while, many end up saying, “You know, I read an article by somebody named John Robbins.” Or they read other enlightened authors, and they say, “The diet that is good for the environment is not much different from the diet that is good for my coronary arteries.” Or they read something about animals. They have these “ah-ha!” moments that I am glad to see, because it means they have that much more motivation for staying on a healthy regimen.
JOHN ROBBINS: I actually find it a source of gratitude that the same food choices that are healthiest for us; that give us the strongest immune systems and the healthiest, longest lives; and that lead to the least susceptibility to diabetes, heart disease, and cancer, are also the kindest to other animals and the best for the environment. The fact that there is that coherence doesn't jeopardize or cast any kind of aspersion on the diet, it actually strengthens it and it shows that we are connected to the world in which we live in ways that we sometimes aren't even aware of.
DR. NEAL BARNARD: Yes. And think back a few years. In the late 1950s and early 1960s it was becoming quite clear that tobacco caused lung cancer. The researchers doing that work found themselves absolutely convinced. And yet they still studied smoking in order to try to tease out what is it in the cigarette smoke that causes cancer, what happens to people over time as they develop lung problems, or other aspects of the tobacco-health puzzle. In the process, most cancer researchers stopped smoking. The same is happening now, a generation later, with diet.
Now researchers are saying, “Wait a minute. Vegetables really are good for you, and so are fruits. And so is getting away from cholesterol, and, for that matter, from animal products in general.” There comes a time when research findings are so overwhelming. We have seen that, for example, with hot dogs and other processed meats and colorectal cancer. It is beyond dispute that these foods contribute to colorectal cancer. You simply can't be open-minded about it anymore because now the evidence is just open and shut. Even so, there are still open questions, and we still have to do our research in as unbiased a way as possible, and we have ways to eliminate bias among those who analyze the results.
JOHN ROBBINS: Well speaking of research and public confusion, you and I have both been highly critical of The Atkins Diet. When Dr. Robert Atkins died, PCRM obtained and released a medical report on his death and there was an ensuing controversy. What actually happened there and most important, how does this reflect on the health consequences of the diet that Dr. Atkins followed and advocated?
DR. NEAL BARNARD: Well it was quite a time. The Atkins books were at the top of the bestseller lists, and Dr. Atkins encouraged people to believe that they could safely eat high-cholesterol foods and high-fat foods without risk. All the while, he was hiding from the public that he had cardiovascular disease himself. When he died, his autopsy report laid out the facts. A cardiologist who lived in the Midwest asked for a copy from the coroner, because he felt it was important for people to know the truth. So he sent it to us and we released it to the press. People did, with some justification, ask why we were talking about a dead man's medical condition. I made the judgment that it was critical for those tens of millions of people who imagined they could safely eat gravy and bacon to know that they really were putting themselves at risk. Unfortunately much of the residue of that diet has continued. People still, in many cases, think there is something wrong with bread or rice and that there is something safe about pork rinds. That is a terribly dangerous lesson for people to have memorized.
JOHN ROBBINS: There are many people who are afraid that soy products are unhealthy. Can you share some of your insights?
DR. NEAL BARNARD: The Internet is a wonderful thing. It shares information very quickly, but it shares misinformation just as quickly. Many decades ago, researchers became aware that soy products and many other foods in the legume (or bean) category contain substances called isoflavones. If you were to draw the chemical structure of a typical isoflavone on a blackboard, it would look somewhat similar to estrogen—female sex hormones. Isoflavones are not estrogens, but they look somewhat similar. So some people then worried that, if isoflavones really did act like female sex hormones, then men consuming soy products might become effeminate or have a lower sperm count, or women consuming soy might be at risk for cancer. Researchers have studied these things, and it is very clear that in parts of the world where men consume large amounts of soy—for example in China or Japan, where tofu and soy milk have long been consumed—there has been no problem with fertility.
Studies following girls who consume soy products during adolescence, when the breast tissue is forming, have shown that their risk of developing breast cancer is actually about 30 percent less than that for women who did not consume soy. So, if anything, soy products are helpful.
We now have three research studies looking at what happens when women consume soy after they have had breast cancer—two in the United States, and one from China. They show that women who consume tofu, soy milk, or other soy products have about a 30 percent reduction in their risk of the cancer coming back. So in other words, soy seems to be protective. Having said that, soy products are totally optional. A healthful plant-based diet could follow a Mediterranean pattern based on vegetables and fruit and pasta. It could follow a Latin American pattern with beans and tortillas. Or it might follow an Asian pattern, which is where soy products come in. Soy does not increase cancer risk. It does quite the reverse, but you don't have to have it if it is not your thing.
JOHN ROBBINS: Cancer is a terrifying prospect in a lot of people's lives, and rates have been increasing. You founded The Cancer Project. What is the organization doing, and why is its work so important?
DR. NEAL BARNARD: This is near and dear to my heart. My father was diagnosed with prostate cancer when he was in midlife and he had a miserable time with it. So many people know nothing at all about what leads to cancer or what might help prevent it. But we have abundant evidence that foods play a big role. The Cancer Project offers nutrition and cooking classes in cities across the United States. If you live in Pittsburgh or Los Angeles or Seattle or in one of a hundred other cities, you can come on in and there will be others just like you who want to know about how foods can protect you against cancer or help after diagnosis. You will learn about nutrition and cancer, and will have a chance to stir the spaghetti sauce, and can even bring your reluctant spouse in too, so that we are all learning together. We have instructors, we have books, we have videos, and we have a website, which is www.cancerproject.org.
My aspiration is that instead of only hoping for research to find a cure, or just hoping that a mammogram or a PSA test will find your cancer early enough, we can go another step. I hope we can use foods to prevent cancer so that it never has to happen in the first place.
JOHN ROBBINS: You have been at this for many decades now. When you look back on these years and on your work, what has surprised you?
DR. NEAL BARNARD: Everything surprises me. It surprises me that Bill Clinton, a President who was known for jogging to the nearest fast-food chain and eating junk food, and who was gaining weight and looking less and less healthy, finally decided to change. He not only adopted a plant-based diet, but he decided to tell the whole world. He went on television saying that the change was not so hard, and encouraging others to give it a try.
It surprises me that in almost every school in America, students are asking for vegetarian or vegan choices.
But it also surprises me that the people working for the meat, dairy, and junk-food industries persist not only in producing unhealthful products, but also in fighting efforts to change what is in school lunches, and what is in the food stamp (SNAP) program. Even though their own families are at risk and they themselves are paying a price
