Tax on Sugary Food and the Food of Cancer, Obesity and Diabetes

Right on, Fred! We feed our two cats and two dogs a raw meat diet. The dogs even get chicken wings (raw), bones and all. You’ve never seen such white teeth! Also, Bill and I are right with you on the 3-month moratorium. Great blog post!

James, don’t be obtuse:
“…making them sensitive sentinels of disturbed environments.”

You miss the entire point of the post James.
If, FE, Tasmanian Devis get facial tumors after a nasty scuffle or because their numbers are declining or due to toxins in the environment (only the Devils in a particular area get this cancer it seems), that is entirely different from what I am addressing here. Transmissible cancer is extremely rare. Just like heart cancer. It happens, but it is virtually nonexistant – enough to say it basically doesn’t happen.
And I said:
“These ills are, for the most part, self inflicted.”
“Only when humans invite them into their lives do these ills descend upon them.”
Here I included obesity, diabetes, arthritis and cancers.
How do the chickens get the viruses? From vaccines? http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a784671048
Where did the virus come from? Can you or anyone state with certainty that these viruses which potentially lead to cancers are not the outcome of humans? In this study it sure was.
Again, animals in the wild AWAY from human intervention do not suffer the ills. Only when we bring them to our civilzed world do they sufffer the same ills as we do.
Thanks you for sharing your viewpoint as it serves to solidify what I was saying.

My dogs eat Pedigree since birth.
Incredible shape. Lean, strong and full of energy.
I could take any dog and get in better shape in two months with a little exercise and less food. Simple.

I have always found the ads for dog and cat food funny. I just don’t see people putting up fences so dogs and cats will stay out of vegetable gardens or large fences to keep these animals from decimating wheat fields. LOL.
Just like humans who maintain strong muscles throughout life look, act and perform younger, I think that benefit probably is transferable to animals too. Overeating and inactivity makes dogs unhealthy too.
I think it was Dr. Pottenger who did an informal study many years ago comparing cats fed raw milk and meat and ones fed pasteurized milk and cooked meat and noticed a tremendous difference in health, vitality and even temperment. Interesting stuff.
If we humans hadn’t developed the cerebral cortex, I wonder what we would “instinctually” crave for food instead of “overthinking” the process? Just a thought, not degrading our cerebral cortex, just a broad question.
In health
Brandon Schultz, D.C.

I’m a prime example of someone who is now educated and healthier for it. 2 years ago, every cough that I would get during my usual winter cold would send me into a wheezing cycle that required albuterol. I had dermatitis on my hands from what the allergist thought was an allergy to apples, peaches, and pears. I took nasonex for 4 months out of the year. Then, I started reading. First Taubes, then Eades, then your book. Now, my blog reader is filled with excellent sources of knowledge and reference materials.
I weigh about the same as I did 2 years ago. But the dermatitis is 99% gone. Asthma hasn’t appeared in 18 months. Seasonal allergies did not appear this year. I can eat peaches, apples, and pears without a reaction.
You know what is difficult? Finding out that an acquaintance has just received a cancer diagnosis. How do you break the news that low carb could help?

James said:
“I don’t care about the entire point of your post.”
Well that says it all then doesn’t it James?
You’re commenting then just to try and prove me wrong on the issuse of wild animals getting cancer pointing out that there are some extremely rare forms of cancer that afflict a few wild animals that appear to have absolutely nothing at all to do with human intervention – although neither you nor anyone else can prove that.
We know that cancer is not rare in humans. And many types of cancers that affect us affect our pets. I am suggesting a direct correlation to our intervention these cancers as well as other maladies since our pets also suffer from other human disorders that they would never suffer in the wild.
Find me an obese Impapla or a Wolf with diabetes. Oh – but right – you’re not interested in the point of the blog post.
You accuse me of resorting to “mental gymnastics” when trying to help you understand the basis for the post. The post was not about animals and cancer per se, it was about how the common ills of civilized man descend upon our animals and ourselves when we eat too much sugar – my personal observation.
Oh but right, right, I forgot – you don’t care about the point of the post – you just care about how you can nit pick my blog and try and make me look bad by focusing on a single point when it fact, your Little Dutch Boy actions say a whole lot more about you.
But as you are wont to do, you go around on blogs, messages boards, etc. and try to find holes in others ideas to puff yourself up and seem smart. I suppose that is why you put the double acronym ‘M.S, M.S.’ after your name. Do you have an inkling of what an acronym is used for? It is placed after a person’s name to designate a license or perhaps a doctorate. Do you have any idea how silly you seem putting your double masters degree letters after your name to those in the field who know better? This, coupled with your penchant for trying to prove people wrong in the manner you do makes your character about as transparant as a piece of Riedel stemware.
A few points -
I said:
“Can you or anyone state with certainty that these viruses which potentially lead to cancers are not the outcome of humans?”
You replied with:
“Can you or anyone state with certainty that there’s not an invisible pink unicorn that lives in the sky?”
Yes James. I think we can all state (perhaps not you) with utmost certainty that there is not an invisible pink unicorn living in the sky. Read Carl Sagan’s book The Demon Haunted World. It will help you stop making useless comparative analogies.
Since the consensus of opinion is that cancers can be caused by environmental toxins disrupting normal cellular activity, it is fair to say that since cancer in the wild is rare, it is more than likely caused by how man has infected the environment rather than by a natural occurence. And these are the cancers I am referring to (along with obesity, diabetes) – those we self inflict or worsen by how we eat.
You said “Toxins don’t cause viruses. We’re talking about viruses causing cancer here.”
James, forgive me but, once again you’re being obtuse. Environmental toxins disturb and disrupt the immune system leaving the animal vulnerable to viruses normally dealt with by a healthy immune system.
And this is the point. When I say “in the wild” I mean just that – free from ANY pollutants or human contamination. And if there are rare viruses that infect animals causing rare forms of cancer that have noting at all to do with human intervention – it is just that -RARE – and beside the point of my post which you have admitted you could care less about so that you can nit pick a point to tear into me.
It isn’t working James.
You are doing nothing more than exposing yourself as a troll. If you are blantantly disinterested in the overall point of people’s blogs and instead go around trying to find faults with what people say and point them out, you’re not going to be met with much good cheer.
And it is unkonwn at this time if the cancers suffered by animals in the wild are not directly caused by human intervention which was my point. I contend that they are.

James – you try so hard to prove me wrong at every turn don’t you? I can see the strain on your face as you type.
I think you have some serious emotional problems James. I think you need to get in touch with a good head doctor to find out why it is you need to find fault in others, particulary me, and in such an angry, nasty and childish manner. You sound almost obsessed.
If your sane, then your just a loud-mouthed pain in the arse.
I am not writing for National Geographic. I am writing my opinions and observations on my personal blog.
If instead I would have said: “Cancer in the wild, where mankind has not polluted or disturbed the natural habitat is extremely rare in wild animals and it is my belief that these cancers may still be caused by airbone pollutants and other potentially caustic factors created by humans…” would that have satisfied your M.S, M.S mind?
“Once again, you keep changing your standards of evidence. You can’t say an invisible pink unicorn doesn’t exist, then turn around and appeal to ignorance and say, “Well, we don’t know for certain whether these viruses are not due to man” and then assume these viruses are due to man.”
There are no pink unicorns James. There are viruses. Viruses can be passed from humans to animals. And of course the reverse is also true. So indeed I can assert with a high degree of confidence that it is possible that humans through their sloppy environmental habits allowed their viruses to infect animals in their natural habitat leading to cancers.
Also, many primitive humans like the Inuit rarely if ever suffered from cancers and other ills of Western civilization until they became acquainted with and integrated into our civilzaiton. When they did they experienced obesity, cancer, diabetes, gum disease, etc.
Everything that I have listened to and read RE cancer and wild animals appears to be due to environmental pollutants casued by man. If cancer in the wild was common, there’d be no ‘wild.’
Yes, some animals in the wild today get cancer but only if human intervention is indeed potentially responsible. My point was undistrubed, animals in the wild do not get cancer. Only when humans place their waste and foods in and upon them do they develop cancers – just like we do. That is how I see it. If you see it differently, fine by me.

***********
“Cancer in the wild, where mankind has not polluted or disturbed the natural habitat is extremely rare in wild animals
*************
This would still be a blind assertion on your part.
You have no evidence that cancer in the wild is rare. To assert otherwise is to claim that you know more than the very scientists who study cancer in wild animals. Cancer in wild animals is very difficult to study because wild animals aren’t under constant surveillance like humans are. If a wild animal dies of cancer, its body will be consumed by predators or scavengers. There’s no evidence left behind.
The fact is, unless you have specific numbers showing cancer rates in the wild, you have no basis on which to make your “rare” claim.
**********
So indeed I can assert with a high degree of confidence
************
Generally the most ignorant are the most confident in their knowledge….similar to the Dunning Kruger effect.
***********that it is possible that humans through their sloppy environmental habits allowed their viruses to infect animals in their natural habitat leading to cancers.
*************
You don’t have a shred of evidence that the viruses infecting these animals are human-borne. And hence, we have another empty assertion on your part.
********
Everything that I have listened to and read RE cancer and wild animals appears to be due to environmental pollutants casued by man.
*********
Well you aren’t reading the actual science in this area then.
It’s quite amazing how you think you know more than the scientists who do research in this area.
*************
My point was undistrubed, animals in the wild do not get cancer.
*************
I provided you with at least 6-8 examples of animals in the wild getting cancer, yet you keep asserting the same thing over and over. Classic confirmation bias.

James my friend you’re still at it. My, my.
My “blind assertion” on cancer in the wild being rare is supported by many and it makes evolutionary sense.
It is my opinion – as I have stated several times – from what I have read and learned about primitive humans who are virtually diseases free, enter into modern civilized world and then experience cancer, obesity, diabetes, gum disease, artiritis, etc. The same thing happens to animals. I am voicing an opinion based on this evidence. If cancer in wild animals was common, it would also be common in primitive peoples like the Inuit, Aborigine, Masai, etc.
If cancer was common in the wild it would be completely illogical especially if those cancers were transmissible. Yes – I am voicing my opinion based on what I think from what I have read. You don’t agree. Fine.
As for the wolves, this is interesting. As you said they “believe” it stsrted 2500 years ago. Man has been with the wolf a lot longe than that however and could have passed a virus on to them. Also, this is rare.
Why you continue to try to make me wrong for my opinions in a nasty and parochial way and continue to use vitriol indicates you have a strange stalker mentality.
I’ll be diving into your meta soon BTW. Should make for a great blog post. Can’t wait for your responses.

*********
from what I have read and learned about primitive humans who are virtually diseases free,
***********
On top of that, you don’t even have any hard data that primitive humans were disease free

Finally, your assertion that wild animals don’t get cancer (or that it’s rare) is more absurd when you consider what actually causes cancer.
Cancer is caused by genetic mutations. Certainly, man-made carcinogens increase the risk of getting such mutations. However, these mutations occur even in the perfectly healthy. If such mutations never occurred, evolution would have never occurred.
For you to assert that wild animals rarely if ever get cancer is to assert that genetic mutations don’t happen in wild animals….an assertion that is false.

Consuming sugar is the only way to become obese? I guess you’ve never seen a fat eskimo? How could you possibly say that sugar is the “only way” to become obese? If I ate 5000 calories per day of fatty meats I would still gain weight.
Fred. You’re such a good writer. Yet you’re so stuck on topics that are demonstrably false. Why do you constantly ignore the overwhelming volume of evidence that contradicts your assertions. Being a person of science means bravely staring in the face those pieces of evidence that might contradict your claims, and being OK with that. Because, Fred, it’s not about you. It’s about the science.

Also, YOU are the one claiming that the cancer that is found in wild animals is caused by man. Thus it is your burden to prove this….which is a hefty burden because it requires you to explain all the various cancers in wild animals, and to provide the evidence of the origins of these cancers.
And no, sweeping generalizations based on speculation and ideology doesn’t cut it as evidence.

Chad -
First thanks for saying I am a good writer. Much appreciated.
You seem a tad alarmed by my post. Let’s take a moment to think and talk this through shall we?
First I said “obese.” I didn’t say you could not gain weight. As for Eskimos, the only obese Eskimos were those that lived in civilized nations eating the white man’s fare away from of their natural habitat. Were there ‘unlean’ Eskimos who only ate their natural staple of seal and such – yes. But obese, no. Am I wrong? Perhaps we need to define obese? A few polite people like Lyle McDonald of The Ketogenic Diet fame have called me ‘fat’ yet my BF% is 12%. What’s fat? What’s obese? Was Oliver Hardy obese? Back then absolutely yes. Today he would be considered plump.
Have you ever seen an obese Masai warrior? All they eat is meat and fat and plenty of it. Colder clime people store more of their fat on the outside of their bodies whereas warmer clime people behind the muscle wall to allow heat to escape. Two people can be hydrostatically weighted and have the exact same BF% and look very different.
And yes – you are right. You probably could become fat or get fatter IF you ate 5,000 calories a day, every day for a spell eating fatty meats if you are of normal stature and are as muscular as you can already be naturally.
But try it.
Even for a single day. You won’t be able to do it. And there are overfeeding studies to confirm this – studies done on prisoners who were allowed to eat all the fatty meats they wanted. They could not eat enough. I can’t refernce them right now but they exist – mentioned in GCBC I believe.
When you say it’s not about me it’s about the science, I’m not sure what you mean. I am not a scientist but I read enough to know what I say is valid and supported in science. We are not a closed system like a car. Our bodies deal with calories ingested in very different ways depending upon what we eat, how much we eat, how we expend them, etc.
You can’t store body fat if you don’t produce insulin – no matter how many calories you eat. Why is this?
Sugar causes insulin to rise. One of the main function of insulin is to store body fat. No insulin, no body fat storage. Excessive insulin and/or insulin insensitivity and you become obese if you eat enough and eat enough you can. And eat enough you can quite easily if your main staple is carbohydrate especially refined carbohydrate. It is the reason why Americans are so much fatter today than 40 years ago. Low fat/no fat diets have forced us to eat more sugar. We are not eating more calories today than 30 years ago that account for the added pounds Americans are packing on.
Read Good Calories Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. This is just one of many, many books that discuss this issue. Go to the Nutrition and Metabolism Website http://www.nmsociety.org and read the info there.
Better still, try it for yourself – as I have. For one month eat nothing but fatty meats, eggs, fish, etc. Have a green salad if it makes you feel better about your health but keep it nonstarchy. No dairy. No grains. No sauces. Only fatty meats. Eat as much as you can till you feel like you are full. If you’re not full, eat more meat. Count the calories. Weigh yourself before and after. Drink only water.
The next month make sure you get about 1.2 grams of protein per your body weight (unless you are obese) and eat the rest of your calories in pasta, fruit, rice, bread, milk, cake, oatmeal, etc. Eat till you are full. If you are not full, eat more carbohydrate only. Do not eat more protein than the alloted amount. Count your calories. At the end of the month weigh yourself. Drink whatever you like, beer, soda, wine, whatever.
Don’t exercise more. Keep it equal.
Report your results back here. Take some pix before and after as well. There will be a VAST difference in how you feel and a difference in what you weigh and look like. If you are VERY fit and VERY active it may take 2 months of each to see the difference.
Try it.

“Fred, thank you. I’ve been on low carb diets before. I know how they make me feel and I can most definitely eat 5,000 calories of fatty meat in a single day. I have no desire to test those waters again.”
Chad I hate to say it but I have to – you are not being honest here at all. There is no way you can eat 5,000 calories a day of fat meat every day for days on end unless you are a very big person.
“I’m quite happy with the 75lbs that I’ve lost on a 50% carb diet.”
Congrats on your fat loss success. Of course, you lowered your TOTAL carb intake from what you were eating before so eating a 50% carb diet tells us little.
If you lowered your calories and still ate 50% carbs, this doesn’t mean you were eating a high carb diet. This is what most people don’t realize. A lowered calorie diet is, by default, almost always a lower carb diet.
“I also have no illusions that you’d ever seriously rethink any of your positions on your own blog, no matter how overwhelming the evidence. Best of luck!”
It depends on the issues. I used to preach and preach big time low fat, high carb, daily aerobics, free weights, balance training, etc. This was in 1984 – 1992 or so. Then I read Darden, Protein Power, GCBC, the works of Cordaun, Feinman, Volek, etc. and started to do HIT training, and eating paleo and my health skyrocketed as well as my lean mass.
IOW, I have changed my beliefs 360 degrees before. I am prepared to do it again if the evidence warrants it. If you have any evidence to suggest that eating carbs is better for fat loss and lean gains I would LOVE to read it.

Human pollution causes cancer:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/208917?from=rss
Beluga Whales and cancer:
http://planetgreen.discovery.com/food-health/human-pollution-cancer-animals.html
Pollution causes cancer:
http://www.livescience.com/animals/060223_marine_diseases.html
I am in agreement that cancers in wild animals are, by and large, caused by human intervention.
That is the last I will say on it.

James – what is your problem my good man?
You want to say that cancer being caused by a virus exists in the wild affecting wild animals and man at random regarldess of huamn intervention. IOW, dinosaurs probably got cancer, cave men probably got cancer, and not ony was it not rare, it was common.
Nothing I have read suggests this save for some fringe people who I suppose might be right. The bulk of what I read suggests that cancer is caused by mankind. It is rampant in humans and not so in animals who are free from man’s influence. The more we get involved the more cancer there is. That is the main point of my blog.
WE are the cause of most of our ills, not naure. And now please stop posting the same thing over and over again. Instead, take my offer to join the NMS Yahoo group where you can spend your time more productively.

Fred,
You make blanket statements and get called on them. You are running around in desperation trying to save face.
Are you admitting then that cancer does in fact happen in the wild? This is a simple yes or no question.
Ans while it’s great that you have fans like jeanie who would prefer to stick their fingers in their ears and not want to hear the whole story – it’s great that people like James challenge you on your nonsensical claims.
Hopefully you are taking all of this in and will perhaps curb your unsubstantiated claims.

Joe,
Curious comments…. A misinterpretation or minor half-truths I’m ok with. I don’t want to speak for James here, but when somebody consistently contorts science and has a glaring bias towards their absolutist ideals, I speak up.
People should be welcoming the dialogue and dissenting opinions – I don’t see this as anything but an “open discussion”. I am challenging some of Fred’s ideas – not berating him. If you find this childish, I don’t know what to tell you.
I commend Fred for letting the comments stand, even when his ideas are being exposed as misguided.

Thank you for your comment Mike. It’s HOW James challenges, not that he does. Cancer was not the point of the post. The gist was far beyond whether or not animals get cancer away from man’s influence. But I guess you missed that to.
James behaves like a classic troll. He NEEDS to belittle because he is insecure. It is he who is the one who is running around trying to save face. He realizes he is being petty and harping on a minor issue that is entirely beside the point of my post.
I explained my position on cancer in the wild over and over – to the point where most people would think I’m nuts and should just delete James posts. From my reading, cancer in the wild is rare and mostly if not entirely caused by man as is obesity and diabetes – the real point of the blog. We self inflict and can self heal and that sugar is more evil than most realize contributing to the life of cancers and to the development of obesity and type II diabetes. If my blog post was not clear enough and seemed to err on cancer in the wild, big deal.
What a normal human being does is privatley email someone and say “Hey Fred – I think you goofed up on the cancer issue. It appears that cancer can and does exist in wild animals that have had ZERO contact with mankind. Here’s a link to….” Trolls and persons who operate in a world of negativity due to their own inner hatreds instead publicly attempt to belittle and embarrass not realizing that they hurt themselves the most.
I hope this is not you Mike.

*********
James behaves like a classic troll.
**********
Ad hominem and irrelevant to the discussion.
***********
He NEEDS to belittle because he is insecure.
************
Ad hominem and irrelevant to the discussion.
I could be the biggest asshole in the world, but it’s still not evidence that cancer in the wild is rare.
The fact is you are completely unable to debate without resorting to ad hominems…usually the sign of someone who does not have a valid argument. If your argument was valid, you could stick to the points and not have to question my motives.
**************
I explained my position on cancer in the wild over and over
**************
But over and over you are unable to provide scientific evidence to support your position
*************
What a normal human being does is privatley email someone and say “Hey Fred – I think you goofed up on the cancer issue. It appears that cancer can and does exist in wild animals that have had ZERO contact with mankind. Here’s a link to….”
***************
What’s the difference between doing privately or publically? Are you afraid of your errors being exposed publically?
And this was my first response to your blog post….
“This is false. Cancer strikes wild animals at similar rates to humans. For a review, see:
McAloose, D. & A.L. Newton. Wildlife cancer: a conservation perspective. Nature Reviews Cancer. 9:517-526, 2009″
How is that any different from saying you have appeared to make an error? How is this berating you or being a troll?
**************
I notice that neither you nor James are challenging the main gist of the blog post – that eating excess sugar in all it’s forms be they candy or whole wheat -are the cause of obesity and diabetes.
****************
Because this has already been debated to death with you over on jpfitness and on your own forum. There is no point in starting that all over again here, particularly given your confirmation bias tendency, your inconsistent standards of evidence, and the way you completely dismiss or ignore evidence that doesn’t fit with your beliefs.

I like the idea of a tax but for an entirely different reason. Maybe it will encourge families to start cooking again? Like most women my age I learned to cook from watching my mother — but moms are cooking less and less. Plopping a Stouffer’s lasagna from freezer to oven doesn’t count.

Whole foods, fresh vegetables and — dare I say — a fruit bowl for kids’ “snacks” instead of whatever’s on the latest food commercial. A quick home cooked meal instead of driving through the drive thru?

We took an informal poll of 20 mothers with children ages 2-16. We asked 2 questions: 1) Do you know how to bake a chicken? (put the chicken in a baking dish & bake until done is the simple answer) and 2) How often do you cook dinner for the family? (0-2 times a week were the answers).

It’s no wonder the obesity epidemic in America and when people decide to follow a weight loss plan they’re often at a total loss for how to prepare food. Sorry for the rant but it’s a serious situation that kids aren’t taught cooking at home and with budget cuts — not at school either. In our recipe box we’ve lately resorted to spelling out “teaspoon” and “tablespoon” because few have any idea the difference between tsp and Tbsp.

Excellent post, thanks for writing it!