The Future of Nutrition: An Insider's Look at the Science, Why We Keep Getting It Wrong, and How to Start Getting It Right by T. Colin Campbell

The Future of Nutrition: An Insider's Look at the Science, Why We Keep Getting It Wrong, and How to Start Getting It Right Reviews

• 
  Ryan Boissonneault

  Imagine that, in the United States, there were an excess of one million deaths every year that could be prevented, relatively easily, with only a few lifestyle adjustments. You would imagine this to be a top public health priority, and that our health care professionals would be trained to offer the requisite counseling and advice. This would be reasonable for you to think, but you would be wrong.
  
  In The Future of Nutrition, nutritional biochemist and Cornell University professor T. Colin Campbell describes the link between nutrition and disease and why nutrition has been downplayed as an integral part of disease care for decades. Campbell—in synthesizing 60 years of his own and others’ research—details the personal and institutional biases—along with the food industry’s profound influence over nutrition science—in creating an environment where disease care is focused on surgical and pharmaceutical interventions at the expense of long-term health through proper nutrition.
  
  As Campbell explains, the leading causes of death in the US (as of 2017) are:
  
  1. Heart disease (647,000)
  2. Cancer (599,000)
  3. Accidents (170,000)
  4. Chronic lower respiratory disease (160,000)
  5. Stroke (146,000)
  6. Medical errors (250,000–440,000)
  
  What you will notice about this list is the preventable nature of many of these diseases, which result from malnutrition or, more specifically, excess nutrition. The over-consumption of processed foods high in simple sugars and fat (and animal protein) results in obesity, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, and other pathophysiology that has been shown to increase one’s risk for heart disease, stroke, and even some forms of cancer.
  
  As Campbell demonstrates, if adjusted for malnutrition, the leading causes of death in the US would look as follows (these are conservative estimates):
  
  1. Heart disease (65,000)
  2. Cancer (180,000)
  3. Accidents (170,000)
  4. Chronic lower respiratory disease (160,000)
  5. Stroke (73,000)
  6. Medical errors (50,000)
  
  All told, with proper nutrition, more than 1.2 million lives could be saved in the US every year (or more). Heart disease and stroke have an obvious link to nutrition; cancer is less obvious but supported by extensive research (much of it conducted by the author); and medical errors would be reduced as fewer people required surgical and medical care.
  
  Yet despite the nutritional origin of these excess deaths, our health care professionals are largely untrained in the role of nutrition in the promotion of general health. In the United States, disease prevention and treatment is centered on surgical and pharmaceutical interventions, not on the underlying cause of disease.
  
  Campbell shows that, in 2017, 55 percent of Americans took prescription drugs, taking four per day on average and spending an average of $1,162 every year. The United States is also one of only two countries in the world to permit direct-to-consumer TV advertising of drugs instead of advertising to qualified physicians. Pharmaceutical interventions, of course, in many cases act only as band aids—you can take medication to lower your blood pressure, but the underlying cause of your high blood pressure is likely to be based on your lifestyle choices (diet and exercise).
  
  So the US spends more money on health care and medications than almost any other country and yet our life expectancy is decreasing. As Campbell wrote:
  
  “Our declining life expectancy leaves America ranked forty-fourth in the world, an astonishing and disturbing rank considering that we have the highest per capita health care costs in the world, by an eye popping margin.”
  
  How could we have allowed this to happen? As Campbell explains, the profession has neglected the role of nutrition “not as a matter of conspiracy, but due to a combination of more mundane human defects like stubbornness, bias, and conformity.” Campbell discusses at length how, for example, cancer institutes were founded on a local theory of disease by surgeons that preferred and were more familiar with surgery, rather than on a constitutional theory of disease that recognized nutrition’s larger role in the prevention and treatment of cancer. This, along with bias, public confusion, and the influence of the agricultural and dairy industry on nutrition science and research has all contributed to our underestimation of the role of nutrition across the spectrum of disease care.
  
  The science does seem to strongly support Campbell’s claims, even if they seem, at times in the book, to be a bit exaggerated. For instance, Campbell asserts that “our ability to treat cancer has not improved, despite an extraordinary amount of resources dedicated to this mission.” While cancer is still a leading cause of death, with nutrition as an integral component of its prevention and treatment, to say that we haven’t made any progress outside of nutrition science in its treatment seems to be a bit of a stretch.
  
  Further, not every type of cancer can be prevented or treated with nutrition (think childhood cancers, which could not possibly be the result of a lifetime of poor nutrition). Even by Campbell’s own estimation, and even if corrected for malnutrition, there would still be around 180,000 cases of cancer every year in the US that we would have to figure out how to treat outside of nutritional recommendations.
  
  Campbell also states that “not a single US medical school trains doctors in nutrition.” A quick look at the curriculum at my local medical school—The University of New England College of Osteopathic Medicine—shows classes devoted specifically to nutrition.
  
  Having spent decades with fellow researchers and scientists challenging the legitimacy of his work, Campbell might (justifiably) feel the need to make categorical statements such as these, but it can come across as dogmatic and exaggerated—which isn’t necessarily helping his case.
  
  Still, Campbell seems to be largely correct in that nutrition takes a back seat in the US in terms of both disease care and the education of our health care providers. And the public remains just as confused, as conflicting information is presented, nutritional guidance neglects the science (particularly in regard to protein consumption recommendations), and fad diets come and go.
  
  As just one example, consider that in 2015 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization labeled processed meat as carcinogenic and red meat as “probably carcinogenic.” However, as Campbell wrote:
  
  “In a 2018 update on those findings [meat as carcinogenic], the IARC reminded the public that ‘red meat contains proteins of high biological value, as well as important micronutrients such as B-vitamins, iron...and zinc.’ Why would IARC go out of its way to sing the praises of a food that they labeled ‘probably carcinogenic,��� when all the available evidence suggests a diet free of red meat could provide the same nutrients, if not more safely and effectively. Besides their long-time concern for chemical carcinogens and long-time disregard for nutrition, perhaps it’s also because they’re unable to see beyond the so-called biological value of animal-based protein, even when contradictions arise?”
  
  Campbell then outlines a series of animal studies that shows that animal protein—specifically casein, which is found in milk—has been found to be among the most powerful carcinogens ever discovered.
  
  And that’s why Campbell has consistently advocated for a simple, scientifically-backed whole foods, plant-based (WFPB) diet. The WFPB diet avoids the types of foods and nutrients shown to be carcinogenic and disease-producing and recommends the types of foods and nutrients shown to lead to better health and, in some cases, shown to be actually carcinostatic (capable of inhibiting the growth of malignant tumors).
  
  Why should this simple, common-sense diet consisting of fruits and vegetables (validated by numerous scientific studies) be so controversial? Because we’ve been repeatedly fed the myth that animal protein is of a higher quality than plant protein when, in fact, this is not the case.
  
  Despite the link between animal protein and disease, including cancer, we instead blame fat, cholesterol, environmental toxins, and anything and everything else simply so that we can delude ourselves into continuing to enjoy our favorite foods—while the marketing arms of the agricultural, dairy, and pharmaceutical industries are more than happy to appease these delusions.
  
  The underlying problem here is the reductionist nature of nutrition research and the search for single nutrients as the cause of health or disease. As Campbell explains, nutrition and metabolism are too complex to be fully understood in reductionist terms, and it’s more beneficial to look at overall eating habits and the correlations between complete diets and health.
  
  When you do, you can see that Western diets correlate highly with disease and cancer, and that the staple of Western diets is animal-based products. Denying this link—on the grounds that it is not “conclusive”—is like denying the link between smoking and lung cancer. Clearly, there is something wrong with the Western diet when compared to almost any other.
  
  Campbell is asserting that animal protein is in fact the driver of the link between Western diets and disease and cancer, but, admittedly, there is some question as to whether he has the right idea here. While there is a correlation between animal protein and disease and cancer, people that consume large quantities of meat and animal products are also likely to consume large quantities of processed foods, refined sugars, and fats. Since it’s hard to tease out all of these ingredients and physiological reactions, it’s more than possible that processed foods, rather than animal protein, is the real driver of disease and cancer. Campbell seems to be too quick to dismiss this possibility (although there is laboratory research to support the case for animal protein as a driver of cancer growth).
  
  Either way, what’s incredible about the research in this book is that there has not been a single study that links whole plant foods with any increased prevalence of disease or cancer. It seems pretty clear that adopting a whole food, plant-based diet will decrease your risk of disease and cancer and that there seems to be no research available contradicting this claim. Therefore, even if you don’t want to give up meat, animal products, or processed foods entirely—as Campbell recommends—the degree to which you can replace these foods with plant-based foods is the degree to which you can improve your health.
  
• 
  Geoff

  There are few branches of science (applied or theoretical) that are more confusing to me right now than nutrition. Totally opposed diets (Paleo vs. CICO vs. whole food plant based vs. etc. etc. to infinity) each have adherents that trumpet that their diet is the only solution. This book, unfortunately, contributes to that confusion by eroding my confidence in the institutions that are shepherding nutritional knowledge to the public.
  
  Campbell is an insider's outsider, an Ivy League professor emeritus involved with many of the major academic and governmental institutions supporting nutrition research and recommendations. He also has a very strong view on animal protein, that it is the major (maybe only?) cause of heart disease and cancer. I find the strong version of that argument too extreme (especially when he discounts any impact of genetics), and while the weaker version sounds more compelling, this isn't the book that provides the evidence to judge it. So it mostly just left me feeling more confused.
  
  His argument was more compelling when he takes a post-modern, slightly cynical, "science as a process" approach and shows the way that research is lost, scientific consensus, narratives, and paradigms are built, and the ways that dissenting views are discouraged and diminished. He's very convincing on the topics of regulatory capture and groupthink in institutions. The only problem is is that this leaves me with no one to trust when it comes to nutrition advice. It's enough to make me want to throw up my hands and eat a donut.
  
  **Thanks to the author, publisher, and NetGalley for a free copy in exchange for an honest review.
• 
  Melise

  When I read the description of this book, I was very interested in reading it. I am old enough to have lived through various diet fads: The Atkins Diet (which one of my relatives insisted meant she could snack on as many pork rinds as she wanted), the Mediterranean Diet, low-fat, low-carb, eat only meat, eat only fruit, eat only grapefruit, eat only before 5 pm, etc. The author is an academic who has spent many years researching and teaching about nutrition. He is an advocate of the Whole-Food, Plant-Based diet, which he has written about in his previous books. I was really interested in reading a book that examined the research behind beliefs about nutrition, and would help me sort out what foods I should be eating.
  
  Unfortunately that is not what I got with this book. The book focuses on how nutrition science has repeatedly touted the importance and benefits of animal-based protein, and has rejected or ignored studies suggesting that animal-based foods may have major negative effects on our health. The author describes a number of studies that have been ignored or under appreciated by nutrition scientists that bolster his thesis, but he delves into so many details about each and every study that it becomes repetitive and tiresome. In addition, The book is quite straightforward in tone, except for periodic comments about certain events or statements that feel as if he is taking the reader aside, winking and saying “Well that’s what those people say, but we know better don’t we?” This is to ally jarring, and feels quite arrogant.
  
  Even though his arguments were persuasive, I eventually put the book down at the halfway mark because I was tired of hearing about how what he believed kept being rejected by others, and was put off by the arrogance of the author.
  
  Thanks to BenBella Books for providing an advanced reading copy via NetGalley.
• 
  Bernard Lavallée

  First of all, I really liked its previous book, "Whole", which I felt brought new concepts when it came out in 2013.
  
  This book however, not so much.
  
  It's so odd to have a book titled "The future of nutrition", when most of the references and examples used throughout are at least 20 years old, if not older.
  
  This book is in defense of the "Whole food plant based diet", which wasn't clear from the description. The author's thesis seemed flawed : science, scientists and health professionals refuse to acknowledge the link between nutrition and cancer, and refuse to acknowledge that a plant based diet is healthy. Maybe 40 years ago, when a lot of the examples in the book are taken from, but not today.
  
  It also felt really disingenuous to say scientists cherry pick convenient studies to protect meat eating, when so much newer science has been omitted from this book. For example, there is literally no mention of nutritionism nor of the NOVA concept, which would even support the author's points. Just these two examples demonstrate that his definition of "the future of nutrition" is already late by a decade or more.
• 
  Dora Okeyo

  If there is anything that makes me relate to this book is the question my Grandmother once asked me, "why is it that what's good for you tastes like punishment when you have to take it to live?" She'd just suffered another ulcer attack and the doctor suggested a lifestyle change, refused to give her the medication she always took or upgrade it.
  Three years later and she is strong and can even eat pepper! So, yes, there is so much research and information provided to governments and corporations on health, but where money is concerned, the likelihood to push for things that would drive another industry is high. I feel it is the same with meat, dairy and processed food. I have never read Dr. Campbell's study and book on whole food plant based nutrition and now I am looking more closely at what I eat, how I eat and also cutting down on sugar and it's proving quite interesting.
  Thanks for the eARC Netgalley.
• 
  Lindsay Nixon

  If you’re not new to the plant-based diet or Colins work, you might be a little bored. This book, however, is a great history and summary of his career and work.
  
  Of course it also highlights the myriad of myths we are given around nutrition and how big corps are making us sick with their products and how they pay lobbyists / influence government standards and regulations.
  
  10% of calories from protein is the upper limit and those protein calories should mainly come from plants.
• 
  Annie

  Originally published on my blog:
  Nonstop Reader.
  
  The Future of Nutrition is an expostulatory essay/survey of nutrition and health by
  Dr. T. Colin Campbell. Due out 15th Jan 2020 by
  BenBella Books, it's 350 pages and will be available in hardcover, audio, and ebook formats. It's worth noting that the ebook format has a handy interactive table of contents as well as interactive links. I've really become enamored of ebooks with interactive formats lately.
  
  This is a well written and science based look at whole food plant based (WFPB) nutrition, through the lens of marketing, political movements, government intervention, and the formal academic science establishment. I would point out that the author makes no effort to be completely objective, he does build up a convincing argument, but the arguments he presents are in support of his original premises: namely that health is tied directly and inextricably to nutrition and that to enjoy good health, humans should largely depend on a plant based diet made up of whole (and mostly unprocessed) food as close to its natural state as possible.
  
  The layout is logical and the language will be accessible to most readers. The introductory chapters build up the connection between disease and nutrition along with a capsule survey of the state of disease treatment today.
  
  When I was a young person in secondary school (in the USA) I can remember vividly how quickly the established and accepted pyramid of food groups changed seemingly overnight from a very meat heavy recommended diet to more vegetables and fruits but even then, there was an emphasis on avoiding fats, oils, and refined sugars. The author spends a fair bit of content building up the connection throughout history of the influence of commercial interests on the recommendations which generations of consumers have followed. The changes which came and went rapidly led to confusion and resentment (what can we eat when *everything* is bad for us).
  
  The last section includes the author's conclusions and a call to reflection where (for me personally) he veers off into an uncomfortable judgement of some parts of the formal medical establishment including a scathing rebuke of cytotoxic cancer treatment regimes (chemotherapy).
  
  The author definitely "shows his work". I enjoyed poring over the notes and the exhaustive bibliography and full chapter notes and annotations (did I mention that this is an academic work?). The notes and references are likely worth the price of admission for anyone interested in the subject and there's obviously been a career spanning amount of time spent on research and resource gathering on the part of the author.
  
  I found the entire book quite interesting and fascinating. It is, admittedly, a niche book and will appeal to readers interested in biology, nutrition, and the process of disease, but might not appeal to readers looking for an easy read. The language is rigorous and formal. I definitely don't think it's inaccessible for the average reader, but it will take some effort (and I think that's a good thing). This would make a good support text for classroom or library use, for nutrition and allied subjects, as well as a superlative read for the particularly bio-history-interested.
  
  I do not necessarily agree with all of his conclusions in every detail, but I certainly agree with the basic premise that WFPB diets are good for us and for the planet (and not necessarily good for powerful mega-agro-businesses' bottom line).
  
  Five stars. This is well and deeply researched and engaging.
  
  Disclosure: I received an ARC at no cost from the author/publisher for review purposes.
• 
  Sarah Pizzichemi

  I would recommend reading T. Colin Campbell’s other books, especially The China Study, before reading this one if new to his writings, but highly recommend this book as a follow up for those interested in nutrition sciences and the political agenda of nutrition recommendations. If new to the research on how animal proteins promote cancer, heart disease, and more, the book I recommend reading first is “How Not To Die” by Dr. Michael Greger.
  
  In T. Colin Campbell’s own words, this is what this book is about: “I am humbled to share my most recent findings in The Future of Nutrition. My primary interest is furthering an understanding of nutrition as a science for the entire population, both among citizens and governmental authorities. In this book, we address major societal problems like environmental issues and health care costs and their many manifestations. We review the science behind a whole food, plant-based lifestyle by focusing on health care over disease care.”
  
  T. Colin Campbell has been at the forefront of nutrition research for well over 40 years, and his legacy, The China Study, is the most comprehensive study of health and nutrition ever conducted. Dr. Campbell is the Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University. He has received more than 70 grant years of peer-reviewed research funding and authored more than 300 research studies. The China Study was the culmination of a 20-year partnership of Cornell University, Oxford University and the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine.
  
  With so many incredible credentials and years of service to society, it is really disappointing to hear how close minded and bought off the centers for cancer research, governmental agencies, and committees are that they have tried so hard to suppress Campbell’s research. While I was aware of this, Campbell’s specific experiences when listed out in the way they are in the first half of this book are staggering. He also talks about the history of this kind of information suppression from earlier researchers. It really does play out so similarly to what we see historically with the smoking industry and the suppression of research and governmental changes, and Campbell discloses the information behind that field of research in the past as well.
  
  Campbell also discusses some follow up ideas to the misguided approach of reductive research that focuses on specific nutrients instead of the complexity of whole food, as he did in his book “Whole”.
  
  I really appreciated the follow up chapter on COVID-19 and pandemics in general, and the ways in which this particular research may be a helpful part of the puzzle of resolving resistance to viruses.
  
  For those interested in the politicization of food, this is the book for you. It is an appeal to society, especially those with power in academia, government, and other institutions that make recommendations to consumers about nutrition.
  
  While aimed at scientists, researchers, and policymakers, those interested in the politics of science and how science is conducted will also get a lot out of this book.
  
  As I stated in my first paragraph, Campbell’s other books and those by Dr. Michael Greger will be more immediately useful for anyone just learning about a WFPB (whole food plant based) diet and looking for practical nutrition advice.
• 
  Rebecca

  My favorite part ...."Whole food plant based nutrition is disruptive science. It threatens to disrupt many industries - pharmaceutical, food production, clinical care, hospitalization and these industries are well aware of the threat."
• 
  Jessi Kirby

  Although this book is ostensibly about the future of nutrition, much of it is a historical dive into the Western pattern diet, which is infused with an overall poor understanding of nutrition. A true societal appeal. He focuses on reductivism versus “wholeism.” He spells it with a “w” to distinguish its meaning from the word “holistic” and all its new-agey associations. This work is based in science, not fads. Campbell speaks to the conflict of interest between industry and academia. Why should we reduce our thinking to individual nutrients over the complexity of Whole Foods? Campbell answers this with a look into our ancestral past when it comes to nutrition.
  
  All of that being said, this book is aimed at scientists and researchers interested in the politics of food regulation in the U.S., not the average consumer. One of the most fascinating pieces I’ve read in a while.
• 
  MsChris

  I am a huge fan of Dr. Campbell’s and fully support a whole food plant based diet, with that being said, this book is not what I expected. Almost all of it is about the history of food research and the food industry. Almost none of it is actually about the future of nutrition. I’m not sure it truly adds anything to the literature that he has already written.
• 
  Floor Broekman

  This book amazes you again and again with hard facts. The story is clearly structured and really make you think about your lifestyle and eating habits. I did think however that the book contained a lot of repetition, but still recommended.
• 
  Jim Angstadt

  Way too much history and detail.
• 
  An Te

  A wholesome book on the whole-foods plant based (WFPB) diet. The discussion is varied and includes many references which support the WFPB lifestyle, with underhand assumptions from others opposed to this lifestyle.
  
  One of the most compelling points of the book was when the '(w)holism' criterion was recommended as a addition to existing Bradford-Hill Criteria to determine causation in human population studies. Wholism amends the inadequacy of the current 'reductionistic' outlook which fails to consider the wider context, societal and whole person effects of any intervention. For instance, glucose studies cannot account for all metabolic steps but itself makes assumptions to control major sources of (potential) biases. The complexity of the metabolic pathway is partly captured by Donald Nicholson's diagram:
  http://iubmb-nicholson.org/chart.html
  
  Of course, this needs updating, most likely, further pathways, but we have no complete understanding of every metabolite. And because of this, we should have an additional criteria which makes up for this deficiency of the reductionistic paradigm by considering visible population effects within the person or groups of individuals.
  
  It truly is a book about nutrition because it enables us to better understand the implication of assuming there is a magic bullet for each ailment. There isn't, as yet, as we do not completely understand the metabolic pathways. Zooming all the way out to an individual and group level, we can see the power of a WFPB lifestyle at vastly lowering the likelihood of ill health now and later in life. Unique to WFPB, it has been shown to reverse diabetes and heart disease. And the evidence is in this book with citations.
  
  Simply put, a potentially life-changing book.
• 
  Angela

  I rated it 4/5 because sometimes I got a bit bored with the details of his career and research, but I see the value in what he wrote and why he included it in the book. It is refreshing to read such honesty. His experience and depth of knowledge are impressive. I love that he includes a section of recommendations that are not so radical that they could not be implemented, and yet, what he is proposing is radical in the way we understand health and nutrition. We have been naive and presumptuous in our reductionist thinking.
• 
  Jenn

  This book is very repetitive about the countless times the scientific community has ignored evidence proving the healthy benefits of a whole foods plant based diet. I did not learn much new about what I should be eating.
• 
  Philip

  Excellent history of the deliberate neglect of nutritional information over the last 100+ years in order to push drugs and surgeries
• 
  Julia

  DNF
  
  I didn't like it at all - it had nothing to do with future of nutrition but was a huge list of institutions and scientists that have been against the author, one way or another. Cherry picking of the studies at its best. And even though I am myself reducing the amount of animal protein to minimum, I hated the obnoxious voice of the author, and I had no interest in his personal vendetta against the scientific world. Huge disappointment.
• 
  Michael Murphy

  Seems more concerned with implying or outright claiming a conspiracy theory of information suppression than proving his point. His point by the way is the already well known fact that diets high in fruits and vegetables are healthier than those with meat, though he claims and does not support more than tentatively that food could be used to treat and prevent cancer
• 
  Allyson

  Listened to audiobook. I am very interested in this genre and previously read “How Not to Die.” This book wasn’t particularly additive to that book. If you have read Dr Gregor’s book, I do not think this is worth reading as it’s repetitive. If you haven’t read Dr Gregor’s book, I think this is a good alternative and is much shorter. Four stars for that reason.
• 
  Rogier

  This book is the culmination of a lifetime spent in search of nutritional truth, a search which began in earnest when the author first began to suspect that protein, and in particular milk protein, was not natures best food as he had grown up (on a dairy farm) to believe, like most of us.
  The key discovery, to which he was led by some Indian research from the 1960's, was that he was able to turn cancer growth on and off by varying the level of casein in the diet of rats. At 5% it turned cancer off, at 20% cancer growth was stiumulated. Beyond that again, it was found that plant-based proteins in general were inhibiting tumor growth and animal protein were a stimulus. By the time of the current book, Campbell states simply that milk protein is the single biggest carcinogen in our diets. Quite a long way to go for a kid from a dairy farm.
  
  He does not stop there, however, the current book really brings all of his thinking about holism together (he does not like the term and calls it wholism). He clearly recognizes how the reductionist/materialist point of view and the germ-theory of disease have kept cancer research tied up in knots, trying to find singular causes for a broad systemic problem. In short, Campbell's view is that the issue is more nurture than nature. In other words 30 years of drinking your milk allowed for a damaged cell to grow into cancer, whereas in the alternative, on a plant-based diet, chances are much better that the body repairs the cell damage early on, and a tumor never develops. Hence he suggests that we need to start prioritizing a Whole Foods, Plant-Based diet in all cancer treatment.
  
  At a deeper level, all of Campbell's work is a commentary on the failure of the reductionist/materialist paradigm that has dominated medicine. The six blind men diagnosing the elephant, could do perfectly scientific RCTs and never see the elephant in the first place. In other words if the paradigm itself becomes a limitation on correct analysis and understanding, clearly it is time to change the paradigm. Campbell calls this wholism.
  
  In practical terms, we need to max out the body's natural ability to heal as the first step in any approach to the cancer problem. Certain tumors obviously might still require medical intervention, but by addressing diet and nutrition first, the underlying driver of the illness is removed.
  
  Slowly, plant-based nutrition is being introduced in some medical school curricula, and Campbell's work should be a key stone of that development. The basic Whole Foods, Plant-Based diet should be the default, as it has been proven effective for nearly all chronic illnesses from which people in the industrialized world tend to die. A few diseases might require some fine tuning, but the basic recommendation should be the first choice in almost all cases. Campbell's nutritional paradigm is the anchor for all of the clinical experience in this area, which is now growing at a rapid pace courtesy of the growth in Lifestyle Medicine.
  
  If nutrition and health are areas of interest to you, this book (and it's predecessors, The China Study and Whole) should be on your top shelf. In the process, you will be doing some useful exploring of how our health and healthcare paradigm is changing and must change.
• 
  Teri

  A very dense book with way too much history and background. The science seems sound and I do support the message. Thanks to NetGalley for a complimentary copy of the book in exchange for my honest review.
• 
  Scoots

  Excerpt from Recommendations: Heal Nutrition (P. 256)
  
  Note: "Malnutrition is a word I use advisedly. Although the word is usually reserved for descriptions of diets that are calorie deficient or missing certain essential nutrients, its literal meaning (faulty nutrition) also applies to dietary patterns of excess, which pose a much greater threat to most Americans." (P.23)
  
  "… WFPB nutrition threatens to disrupt many industries - pharmaceutical, food production, clinical care, hospitalisation - and these industries are well aware of this threat. If WFPB nutrition were adopted on a wide scale, many jobs in these industries would be lost and many fortunes would be threatened.
  
  I know of no positive change that did not disrupt what came before it. And surely nutritional ignorance, which has done so much damage and so thoroughly pervades the entire biomedical research and clinical practice system, deserves disruption. Malnutrition is unquestionably the number one cause of death, the number one cause of high runaway costs, and more recently, the number one cause of environmental catastrophe. If we ignore this last consequence, everything else that I’ve written here will be wasted breath. Therefore, in the spirit of survival, I reiterate this final recommendation for the future: heal nutrition.
  
  1. Construct an efficacious nutritional science education program for all accredited medical school curricula. Medical institutions that fail to offer adequate training in nutrition science should not receive government support. Adequate training is best obtained both by classroom instruction and by a practicum (perhaps using the WFPB diet for a period of at least two weeks and monitoring results in an abbreviated lab assessment).
  
  2. Develop reimbursement procedures for primary care physicians who apply this education in nutrition. This current omission is a personal, professional, institutional, societal, and moral disgrace.
  
  3. Establish a new National Institute for Nutrition (to join the current twenty-seven NIH institutes).
  
  4. Transform food subsidy programs to encourage food production that aligns with reliable nutritional evidence and consumer protection.
  
  5. Create a food and nutrition advisory council that truly serves the interests of the consumer and that is financed by an endowment trust fund beyond the influence of corporate financial interests.”
• 
  Kara

  Just okay. He details the ways that nutrition and cancer are linked, and what foods are associated with cancer. He also argues that medical community is lacking in the ways they look at nutrition was a way to combat cancer. I wish he'd gone more in to depth about what is considered a good diet and ways to advocate for yourself instead of just repeating that the medical community isn't paying as much attention to nutrition as they should, because most doctors don't know enough about it.
  
  I received an egalley in exchange for a fair and honest review.
• 
  Connor Yonkers

  THIS BOOK WAS NOT WHAT I EXPECTED WHEN PURCHASED.
  
  In fact, it had little to do with data and information about why WFPB (Whole Food Plant Based) diets are extremely beneficial in preventing/reducing/treating cancer, heart disease, etc. Did it contain this information? Yes. But Campbell often referred to his other books (which are now on my list; The China Study and Whole) to be the best sources for his research on WFPB.
  
  This book instead was an extensive review of historical information on cancer treatment research/development, history of animal-protein and its stigma, history of WFPB research. Not only this, but it covers the current state of these things as well as suggestions to change it in the future.
  
  I ended up loving the information presented even if it wasn’t exactly what I had hoped for which is why I give it a 5/5.
  
  Many people will think Campbell is biased based on his rejected research and such. However, I do not see that to be the case. Rather, I interpret his work done in this book as a revelation of his character: a person who truly desires to seek the truth in health studies and cares about people and their wellbeing, not the money found in other research.
  
  He was bold to make such a book and I will use it as a reference in the future. Also excited to read his other books!
• 
  Sara Hill

  I was so excited to receive The Future of Nutrition by T. Colin Campbell, but that quickly changed while listening.
  
  Even though I agree with a lot of what Campbell says, I found him very whinny. Which made it hard to keep listening, even though the narration was good.
  
  It also seems like Campell is living in the past. He talks a lot about his journey and the history of food and food science, but not a whole lot about the future, which I was expecting with the title. Also, from his past it seems he has a lot of people that either did not treat him right or he has a personal reason for wanting to slander them. I wonder how much of that plays into his views, and it made it hard for me to trust him. He just seems to want revenge on the beef industry and anyone associated with it.
  
  Dan Woren is the reason I gave this book two stars instead of one. His narration was clean, and he kept me listening when I did not want to continue. I would listen to him again.
  
  I received an advanced audiobook from Blackstone Audiobooks through NetGalley. All opinions are 100% my own.