GreenSmoothieGirl Logo
Lose 10 Pounds in 10 Minutes. Add 10 Years to your life.
Our beautiful template for infinite variety of greens and superfoods in your smoothies—print this and eliminate the need for recipes! Get it now for free!

Dr. Mercola attacks the China Study: clash of the titans


Robyn Openshaw - Sep 09, 2010 - This Post May Contain Affiliate Links


When Joe Mercola contradicts the basics of nutrition taught on GreenSmoothieGirl.com and in my books, we get hundreds of emails.

Mercola’s newsletter yesterday supposedly exposes the “DARK SIDE” of the China Study. I’m not going to link to it and therefore give it a higher page rank. It doesn’t deserve it.

Before undertaking to explain what’s radically wrong with this article, let me say this: I agree with Mercola on some macro issues:

  1. That prevention and natural remedies are the best first-line treatments, rather than drug/surgery medical interventions.
  2. That far too much of our data comes from research that drug companies and agribusiness paid for.
  3. That sugar and processed foods are killing us. (Mercola implies, with the “false dilemma” logical fallacy, in yesterday’s newsletter that either animal proteins are killing us, or processed foods are, as if they are mutually exclusive.)

But we must use critical thinking skills to expose fatal flaws in his comments about Dr. T. Colin Campbell and the China Study.

(When you put yourself in the public domain, you invite dissent. Juxtaposition of ideas creates a climate for the truth to emerge.)

As I strongly disagree with Mercola here, I will invariably get some angry email. Most readers will appreciate that my only motive is to learn and then explain the truth (or as close as I can get to it) in this world of nutrition that has so many competing voices.

My own 12 Steps to Whole Foods is a compendium of the best nutrition practices. It advocates for eating much more plant food (especially raw food) than the average American gets and is a practical HOW-TO guide, more than a philosophical debate or meta-review of research. It purposefully doesn’t advocate for vegetarianism or veganism, although I am supportive of others who choose to wear those labels. My own family, except for two vegetarian daughters, eats a bit of homemade kefir, and occasional animal products when we are away from home.

Mercola attempts to discredit the joint effort of Oxford and Cornell Universities by calling theirs an “observational” study, which he infers is somehow inferior to having once had a medical practice.

The Oxford/Cornell China study is a very sound, huge, comprehensive study spanning over 25 years. My own advanced degree, background in research, and understanding of research principles, lead me to say this:

I am thankful, finally, for a vast piece of research in epidemiology that was not funded or influenced by the drug companies or agribusiness (which primarily hawks refined corn/wheat/soy products and processed and refined and GMO foods). I see no conflicts of interest in the Oxford/Cornell research. I see one of the purest voices in nutrition in Campbell and his team.

I interviewed him by phone as I wrote this, and he said, “I feel personally responsible to Americans to tell them what we did with their money,” because taxpayers funded the China study, not profit-motivated industries.

The research was the next natural step from methodical and rigorous animal studies. It’s a remarkable piece of research examining 6,500 adults in 130 villages of rural China where some populations eat lots of animal protein, and others eat very little. The book The China Study represents the totality of Campbell’s experiences. Those include his many years of work in the Philippines studying malnourished children, to his experimental lab research funded by the National Institutes of Health, to the human studies project in China.

Mercola refers to Campbell “forcing” everyone into vegetarianism. This makes no sense on two levels beyond the unilateral emotionalism of the word.

First, the two diets Campbell studied were 20% animal protein (which correlates to the Standard American Diet) and 5% animal protein. Neither groups studied were vegetarian. The 5% group correlates to a low-animal-protein diet, similar to Daniel’s Biblical diet, as well as the scriptural “Word of Wisdom” counsel to eat meat “sparingly, only in times of winter/famine/cold.”

Second, Campbell takes the tone of scientist. He reports and interprets the data. He doesn’t “force” or even recommend any specific diet. He allows the reader to infer from the data whatever diet they choose to follow. He isn’t an internet maven selling a philosophy; he’s a researcher who found the opposite of what he expected to. He grew up on a dairy cattle farm and thought, well into adulthood, that a high-protein diet was ideal. Like John Robbins, son of the Baskin Robbins founder, only data convinced him otherwise. I personally am thankful for honest and pure truth seekers, willing to turn another way, when data challenges popular culture and custom.

Mercola attempts to downgrade the massive China project as “an observational study,” which he says does not “prove causation.” This is puzzling to me based on a three logic flaws.

First, Campbell is a scientist and would never say his study “proves causation.” No scientist would. I’m not a scientist but know enough about it to be aware you never achieve or claim “proof of causation.” Mercola gives a two-sentence primer on how the scientific process works: initial study, hypothesis, controlled trial. Which is precisely what Campbell and the research team did:

For the rest of this report, click here.

Posted in: 12 Steps To Whole Food, Lifestyle, Whole Food

17 thoughts on “Dr. Mercola attacks the China Study: clash of the titans”

Leave a Comment
  1. Anonymous says:

    Robyn,

    I fully expect it to be ‘taken apart’, but that has happened before and she has impressively ‘taken apart’ their critiques, IMO.

    While the study doesn’t advocate any one right way to eat, judging from the postings on the numerous forums I’m on, and my interactions with people who have read it, the overall message comes across that there is proof that certain foods/combinations are potentially deadly, since it has had the effect of scaring people unnecessarily so that they decide to become vegetarian. That is also the impression I came away with after reading it. And as Denise points out in her dissection of the study, some of the evils blamed on high meat/protein consumption are based on faulty data/methods of interpretation.

    I must say I’m not understanding your determination to believe everything in the study, and to automatically discount the very valid critiques by Denise and others. She and Mercola are not the only ones who have dissected the study and found faulty conclusions. Unless we are referring to God, I have yet to see a work such as the CS be totally true and without error. Did you even read her critique? Do you disagree with all of it? Do you agree with any of it?

    And I agree that was an ad hominem attack on Mercola. I’d much rather have a discussion on the study itself rather than focusing on Mercola and speculation on his motives and attacking his credentials.

  2. Anonymous says:

    What does everyone say we are all different? That’s what sells crazy diet books. We are all so much the same.

    Whole food heals EVERYONE not just those crazy health nuts. Processed foods and industrial meat and dairy is toxic to EVERYONE with a human body. Period.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Dr. Mercola is a businessman first and foremost. Everyone should read TCS for themselves and of course decide what the best way of eating is for themselves. I personally think people base their perception of EVERYTHING on what they like…I like veggies and fruit, and I dont like the way I feel when eating animal protein. I used to love the taste of steak, but just as the saying goes “nothing tastes as good as thin looks”, I believe “nothing tastes as good as living pain free feels. Simple deduction, Mercola is selling his product. HIM. No thanks!

  4. Anonymous says:

    I subscribe to and read both Mercola articles and GSG articles and blogs. I much more appreciated the tone and content of Mercola’s discussion of this issue than GSG response to it. I tend to take information from both websites with a grain of salt, but in this case, I just am troubled by Robyn’s response.

    I am curious what people think of the studies of Weston Price, who searched for a purely vegetarian/vegan culture in the world that was able to maintain true health through their diet, and consistently always found that in order to maintain all aspects of health – including reproductive, dental, just to mention a few – some animal protein was ALWAYS present, and those cultures that did not (or probably more accurately) were not able to include animal protein, suffered some sort of health problems.

    For my own part, and this is anecdotal I know, my almost vegan diet prior to my first pregnancy was followed by complications during pregnancy and the presence of a heart defect in my child. My second pregnancy, when I included animal protein, was uneventful and my 2nd child was born completely healthy. Anecdotal, but follows the findings of Weston Price. I don’t want to be a fear monger but I do fear for the reproductive health of children in families that do not eat any animal protein. Families may seem perfectly healthy on a Vegan diet, but what happens 20 years down the line when your children want to start their own family?

    Just my 2 cents, and I probably said too much on this clearly controversial topic.

    Blessings to all.

    1. Robyn Openshaw says:

      Hi Liz, remember–the China study didn’t look at vegetarians. It looked at 5% animal protein diets, versus 20% animal protein diet. And that’s what I teach too. I am concerned about reproductive health for the HIGH animal protein consumers. Look at the Pottenger cat study as evidence of what happens in the third gen of eating the American diet.

  5. Anonymous says:

    John Robbins also writes a wonderful website and blog where he discusses food and a whole lot more: http://www.johnrobbins.info/

    You should link to him.

    1. Robyn Openshaw says:

      Greg, you just did. 😉 Love John Robbins. He’s the OPPOSITE of “motivated by money.” He and his wife lived close to the land, on $10K a year, rather than help run the Baskin Robbins Corp. that he came to believe was not exactly helping people. And he has worked hard and educated himself and become very successful doing something else (teaching others) that is very valuable.

  6. Anonymous says:

    I believe in being open to all sorts of info so that I can make the right decision for myself. I am a vegetarian, however I am starting to wonder if Mercola and I are just not a good fit. He goes off on so many things like agave etc. that I just don’t want to listen to him soooo negative. I am with you Robyn, I am sure you will hear from him soon.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Amy, could you provide evidence that meat and dairy are toxic to *everyone*? Where is proof of this?

  8. I am wondering how the effect of cooking meat at high temperatures has on the body, as doing this increases advanced glycation end products, which in turn produce inflammation in the body. I would like to see some research showing how raw milk, eggs and lightly cooked organic meats react within the body until I make a radical change in my diet.

  9. Robyn,

    Thanks so much for your thoughtful, articulate critique of Dr. Mercola’s article. Your comments are right on. I suscribe to Dr. Mercola’s newsletter (along with several other health newsletters, blogs, and listserves, regardless of their point-of-view — I like to keep up on the latest thinking as well as the latest arguments!), and while I have learned much of value in the newsletter, like you, I also disagree with his emphasis on meat eating. I’m surprised that you managed to be a “veggie type” on the test, though. Based on my own experience, I was guessing that everyone somehow turned out to be a “protein type.”

    Yes, research results can and frequently are misrepresented, but sometimes you just have to look at the data and go, “Yep. That’s what it means all right.” The China Study data are such, plus they are consistent with many other studies that show more veggies equals less disease risk; more meat and animal products equals more disease risk. It’s not necessarily a 1:1 relationship; clearly heredity, exposure to toxins, smoking, and a multitude of other factors influence the outcome for an individual. It’s statistical risks that are conclusive, not whether a single individual who eats or doesn’t eat something will have a particular outcome.

    I noticed the same tendency in Nourishing Traditions to discount numerous studies showing increased cancer risks in populations that eat large amounts of animal products, claiming either the methodology was flawed or else the conclusions were invalid. However, to be fair, I’ve also noticed the same tendency on the other side of the coin. There’s a hew and cry in the raw food community when a member of the community changes their mind and begins to eat animal food or cooked food. You would think the person were committing blasphemy!

    We need to do our best to make intelligent decisions based on the information that we have. If there is one thing proven by science over the past few centuries it’s that we don’t know everything!

    Thanks very much for all you do.

    Blessings,

    Liz GT, Olympia, WA

  10. Anonymous says:

    BRAVO Robyn for such an excellent article on Mercola and China Study.

    I was on the Holistic Health Cruise last March and heard Dr. Campbell speak three times. He has such integrity and is such a sincere, wonderful person. We have been vegan since we got back and are feeling great.

    You might mention PCRM (Physician’s Committee for Responsible Medicine)

    is doing a 21 day vegan kickstart program online with excellent videos, tips from vegan celebraties (including Dr. Campbell!)- it’s fun and very educational. 9-9 is day 4 but you can log in anytime.

    Thanks again for all your great work!!

    Betsy from Sedona

  11. Anonymous says:

    Very good response. Thank you!

  12. Anonymous says:

    I must be late to some game, because until this post, I’ve never heard of Mercola. But I have read the China Study, and several parts of it more than once, as I try to really understand the key points well enough to be able to explain them to others. While it has given me great clairty and hope for myself, it has created much fear in my heart that my husband could drop dead of a heart attack any minute, or get cancer because of his four groups: cheese, beer, red meat, butter. I don’t get an all or nothing message from that book – I just feel more than adequately equipped with the knowledge I need to live as healthfully as possible.

  13. Anonymous says:

    I read the article also and knew it would bring a big response here. I have been living a semi-vegetarian life for 7 years. We have salmon about once a week and a steak once a year in the middle of the cold winter. I may have a piece or two of chicken during the year also at family functions. We eat mainly veggies, a little fruit, rice, nuts, etc. We’ve been getting about 3 green smoothies a week. Although this way of eating has really helped my husband in his fight against cancer, allergies, asthma, and high blood pressure, I remain overweight and somewhat sluggish. My fingernails grow really fast, but are very weak and now are full of ridges. This started after starting this lifestyle. So, I wonder, maybe I need more meat??? I wish I knew the answer!!

  14. I read both articles by Mercola and by Robyn and here’s my two cents…I can see validity in both cases. I think animal protein is important, but not too much. Since I’ve been focusing more on raw and plant foods, I feel a lot more energy. We eat meat sparingly, about once a week and we do consume cheese and butter, but not too much. We drink kefir or eat yogurt to obtain natural probiotics. We basically follow the LDS Word of Wisdom. How grateful I am for that document! Whenever I become confused about what to do nutritionally, all I have to do is look back to that document and I know which direction to go. It says to eat meat sparingly and in times of cold or famine…and that is what we do. We only eat meat from the best sources and we eat it very sparingly, though we do eat it year round (just as we eat vegetables and fruit year round as well). I appreciate your take on Mercola’s writings…it had me a bit confused but I do lean towards your recommendations of a mostly plant-based diet.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Skip to content