When I first heard about THE CHINA STUDY, and then later thumbed through the copy my girlfriend brought home from the library, I was immediately both interested and skeptical. As a fitness professional I am always interested in new food research, but I am also immediately skeptical of any conclusions until I see the data for myself. When the book first landed in my lap I opened to a random spot somewhere in the middle and found examples of bad scientific method straight away without even trying.
What struck me about Campbell’s conclusions from those first few pages was that he was disregarding way too many variables in his quest to support his points. He would describe the specific population, and ailment in a given section of the study and lay out some interesting numbers and then proceed to make astounding leaps of logic that left me shaking my head, and saying “tsk tsk tsk.”
I don’t have the time or inclination to write a point-by-point breakdown of all the flaws in The China Study, but thankfully RAW FOOD SOS does just that for us. What I love about her arguments is she backs them up with the actual numbers that Campbell used, she just approaches them with a sharper intellect. And did I mention the author, Denise minger, is a raw-foodie herself?
And before anyone gets angry with me (or Ms. Minger for that matter) for attacking The China Study, understand that we both already eat a heavily plant-based diet ourselves. I myself avoid dairy almost entirely, and eat meat products only a few times a week. Before finding the omnivorous equilibrium I have now I spent five years as a vegetarian, and then another five years eating large amounts of animal products. I won’t speak further for the author, but I have discovered that with regard to eating, like with most things in life, the middle of the road is the best way to go.
I want to be clear that there are elements of the book I appreciated as well. He does lay out several things that most people don’t know and should. He also does draw some compelling conclusions here and there. But, in the name of good science, and good analysis, I cannot let the book stand as gospel as so many people do. It has issues, and most of those issues stem from a misleading representation of the statistics, and Ms. Minger’s website does a good job of illustrating these issues in a clear and concise manner.
