Since we published The China Study in 2005, the human health benefits of a whole food, plant-based (WFPB) diet have become ever more convincing, and many individuals are speaking of this evidence. These dietary effects are real and substantial, theoretically able to simultaneously resolve major societal problems, such as restoring personal health, upgrading primary health care services, reducing health care costs, resolving environmental catastrophes, supporting animal welfare, and improving school lunch programs and related public service programs. The answer is simple: adopt, as much as possible, the WFPB dietary lifestyle.
But is it really that easy?
For the sake of our society and our planet, we must bring this information to the attention of as many people as possible. The challenge is determining how best to achieve this, especially when contending with authoritative agencies and individuals who influence the public. We face a highly skeptical audience; although progress is occurring, I am concerned that we are not conveying this information as well as we might.
In my experience within the WFPB community, too many individuals are being excessively competitive and self-serving; consequently, they are distorting or ignoring the scientific basis for this message, especially the fundamentals of the science of nutrition. These behaviors need to change. I know that some people are not at all interested in science, and I can empathize with some of this sentiment. The institutions of science (my lifelong home)—as in academia or government institutions that rely on academic consultants—have not lived up to their creed and public responsibilities. Corporate interests are seriously corrupting academic institutions (funding research studies, building campus buildings in donors’ names, compensating individual academics for favorable support, etc.), and this corruption is often hidden from public view. In addition, powerful industry interests exercise control over research funding priorities administered by politically motivated congressional authority. Corporate interests prefer to stay the course (their course), maintain the status quo, and control the information the public receives.
For information on the WFPB dietary lifestyle to have a reasonable chance of reaching a larger population, it must build on scientific evidence that is transparent, replicable in the research laboratory, and able to serve the public. Otherwise, the WFPB lifestyle will flounder amidst a storm of confusing claims, which are too often made by those who do not understand science and wish to promote their self-serving agendas.
Many people crave reliable health information and are now beginning to understand that their problems have arisen because of inadequate knowledge controlled by self-serving sources. The public generally knows that rates of serious diseases are much too high, with little or no evidence of being brought under control. The War on Cancer advanced by President Nixon in 1971 seems to most observers, almost a half-century later, to have been a failure; cancer treatment protocols are often horrific exercises in futility that drain our finances; rates of obesity and diabetes have been on the rise, especially within younger populations; our children’s futures are at stake as never before; and for decades, health care costs have risen faster than inflation, making the US per capita health care costs the highest worldwide, by a considerable margin. Understandably, the public hungers for reliable information. But institutional science is not giving it to them.
We now have the WFPB evidence the public deserves to hear. The evidence is fundamental and deserves consideration as a fact of nature. Unfortunately, people don’t know what they don’t know, and public institutions, whether conducting scientific research, marketing would-be health products, or setting policy, are failing to serve the unknowing public.
In presenting this WFPB message to the public, however, I see a present difficulty in communication that we all need to address. This difficulty arises from our reliance on reductionism, which focuses on parts rather than the whole. Fundamental research investigations mostly study the effects of individual nutrients or other dietary agents, minus their whole food context. Outside of research institutions, in public, we seek simple explanations and solutions for our health problems, relying on the same concept of reductionism. Because we prefer magic bullets, confusion abounds. Each individual can choose from an incomprehensible number of details to create their favorite custom-made message for health. Add to this the fact that too many authors writing popular books on food and health have no training or competence in scientific research, understanding of nutritional science, or interest in honestly serving the public. Many of these uncredentialed spokespersons seek only fame and fortune. They have no interest in scientific facts, yet they pose as authorities and focus on reductionist arguments.
Reductionism is, by definition, not how nutrition works.
The benefits of the WFPB lifestyle are so dramatic—for example, in reversing heart disease[1][2]—precisely because it works wholistically, a concept that is awesomely illustrated during cellular metabolism. I referred to this concept, wholism, in The China Study (2005) and then expanded on it in Whole (2013) and The Future of Nutrition (2020). I also used this concept to redefine nutrition and to question the fundamentals of cancer biology.[3][4]
I risk relationships with my colleagues when I say that most commentators on the WFPB diet (as well as professional nutrition scientists) are unaware of the costs of relying solely on reductionism. Incidentally, I was also in that misguided group earlier in my career.
I can think of many examples where reductionist interpretation has led us astray at a terrible cost to our fellow humans and the environment. Here are a few ideas that challenge ill-conceived or exaggerated reductionism-based claims that have dominated the nutrition discourse for too long:
Many novel reductionist myths are constantly arising: We hear reports of blueberries and cruciferous vegetables preventing cancer when, in reality, a large number of similar plant-based foods can do the same thing. We hear that omega-3 fats prevent cancer, mental disorders, cardiovascular disease, and certain inflammatory diseases, but the presence (or absence) of total dietary fat and certain other fats can counterbalance the omega-3 effect. People parrot that lycopene (high in tomatoes) and beta-carotene (in green leafy vegetables) prevent cancer, or that resveratrol (rich in grapes) prevents Alzheimer’s Disease, or that beta-carotene improves eyesight, yet for each of these claims (and many more), the effects likely work in whole foods but not when we consume these chemicals in isolation; indeed, their isolated effects may be the reverse. We hear that the calcium in cow’s milk prevents osteoporosis and strengthens bones and teeth, but comparing bone health statistics for different countries shows that increased calcium consumption is associated with increased, not decreased, osteoporosis rates. And so it goes with dozens, even hundreds of other claims on consuming isolated chemicals and single foods. All of these claims are examples of reductionist reasoning. I can easily make a case that hundreds of millions, if not more than a billion lives have been cut short because of reductionist beliefs.
We need to stop relying on reductionism. If we do not, there is no chance that a larger community will ever reap the full benefits of the WFPB dietary lifestyle, for the value of WFPB nutrition cannot be interpreted adequately through the lens of reductionism alone. This fundamental misunderstanding of nutrition is not acknowledged or understood in medical practice.
Finally, this misalignment of the concepts of reductionism and wholism is exaggerated further when people get too caught up in comparing the relative health value of closely related foods (one leafy vegetable versus another or one fruit versus another). Of course, there may be differences, but these are relatively small and short-lived and should only be accepted if supported by reliable evidence. It is the wholeness of foods that matters far more than the mostly insignificant differences in their contents.
It is time for enthusiasts of the WFPB dietary lifestyle to rise above the noise and confusion of traditional nutritionists and make a stronger case. It is time to stop ventilating and overemphasizing minute differences. When using the WFPB dietary lifestyle, we don’t need to fixate on consuming tomatoes simply because they are richer in lycopene or not consume them because they contain questionable lectins. We don’t need to consume grapes because they contain resveratrol to improve brain function. We don’t need to avoid consuming soy products because they contain estrogenic compounds. We don’t need to consume cow’s milk for its calcium to make strong bones and teeth. We don’t need to consume animal-based foods because we need more protein. We don’t need to consume DHA supplements to improve mood and such. We don’t need to avoid high-fat, plant-based foods like nuts, avocados, and coconuts as if their fat is the same as added oil. We should beware of generalizations like “the fat we eat is the fat we wear,” “high-carb diets are the cause of increased diabetes and obesity,” and “cow’s milk makes strong bones and teeth.” Fixating on such details is more a matter of pharmacology than nutrition. It is time to recognize the science demonstrating the health benefits of whole foods instead of their nutrient parts.
Copyright 2024 Center for Nutrition Studies. All rights reserved.
