 In 1982, a landmark report on diet, nutrition, and cancer was released by the National Academy of Sciences, the first major institutional science-based report on the topic. The report started out saying that, yes, scientists must be careful in their choice of words whenever they're not totally confident about their conclusions, but for example, by that time, it had become absolutely clear that cigarettes were killing people. But had the population been persuaded to stop smoking when the association between lung cancer was first reported, these cancer deaths would not now have been occurring. You know, if you wait for absolute certainty, millions of people could die in the meanwhile. That's why sometimes you have to invoke the precautionary principle. For example, emphasizing fruits and vegetables may reduce the risk of several common forms of cancer. We're not completely sure, but there's good evidence. And what's the downside of eating more fruits and vegetables? So why not give it a try? The 1982 National Academy of Sciences report continued, the public is now asking about the causes of cancer that are not associated with smoking. What are these causes, and how can these cancers be avoided? Unfortunately, it's not yet possible to make firm scientific pronouncements about the association between diet and cancer. We're in that interim stage of knowledge similar to that for, you know, cigarettes 20 years ago. Therefore, in the judgment of the committee is now the time to offer some interim guidelines on diet and cancer. For example, they raised concern about processed meats, and 30 years later it was confirmed. Processed meat was officially declared carcinogenic in humans. Maybe if we had listened back then, maybe we would have been spared lunchables, which if taken apart, CEO Philip Morris describes reading, the most healthy item in it is the napkin. The findings of this diet and cancer report generated a striking level of disbelief from the cancer community and outright hostility from people and the industries whose livelihood depended on the foods being questioned. To the point of accusing one of the authors of the report of killing people, with formally organized petitions to expel the researchers from their professional societies, clearly a very sensitive nerve was touched. The American Meat Science Association and other members of the Council for Agricultural Sciences and Technology criticized the report, yeah, maybe it would save lives, but the recommended reductions in meat consumption would sharply reduce incomes to the livestock and meat processing industries. The fruit and vegetable industries would clearly benefit if consumers were to implement the guidelines. However, fruit and vegetables account for less than 15% of cash receipts. Most of the money is in cattle, hogs, poultry products, wheat, grains, and oil crops. It reminds me of the tobacco industry memos where Philip Moore spoke of the tobacco industry going bankrupt. Maybe it's not the meat that's causing cancer, the industry critique continued, but all the marijuana people are smoking these days. How can one argue that such an abundant diet causes cancer? Maybe they're just all jealous of all the good food we're eating, like the puritans that condemned bear-baiting, not because of the pain for the bear, but because of the pleasure of the spectators. He can't tell us to cut down on meat. One of mankind's few remaining pleasures is out of the table. The day the National Academy of Sciences report was published was the day that food was declared a poison, declared Thomas Jukes, the guy who discovered you could speed up the growth of chickens by feeding them antibiotics. How dare the National Academy of Sciences recommend people eat fruits, vegetables, and whole grains daily, which were said to contain as yet unidentified compounds that may protect us against certain cancers? How can one select foods that contain unidentified compounds? This is not a scientific recommendation. It sounds like health food store literature. My favorite, though, was think about the human breast. How can animal fat be bad for us if breastfeeding women create so much of it? Women are animals. Their mammary glands make fat for breast milk. Therefore, we shouldn't have to cut down on burgers, huh? So anyway, what does the latest science tell us about nutrition and cancer? What are the other five recommendations? We talked about eating more fruits and vegetables. Consumption of soy products may not only reduce the risk of getting breast cancer, but also surviving it. And then in terms of dietary guidance suggestions on foods to cut down on where evidence is sufficiently compelling include limiting or avoiding dairy products to reduce the risk of prostate cancer, limiting or avoiding alcohol to reduce the risk of cancers of the mouth-throat esophagus, colon, rectum, and breast, avoiding red and processed meat to reduce the risk of cancers of the colon and rectum, and avoiding grilled fried and broiled meats to reduce the risk of cancers of the colon, rectum, breast, prostate, kidney, and pancreas. And in this context, they're talking about all meat including poultry and fish. Look, we all have to make dietary decisions every day. We can't wait for the evolution of scientific consensus. I mean, until we know more to protect ourselves and our families, all we can do is act on the best available evidence we have right now.