Blog
Dietitians' Review the China Study
09, July 2013 7:51 AM

Dietitians Review the China StudyI belong to a book club with registered dietitian nutritionists from the San Jose, California area. We recently gathered to discuss the China Study, by T. Colin Campbell. In spite of the fact that this book is almost 10 years old, it continues to be discussed among consumers and health professionals. 

Here are a few of the main ideas from the book:

  • Chinese villages that consumed the least amount of animal protein had less cancer than the villages that consumed more animal protein.
  • Casein consumption (protein found in milk) promotes cancer in rats.
  • Nutrition must be considered holistically; “Nutrition represents the combined activities of countless food substances. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.”
  • The How to Eat section of the book recommends a vegan eating pattern.

Our group strongly agreed with a few principles in the book: that eating more whole and unprocessed foods and plant-based foods like fruits, vegetables and beans will improve the health of most Americans. We also agreed that you can’t look at nutrients in isolation, that the overall pattern of food choices and diets over time are what matter.

However, we also observed many holes in Campbell’s arguments. Here are just a few:
  • The China Study is an observational study, in other words it only identifies relationships between different variables. It does not prove that a particular behavior or food choice causes a certain outcome. There are many other variables in the Chinese villages studied that could increase cancer risk that were overlooked—such as industrialization, exposure to chemicals, sugar and refined carbohydrate consumption. These could easily have been the culprits responsible for differences in cancer risk among groups.
  • Although individuals in the counties studied may have been vegan, whole counties did not follow vegan food patterns, so it is difficult to understand how Campbell came up with his conclusions that all animal products should be omitted.
  • Campbell’s experiments with casein were conducted with laboratory rats and mice. His hypothesis that casein behaves the same way in a whole food as when fed in isolation is flawed and violates his own philosophy to look at diets holistically. In milk, casein and whey are paired together. Newer studies suggest that calcium, milk and/or dairy consumption may actually reduce the risk of certain types of cancer, however experts do not agree on the mechanism of any effect.
  • Campbell is very selective in building his bibliography. A more comprehensive review of the  literature reveals scientific research confirming the many health benefits that milk and milk products provide. For this reason the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends that Americans consume three servings of milk and milk products per day.
  • A long term study conducted in Taiwan published in 2014 found that increased dairy consumption meant lower risks of mortality from cardiovascular disease, especially stroke, but found no significant association with the risk of cancer.1

Finally, and perhaps one of the most significant flaws of the book, is that the recommendations are so extreme. Diets that remove entire food groups have the potential for unintended consequences of under-consuming essential nutrients. Bringing food choices into better alignment with the Dietary Guidelines is a preferred approach—specifically eating more under-consumed foods such as vegetables, fruits, low-fat dairy products, whole grains, beans, lean meats and fish while also reducing the consumption of refined grains, fats and sugars. These changes will go a long way toward promoting health.

While we found this book interesting, our club members are sticking with a more balanced approach to nutrition. Just as important, we equipped each other with talking points to use when someone—friend, neighbor, relative, client or colleague—asks questions about the China Study. It is important for consumers to understand the basis for Campbell’s flawed conclusions and the potential negative consequences of following diets that omit whole food groups.

Maureen Bligh, Registered Dietitian Nutritionist

1. Optimal Dairy Intake Is Predicated on Total, Cardiovascular, and Stroke Mortalities in a Taiwanese Cohort, Lin-Yuan Huang MPH, Mark L. Wahlqvist MD, Yi-Chen Huang MPH & Meei-Shyuan Lee DrPH, Journal of the American College of Nutrition, DOI:10.1080/07315724.2013.875328, published 31 July 2014.




Tags: Dietitians Book Review healthy eating patterns Maureen Bligh
Categories: categoryHealthy Eating categoryNutrition Education

6 Comments


  • Jonathan 28 days ago
    Thank you for your post however, you are not an academic researcher. Should you have been one and have found any issues with the data, you could have contacted the university and asked them to issues a retraction or amend the report.
    Commenting from a distance really does detract from your authority and professionalism.

    Reply
  • Michael Lyons 94 days ago
    Please stop pretending that you are the unbiased source of information that the author Dr Campbell is not. YOU are a lobby group for the consumption of animal products. HE has been one of the most respected researchers and authorities on health and nutrition in the United States for more than 40 years. YOU are by definition a propaganda machine that exists to keep the milk flowing. HE is Professor Emeritus in nutritional biochemistry at Cornell University. Cornell! When he puts his reputation on the line and puts out a book of his beliefs and understandings of a nutritional study that he was directly involved in, I am infinitely more likely to believe his work and conclusions than your nit pickings to intentionally sew seeds of doubt.
    And I challenge you not to pull this post down!

    Reply
    • stephanie 78 days ago
      Wow I think you are a bit harsh on your post about the book review, which was just that a review of the book along with references that challenge some of the findings. In fact many people have critiqued the China Study with similar complaints. I was one of the dietitians that reviewed the book, am not affiliated with any industry group, and agree with the review.

      Reply
  • Marcia Crawford 95 days ago
    I appreciated your succinct professional summary of the China Study. It has been a few years and I couldn't quite remember its details. I will be sitting on a panel evaluating a high school student's "independent project" on the benefits of a whole food plant-based diet and noticed, as I'm reading her paper, that she references the China Study.I recalled it had so many flaws but none specifically...your paper was a good starting point for me. Also appreciated Lana pointing out that "pooled" blood was evaluated. Thanks for getting me started on my homework.

    Reply
  • Victoria 184 days ago
    I don't think that eliminating every animal product is a good idea. There are a lot of aminoacid what the body needs and can't produce them without help. (If you afraid of casein, you can find milk products without casein too) Animal protein is a must have. Maybe Chinese people live heathier in many other way, and eat a lot of others stuffs we don't have. It's not mean that animal products is the only difference... When they said "we are what we eat"... I don't want to be a vegetable.

    Reply
  • Lana Olsson, MS RD CSG 1 years 181 days ago
    I appreciated this review and want to add that the study "pooled blood". Individual differences would not have been recognized, and there may have been more individual variation in blood results than acknowledged. Also, one incorrect claim in the book is that Burkitt proved that dietary fiber prevents cancer. This was never proven; in fact, it has never been proven in controlled studies. Campbell is loose with facts, strong with anecdote, and what was his son doing as a co-author? Was this a project to put junior through medical school? And there is a cookbook to follow, based on the diet, written by a Campbell! Its a shame that people think that this is a real controlled scientific study; its really an epidemiologic survey.

    Reply

Add Comment

Enter the name you would like to appear on the comment.
(required)
Enter the email you would like to use to get updates. You email is not visible and can not be used by other users.
If you have a website, enter the url here. Ex: www.site.com
Enter you comment help.

CAPTCHA image
Enter the code shown above in the box below
 
  Post Comment