# "Let food be your medicine." —Hippocrates



## Barliman Butterbur (Jun 2, 2007)

This is a terribly important subject. Technically, I am obese, weighing at the moment 229 pounds, although I am handsome and debonair... 

I've been overweight all my life, starting from about 25 (I'm 70 now). I've tried every approach to weight loss you can think of, and they all worked — at first. I've seen my doctor, my nutritionist, I've been to Weight Watchers — you name it, I've done it. In recent years (especially now that my wife is retiring — I so want to spend a long healthy life with her) I have become quite desperate in my quest to lose weight and regain health.

Recently however, I've discovered — finally — what seems to be the truth of it in the form of two books: _The China Study_ by Campbell and Campbell, and _Eat to Live_ by Joe Fuhrman, MD.

_The China Study_ is a book about the findings of the largest nutritional study ever undertaken in the history of medicine. To give you an idea of the size and depth of the study, I'll quote a passage:

"In the early 1970s, the premier of China, Chou EnLai, was dying of cancer. In the grips of this terminal disease, Premier Chou initiated a nationwide survey to collect information about a disease that was not well understood. It was to be a monumental survey for twelve different kinds of cancer for more than 2400 Chinese counties and 880 milliion (96%) of their citizens. The survey was remarkable in many ways. It involved 650,000 workers, the most ambitious biomedical research project ever undertaken."

Prior to this, Colin Campbell (the senior author of the writing team) had done years of hard scientific research on what turned cancer off and on in the body. This is what he found out:

1. As we live our lives, we acquire carcinogens simply as a result of being exposed to the various land/sea/air/food pollutants, and in most cases the body destroys them and/or they simply remain dormant because one's genes have not turned on to produce cancer.

2. They found out through exhaustive longitudinal studies that it is _animal protein_ in dietary amounts that acts as the _catalytic agent_ that turns cancer on and off in the presence of carcinogens (such as aflatoxin for instance). This is extremely provocative science, and the "status quo" scientists (to say nothing of the meat industry) became violently against the findings — and they still are.

3. The author proposes a primary way of eating that protects against all diseases of affluence (cancer, obesity, diabetes, heart disease) acquired through a Western animal-based diet: A whole foods plant-based diet. 

After having read the book (400+ pages), with its meticulously listed exhaustive research, there is simply one conclusion: get away from animal protein. Become a vegetarian, a vegan if possible.

I am not stating this to convert anyone reading this post. But I do state the truth. My own (so far) haphazard vegetarianism over the years has, I believe brought me this far alive and as healthy as I am. But my state of health demands big fundamental improvements, and they aren't going to come through drugs or surgery. They must come through something more fundamental, namely: what I choose to put in my mouth, and what I choose not to put in my mouth — along with a program of proper exercise.

The second book is the basic how-to. The Fuhrman book outlines the what and the how of eating a basically vegan diet that is tasty and full of variety (to say nothing of the myriad recipe books of vegetarian cookery of all cultures). It dovetails beautifully as the "practice side" of the "theory side" coming from _The China Study._ And believe me folks, it's not as if I'd never read anything about nutrition before. I am a lay expert on it. But I know the truth when I see it, and now I know how to save myself. I'll check in from time to time with reports of my progress.

There was only one other time — when I was a smoker — when I had an experience of being overwhelmed by a body of evidence to the extent where every rationale for keeping on doing self-harm was destroyed. That was back in 1963. I was in the student store at UCLA perusing a book called _Smoking and the Public Interest,_ published by the Consumer's Union. That day I stood transfixed in front of the book rack, reading about what smoke does to the lungs and how it creates cancer. There was simply nothing else to do than to stop smoking right then and there, and that's what I did. Over the last several days I've had that kind of experience again of being overwhelmed by a relentless progression of evidence. It's like being sat on by an elephant: you can't ignore it! So — if you want to gain maximum health, switch over to a whole food plant-based way of eating for the rest of your life. 

This post is addressed to all those with an open mind. To the rest, I've nothing to say. Nothing gets through to anyone heavily invested in staying with a particular belief. I wish one and all the very best. 

Barley


----------



## Ermundo (Jun 2, 2007)

Personally my friend, in my limited number of years upon this good green earth, and with my atrocious vocabulary of the English language, I have come up with a conclusion. Maybe it is wrong, and I need to be hung at the gallows for thinking such, or maybe, just maybe, a small seed of truth rings loud and clear in this thought. Whichever of the two situations it may be, here it is.

From the day one is born, to the day one passes on, he or she has the power to do something. Something that can change the fates of millions, maybe, or save him a small crumb of mercy from a vicious enemy. Anything within that range, and beyond. This thing that one can do..., is *choose*. Wither it be between a life of crime, or a life of success, a man who deserved punishment, and a man who's seen too much of it. Whatever the choices are that are presented before your eyes, it is *YOU* that makes a gamble of one over the other. 

In this situation, I believe that, beyond all the grease and fat, the obesity, the cholesterol and a whole pit of these vile words, you can make a decision. A decision in which the outcomes of each choice will change your life for better, or worse. If you happen to be overweight, or even obese, and you want to change that, than all I can say is this: Make the RIGHT choice. It's pretty obvious, but terribly tough to do. To cut down on the calories by, as Barley said, become a vegetarian. To eat the right foods and not that processed stuff you may fill your bellies with. A pretty radical process, and one which requires a great amount of dedication and will, especially if you've lived your entire life with all those unnecessary pounds. Some people may make excuses, saying that it's not their fault they can't change, that they were just born like this or something of the sort. Well, (and this is to me at least)if that is your facade, than you are truly lying. Any human, and I mean any, that wants to become healthy and live to see a new generation, can do such, but only if they have the will.


----------



## Ancalagon (Jun 2, 2007)

Barli, I am fairly heavy myself or at least I was until one simple thing registeresd in my very tiny mind! You need to burn more calories than you eat. It is that simple, so I got on a treadmill and walked, until I could run, until I could run and do interval training and that was a milstone in itself. 

It really comes down to mind over body. If you can overcome the old adage, 'if I work out I'm gonna die a painful horrible death' which is a myth, you will succeed. Get yourself onto a machine that propels you forward, and when you think to yourself, I hate Anc' for suggesting this, keep going for another 20minutes!!!!


----------



## Thorin (Jun 2, 2007)

Barliman,

There is no doubt that a vegetarian/vegan diet is more beneficial to the body than a meat eating one. My wife and her parents and many of my friends are vegetarian and I eat quite a bit of vegetarian foods (I would consider myself an omnivore.  )

However, I wouldn't necessarily blame meat eating for the sorry state of cancerous health we experience today. The problem is what _kind_ of meat and foods we are eating. 

Sugar, trans fat, too much salt, processed foods, chemicals and perservatives, toxins, pretty much our packaged and fast foods, and lack of exercise, pure water and oxygen, are throwing our bodies into an acidic state where cancer begins to flourish. You could cut out the meat and with the exception of maybe trans fat, you could still suffer from the above list of disease causing agents.

However, I'm sure if you are the lay person you say, then you already know that. Cutting out meat is a good thing but it isn't necessarily the 'cure all' for health longevity. I would worry about the aforementioned list before I would worry about cutting out meat. At the least, I would make sure the meat I ate was steriod/chemical free and organic.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jun 3, 2007)

In response to posts #3 and #4:

_The China Study,_ p. 349: "Published data show that animal protein promotes the growth of tumors. Animal protein increases the levels of a hormone, IGF-1, which is a risk factor for cancer, and high-casein (the main protein of cow's milk) diets allow more carcinogens into cells, which allow more dangerous carcinogen products to bind to DNA, which allow more mutagenic reactions that give rise to cancer cells, which allow more rapid growth of tumors once they are initially formed. Data show that a diet based on animal-based foods increases a female's production of reproductive hormones over her lifetime, which may lead to breast cancer. _We now have a deep and broad range of evidence showing that a whole foods, plant-based diet is best for cancer."_

[As well as heart disease, diabetes, autoimmune diseases, kidneys, intestines, bones, eyes, and brains. Hell, the whole damn body!]

p. 59: "...one more issue would yield explosive information: did it make any difference what type of protein was used in these experiments? For all of these experiments, we were using casein, which makes up 87% of cow's milk protein. So the next logical question was whether plant protein, tested in the same way, has the same effect on cancer promotion as casein. The answer is an astonishing 'NO.' _In these experiments, plant protein did not promote cancer growth, even at the higher levels of intake._ An undergraduate premedical student doing an honors degree with me, David Schulsinger, did the study. _Gluten, the protein of wheat, did not produce the same results as casein, even when fed at the same 20% level."_

===============================

To Anc: Thanks for them thar good words! I walk three miles a day on my treadmill almost every day, and do strength training MWF.

To Thorin: Even the very finest cuts of the finest organic meat has _protein,_ and _protein_ in the amounts we in America usually ingest is the catalyst that instructs our genes to become cancerous in the presence of carcinogens. _*This is the thing about beef — and fish, and fowl — that the meat industry doesn't want you to know.*_ The evidence is laid out irrefutably in _The China Study_. While nothing is a cure-all, eliminating meat means eliminating protein in catalytic _cancer-causing_ amounts. I won't be mad if you don't believe it. (And as stated above, plant protein can be ingested in equal amounts or more, and there is no such reaction.) I will only include you among the millions of Americans who've been _lied to over the years_ by the all-powerful meat/dairy industry (with their limitless millions of advertising dollars at their disposal), into believing their hogwash. All I can do is recommend that you (and everyone who holds the usual beliefs about animal foods) take a good look at the book.

Barley


----------



## Thorin (Jun 3, 2007)

Well, I can't say that I haven't been lied to...but I can say that I'm not American. 

Barliman, don't get me wrong. I know that meat can cause cancer. I am quite health conscious as well and am not one of the FDA worshiping, drug pushing, pooh-poohing anything natural skeptics.

I do believe that we in North America consume too much protein and our sources of protein are not the best.

However, I still stand by my original comments that meat is not the worst form of carcinogens we consume. Even vegetarians can take in MSG, artificial sweeteners, sugar, fat and salt that are all cancer and disease causing agents too. Trust me. I'm a Seventh Day Adventist and I've seen what has been brought to church potlucks. Not a stitch of meat anywhere there...but that doesn't mean that what is brought is healthy.

I would say that some vegetarians are just as toxic as some meat eaters. We live in a toxic world. They are killing us both meat eaters and vegetarians alike. Vegetarians have an advantage over meat eaters no doubt but they are still toxic. Probably half of the people I know who died from cancer were vegetarians.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jun 3, 2007)

Thorin said:


> Well, I can't say that I haven't been lied to...but I can say that I'm not American.
> 
> Barliman, don't get me wrong. I know that meat can cause cancer. I am quite health conscious...
> 
> ...



I'm not disputing any of what you say. It is surely a fact that "meat isn't the worst carcinogen." And vegetarianism _per se_ is surely not a magic bullet against disease, and I'm not claiming that. What I _am_ saying is that 1) those eating a Western (read that "American") diet high on meat/fat are getting cancer faster than those on a plant-based diet such as the traditional diets in Asian countries, and 2) the American meat industries have kept from us the fact that animal protein in the amounts consumed in the Western diet is the catalytic agent for cancer in the presence of the carcinogens you rightly say are in our bodies.

By the way, I once had a lot to do with Seventh Day Adventists: There was a point in the early 80s when I was working on my MA in counseling psych, and part of it included working in an alcohol rehab clinic in the Loma Linda Hospital in Southern California. It was a truly excellent experience.

Barley


----------



## Grond (Jun 3, 2007)

Barley,

I must protest, not because I doubt anything you've said or because I think meat is good or bad; but because you are basing a complete change in lifestyle on a single scientific source. One must analyze potential motives for findings before embracing them. 

A few things to consider:
1) You've already pointed out, "This is extremely provocative science..." yet you seem to champion it as proven fact. The fact that even some neo-liberal groups have not championed the cause ought to give concern.

2) China has a huge financial and economic interest in convincing their population that vegen is best (since vegen cost per calorie is significantly lower than animal sourced calories). China's huge population and limited resources make it imperitive they remain on a rice based diet. 

3) It's also interesting that you didn't address anything out of their research on the environment of China at the time of the study. I think that China is now deemed the world's greatest polluter (I could be wrong as the USA could still be first). I wonder what type of effects their movement to coal based power generating units is having of the health and welfare of their population?

Again, I'm not stating you're input is right or wrong, I'm simply saying that one shouldn't accept something this conterversial as fact.

Lastly, I'll say that I am convinced a modified vegan diet is significantly more healthful for one's body than a meat based diet. I'm convinced that the much shorter lifespan of past human histories going all the way back to our ancestor hunter/gatherer's was as much diet related as anything else.

Just "food for thought" (tongue in cheek). 

Cheers,

grond


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jun 3, 2007)

Grond said:


> Barley,
> 
> I must protest, not because I doubt anything you've said or because I think meat is good or bad; but because you are basing a complete change in lifestyle on a single scientific source. One must analyze potential motives for findings before embracing them.



Hi Grond! This single scientific source isn't really that. The book is by a single _author_, but the science covers dozens and dozens of sources in several countries (and thousands of experiments and studies) over a span of 30+ years. The book is about what all of it led to. All I can do is to suggest you look at the book, perhaps do a bit of browsing in a bookstore. I apologize if I have misled you.



> A few things to consider:
> 1) You've already pointed out, "This is extremely provocative science..." yet you seem to champion it as proven fact. The fact that even some neo-liberal groups have not championed the cause ought to give concern.



Yes. After reading the book and going through the research listed, I am absolutely convinced that it is indeed a proven fact that: animal protein ingested in Western dietary amounts causes cancer in the presence of carcinogens. As for neo-liberal groups, the book stands totally outside of political positioning except for the unavoidable internecine political battles necessary in fighting the entrenched and powerful establishment.



> 2) China has a huge financial and economic interest in convincing their population that vegen is best (since vegen cost per calorie is significantly lower than animal sourced calories). China's huge population and limited resources make it imperitive they remain on a rice based diet.



I'm sure what you say is true. Nevertheless, part of the thrust of the book involves comparisons in cultural diets (Filipino as well as Chinese) — comparing Asian traditional diets (primarily plant-based) to modern Western (primarily animal-based) diets — again, completely apart from the existing _national_ politics. Mind you, there is _plenty_ of politics wherein "status quo" scientists (many hired by the establishment) fight off new ideas! 



> 3) It's also interesting that you didn't address anything out of their research on the environment of China at the time of the study. I think that China is now deemed the world's greatest polluter (I could be wrong as the USA could still be first). I wonder what type of effects their movement to coal based power generating units is having of the health and welfare of their population?



All this research began back when Chuo EnLai was dying of cancer, and commissioned the original China Study. I can see you're coming to this from a political stance; the book is about pure science. The study was concerned with how protein — animal protein specifically — affects tumor growth. The kind of pollution you speak of wasn't part of the study.



> Again, I'm not stating you're input is right or wrong, I'm simply saying that one shouldn't accept something this conterversial as fact.



First, just because something is controversial (as compared to the status quo) doesn't mean it isn't true. Being "controversial" simply means being different from currently accepted facts. That can change, and that's what good science is about. Second, this is a wide and deep longtitudinal series of studies lasting over three decades spreading out internationally. We are dealing with facts that are as settled as the fact that smoking is a primary cause of lung cancer.

Consider this: Those who primarily eat plants virtually _never_ get the "diseases of affluence" that afflict those who eat the "American heart attack diet." This is beyond dispute. What Campbell is saying is simply that when the human body is fed optimal foods, it flourishes in vibrant health. And he then proceeds to describe it. This is such a simple concept that it causes consternation among doctors who are soaked in the doctrines of surgery and drugs (they'd lose their livelihoods were their patients to take over their own health simply by eating right), and in the drug and meat industries which would simply vanish if this diet were adopted by the public at large. They _cannot_ afford to let that happen! So they have fought tooth and nail to discredit Dr. Campbell and everything he's done, and anyone who sides with him. Doctors have been threatened with their careers if they step out of line.



> Lastly, I'll say that I am convinced a modified vegan diet is significantly more healthful for one's body than a meat based diet. I'm convinced that the much shorter lifespan of past human histories going all the way back to our ancestor hunter/gatherer's was as much diet related as anything else.
> 
> Just "food for thought" (tongue in cheek).



Thanks! **munch munch** Mmmmmm, yum!






Barley


----------



## Grond (Jun 3, 2007)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> "...among doctors who are soaked in the doctrines of surgery and drugs (they'd lose their livelihoods were their patients to take over their own health simply by eating right), and in the drug and meat industries which would simply vanish if this diet were adopted by the public at large. They _cannot_ afford to let that happen! So they have fought tooth and nail to discredit Dr. Campbell and everything he's done, and anyone who sides with him..."
> Barley


Think of who could reap the most if we were to change our diets. If I remember correctly, the USA has the capacity to feed the entire world if all the farm areas were actually farmed. Instead, we subsidize most of the so-called "farm industries" which include livestock. Drop beef, pork and chicken, then encourage the farming of vegetables for domestic and foreign consumption and no one in the world would go hungry... except for politics. 

Cheers,

grond


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jun 3, 2007)

Grond said:


> Think of who could reap the most if we were to change our diets. If I remember correctly, the USA has the capacity to feed the entire world if all the farm areas were actually farmed. Instead, we subsidize most of the so-called "farm industries" which include livestock. Drop beef, pork and chicken, then encourage the farming of vegetables for domestic and foreign consumption and no one in the world would go hungry... except for politics.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> grond



Think PLUTOCRACY...

Barley


----------



## Firawyn (Jun 3, 2007)

*sigh* 'Weightology' (pardon the term) is really a fascinating thing to study.

In my experience, what makes a person overweight, or what can help them loose that weight varies in individuals. (I know I really have very little room to talk here, as I am 5"4' and a whopping 120 pounds)

My mother is overweight, due to careless "I'm only five pounds heavier than last year, I don't need to loose that". This thought pattern, over a course of twenty years, is...not good to say the least.

My aunt is overweight, due to not eating as a young woman, and completely trashing her metabolism. This (heed this warning all you young people worried about loosing weight - starving yourself will make it worse in the long run!)

My grandmother is overweight, due to diabetes and other health problems. This is the most understandable of all the causes of weight problems, but none the less needs to be addressed. 

In some one's case like my mother, it's vigorous workouts that help her loose the pounds. For my aunt, there's little she can do anymore (she's tried) but to eat well NOW, and do all she can to not add to the problem. For my grandmother, it's dieting that does help the weight go down.

My point here is simply that there is not one method of loosing weight that works for everyone, because people gain it for different reasons. I personality do struggle with maintaining my current weight, because I've learned from the mistakes of others. I hate Burger King with an passion. American society is "fast". Fast paced, fast lives, fast food. We claim to have so much freedom to do this and that, yet we are destroying ourselves with french fries.

Sorry, I know I'm going on a rant again. I'm trying not to come off rude or stuck up or anything, the subject just frustrates me, because we are supposed to be smarter than this. Anyway, I made my point (first sentence in the previous paragraph!  ) I'm going to shut up now.

Fir-


----------



## Grond (Jun 3, 2007)

I think Barley and his research book are advocating a metabolistic equilibrium which can be brought about by a purely or largely vegen diet. When you acheive this state through controlled or non-intake of animal protein, the body's weight will stabilize at that individual's "natural" weight. (Am I on the right track here, Barley?)

He has provided us with his source and why he deems it accurate. I can't really argue with anything he's said until I read the book. Let's see... www.amazon.com.

Cheers,

grond


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jun 3, 2007)

@Firawyn: What the _China Study_ is saying is this: the human body has certain ideal requirements, which seem to be covered by eating similar to the traditional Asian dietary: mainly vegetables and grains (with a bit of fish) and fruit. Feed the body what it needs, and the body will do its miracles with it.

Our modern Western diet is pretty much the creation of the food industry (and its tampered-with foods), which is based on profits for the industry rather than health for the public.

Even without the China Study, a comparison of world cultures and their eating patterns show time and time again that in general, a plant-based dietary is healthier and more beneficial than an animal-based dietary. It is an old story by now: as traditional diets become more "Americanized," the congenital "diseases of affluence" begin showing up in cultures where they never existed before.

@Grond: Pretty much right on! (BTW, here's the Amazon link to _The China Study_. You can actually look at a few pages on the site, at least a couple of which synopsizes the main concepts of the book.)

Barley


----------



## Thorin (Jun 4, 2007)

Firawyn said:


> My aunt is overweight, due to not eating as a young woman, and completely trashing her metabolism. This (heed this warning all you young people worried about loosing weight - starving yourself will make it worse in the long run!)



Tell me about it. As a teacher of junior high/highschool students, this has been the hardest mindset to overcome in the young women who grace my classroom. I have put facts after facts and presentation after presentation to discredit this view so they can understand that if they want to lose weight, they HAVE to eat.

Sadly, some just don't get it. It is very frustrating.


----------



## Firawyn (Jun 4, 2007)

@Thorin
I know what you mean. I see two types of people in my generation. There are the obsessive skin and bones types, and then there are the already overweight doesn't care ones.

The truly sad parts is that the ones that care so much about being thing now are the ones that will more likely become heavier as they get older. On the flip side it's the teens and young adults that are heavy now that are more likely to get thinner with age, as hormones and metabolism balances out.





(@Barley: Hey check it out, my spelling continues to improve!)


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jun 4, 2007)

Firawyn said:


> (@Barley: Hey check it out, my spelling continues to improve!)



Impressive!

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Nov 26, 2007)

Ermundo said:


> ..From the day one is born, to the day one passes on, he or she has the power to do something. Something that can change the fates of millions, maybe, or save him a small crumb of mercy from a vicious enemy. Anything within that range, and beyond. This thing that one can do..., is *choose*.
> 
> ...beyond all the grease and fat, the obesity, the cholesterol and a whole pit of these vile words, you can make a decision....any, that wants to become healthy and live to see a new generation, can do such, but only if they have the will.



Well put, and certainly well meant! Unfortunately, there's more to it. Willpower alone doesn't do it, especially when there's addiction involved, such as a sugar addiction, and please don't scoff. Sugar and alcohol are, molecularly speaking, almost identical, and so can it be with their addictions. And not just physical addictions, but psychological addictions as well, plus the tendency to use food to self-medicate and mediate spiritual pain. There can also be hormonal imbalances as well. 

And of course there is this too:

"It is human nature to think wisely and act foolishly." —_Anatole France_

Barley


----------



## Eledhwen (Nov 27, 2007)

The BBC is doing a series (daytime, unfortunately) that asks the question "What's really in our food?" Day 1 (yesterday) was a lesson in how to read nutritional labelling. Today looked at fast food, including Starbucks (one large drink and a muffin = 1000 calories).

This stuff needs to go out prime time to be effective; but the link I've provided above has some video footage of the programme. For those who don't know London, Kensington (on the third clip) is where Harrods is, and where Diana Princess of Wales lived.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Nov 30, 2007)

Eledhwen said:


> The BBC is doing a series (daytime, unfortunately) that asks the question "What's really in our food?" Day 1 (yesterday) was a lesson in how to read nutritional labelling. Today looked at fast food, including Starbucks (one large drink and a muffin = 1000 calories).



Apropos of "what's really in your food," I recommend the following titles as required reading: _The China Study_ by Colin and Thomas Campbell, and _Diet for a Poisoned Planet_ by David Steinman.

Between these two books, if they don't change your eating habits, nothing will. I'm not talking "fear;" I'm talking enlightenment. These books are milestones in the dissemination of proper nutrition principles.

Barley


----------



## Firawyn (Dec 3, 2007)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> Apropos of "what's really in your food," I recommend the following titles as required reading: _The China Study_ by Colin and Thomas Campbell, and _Diet for a Poisoned Planet_ by David Steinman.
> 
> Between these two books, if they don't change your eating habits, nothing will. I'm not talking "fear;" I'm talking enlightenment. These books are milestones in the dissemination of proper nutrition principles.
> 
> Barley




Barley, 

If you had to pick one of those two books (very interested, low on money) which would you recommend? If you can't pick, which one first? 

Fir-


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 4, 2007)

Firawyn said:


> Barley,
> 
> If you had to pick one of those two books (very interested, low on money) which would you recommend? If you can't pick, which one first?
> 
> Fir-


Following the links, I am impressed by the reviews for Diet for a Poisoned Planet (a revised edition of a 1990 publication). There are no reviews for The China Study, but it too looks excellent.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 5, 2007)

Firawyn said:


> Barley,
> 
> If you had to pick one of those two books (very interested, low on money) which would you recommend? If you can't pick, which one first?
> 
> Fir-



I would pick at least _The China Study,_ because it makes the case (a 30-year longitudinal study) for becoming a vegetarian and for buying organic whenever possible. The _Poisoned Planet_ book makes the case, in short, for buying organic food be it plant _or_ animal.

To Eledhwen: You missed the _China Study_ reviews, m'dear — here they are. 

Barley


----------



## Firawyn (Dec 5, 2007)

Great! I'll get to that ASAP. Thanks Barley.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 6, 2007)

Firawyn said:


> Great! I'll get to that ASAP. Thanks Barley.



Always a pleasure. 

Barley


----------

