Professor Colin Campbell, who was trained at Cornell (M.S., Ph.D.) and MIT (Research Associate) in nutrition, biochemistry and toxicology, spent 10 years on the faculty of Virginia Tech's Department of Biochemistry and Nutrition before returning to the Division of Nutritional Sciences Cornell in 1975 where he presently holds the endowed chair of Jacob Gould Schurman Professor of Nutritional Biochemistry. In addition he is co-chair of the World Cancer Research Fund. His principal scientific interests, which began with his graduate training in the late 1950's, has been on the effects of nutritional status on long term health, particularly on the causation of cancer. Professor Campbell was interviewed in 1997 by One-Off Productions for their TV documentary, McLibel: Two Worlds Collide.

He has conducted original research both in laboratory experiments and in large-scale human studies; in addition, he has participated in multiple deliberations on state, national and international policy matters, has lectured extensively, and has authored over 300 research papers.

Could you give us a brief introduction to your work and interests?

My experience and interest over the years has been concerned with the prevention of cancer primarily, particularly the prevention of cancer by dietary means. I happen to now believe very strongly that nutrition has a lot to do with whether or not we get cancer. It is an area that has been unfortunately underplayed and in some cases actually ignored by some of the central authorities who are involved in doing cancer research.

Does this view set you apart from others in your field, are you considered a maverick for example?

I'm not alone actually in this view but, it's true that as far as budgets are concerned and as far as the emphasis given to this area is concerned there is not near enough. It's ironic that traditional cancer research organisations and health organisations will admit that at least a third of all cancers can be prevented by dietary means, but then in the next breath, they'll tell you that they really don't know how. Then you ask them how much money are you spending on this, and what you discover is that they're only spending about 1-2% of their budget at the most. There is some terrible discordance here.

At first I enjoyed the debate, and the exchange on a personal level. But on the other hand I found these settings to be somewhat troubling in the sense that science and law don't exactly agree on what the terms of the discussion ought to be.

Moving onto the McLibel trial. What has been your personal reaction to your time in court? At first I enjoyed the debate, and the exchange on a personal level. But on the other hand I found these settings to be somewhat troubling in the sense that science and law don't exactly agree on what the terms of the discussion ought to be. The legal profession and the court defines the limits of the discussion and they focus on very specific issues, whereas scientists like to think we can let the conversation go where it may. This area concerning diet and cancer is a very complex relationship from a biological perspective. And to focus on just one thing, one cause, one kind of cancer for example, and let the entire story rest on that kind of focus, is just simply inappropriate. In the case here, there is a lot of emphasis given to the relationship between dietary fat and breast cancer as if the whole story is going to rest on that. That's not the way it really works, we have to look at the whole picture.

With regard to the whole picture - a typical McDonald's meal that a family eat. What are the key constituents of what they're eating in that meal that you want to analyse?

As far as the meat and the things they add to the to the bun, there is nothing so far as nutrition is concerned that we can't get from other sources that are better overall. Meat offers us nothing as far as the central nutrients are concerned that we can't get from plant material. In addition those kinds of foods are usually high in salt, often times high in sugar, and of course high in fat and high in animal protein. They contain very little or no dietary fibre except the odd bit that might be present in the bread. They contain virtually none of the anti-oxidants. As you begin to examine the bit-parts of the of their meal, there is nothing that's of any benefit, and in my view that kind of food is really not helpful.

What effects do you believe that this type of meal might then have?

Not only is it not helpful, but also a lot of the things as far as nutrients are concerned are actually quite harmful. The high fat intake, the high animal protein intake, the lack of these other things, lead into increased risks for cancers of various incendiary kinds, increased risk of the various kinds of heart diseases, diabetes; the kind of disease that actually kill upwards of three quarters of us in Western society before our time. It's a really serious problem and it's certainly not the kind of product that ought to be promoted on the grounds of good nutrition, because it's not.

And from your studies what links or effects has this?

Dietary fat has received a lot of attention, as far as, it's relationship with cancer is concerned. And it's clear that the higher the fat intake, the higher the risk for various incendiary kinds of cancers. The extent of the increased risk depends on the individual circumstances, what else they eat, and so on. In some circumstances the dietary fat effect may not be that great for certain cancers, in other cases it may be more, but nonetheless, increased intakes of fat, if it does anything, will increase cancer risk, period.

There is good consensus on that particular point. Increased intakes of dietary fat also increase dietary cholesterol which in turn relates to heart disease. High intakes of dietary fat such as are found in the UK and the US and other Western countries, is not to our advantage. It's a problem. But in addition to the dietary fat, the increased intakes of animal protein that tends to come along with these kinds of diets, in my view has been vastly undrated and also is a significant problem.

Dietary fat has received a lot of attention, as far as, it's relationship with cancer is concerned. And it's clear that the higher the fat intake, the higher the risk for various incendiary kinds of cancers.

Animal protein is unlike plant protein. Plant protein tends to be protective and preventive of these kinds of diseases, animal protein in contrast tends to increase these kinds of diseases. Other things such as the the hundreds or thousands of different kinds of anti-oxidant materials that are present in food are only found, really, in plant material. They're not found in animal material. And these really wonderful kinds of chemicals have all kinds of beneficial effects in preventing cancer, in keeping the cholesterol in the form that doesn't cause the adverse reactions.

This is a very clear link that you're pointing to. Could you give us an account of the main study that you've performed to bring you to this conclusion?

Yes, the study that I've been involved with for about 15 years is located in rural China, where, the Chinese experience of the 70s and early 80s shows that about a dozen different cancers had localised only in certain different regions of the country. The localisation was very intense for certain cancers. We could see for example lots of cancer of a certain kind in certain areas, and, not too far away, virtually none of that kind of cancer. The same was true of heart disease in China.

And so it was an ideal place to go and do a study, to see what it was about these areas that raised the risk to such intense levels. The other advantage of doing the study in China was the fact that the people living in these regions tend to live there all their lives, and they tend to produce the same kind of food year in year out, and more or less eat the same kind of food. It was a perfect setting experimentally. We designed the study, primarily with the assistance of Professor Peto, University of Oxford, to measure as many things as we possibly could in the dietary lifestyle sense, and then compare that with the various incendiary kinds of disease mortality rates, to see what really were the significant factors that were likely to be related to these diseases.

We ended up at the end of the day with a list of factors, and other features of those populations that was more comprehensive than has ever been conducted before in any study. It gave us a chance in particular, of looking at the more comprehensive effects of the big things in life, the big things in diet that could be related to these various diseases.

How would you summarise it in terms of cancer and the sort of diet that's been talked about in this case?

Well, for the kinds of cancer we tend to see in the UK and the US, those cancers are much less in China. Firstly, the kind of diet that was consumed in China is very low in total fat. The range was between 6-24% of calories, for example, whereas in this country the range is more of the order of the high 20s-high 40s. Their high was nearer our low, and so it gave us a chance to see really what was going on down at that scale of things as far as the diet is concerned. And what we found was something really quite remarkable.

It turns out that as the dietary fat intake begins to rise from the very low levels their blood cholesterol begins to rise as well. They're correlated, and, as the cholesterol begins to rise, other things also present in the blood begin to change, and as one begins to put animal products into their diet, then these kind of diseases begin to appear. As dietary cholesterol increases from these very low levels in response to the increased intakes of animal-based foods, dietary cholesterol begins to increase.

There are a number of different cancers which also begin to increase, such as breast cancer, colon cancer and, in fact, some of the other cancers that are somewhat more common in China. And the determinants of dietary cholesterol are the animal-based foods. As the cholesterol begins to go up these specific kinds of cancer also begin to rise. That's the general essence of the story.

There are a number of different cancers which also begin to increase, such as breast cancer, colon cancer ... as the cholesterol begins to go up, these specific kinds of cancer also begin to rise.

Would you say that the western diet is moving out to other countries and is having an effect?

Yes it definitely is. In poor countries of the world, or in emerging, or developing countries, their disease patterns are such that they are burdened with the infectious communicable kinds of diseases because of their poor conditions, poor public health facilities, and in some cases because of their lack of food - total calorie intake. But as they begin to get more capital and more resources and particularly as they become more industrialised they begin to become more organised, and one of the first things that societies want to do - it happened here, it happened in the States, it happens every place - one of the first things that they want to do is to increase their intake of animal food. I mean meat is, let's face it, meat is a status symbol as far as society is concerned. So they start buying this kind of food, they start consuming this kind of food, and their diets change rather quickly - it's happening in China.

And as western fast food chains begin to come in, obviously that's the kind of stuff that they're selling. And just because these companies obviously are from the west, they have a certain attraction from a marketing point of view. People start using this kind of food and it's the last thing they ought to be doing.

The traditional diets in these countries are usually low in salt, low in refined sugar, low in animal based foods, so therefore they're low in total fat. They're low in animal protein obviously, they're very high in dietary fibre, anti-oxidants and all the good things. As they begin to get more resources, and are able to change their diet, they change their diet to increase their intake of animal based foods, increase their intake of refined sugars, and increase their intake of salt. And as western fast food chains begin to come in, obviously that's the kind of stuff that they're selling. And just because these companies obviously are from the west, they have a certain attraction from a marketing point of view. People start using this kind of food and it's the last thing they ought to be doing.

At the same time they're starting to eat that kind of food in their homes as they gain more resources at the personal level. And so, in China for example, what we see there if we go to the city area, is fat intake dramatically increasing within just a few short years. Cholesterol levels are shooting up, and suddenly you see cancer and heart disease being the number one and number two killers in these cities. It happens quickly, within a generation or so. We call this the epidemiological transition. The diets that are associated with increasing risks of heart disease and cancer are sometimes called diets of affluence. The diseases that are produced are the diseases of affluence. I rather liked the term, diseases of nutritional extravagance, I think it's a better term to describe really what's happening.

Is that a generally held view?

Yes, this idea of getting better health by eating plant based foods, is catching on. Some of the more established bodies such the World Health Organisation, for example, have recently given more emphasis to this idea. The national agencies in different countries are beginning to make this point, and quite assertively in some cases, and so the story is spreading. Presently in fact we have a new, world-wide, expert panel that I happen to co-chair, that, is dealing with the question concerning the dietary prevention of cancer world-wide. We have on that panel representation from ten different countries and we're working on what kind of recommendations can be made that are consistent with the very diverse patterns of dietary practices that are seen around the world. It's really catching on quite nicely I think. It takes time and there is a lot of resistance but it really is starting to spread.

McDonald's response to what you've said is that it's alright to eat their products because one eats them as part of an overall balanced diet. So, adding the McDonald's component doesn't do any harm. What would your response be to that defence?

Well, I've forgotten exactly the figures, or the number of calories and the amount of fat and the amount of animal proteins and salt and sugar that's in their products, but suffice to say that eating a Big Mac in one day's time, is a lot of calories and a lot of fat. I really disagree with their proposition. It can make a difference, and, just on a practical level, if one is accustomed to eating a burger on occasion, we tend to adapt our taste to that sort of thing and so we're not satisfied with just having an occasional burger, it just doesn't work that way.

But people aren't only eating McDonald's products, they're eating it as part of a balanced diet, surely one hamburger, french fries and a milkshake isn't going to make that much difference?

That sort of argument doesn't really wash very well with me because it's hard for a person simply to have an odd burger here and there, while otherwise consuming a diet mostly made of plant material. You don't find vegetarians for example having an occasional burger, so in a practical sense it doesn't quite work that way. For those who do have an occasional burger, maybe two or three a week, if they are also consuming that same kind of food in their homes then that additional burger is really adding quite a burden to their diet through the course of the day and during the course of the week. One burger is very high in fat, very high in animal protein, doesn't contain any of the other useful things, and so it adds a burden, and in the study of China that we did, we found that even small additions of animal based foods to the diet begin to cause cholesterol to rise in the population as a whole, and that in turn begins to cause these diseases to appear.

McDonald's distribute a leaflet which says, 'Everytime you eat a McDonald's you'll be eating good nutritious food.' What's your response to that?

That's not true. We are not eating good nutritious food when we're eating McDonald's burgers. It's true that there are some nutrients in that food of course, but we can get those same nutrients from plant based material without suffering the adverse effects that happen to be present with the consumption of burgers. So, by any stretch of the imagination that is not good nutritious food, and I don't think anyone would really say that, with a straight face.

McDonald's are expanding into more varied areas - not just on the high street but elsewhere such as airports, hospitals and particularly in England McDonald's are moving into the sponsirship of schools. What's your reaction to that?

I didn't know that McDonald's are moving into hospitals and I find it really alarming that it is being allowed. It would be particularly troublesome for the patients in the hospitals. They are the people who most need good sound nutrition it seems to me, and the worse thing that they could possibly do, at that time, is to start consuming these high fat, high animal protein sorts of products. That is not going to help them. We have really outstanding evidence now that heart disease in the advanced stages can actually be reversed by consuming an all plant based diet. The evidence that we're now gaining is very exciting. That really is atrocious, that McDonald's is actually invading that arena, for the visitors to the hospital, but particularly for the ailing who are in the hospital.

The question concerning McDonald's foods being introduced into the school system is quite a serious problem. I happen to have a student, a middle aged woman, who recently did a study in the States for her PhD dissertation on the local school system.

Her study showed that children in the very first grades, when they're given the opportunity of exploring food, through preparing the food and learning about where it comes from, (particularly the kind of food, that many people think rather odd; plant food, cous cous and all the like), when they're exposed to those sorts of ideas at the beginning of the school year really get quite enthused about it, and then by the end of the year not only had the children changed their own diets dramatically, they went home and told their mothers about it, their mothers started changing their diet, and the little town grocery store started introducing new shelves to put these kind of foods on.

In fact the story made the New York Times not too long ago and showed that children apparently do not like animal based foods, that's something that they have to be trained to eat. Secondly it showed that children can be actually educated in the public school system in good health, and then actually take the message home, and convince their parents. It's the other way around from what we all have tended to think. It's quite dramatic.

In fact the story made the New York Times not too long ago and showed that children apparently do not like animal based foods, that's something that they have to be trained to eat.

If you had the opportunity to address the head of McDonald's and you could actually say to him what you think about the whole picture that McDonald's paints to the world what would you say?

I would basically show him the data I have found. Anyone who is willing to sit down long enough to actually look at the evidence really cannot come away without being impressed with the facts. I would appeal to his public and personal consciousness, and then encourage him to begin to shift his dietary ethos to a more healthy kind of diet and begin to try to educate him and the public on this better nutrition. I understand that in a free market system they are going to serve whatever they can sell, but at the same time they can take some leadership and try to get people to think differently.

What was your reaction to the stand Dave and Helen are taking, and the situation that they find themselves in?

I think David and Helen are doing something really quite extraordinary. They're really sacrificing a lot to do this. I really admire someone taking on a cause like this, and standing with it and staying with it. Their arguments are very consistent with what I think is basically good science, and I have enormous respect and admiration for what they're doing. Obviously they're at a disadvantage in the courtroom not having been trained in the law. I really wish them the best.

What will happen if McDonald's win? How do you think they will capitalise on that?

I really worry about McDonald's winning. I have worked for a long time in third world countries; in China and the Philippines, in Indonesia and Haiti; and I've seen in recent years how McDonald's have begun to invade these areas. They see this as an exciting new target area to produce their products. They're going into these countries and they have the advantage of being western, in a sense they have that marketing advantage. They're really having quite an impact, and if they win this case they're going to be able to tell these countries and these policy makers, look, we've won a case in a country that has one of the oldest and most prestigious legal systems in the world, and they're going to use it in their adverts, without a doubt. It's going to be tragic, it's going to be a disaster. It's very insidious what they're doing. It's clear that science is really on David and Helen's side, it's not on McDonald's side, and they're really going to distort the truth, and they're going to use it for good, for marketing purposes in these countries. I really hope that the judge will find a way not to allow that to happen.

What would you say about a diet that is high in fat, sugar, animal products and salt, and low in fibre, vitamins and minerals, and because eating it may well make your diet high in fat, sugar, animal products and salt, and low in fibre, vitamins and minerals you run a very real risk that you will suffer cancer of the breast or bowel, or heart disease as a result?

I totally agree with that statement. I think it's really hardly debatable, we can talk about the details, or the mechanisms by which this works, and have a considerable debate on that perhaps, but as far as the ultimate effect is concerned, it's supported by enormous amounts of scientific evidence. The simple facts are, that that kind of diet does raise the risks of these diseases. So it's an excellent statement. I support it fully.

In the case of heart disease, when one consumes a burger that's high in fat, high in cholesterol and high in animal protein, it's quite, quite clear now today that, these particular components of that food when consumed, lead to a high fat content in the arteries, a high cholesterol level in the arties and deposition of cholesterol in the legions that ultimately lead to heart disease, and so that is really quite well accepted, quite clear. Now we're beginning to learn in recent years, that, although, different mechanisms are involved, the same result occurs, with respect to the cancers. These cancers begin to grow, more rapidly under those conditions, not necessarily because cholesterol goes and actually causes the cancer itself to grow, but it's a whole constellation of things that happen.

So the result in the case of cancer is the same as it is for heart disease. That is to say, these kinds of nutrients, that kind of food promoted in a McDonald burger does lead to high cancer rates, fast growth of the cancer tumours themselves.

It may involve a somewhat different mechanism of course from the mechanism associated with heart disease, but nonetheless the result is the same.

You don't feel that's an overstatement?

No.

McDonald's may well claim that this is just scaremongering - that particularly in America families, ordinary people have been eating burgers for a greater part of this century and no-one is dying in the street, people are enjoying them.