The Importance Of Reading Beyond The Headlines

A recent study from Cornell University resulted in articles that proclaim that vegetarian diets may be harmful to your health. After reading a few articles and the study abstract, I wrote down my response that I thought might eventually turn into a blog article. But before doing so, I wanted to confirm that my very limited knowledge of biochemistry, genetics and research methods did not lead to faulty interpretations. So I sent my thoughts and two questions T.Colin Campbell in the hope that he might correct any flawed thinking on my part.

Email To T. Colin Campbell

Hey Dr. Campbell,

I’m writing you with the expectation that you are aware of the research at Cornell which is the subject of this article entitled “Cornell Study Finds Some People May Be Genetically Programmed to be Vegetarians” published in the Washington Post. The same research inspired an article entitled “Long Term Vegetarian Diet Changes Human DNA Raising Risk of Cancer and Disease” published in the Telegraph.

I realize that vegetarians and vegans do not represent people who follow WFPB diets, but I’m concerned that this latest example of irresponsible reporting will scare people away from considering a WFPB diet as a way to prevent and treat chronic diseases.

If people read beyond the title of The Telegraph article, they will see that the article indicts the dangers of extracted vegetable oils more than anything else. Unfortunately, Dr. Tom Brenna goes on to suggest the need for vegetarians to include olive oil in their diets as it is lower in linoleic acid.   He does not explain why anyone would need extracted oils of any kind in his/her diet. The article then digresses into scaring people from ever considering a 100% plant based diet.

The Washington Post article focuses on the genetic variation that evolved in populations that favored vegetarian diets over hundreds of generations. The study compared the percentage of various populations that have what the authors call the “vegetarian allele”. The authors suggest that people with this allele may benefit more from a vegetarian diet than people without the allele. I can envision many Atkins and Paleo advocates jumping all over this in an effort to support their claim that some people just don’t do well on a 100% plant-based diet.

I actually find the results of the study very interesting. But I don’t like how the authors take a sliver of truth and blow it up to represent a global nutritional principle.

My VERY limited background in biochemistry and genetics has left me with two questions that I hope you can answer.

My first question has to do with statements made by each co-author.

Researcher Kaixiong Ye said that the vegetarian adaptation allows people to “efficiently process omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids and convert them into compounds essential for early brain development.”

Later in the article Kumar Kothapalli said this about populations of meat and seafood eaters: “their omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acid conversion process is simpler and requires fewer steps,”

This appears to be a contradiction.

QUESTION: Am I interpreting these statements incorrectly?

My second question involves a conclusion I’ve made based on information that was shared on the frequency of the vegetarian allele among various populations:

70 percent of South Asians, 53 percent of Africans, 29 percent of East Asians and 17 percent of Europeans had the gene variation.

Not having the vegetarian allele did not seem to harm the 71% of rural Chinese who thrived on a diet dominated by rice and vegetables. They didn’t seem to need the allele to do well on a plant based diet.

The article claims that this research adds to growing evidence against a one-size-fits all approach and suggests that the future of nutrition will involve customized diets based on a person’s genes.

The fact that the majority of rural Chinese and Seventh Day Adventists do not have this allele, yet thrive on plant-based diets, seems to be the ‘elephant” that no one is recognizing.

QUESTION: Is my logic correct here?

Thanks for taking the time to read such a long message.

Dr. Campbell’s Response

Dear Dominic,

 Although you say that your familiarity with biochemistry and genetics is limited, you do a very good job on your understanding of the issue. I agree with everything you said.

In a separate email I am going to share with you some correspondence that I had with our small group.

 Tom Brenna is a very good, honest researcher and colleague—in fact I was the chair of the committee that reviewed and granted his tenure application!

The NY Post writer (the only article I saw at the time of this exchange) really distorted the message—dreadful but not unusual. Too many of the journalists and other would-be scientists (especially the MDs) are really polluting the entire narrative on this very important topic, with an agenda of their own.

Regards,

Colin”

********

The email thread that Dr. Campbell graciously shared included an initial email from an MD to Dr. Campbell expressing how she was being inundated by people who had read a NY Post article entitled “Being a Vegetarian Can Kill You, Science Warns”. She was seeking Dr. Campbell’s insight.

Dr. Campbell forwarded an email that he sent to Dr. Tom Brenna. He first mentions that the headline in the NY Post news release is as ridiculous as he has ever seen. Here are some of the main points he shares with Dr. Brenna:

• His concern that the article groups all vegetarians together and infers that people who mostly or entirely eat a plant based diet are at risk for colon cancer and heart disease.
• He states that he knows of no evidence that supports the above assertion regardless of what may be the difference in genetic risk.
• Most findings among observational studies show an inverse association between plant based diets and colon cancer and heart disease
• Campbell agrees that if these studies are indicative of anything, it would be in reference to the excessive consumption of added fat/oil in the form of pro-inflammatory Omega ^ fatty acids.
• Campbell reiterated that the evidence concerning the health benefits of a whole food plant-based (WFPB) diet does not apply to just any vegetarian or vegan diet. This explains why he consistently avoids using the terms “vegetarian” and “vegan”. In fact, in the email, he referred to them as “V” diets.
• He reports that regardless of how consistent he has been in specifying the diet he promotes – antagonistic non-science naysayers say that they will continue to refer to him as a vegan activist.
• Campbell laments that most people will only remember the headline of the article, and also what a few incompetent agenda-burdened people will spread far and wide.

Dr. Campbell plans on publishing a response to this study on the nutritionstudies.org web site. He is also thinking of asking Dr. Brenna to co-author a piece.

I’m certainly looking forward to reading them.