Why I Have a Problem With Vegetarianism - Part III: Dietary Fat's Role in Causing Breast Cancer?

For my regular readers, I apologize for it having been so long since my last post.  School and assignments and work have all conspired to keep me away.  But, now that I have some free time, let's get back to this issue I have with vegetarianism.

In my last post I addressed the assertion from The China Study that animal protein is directly causative of cancer via its effect on serum levels of cholesterol. Hopefully I adequately conveyed the very real problem with such a claim.  Animal protein, much opposed to what Campbell claims in his book, is actually associated with a lower risk of cancer in comparison to plant based sources of protein.  However, such a realization is hardly capable of indicting plant protein of malicious crimes.

In today's post, I'll continue to piggyback on Denise Minger's article, The China Study: Fact or Fallacy?.  The next critique she has in her article addresses Campbell's claim that dietary fat is somehow causative of breast cancer.  Let's dig in!

Point # 2 of Minger's Critique

Campbell makes the following claim in his book:

Breast cancer is associated with dietary fat (which is associated with animal protein intake) and inversely with age at menarche (women who reach puberty at younger ages have a greater risk of breast cancer).

According to Minger, Campbell is correct in stating that breast cancer is associated with dietary fat; however, Minger is quick to point out that Campbell, in making this claim, misses a number of important factors outside of dietary fat which more strongly correlate with breast cancer risk:

Blood glucose level: +36**

Wine intake: +33*

Alcohol intake: +31*

Yearly fruit consumption: +25

Percentage of population working in industry: +24

Hexachlorocyclohexane in food: +24

Processed starch and sugar intake: +20

Corn intake: +20

Daily beer intake: +19

Legume intake: +17

What you see above is a list of varying lifestyle and dietary factors which all associate with an increased risk of suffering breast cancer.  In addition to these factors, age has a -20 correlation with breast cancer (thus, the younger a woman begins her first menstruation, the greater chance she has of having breast cancer*), and dietary fat, as a percentage of total calories, has a +18 correlation with breast cancer, and "total lipid intake" has a +22 correlation.  If you can notice, you'll see that sugar, alcohol, having an industrial occupation, hexachlorocyclohexane (read this if you don't know what this is), and a host of other factors have associations with breast cancer that either equal or exceed the risk presented by dietary fat.  As Minger asks:  "why is Campbell singling out fat from animal products when other—stronger—correlations are present?"  (this is a rhetorical question)

Minger further states the following:

Certainly, consuming dairy and meat from hormone-injected livestock may logically raise breast cancer risk due to increased exposure to hormones, but this isn’t grounds for generalizing all animal products as causative for this disease (read this and this and this). Nor is a correlation of +18 for fat calories grounds for indicting fat as a breast cancer risk factor, when alcohol, processed sugar, and starch correlate even more strongly. (Animal protein itself, for the record, correlates with breast cancer at +12—which is lower than breast cancer’s correlation with light-colored vegetables, legume intake, fruit, and a number of other purportedly healthy plant foods.)

Take Home Point

I'm sure you've heard this statement from me multiple times, but here it is again:  REDUCTIONISM IS A MISTAKE!!!!

It is next to impossible to look at this or that variable say "aha! We've found the cause of all our health woes!"  There is no one variable, and Campbell only shoots himself in the foot by trying to demonize animal protein and dietary fat.  There are so many other variables worth our attention!  (i.e. - sugar laden, hydrogenated vegetable oil infested, calorie dense, nutrient sparse, hyper-rewarding, unsatisfying, addiction-forming, crap food).

Next Time

In my next post we'll take a look at Campbell's claim that animal products are associated with liver cancer (I know, more cancer, but just hold on.  I'm going somewhere with all of this).

*I've read before (though I can't remember where) that higher calorie intake at a young age is associated with an early start for menstruation in women.  Thus, childhood and adolescent obesity and over-weighted-ness is more likely causative of breast cancer risk later in life.  This propensity for being overweight has much more to do with exposure to hyper-rewarding junk food at an early age than with animal protein and fat.