"The President’s Cancer Panel is the Mount Everest of the medical mainstream, so it is astonishing to learn that it is poised to join ranks with the organic food movement and declare: chemicals threaten our bodies."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/opinion/06kristof.html
Don't get me wrong: I believe that eating a diet composed largely of processed foods is a one-way ticket to obesity, cardiovascular disease and a host of other ailments, including "cancer". But "chemicals threaten our bodies"? I have news for Mr. Kristof: Our bodies are comprised of chemicals, and everything we do, think or say involves the interaction of these chemicals.
Sure, I eat organic when I can, exercise, try to control stress, and of course avoid known carcinogens, including nitrates in processed foods, but how can you write an op-ed about "cancer" without even mentioning genetic factors? Isn't this op-ed a much too simplistic overview of a very complicated issue, involving a plethora of different diseases, many of which are caused, for example, by hereditary factors, prolonged exposure to sunlight, viruses, aging, radiation and - Kristof forgets to mention - smoking?
I am privileged to work as a consultant for one of the world's leading drug discovery companies, Compugen, many of whose cutting-edge discovery platforms are used to find new therapeutic candidates for various kinds of cancer. Every time I walk through the doors of this tiny company and converse with their staff of scientists, some of the smartest in Israel, I feel like a fool. Today, however, after reading Kristof's op-ed, I'm feeling a bit better about myself.
What enables op-ed writers to issue pronouncements when they obviously have not done the necessary research and fail to have the background and understanding to opine sensibly on an issue? Roger Cohen on Iran? Don't even get me started. Gail Collins on terrorism? My response to Collins was censored by the Times moderators (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/01/gail-collins-on-terrorism-clueless.html#comments), and notwithstanding the promise of an explanation for its rejection from a very senior Times editor, I have never heard back from him.
Again, Nicholas Kristof deserves our respect, but before he engages in a war against the processed food industry, certainly a meritorious crusade, he should do his homework in order to write knowledgeably.
*********
A comment that I wrote in response to Kristof's op-ed was posted by the Times, which in turn evoked the following comment:
"to #5 JG, while you make some very valid observations, I have some news for you, this op-ed piece isn't about "cancer," It's about the effects of man-made chemicals in our atmosphere and their contribution to causing cancers. I suspect the reason you are so dismissive is you are agenda driven."
Peculiar! The op-ed piece isn't about cancer? And here I thought it was entitled "New Alarm Bells About Chemicals and Cancer".
But more to the point, it appears that you can't say anything critical of a Times op-ed without being told that you have an "agenda" or that you are a "suspicious" person with a "right leaning view of reality" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/05/banality-of-roger-cohen.html#comments ).
If people take comfort in believing that they will avoid contracting any form of cancer by eating organic food, more power to them. I eat much organic food (for health reasons and also for the sake of the environment); however, I have no illusions that this will prevent me from becoming ill or ultimately dying. Case in point: My mother mostly ate organic food, yet developed breast cancer and later succumbed to lymphoma.
Meanwhile, much of my time is spent, i.e. my "agenda" consists of, assisting a cutting-edge company that is developing new therapeutics intended to treat various forms of cancer.
[As noted in prior blog entries, I am a Compugen shareholder, this blog entry is not a recommendation to buy or sell Compugen shares, and in mid-September 2009 I began work as a part-time external consultant to Compugen. The opinions expressed herein are mine and are based on publicly available information. This blog entry has not been authorized or approved by Compugen.]
Hi, Jeffrey
ReplyDeleteStatements like "you are...", "because of you..." are conversation stoppers. They bare poor civility of the speaker, his bad manners and nothing else. I find it strange that you dwell on such attacks and argue with the attackers. You show them more respect than they, in my view, deserve.
Thanks, Marina.
ReplyDeleteHi there, I found your blog via Nicholas Kristoff's column, and while I disagree somewhat with your view on the column and the issue it brings up, I'm happy to have found your blog! My main disagreement with you is with regards to the focus of the article: yes cancer is ultimately exacerbated/due to genetic factors, but it is nevertheless worrying that we are also exacerbating the issue with man-made chemicals that need not necessarily be there. And while it is wonderful that companies like Compugen are helping people treat cancer, I think we also need to do our utmost to avoid helping these diseases along (and while genetics are fundamental here--as in the case of your mother, versus the person who smokes his entire life and dies in his 90's cancer-free--chemicals such as BPA do, in my opinion need to be banned or more heavily regulated). My apologies for the rambling sentences--my baby is keeping my up at nights lately!--but I felt compelled to share my opinion with you. Thank you and keep up the great work!
ReplyDeleteDear Joli,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your kind comment.
I don't think we disagree: I eat much organic food, I take many anti-oxidant vitamins, I try to avoid animal fats, and I certainly do not microwave food in plastic containers or wrappings.
On the other hand, there are more than 200 different kinds of cancer caused by heredity (e.g., breast cancer), viruses (e.g., ovarian cancer), smoking (e.g., small cell and non-small cell lung cancer), excess sunlight (e.g., melanoma), mesothelioma (e.g., asbestos), etc.
Where did Kristof go wrong?: 1. he didn't bother to define cancer; 2. he apparently didn't understand that we and the food that we eat are all comprised of "chemicals"; 3. he created the misleading impression that all forms of cancer can be prevented by eating organic foods.
As I said earlier, I eat much organic food, and certainly avoid non-organic foods that are grown with higher levels of pesticides. However, I have yet to see a convincing study that indicates organic food prolongs longevity or prevents "cancer".
Bear in mind that many foods, considered healthy, whether organic or non-organic, harbor naturally occurring "pesticides", which, in large doses, are potentially carcinogenic.
Do you eat organic spinach? Organic or non-organic, spinach contains relatively high levels of nitrates. Do you drink coffee, or eat apples, plums, lettuce or potatoes? Organic or not, all contain caffeic acid. Do you eat oranges? Organic or not, limonene is present in oranges. And the list goes on.
Avoid BPA? Sure. But to foster the illusion that the consumption of organic foods will prevent "cancer" under the New York Times masthead is misleading.
Dear Joli,
ReplyDeleteJust another couple of thoughts:
My father-in-law is 92. He smoked three packs of cigarettes per day for much of his life. He was a farmer, who ate much red meat, never ate organic and was exposed to enormous quantities of pesticides. No sign of any kind of cancer.
Controlling and curing "cancer", in my opinion, will require a knowledge of life on the molecular level - something sought by Compugen.
As you probably observed in many of the comments to Kristof, it is easy to blame industry for all our sorrows. Meanwhile, smoking and obesity, which can be controlled by each of us, are the primary causes of mortality in the U.S., and needless to say, both smoking and obesity went unmentioned by Kristof. Any mention of smoking and obesity as the principal culprits could well have antagnonized more than half of Kristof's readers . . .