Consider the Evidence When You Make Life-or-Death Decisions

In the 1940s and ’50s, the American Medical Association was not only saying that “smoking in moderation” wasn’t a problem, but that, on balance, it may even be beneficial. After all, most physicians themselves smoked, so how bad could it be? With such a position taken by one of the country’s leading medical groups, where could you turn if you just wanted the facts?

According to one tobacco company ad, “science advances new data that may completely change your idea of cigarettes!” And what might those new data tell us? “She was too tired for fun…and then she smoked a Camel.” (You can see the unbelievable ads in my video Evidence-Based Eating, starting at 0:29). In another ad, baseball legend Babe Ruth told us, “Now! Medical science offers proof positive!” that the brand he was hawking is the safest to smoke of all the leading cigarettes—well, he told us, that is, when he still could talk, before he died of throat cancer.

Now, some of the science-based evidence did leak out, causing a dip from an average of 11 or so cigarettes a day per person down to 10, as you can see at 0:50 in my video, but those who got scared of possible health risks from smoking could always choose “[t]he cigarette that takes the FEAR out of smoking!” Even better, why not choose the cigarette that “gives you the greatest health protection?”

Had a SmokingFacts.org website existed during the time of these outrageous ads making such outrageous claims—a site that delivered the science directly to the people, bypassing commercially corruptible institutional filters—it would have featured a study of Seventh-day Adventists in California in 1958 that showed that nonsmokers may have at least 90 percent less lung cancer than smokers. With so much money and personal habit at stake, there will always be “dissenters.” Given the seriousness of these diseases and the sum total of evidence, though, we shouldn’t wait to put preventive measures in place.

If you’re a smoker in the 1950s in the know and privy to the science-based realities of smoking, you realize the best available balance of evidence suggests your smoking habit is probably not good for you. So, what do you do? Do you change your smoking habits, or do you wait? If you wait until your physician tells you—between puffs—to quit, you could have cancer by then. If you wait until the powers that be officially recognize it, like the Surgeon General did in the subsequent decade, you could be dead by then.

It took more than 7,000 studies and the deaths of countless smokers before the first Surgeon General report against smoking was finally released in the 1960s. Wouldn’t you think that after the first 6,000 studies or so, they could have given people a heads up? One wonders how many people are suffering needlessly right now from dietary diseases.

Let’s fast-forward 55 years to a new Adventist study out of California warning Americans about the risks of something else they may be putting in their mouths: “Vegetarian diets are associated with lower all-cause mortality.” It’s not just one study either. According to a recent review, a total sum of evidence suggests that mortality from all causes put together, including many of our dreaded diseases were significantly lower in those eating more plant-based diets. As well, “[c]ompared with omnivores, the incidence of cancer and type 2 diabetes was also significantly lower in vegetarians.”

So, instead of someone going along with America’s smoking habits in the 1950s, imagine you or someone you know is going along with America’s eating habits today. With access to the science, you realize the best available balance of evidence suggests your eating habits are probably not good for you. So, what do you do? Do you change your eating habits, or do you wait? If you wait until your doctor tells you—between bites—to change your diet, it could be too late.

Just like most doctors smoked back then and didn’t tell their patients to change, despite the overwhelming evidence published for decades, most doctors today continue to eat foods that are contributing to our epidemics of dietary disease.


For more on this topic, check out my series of videos on parallels to smoking and the tobacco industry’s tactics, including:

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live presentations:

Should We Tax Meat and Dairy Like We Do Cigarettes?

One of the most effective ways to decrease the harms of smoking is by increasing the cost of cigarettes through tobacco taxes. Indeed, an increase in the cost of cigarettes by only 10 percent could prevent millions of tobacco-related deaths. What about taxing unhealthy food? In general, public health decision makers have had three main options: inform through labeling, nudge with incentives, or directly intervene in markets using more heavy-handed approaches like instituting regulations or taxes.

“Policy approaches have proven crucial for other public health priorities, such as reducing tobacco use, alcohol abuse, and deaths from motor vehicle crashes.” In fact, installing air bags, for example, helped more than either “driver education alone or by labeling cars with information on crash risk.” Given that heart disease kills more than ten times more people than injuries on the road, maybe the “current epidemic of nutrition-related disease requires a similar multifaceted approach…[E]ven modest resulting dietary improvements could help reduce the burden of chronic disease significantly.” Perhaps a national system of subsidies for good foods, as well as taxes for bad ones, could “facilitate more sensible dietary choices.” Would they work? I discuss this in my video Would Taxing Unhealthy Foods Improve Public Health?.

A systematic review of the available evidence suggests such taxes and subsidies would in fact work. As I show in my video at 1:30, it seems the more unhealthy foods are taxed, the more consumption drops. Likewise, the more healthy foods like fruits and vegetables are subsidized and their prices drop, the more consumption increases. A small price difference between leaded and unleaded gasoline, for example, succeeded in decreasing our exposure to lead. What about a tax to decrease our exposure to saturated fat? As you can see from the data at 1:52 in my video, such a tax could potentially save thousands of lives.

Wouldn’t such a tax disproportionally affect the poor, though? Yes, it would benefit them the most—just like cigarette taxes. The classic tobacco industry argument is that cigarette taxes are “unfair” and “regressive,” burdening the poor the most. The public health community’s response? “Cancer is unfair” and “[c]ancer is regressive,” disproportionately burdening the poor such that a cigarette tax could result in the greatest health gains for the least well-off. The so-called Committee Against Unfair Taxes was actually just a front, “organised and funded by the tobacco industry,” one front group among many, as you can see at 2:42 in my video. This is a common tactic used by the industry to hide its role in fighting tobacco taxes, in addition to trying to overtly buy off politicians. The fact that the industry fights tooth and nail suggests that tobacco taxes can indeed affect consumption. Much of the data on food taxes and subsidies, however, have been based on models or “stated preferences” to hypothetical scenarios where people merely say they’d change consumption patterns based on prices. There hasn’t been as much real world data.

Researchers have put people through high-tech, 3D supermarket simulators, which you can see depicted at 3:15 in my video, and found that a 25 percent discount on fruits and vegetables appears to boost produce purchases by 25 percent. That’s nearly two pounds a week, but virtual fruits and veggies don’t do you any good. Does this work out in the real world? Yes. In fact, South Africa’s largest health insurance company started offering up to 25 percent cash back on healthy food purchases to hundreds of thousands of households—up to $500 USD a month. Why would the insurance company do that? Why give money away? Because it works. The healthy food cash-back program was associated with an increase in the consumption of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, as well as a decrease in  foods high in added sugar, salt, and fat, including processed meats and fast food.

Subsidies are more common than taxes, though, in Europe, where a number of countries have instituted taxes on foods that are sugary or salty. Denmark was the first to introduce a tax on saturated fat, such as meat, dairy, and eggs, but it only took the food industry about a year to squash it, demonstrating that “public health advocates are weak in tackling the issues of corporate power.”

There’s “an enormous imbalance” between the influence exerted by public health professionals compared to the political might of the food industry. It brings to mind the fight over proposed “traffic light labelling” on food in the European Union. Apparently, it was much too easy to understand, simple and straightforward, so the industry lost its mind and spent more than $1.4 billion USD killing it in favor of the confusing “daily amount” labeling guidelines that require a “bring-your-calculator-to-the-grocery-store” approach to make grocery shopping as confusing as possible, as you can see at 4:51 in my video.

Denmark ended up canceling the fat tax and shelving their sugar tax because the farming and food company interests claimed too many jobs would be lost if people ate healthier. Apparently, a healthy economy was more important than a healthy population. Ironically, it was abolished just when evidence of its effects started to appear. Researchers “conclude[d] that the introduction of the saturated fat tax contributed to reducing the intake of saturated fat among Danish consumers” from some meat and dairy products—but not from sour cream, though. The public ate so much more low-fat sour cream that it outweighed the smaller reduction in consumption of high-fat sour cream.

Indeed, we always have to think about the unintended consequences. Swapping out sugary cookies for salty chips, for example, might not do the public’s health many favors. One field study of a tax on soda found that it may drop soft drink purchases, at least in the short term, but households may just end up buying more beer.


This idea is the flip side of sorts to my video Taxpayer Subsidies for Unhealthy Foods.

For more on how the food industry has borrowed from the tobacco industry playbook, see

What about those who insist that sodium really isn’t bad for you? Check out:

And those who insist that saturated fat really isn’t bad for you? See The Saturated Fat Studies: Buttering Up the Public and The Saturated Fat Studies: Set Up to Fail.

What about those who insist that sugar really isn’t bad for you? Watch Big Sugar Takes on the World Health Organization and Does Diet Soda Increase Stroke Risk as Much as Regular Soda?.

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live presentations:

How Not to Die from Diabetes

We’ve known since the 1930s that type 2 diabetes can be prevented, arrested, and even reversed with a plant-based diet. Within five years of following the diet, about a quarter of the diabetic patients in that early study were able to get off insulin altogether.

Plant-based diets are relatively low in calories, though. Is it possible their diabetes just got better because they lost so much weight? To tease that out, we need a study where people are switched to a healthy diet but forced to eat so much food they don’t lose any weight. Then we could see if plant-based diets have specific benefits beyond all the easy weight loss. We had to wait 44 years for such a study, which I then discuss it in my video How Not to Die from Diabetes.

Subjects were weighed every day. If they started losing weight, they were made to eat more food—so much more food in fact that some of the participants had problems eating it all. They eventually adapted, though, so there was no significant weight change despite restricting meat, eggs, dairy, and junk.

Without any weight loss, did a plant-based diet still help? Overall insulin requirements were cut about 60 percent, and half the diabetics were able to get off their insulin altogether. How many years did that take? Not years. An average of 16 days. Only 16 days.

Let’s be clear: We’re talking about diabetics who had had diabetes as long as 20 years and injected 20 units of insulin a day. Then, as few as 13 days later, they were off their insulin altogether, thanks to less than two weeks on a plant-based diet—even with zero weight loss. It’s astonishing. Twenty years with diabetes, and then off all insulin in less than two weeks. Twenty years with diabetes because no one had told them about a plant-based diet. For decades they were just 13 days away at any time from being free.

In my video, I show data from patient #15: 32 units of insulin while on the control diet and then, 18 days later, after switching to the plant-based diet, on no insulin at all. None. Lower blood sugars on 32 units less insulin. That’s the power of plants. And that was without any weight loss. His body just started working that much better once it was provided with the right fuel.

As a bonus, their cholesterol dropped like a rock to under 150. Just as “moderate changes in diet usually result in only moderate reductions in LDL cholesterol levels,” how moderate do you want your diabetes?

“Everything in moderation” may be a truer statement than some people realize. Moderate changes in diet can leave diabetics with moderate blindness, moderate kidney failure, moderate amputations—maybe just a few toes or something. Moderation in all things is not necessarily a good thing.

Remember the study that purported to show that diets high in meat, eggs, and dairy could be as harmful to health as smoking, suggesting that people who eat lots of animal protein are four times as likely to die from cancer or diabetes? If you look at the actual study, you’ll see that’s simply not true. Those eating a lot of animal protein didn’t have just 4 times the risk of dying from diabetes, they had 73 times the risk of dying from diabetes! A 73-fold increase in risk. And those who chose moderation, only eating a “moderate” amount of animal protein, had 23 times the risk of death from diabetes.


The first time someone visits NutritionFacts.org can be overwhelming. With videos on more than 2,000 health topics, where do you even begin? Imagine stumbling onto the site not knowing what to expect and the new video-of-the-day is about how a particular spice can be effective in treating a particular form of arthritis. It would be easy to miss the forest for the trees, which is precisely why I created a series of overview videos that are essentially taken straight from my live, hour-long 2016 presentation How Not to Die: Preventing, Arresting, and Reversing Our Top 15 Killers.

The other videos in this series are:

Inspired to learn more about the role diet may play in preventing and treating diabetes? Check out some of these other popular videos on the topic:

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations: