Pretty much everything you read about cancer from authoritative sources is likely to be worth taking seriously

Here is my paraphrase of the most important results from a study by Schoenfeld and Ioannidis in the current issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition:

• Meta-analyses do fairly well at correctly stating their conclusions.  Meta-analyses are quantitative literature reviews that combine results from across studies, essentially increasing the sample size and breadth.
• For example, Schoenfeld and Ioannadis looked at 9 meta-analyses showing an association between consuming particular foods (I think of foods such as fruits and vegetables) and reduced risk of cancer. For all 9, the results were statistically significant at conventional levels (p<.05).
• Schoenfeld and Ioannadis looked at 4 meta-analyses showing an association between consuming particular foods (I think of foods such as processed meats) and increased risk of cancer.  For 3 of the 4, the results were statistically significant at conventional levels (p<.05).
• While the meta-analyses did well at reporting results, individual studies sometimes report results in their abstracts even when they were not statistically significant.  Some of these reported results may be attributed to random happenstance rather than real cancer effects. This is why it is unwise to change eating habits with every new study.  It is wiser to rely on the balance of scientific evidence connecting particular foods to cancer risks and benefits.

Based on these results, you may be interested in the excellent collections of meta-analyses and systematic literature reviews available from a well-respected source such as the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute of Cancer Research. The new paper by Schoenfeld and Ioannadis reflects fairly well on the type of research posted by the WCRF and AICR.

But, journalists will report the conclusions of the new study to say something completely different from the above.  In the endless search for novelty, journalists write each day that everything you previously believed about diet and health is mistaken.

For example, Sarah Kliff at the Washington Post's Wonkblog writes today under the headline: "Pretty much everything you eat is associated with cancer. Don’t worry about it." 

Food industry public relations folks will love this message.

To make things worse, Kliff garbles the statistical material (see the comments to the Wonkblog post):

Don’t panic yet, though: The vast majority of those studies, Schoenfeld and Ioannidis found, showed really weak associations between the ingredient at hand and cancer risk. A full 80 percent of the studies had shown statistical relationships that were “weak or nominally significant,” as measured by the study’s P-values.

This description seems to ignore the meta-analyses and also it seems to describe perfectly fine statistically significant results (p<.05) as if they were "weak or nominally significant."

Perhaps the authors share some of the responsibility.  Kliff quotes the author:

“I was constantly amazed at how often claims about associations of specific foods with cancer were made, so I wanted to examine systematically the phenomenon,” e-mails study author John Ioannidis ”I suspected that much of this literature must be wrong. What we see is that almost everything is claimed to be associated with cancer, and a large portion of these claims seem to be wrong indeed.”

As with climate change skepticism, people twist genuine heterogeneity in scientific results to cast doubt on both marginal claims and widely accepted claims alike.  I wish that neither journalists nor authors would cavalierly say that most of the literature is wrong, when even the new study shows quite trustworthy results for the authoritative meta-analyses that actually merit attention from the public.

Just for example, the balance of scientific evidence from WCRF and AICR suggests that fruits and vegetables reduce risk and that red meats and processed meats increase risks of certain cancers.  Such conclusions based on meta-analyses fare well in the new AJCN study.

Pork checkoff funds lobbying alliance

The federal government's semi-public checkoff programs collect mandatory assessments from producers.  Of course, it is illegal to use these funds for lobbying.

Yet, the National Pork Board (the pork checkoff program), overseen by USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service, is listed as an "Alliance Partner" for a National Pork Producer Council lobbying organization.  The NPPC is a private-sector pork industry trade association.  The NPPC's alliance web page explains the lobbying goal:

Pork Alliance dues are used to fund outreach for critical legislative and regulatory industry priorities, including foreign trade access, environment, food safety and animal welfare issues.

The dues mentioned in the web page are large.  The application form (.pdf) on the NPPC website says that the dues for becoming an "Alliance Partner" are $20,000.

I am not surprised that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has filed a legal complaint with the USDA Inspector General.  The mandatory assessments are being funneled to a lobbying organization.  No matter what you think of the HSUS, it seems wrong for the federal government to use its power of taxation to place a finger on the scale of the public debate.

GENETIC ROULETTE - JEFFREY SMITH'S JUST RELEASED GMO DOCUMENTARY FILM: AUGUST 2012

THE TRUTH ABOUT GMO'S: GENETIC ROULETTE - THE GAMBLE OF OUR LIVES
A film by Jeffrey M. Smith - Narrated by Lisa Oz

A production of the Institute for Responsible Technology

Are you and your family on the wrong side of a bet?

When the US government ignored repeated warnings by its own scientists and allowed untested genetically modified (GM) crops into our environment and food supply, it was a gamble of unprecedented proportions. The health of all living things and all future generations were put at risk by an infant technology.
After two decades, physicians and scientists have uncovered a grave trend. The same serious health problems found in lab animals, livestock, and pets that have been fed GM foods are now on the rise in the US population. And when people and animals stop eating genetically modified organisms (GMOs), their health improves.
This seminal documentary provides compelling evidence to help explain the deteriorating health of Americans, especially among children, and offers a recipe for protecting ourselves and our future. The main feature film Genetic Roulette is 85 minutes.

Watch the Trailer

The package also contains a bonus DVD with:

Seeds of Freedom (28 min)

Narrated by Jeremy Irons, produced by The Gaia Foundation and African Biodiversity Network, this landmark film shows how the story of seed at the hands of multinationals has become one of loss, control, dependence and debt. More information about the Seeds of Freedom can be found here.

The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods (42 min)

Jeffrey Smith presents a concise, hard-hitting talk to more than 800 healthcare practitioners at Andrew Weil's Arizona Center for Integrated Medicine conference in 2011.

The Politics of GMOs (16 min)

This presentation excerpt describes the unholy alliance between the US government and Monsanto, as well as some highlights of Monsanto's dark history.

12 Short Public Service Announcements

Permission is granted for individuals and groups to show the film, Genetic Roulette, at not-for-profit events.

DOJ drops case against Monsanto

The Department of Justice has dropped its anti-trust case against Monsanto for anti-competitive behavior in the seed market.  The company is very happy.

I imagine that DOJ staff are disappointed that their efforts in recent years to ensure competitive ag-sector markets have come to very little.  Here is the section on the seed industry from DOJ's May 2012 summary of its field hearings:

Genetically Modified Seeds. The rise of genetically modified seeds generated intense and extensive discussion. Many farmers spoke about the high price of genetically modified seeds, restrictions on the use of genetically modified seeds, and a dearth of choices of genetically modified and conventional seeds. For example, during the public comments in Iowa, there was testimony that “many farmers say that the prices they’re paying are indeed out of hand for seed,” that “farmers say that their choice, their seed options are dramatically reduced, especially in the way of conventional corn and soybean varieties,” and that “farmers fear that the best and newest genetics will only be introduced with expensive patented traits stacked into them.”56

A farmer echoed these comments, asserting that the advent of genetically modified seeds “has reduced my options for non-GMO seeds” and “increased my costs to raise corn.”57

Participants argued that seed traits or “nature” should not be patentable. They asserted that the current patent landscape stifled innovation and competition.58 Many also voiced philosophical objections to the patenting of seed technology and lamented that licensing restrictions imposed by seed companies upset centuries-old folkways. As one rice and soybean farmer put it, “We lost the thing [that as] farmers and inhabitants of this planet . . . is most precious to us, and that is the intellectual property rights to our food.”59

Other participants extolled the virtues of genetically modified seeds, including, they stated, higher yields and less environmental impact. One crop farmer summarized, “The use of GMO seeds makes economic and agronomic sense and provides efficacy with less trips across the field, less fuel, and a safer environment for us farmers, our families, and the environment.”60

Here is the American Anti-trust Institute's 2009 summary of the leading competition concerns (Update 12/2/2012: AAI receives support from DuPont, a Monsanto competitor), Monsanto's 2009 response (.pdf), and a 2010 article in Choices Magazine by agricultural economist GianCarlo Moschini.

COHEN'S NY TIMES PIECE ON STANFORD STUDY: DUDE, YOU'RE TRIPPIN'

We Eat by the Grace of Nature, Not by the Grace of Monsanto

by Jennifer Browdy de Hernandez

Published on Saturday, September 8, 2012 by Common Dreams

“Organic, schmorganic,” fumes New York Times columnist Roger Cohen sarcastically in an article entitled “The Organic Fable.”
He bases his sweeping dismissal of the organic foods movement on a new Stanford University study claiming that “fruits and vegetables labeled organic are, on average, no more nutritious than their cheaper conventional counterparts.”
Cohen does grant that “organic farming is probably better for the environment because less soil, flora and fauna are contaminated by chemicals…. So this is food that is better ecologically even if it is not better nutritionally.”
But he goes on to smear the organic movement as an elitist, pseudoscientific indulgence shot through with hype.
“To feed a planet of 9 billion people,” he says, “we are going to need high yields not low yields; we are going to need genetically modified crops; we are going to need pesticides and fertilizers and other elements of the industrialized food processes that have led mankind to be better fed and live longer than at any time in history.
“I’d rather be against nature and have more people better fed. I’d rather be serious about the world’s needs. And I trust the monitoring agencies that ensure pesticides are used at safe levels — a trust the Stanford study found to be justified.”
Cohen ends by calling the organic movement “a fable of the pampered parts of the planet — romantic and comforting.”
But the truth is that his own, science-driven Industrial Agriculture mythology is far more delusional.
Let me count the ways that his take on the organic foods movement is off the mark:
Organic food may not be more “nutritious,” but it is healthier because it is not saturated with pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and preservatives, not to mention antibiotics, growth hormones and who knows what other chemicals.
There are obvious “health advantages” in this, since we know—though Cohen doesn’t mention—that synthetic chemicals and poor health, from asthma to cancer, go hand in hand.
Organic food is only elitist if it comes from Whole Foods—the one source Cohen mentions. I grow organic vegetables in my backyard, and they save me money every summer. We don’t need the corporatization of organic foods, we need local cooperatives (like the CSAs in my region) to provide affordable organic produce that doesn’t require expensive and wasteful transport thousands of miles from field to table.
About feeding 9 billion people: first of all, we should be working hard to curb population growth, for all kinds of good reasons. We know we’ve gone beyond the carrying capacity of our planet, and we shouldn’t be deluding ourselves that we can techno-fix our way out of the problem. Industrial agriculture is a big part of the problem. It will never be part of the solution. Agriculture must be relocalized and brought back into harmony with the natural, organic cycles of the planet. If this doesn’t happen, and soon, all the GMO seed and fertilizers in the world won’t help us survive the climate cataclysm that awaits.
Mankind is better fed and longer lived now than any time in history? Here Cohen reveals his own elitist, Whole-Foods myopia. Surely he must know that some billion people go to bed hungry every night, with no relief in sight? Mortality statistics are also skewed heavily in favor of wealthy countries. So yes, those of us in the industrialized nations are—again, depending on our class standing—living longer and eating better than in the past, but only at the cost of tremendous draining of resources from other parts of the world, and at increasing costs in terms of our own health.
Just as HIV/AIDS is the scourge of the less developed world, cancer, asthma, heart disease and diabetes are the bane of the developed world, and all are related to the toxic chemicals we ingest, along with too much highly processed, sugary, fatty foods.
For someone who is calling the organic movement “romantic,” Cohen seems to have an almost childlike confidence in authority figures. He says he trusts “the monitoring agencies that ensure pesticides are used at safe levels — a trust the Stanford study found to be justified.” And I suppose he also still believes in Santa Claus? We cannot trust that the “safe levels” established by the EPA or FDA are in fact safe, given the fact that we in an environment where thousands of chemicals enter the market without sufficient testing, presumed innocent unless proven guilty—but to win the case against them, first people must get sick and die.
Cohen’s concluding zinger, “I’d rather be against nature and have more people better fed,” displays his own breathtaking blind spot as regards the human relation to the natural world.
Human beings cannot be “against nature” without being “against ourselves.” We are a part of the natural world just like every other life form on this planet. Our fantasy that we can use our technological prowess to completely divorce ourselves from our material, physical reality is just that—a fantasy. We eat by the grace of nature, not by the grace of Monsanto.
For the entire history of homo sapiens, we have always eaten organic. It’s only been in the last 50-odd years, post World War II, that wartime chemicals and technologies have found new uses in agriculture.
The result has been the rapid and wholesale devastation of vast swaths of our planet—biodiversity giving way to monoculture, killer weeds and pesticide-resistant superbugs going wild, the weakening and sickening of every strand of the ecological web of our planet.
The relevant fable to invoke might be the tale of Jack and the Beanstalk. We might be able to grow a fantastically huge beanstalk if we fed it with enough chemical fertilizers, and we might even be able to climb it and bring back a goose that lays golden eggs.
But in the end, that beanstalk will prove to be more dangerous to us than it’s worth—we’ll have to chop it down, and go back to the slow but solid organic way of life that has sustained us unfailingly for thousands of years.

Jennifer Browdy de Hernandez teaches comparative literature and gender studies with an activist bent at Bard College at Simon's Rock in Great Barrington, MA and blogs at Transition Times.
Source:  http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/09/08-3

Feeding nine billion

From Evan Fraser at the University of Guelph, a nicely balanced 12-minute lecture on the global food prospect. I like the choice of 4 solution strategies, including both high-tech solutions and local food systems without exaggerating the strengths of either.

From nutrition scientists "on behalf of Corn Refiners Association"

Here is a newsletter I received today from an email account labeled oddly: "ASN on behalf of Corn Refiners Association."

Follow the link for the full web version of the email.

The ASN is of course the American Society for Nutrition.  "Experimental Biology 2012" is the most important annual meeting for nutrition scientists.

The tiny footer to the email's web page says:

This email is a paid advertisement sent by ASN on behalf of Corn Refiners Association. ASN occasionally promotes to its members the efforts of other organizations promoting products, services or events that advance ASN's mission: excellence in nutrition research and practice. ASN never releases members' email addresses to any third party. 

While this footer to the email discloses the advertisement, the newsletter's .pdf file from the link does not mention that it is an advertisement.  Clearly, the whole package is designed to look like a newsletter from a scientific association.  In the gentlest way, the newsletter defends fructose and corn sweeteners from criticism.

Does this type of advertisement cost the scientific association much in terms of independent authority and reputation?