Plant Trees SF Events 2005 Archive: 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021


January-March 2005 issue of Dr. Michael Greger's "Monthly" Newsletter

CONTENTS (online at

I. Latest Updates in Human Nutrition

  A. Lifestyle Change Slows Breast Cancer Growth Within Days

  B. Preventing Prostate Cancer with Guacamole?

  C. Preventing Breast Cancer with Lentil Soup?

  D. Maternal Seafood Consumption May Damage Child's Heart Function

  E. Antioxidant Status of Vegetarians

  F. Mothballs May Kill More Than Moths

  G. Not all Fruits and Vegetables are Alike

  H. Ovarian Cancer and Dairy

II. Bird Flu Update--Outbreak Could Kill 1.5 Billion People

III. My New Book is Out!--Carbophobia: The Scary Truth Behind America's Low Carb Craze

IV. Personal Update

V. Mailbag--"I read there was a study that showed raising kids vegan was dangerous."



A. Lifestyle Change Slows Breast Cancer Growth Within Days

The eagerly awaited proceedings of the latest International Research Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Cancer were finally published in December. Four hundred scientists from dozens of countries converged to share the latest on diet and cancer. UCLA researchers presented some of the most intriguing findings.

Breast cancer is the most common female cancer in the United States. Like all cancer, it starts with one cell, which divides and becomes two cells, then becomes 4, then 8, etc. Every time the cells divide the tiny tumor doubles in size. No thanks to the mathematics of exponential growth, all the tumor has to do is double about 30 times, and we're up to a billion cells, which is a tumor just large enough to be picked up by mammography. All it has to do is double thirty times--but, it takes between 25 days and a thousand days for cancer cells to double once. So that means, from the time that first cell gets mutated, it takes between 2 years and a hundred years before it actually shows up as a little tumor you can see.

The skin cancer we die of at 50, for example, may have been because of a teenage sunburn. Many breast cancers start in the teen years as well. In fact some breast cancer, we think, may actually start in the womb, before you're even born, and depend in part on what your mom ate. By age 40, a third of women have microscopic cancerous breast tumors.

This is what's called the promotion stage of cancer. The cancer has been initiated by exposure to some carcinogen, but if we don't promote it, if we keep it dormant, if we slow it down, we may even be able to reverse its growth.

The way we can slow down the growth rates of cancer cells within us is to lower the levels of growth hormones in our blood. One way (see my cancer DVD for other ways) to decrease our levels of these steroid hormones is to stop eating and drinking them. In the U.S., corporate agribusiness continues to implant growth hormones into livestock, hormones that have been declared illegal in Europe out of fear that the consumption of the resulting milk or meat may promote cancer growth.

Reported at the International Research Conference, UCLA scientists studied what would happen if you placed women on a low-fat plant-based diet (along with daily exercise classes). Not surprisingly, the levels of all measured growth hormones in their blood were dramatically reduced. This kind of research has been done before, though. What made this one of the most exciting papers to come out of the conference is what the researchers did next.

Before and after the dietary change was initiated, researchers drew blood from the women and dripped it on live breast cancer cells growing in a Petri dish. After just two weeks, the blood serum of women placed on the plant-based diet actually reduced the cancer growth rate up to almost 20%.[1] Many of us, right now, have tumors growing inside of us. So we can't wait until later to start eating healthier, we have to start now. Tonight.


B. Preventing Prostate Cancer with Guacamole?

We've know that dietary boron intake likely strengthens one's bones and protects against arthritis, but its role in cancer prevention has remained a mystery. Epidemiological evidence over the last 4 years has shown that populations with high dietary intakes of boron did seem to have reduced prostate cancer risk, though. So to test the potential anticarcinogenic effect of this trace mineral, researchers at the University of California dripped varying concentrations of boron on human prostate cancer cells and found indeed that at boron levels achievable through dietary intake one could significantly retard the growth of prostate cancer cells.

Where is boron found? The best sources are nuts, fruits and vegetables. The most concentrated source of dietary boron on the planet seems to be flax seeds; the top five (according to USDA tests of 234 foods) are 1. flax seeds, 2. avocados, 3. peanuts, 4. prune juice, then 5. pecans. This is based on boron concentration by weight, though. Just because peanuts score higher than prune juice doesn't mean it's just as easy to drink a cup of peanut butter. Taking serving sizes into account, the most readily available source of boron is probably avocados.


C. Preventing Breast Cancer with Lentil Soup?

In the upcoming April 2005 issue of International Journal of Cancer, Harvard researchers will publish an article analyzing dietary behaviors in relation to breast cancer of over 90,000 young women followed for over a decade. Many of us who were privileged to have prepublication access were surprised that they failed to find a protective benefit from many plant "superfoods" such as broccoli and blueberries. But this may be because the overall intake of these foods was so low. For insight into the limitations of such studies, I encourage everyone to read Dr. T. Colin Campbell's landmark new book "The China Study" (

There was one plant superfood that was evidently so powerful at guarding against breast cancer, though, that one could find a protective effect eating as few as two measly servings a week: legumes. Young women eating just 2 to 4 servings a week of beans or lentils seemed to cut their risk of developing breast cancer by about a quarter, compared to those that ate servings less than once a month.[2]

Noting the recent accumulation of evidence supporting the amazing health benefits of legumes (beans, peas and lentils), one researcher concludes: "they have acquired the status of staple food for anyone who wants to eat a healthy diet."[3]


D. Maternal Seafood Consumption May Damage Child's Heart Function

In the May 2004 issue of "Latest in Human Nutrition" (archived on my website at, I documented why the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that every year in the U.S. 300,000 children are born at risk for lower intelligence and learning problems due to mercury exposure because their mothers ate fish.[4] New research from Harvard, published in the Journal of Pediatrics, suggests children born to fish-eating moms may suffer from irreversible heart damage as well.[5]

Mercury is considered the most dangerous environmental poison of all the toxic heavy metals.[6] Mercury fallout from industrial smokestacks worldwide (particularly coal-burning power plants) settles in our waterways and drains into the ocean where it works its way up the food chain. Except for one sample of chicken which exceeded even the levels in fish, FDA analyses indicate that "fish and shellfish are almost exclusively the source of mercury in the U.S. diet."[7]

People eating fish, particularly the most contaminated species like tuna, place themselves not only at risk for the "fish fog" syndrome I described in the May 2004 issue, but may shorten their lifespan due to mercury's cardiotoxic effect. Mercury contamination has been blamed for why many studies, including Harvard's Physicians' Health Study, have failed to show overall decreased cardiac mortality from fish consumption.[8],[9],[10] Yes, fish have heart-healthy omega-3's, but at the same time may be so filled with mercury that they cancel each other out. In fact, a few studies have shown increased cardiac mortality among fish-eaters.

A study published in the journal of the American Heart Association, for example, found that the half of the population studied that ate the most fish had over twice the risk of having a heart attack, and over twice the risk of dying from a heart attack.[11] "Fish is not merely a source of n-3 fatty acids," the investigators warn, "but also of methyl mercury,"[12] a fact with potentially "enormous" public health implications. [13] Methyl-mercury is considered the most toxic form.

In fact just last month, February 2005, researchers published a study which followed over a thousand middle-aged men for over a decade, and indeed found that those who seemed to eat the most fish may be shaving years off their lives. Mercury is thought to damage the heart by not only acting as a pro-oxidant itself, but depleting the body of critical antioxidants like glutathione and selenium.[14] Because our bodies have no mechanism for getting rid of mercury, it continues to accumulate in our bodies throughout our lives.

If mercury is this toxic to the hearts of adults, what is it doing to the hearts of children exposed in the wombs of fish-eating mothers? In a joint collaboration between Harvard and the University of Copenhagen, researchers measured the levels of mercury in umbilical cord blood of over a thousand fish-eating pregnant women to find out how much mercury their new infants had been getting. They then followed these children from birth through adolescence. And much of the cardiac dysfunction found through age 7 was still apparent at age 14. The heart rhythm abnormalities were subtle, but, the researchers fear, could lead to increase risk of serious cardiac dysfunction later in life. [15] Interestingly, the researchers think the abnormality is probably due not to damage to the heart muscle itself, but to irreversible damage to the children's brainstem, the area of the brain that controls the beating of the heart.[16]

As reported in Environmental Health Perspectives, this research "suggests that when expectant women consume fish containing high levels of the toxicant, their children's future cardiovascular health may be jeopardized."[17] The mercury-free source of omega 3's for our families should be two tablespoons a day of ground organic flax seeds.


E. Antioxidant Status of Vegetarians

While physicists since Einstein have been struggling to piece together a Grand Unified Theory to explain the underlying cause of forces like gravity and electromagnetism, medical scientists have been trying to piece together the underlying cause of aging and disease. Perhaps the leading contender is the Oxidant Stress Theory, which posits that free radicals cause the tissue damage that underlies most of our chronic disease states as well as the age-related deterioration in our bodies. Basically, the theory contends, we're rusting. Just like rust is the oxidation of metal, aging and disease can be thought of as the oxidation of our bodies.

The Oxidant Stress Theory explains why fruit and vegetable consumption seems to protect against almost every disease from Alzheimer's and cancer to heart disease and stroke. The antioxidants found in whole plant foods (fruits, vegetables, beans, nuts, seeds, and whole grains) play a role in squelching the free radicals we produce within our own bodies and are exposed to within our environment.

It is not surprising then that vegetarians have both higher levels of antioxidants in their blood and correspondingly lower rates of chronic disease. What few scientists have looked into, though, in terms of completing the chain of causation, is a demonstration that vegetarians have lower levels of the intermediate indicators of oxidized tissue damage. Recently, though, researchers in the Slovak Republic have closed the gap.

The researchers approximated the level of tissue damage by measuring the level of what are called "peroxidized conjugated dienes," which are caused by perhaps the most dreaded free radical, the highly toxic hydroxyl radical. While over 40% of those eating meat exceeded safety limits for these damage indicators, only 8% of those eating vegetarian for an average of just ten years strayed into the danger zone. The researchers suspect that vegetarians would have had even lower levels of oxidant damage had they not had elevated levels of homocysteine due to inadequate vitamin B12 intake. To take full advantage of the benefits of plant-based nutrition, they recommended vegetarians ensure a reliable source of B12 (from fortified foods or supplements).

The results of the study not only "document a better antioxidant status of vegetarians as a consequence of higher consumption of protective food," but the researchers suspect the results may also stem from the pro-oxidant damage caused particularly by the heme (blood-based) iron found in red meat, chickens, and fish. This may explain why high tissue levels of iron are associated with a number of pathologies including some cancers, inflammation, diabetes, liver and heart disease.[18] "Our results," the researchers conclude, "indicate that vegetarian nutrition might provide an effective prevention of free radical diseases."[19]


F. Mothballs May Kill More Than Moths

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that over a billion pounds of pesticides are used every year in the United States, over 4 pounds for every man, woman, and child. Most studies to date have looked at the cancer risk involved with occupational pesticide exposure, but a new study out of New York University looked into the risks associated with household pesticide use.

Those using household pesticide products seemed to increase their risk of developing a high grade lymphoma (lymphoid cancer) by over 60%. The worst offenders seemed to be indoor insecticide foggers and mothballs. Those with any history of mothball usage seemed to double their risk of developing lymphoma.[20]

The major chemical constituents of mothballs are either paradichlorobenzene or naphthalene, the two most ubiquitously detected hazardous household chemicals in indoor air.[21] According to the U.S. Public Health Service, although people are exposed to these toxic chemicals in foods derived from animals exposed to insecticides (such as "meat, chicken, eggs, or fish," [22]) the primary exposure is through smoke, mothballs, toilet deodorizer blocks, and many indoor air "fresheners."

Cedar blocks, cedar shavings or cedar oil represent nontoxic alternatives to mothballs.


G. Not all Fruits and Vegetables are Alike

A major Harvard study of over 100,000 people recently found that fruit and vegetable consumption did not seem to dramatically reduce chronic disease risk, leading to misleading headlines like "Fruits and Veggies No Help Against Cancer."[23] This finding may not be so surprising to those who've attended my lectures on cancer prevention, where I point out that America's favorite vegetables are 1. French fries and 2. Iceberg lettuce. 

When the researchers looked more closely at the data they indeed found that those who ate the most of the healthiest produce (green leafy vegetables) were afforded significant protection against chronic disease, but even then the protection seemed modest. Perhaps this is because their intake was modest as well.

Of the 100,000+ men and women studied, those that ate the most green leafy vegetables ate only one and a half servings a day--about 4 outer leaves worth of romaine lettuce. And so they compared that group to those that ate the equivalent of only about half a leaf a day. With a range of intake that narrow it is no wonder a greater difference between disease rates was not found. Again, this is where Dr. Campbell's "The China Study" comes in so handy.

Evidence from the biggest study on diet cancer in human history, the EPIC study, which is currently following half a million people across ten countries, has found that indeed high fruit and vegetable consumption is linked to decreased cancer mortality.[24] The USDA recently upped the official Federal recommendation for the minimum daily servings of fruits and vegetables to nine. Nine a day. Thought you weren't doing so good before? Well now you may be really behind! Make sure to take full advantage of this recommendation by including the nutrient superstars of the fruit and vegetable kingdom, dark green leafy vegetables and berries.


H. Ovarian Cancer and Dairy

There have been three "prospective" (forward-looking) studies of the link between dairy intake and the risk of developing ovarian cancer, the silent killer--so-named because by the time the tumor is found, it is often too late. Every single study showed the same thing.

In 1999 the Iowa Women's Study, which followed 29,000 women for a decade, found essentially the same thing that the Harvard Nurse's Study found five years later.[25] Following 80,000 nurses for 16 years, Harvard researchers last year published a study indicating that those who consumed the most dairy (particularly skim and low-fat milk) doubled their risk of developing the most common and deadly form of ovarian cancer. Each glass of milk a day seemed to increase their risk 20%.[26]

The culprit seems to be the milk sugar lactose, which is broken down into galactose in the body, a substance found not only to be directly toxic to a woman's egg cells, but which may speed the growth of cancers by elevating the levels of certain growth hormones.

The third major study was recently published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Swedish researchers followed over 60,000 women for over a decade and found the same thing. The researchers conclude: "Women who consumed >1 glass of milk a day had double the risk of serous ovarian cancer compared with women who never or seldom drank milk." 

In response to this third major prospective trial again showing increased cancer risk from milk, the spokeswoman of the American Dairy Council stuck to the party line that more research was necessary.[27] As far as I'm concerned, though, three strikes and you're out.



Three months ago, in December, while the Journal of the AMA was publishing an editorial entitled "Emerging Infectious Diseases A Clear and Present Danger to Humanity,"[28]  former U.S. secretary of heath and human services Tommy G. Thompson told reporters in his farewell news conference that bird flu was his greatest fear, eclipsing bioterrorism. Bird flu, he said, was the "really huge bomb."[29]

Two months ago in January, the New England Journal of Medicine published the first probable case of fatal human-to-human transmission.[30] The following week, New Scientist ran an editorial entitled "Bird Flu Outbreak Could Kill 1.5 Billion People."[31]

Last month in February, the New England Journal reported two cases of children who had become infected with bird flu, but instead of showing the typical respiratory symptoms, the virus attacked their brains. A nine year old girl and a 4 year old boy. The girl was fine one day, and dead 5 days later. Her brother lasted a week. The bird flu virus attacked their central nervous systems plunging them into rapidly progressing fatal comas. The Oxford investigators conclude, "These reports suggest that avian influenza A (H5N1) virus is progressively adapting to mammals and becoming more neurologically virulent."[32]

In the week following that report, the top UN animal health official described the current outbreak of bird flu as "an enormous sword of Damocles" hanging over the world[33] and the Director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control described it as the number one health threat in the world, a "very ominous situation."[34] 

This month, March 2005, the head of the World Health Organization in Asia held a press conference. He said: "The world is now in the gravest possible danger of a pandemic."[35]


III. MY NEW BOOK IS OUT--Carbophobia: The Scary Truth Behind America's Low Carb Craze

If any of you know anyone on a low carb diet, I've got a gift idea for them :)

I'm so excited to finally have it out. It features not only my scathing critique of low carb diets (complete with over a thousand citations), but the Atkins Corporation's response (and threatened lawsuit) which I take apart piece by greasy piece.

The cover is gorgeous, thanks to Dan Piraro of the indomitable Bizarro cartoon ( and it seems the content ain't bad either, according to everyone from Herbivore Magazine ( to the Editor-in-Chief of the American Journal of Cardiology, who wrote: "Carbophobia convincingly demonstrates why high-protein, low-carbohydrate diets such as the Atkins diet are harmful. Before eating the next cow, read this book."

To purchase copies for all your pork-rind-eating relatives, you should be able to find it at your local bookstore, or you can order directly from Lantern Books (

As always, all the money I receive from the sale of the book goes to charity, of course.



Please forgive my tardiness with this latest issue. As you can see from my speaking schedule (, I'm averaging 47 talks a month!  So I apologize if anyone's emailed me and has not yet received a timely response--I'm over 500 emails behind, but working hard to catch up. If it is an urgent matter, please feel free to call me at (206) 312-8640.

I'm just lucky if I can stumble my way from one talk to another in time these days so, sadly, the whole blog idea has gone out the window, but I did manage to add another page to my website. If you go to you'll find a list of handouts and premade fliers for many of the current talks on my roster. If I didn't plan on making it to your hometown in my 2005 swing across the country, email me and I'll try to prioritize your city for my next tour in 2006.


V. MAILBAG: "I read there was a study that showed raising kids vegan was dangerous."

It was like a bad Saturday Night Live skit. The National Cattlemen's Beef Association pays USDA researchers to feed meat to starving kids in Africa and, surprise surprise, they perk up (and no, I'm not making this up). The children adding meat to their starvation diet developed better than those children adding, well, nothing. (Don't let the tobacco companies know, they might try to asphyxiate some kids and prove that breathing cigarette smoke is significantly better for you than, say, suffocation).

Surely those weren't the only two groups, though: the meat-added group and the nothing-added group? In fact, there were indeed two other control groups in which they instead added a vegetarian food to these malnourished children's diets, but the children were nonetheless shown conclusively to grow best on the meat.

This of course raises the obvious question: what vegetarian foods did they choose to add to their diets to compare with the meat? Presumably realizing that almost all (90%) Africans are lactose intolerant,[36] the meat-industry-funded USDA researchers compared adding meat to these children's diets with adding... a glass of milk.[37]

So one group of starving children got meat, one group got nothing, one got milk, and the fourth and final group--to prove meat's superiority once and for all?--got... oil. Yes, just plain vegetable oil, providing essentially zero nutrition except empty calories. Sadly, the children were so malnourished that just adding those extra calories in the form of an extra spoonful of oil increased their muscle mass 40% over those that got nothing.[38]

Lest one thinks the meat industry wasted their money funding such a ludicrous study, these are some of the headlines they got:
    "Meat is Important for Children's Development."[39]
     "Vegetarian Diet 'Harms Children's Growth.'"[40]
        "Vegetarian Diet 'Bad for Children.'"[41]
       "Vegetarian Diet is Okay, But Meat is Required."[42]
    "Young 'Harmed' By Meat-Free Diets."[43]

And my personal favorite:
       "Forcing Your Child to Follow a Vegetarian Diet is Unethical, Top Nutrition Expert Says."[44]

Dietitian and author Brenda Davis responded to the study by citing the fact that the largest organization of nutrition professionals in the world (the American Dietetic Association) officially declared that "Appropriate planned vegan and lacto-ovo vegetarian diets satisfy the nutrient needs of infants, children, and adolescents and promote normal growth," as well as providing "health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases." In recognition of that fact, Dr. Benjamin Spock, perhaps the most esteemed pediatrician of all time, in the final edition of his book, "Dr. Spock's Baby and Child Care" (second only to the bible the best-selling book in American history) recommended that children be raised vegan.

In her response, Brenda explains why the researchers presumably chose not to include a nutrient-rich plant food as a control group: "doing so would have demonstrated that it is not vegan diets that are inadequate, but rather energy, fat, and protein deficient diets that are inadequate. That would have defeated the purpose of the organization which funded the research, namely the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (US)."


(Full text of specific articles available by emailing

[1] Barnard JR, Liva M, and Ngo TH. "Effect of a Low-fat, High-fiber Diet and Exercise Intervention on Breast Cancer Risk Factors and Tumor Cell Growth." Journal of Nutrition. 134(2004):3523S.
[2] Adebamowo CA, Cho E, Sampson L, et al. "Dietary flavonols and flavonol-rich foods intake and the risk of breast cancer." International Journal of Cancer. 114(2005):628.
[3] Leterme P. "Recommendations by health organizations for pulse consumption." British Journal of Nutrition 88(2002):S239.
[4] Mahaffey KR, Clickner RP and CC Bodurow. "Blood Organic Mercury and Dietary Mercury Intake." Environmental Health Perspectives 112(2004):562.
[5] Grandjean P, Murata K, Budtz-Jørgensen E, et al. "Cardiac Autonomic Activity In Methylmercury Neurotoxicity: 14-Year Follow-Up Of A Faroese Birth Cohort" Journal of Pediatrics 144(2004):169.

[6] Harriss RC and Hohenemser C. Mercury-measuring and managing the risk. Environment. 20(1987):25.

[7] "Total Diet Study Statistics on Elements." Washington, DC: U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 25 April 2000.
[8] Curb JD, Reed DM. Fish Consumption and Mortality from Cardiovascular Disease. New England Journal of Medicine. 313(1985):821.
[9] Vollset SE, Heuch I, Bjelke E. Fish Consumption and Mortality from Cardiovascular Disease. New England Journal of Medicine. 313(1985):820.
[10]  Morris MC, Manson JE, Rosner B, Buring JE, Willett WC, Hennekens CH. A prospective study of fish consumption on cardiovascular disease. Circulation 86(1992):I-463..
[11] Salonen JT, Seppänen K, Nyyssönen K, et al. "Intake of Mercury From Fish, Lipid Peroxidation, and the Risk of Myocardial Infarction and Coronary, Cardiovascular, and Any Death in Eastern Finnish Men." Circulation 91(1995):645.

[12] Salonen JT, Nyyssonen K, Salonen R, et al. "Fish Intake and the Risk of Coronary Disease." New England Journal of Medicine 333(1995):937.

[13] Salonen JT, Seppänen K, Nyyssönen K, et al. "Intake of Mercury From Fish, Lipid Peroxidation, and the Risk of Myocardial Infarction and Coronary, Cardiovascular, and Any Death in Eastern Finnish Men." Circulation 91(1995):645.
[14] Virtanen JK, Voutilainen S, Rissanen TH, et al. "Mercury, fish oils, and risk of acute coronary events and cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, and all-cause mortality in men in eastern Finland." Arteriosclerosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology 25(2005):228.
[15] Grandjean P, Murata K, Budtz-Jørgensen E, et al. "Cardiac Autonomic Activity In Methylmercury Neurotoxicity: 14-Year Follow-Up Of A Faroese Birth Cohort" Journal of Pediatrics 144(2004):169.
[16] Murata K, Weihe L, Budtz-Jørgensen E, et al. "Delayed Brainstem Auditory Evoked Potential Latencies In 14-Year-Old Children Exposed To Methylmercury." Journal of Pediatrics 144(2004):177.

[17] Tibbets J. "Methylmercury and Children's Heart Function." Environmental Health Perspectives 112(2004):A870.

[18] Fraga CG, Oteiza PI: Iron Toxicity and Antioxidant Nutrients. Toxicol 2002, 180:23-32.

[19] Krajcovicova_-Kudla_ckova M_, Spustova_ V, and Paukova V_. "Lipid Peroxidation and Nutrition." Physiology Research. 53(2004): 219-224.
[20] Kato I, Watanabe-Meserve H, Koenig KL, et al. "Pesticide Product Use and Risk of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma in Women." Environmental Health Perspectives 112(2004):1275.
[21] Van Winkel MR and Scheff PA. Volatile organic compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and elements in the air of ten urban homes. Indoor Air 11(2001):49.
[22] Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2003. Toxicological profile for naphthalene, 1-methylnaphthalene, and 2-methylnaphthalene. Draft for Public Comment. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service;

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2004. Toxicological profile for dichlorobenzenes. (Draft for Public Comment). Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
[23] "Fruits and Veggies No Help Against Cancer" Reuters 2 November 2004.
[24] Khaw K. "Study Progress and Results of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition" Journal of Nutrition. 134(2004): 3519S.

[25] Kushi LH, Mink PJ, Folsom AR, et al. "Prospective Study Of Diet and Ovarian Cancer." American Journal of Epidemiology 149(1999):21.

[26] Fairfield KM, Hunter DJ, Colditz GA, et al. "A Prospective Study of Dietary Lactose and Ovarian Cancer." International Journal of Cancer 110(2004):271.
[27] Boyles, S. "Study Links Milk to Ovarian Cancer" WebMD Medical News. 3 December 2004.

[28] Fauci AS. "Emerging Infectious Diseases: A Clear and Present Danger to Humanity." Journal of the American Medical Association. 292(2004):1887.

[29] Sipress A. "As SE Asian Farms Boom, Stage Set for a Pandemic."
Washington Post Foreign Service 5 February 2005:A01.
[30] Ungchusak K, Auewarakul P, Kitphati R, et al. "Probable Person-to-Person Transmission  of Avian Influenza A (H5N1)." New England Journal of Medicine 352(2005):333.
[31] "Editorial: Bird Flu Outbreak Could Kill 1.5 Billion People" New Scientist 2485(2005):5.
[32] de Jong MD, Van Cam D, Qui PT, et al. "Fatal Avian Influenza A (H5N1) in a Child  Presenting with Diarrhea Followed by Coma" New England Journal of Medicine 352(2005):686.
[33] "Threat of bird flu epidemic a "sword of Damocles": UN" Agence France Presse. 20 February 2005.
[34] "Bird flu No. 1 health threat in world, CDC chief warns." Seattle Times 22 February 2005.
[35] Schuettler D. "World Must Act on Bird Flu or Face Pandemic -- U.N." Reuters 23 February 2005.
[36] Frye RE, Rivera-Hernandez DM and S Borowitz. "Lactose Intolerance." 27n December 2002. <>.
[37] Neumann CG, Bwibo NO, Murphy SP, et al. "Animal Source Foods Improve Dietary Quality, Micronutrient Status, Growth and Cognitive Function in Kenyan School." Journal of Nutrition 133(2003):3941S.
[38] Hopkin M. "Meat Diet Boosts Kids' Growth." Nature 22 February 2005.
[39] Gross M. Scoop Media Auckland 7 March 2005.
[40] Connor S. Independent (UK) 22 February 2005.
[41] McBeth J. Scotsman 22 February 2005.
[42] Express Newsline (India) 22 February 2005.
[43] BBC News 20 February 2005.

[44] Henderson M. Times (London) 22 February 2005.


If anyone missed previous months, check out my newsletter archive at

Until (hopefully) next month,



(206) 312-8640

185 South St #6
Boston, MA 02130

HEART FAILURE: Diary of a Third Year Medical Student

(full text now available free):

My new book: 

CARBOPHOBIA: The Scary Truth Behind America's Low Carb Craze

To subscribe to my free monthly nutrition newsletter

send a blank email to:
For updates and info, contact scott at planttrees dot org.