The November 3-9, 2007 issue of the British science magazine New Scientist has an article about Ten Ways to Avoid Cancer. Some of the suggestions like reducing body fat, getting more physical, lowering the intake of red meat, alcohol, junk foor and preservatives are all excellent. One, startled me. It was a suggestion to avoid nutritional supplements. I had to see the report that would make this claim.

The study put out by the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research is called Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective. I read over the reasoning behind the suggestion they made that supplements cause cancer but I really fail to see how they came up with that reasoning. All I could find was references to a few studies that implicated beta-carotene to an increased risk of cancer in smokers (wow aren’t they a major risk group already?), selenium and calcium actually being protective. How a journalist can make a sweeping statement like avoiding supplements when the recomendation was “Aim to meet nutritional needs through diet alone” and that they even qualified that by saying that “This may not always be feasible”.

Where do those two quotes state to avoid supplements?  In reality, the notion that you can get all the nutrients you need from your diet is an absolute myth. The foods we get at the market today do not have the kind of nutritional backbone they claim. Supplementation is essential to even meet the needs of a non-stressed, healthy person much less someone living in the toxic world we do.

The only real caution the panel makes is that supplements shouldn’t be used to “prevent” cancer. Now I disagree with them on that but that is no where near saying to avoid them to prevent cancer.

Shame on the New Scientist for so twisting the report so much. Bad journalism equals misleading data which causes panic and harm to the general public.