For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.


When Harvard researchers concluded in 1992 that a high-fat diet doesn’t increase breast cancer risk, many accepted the findings unquestionably. Dr. Marc Lippman, director of the Vincent Lombardi Cancer Center at Georgetown University, quickly reported: “If your goal is to do something really substantial about breast cancer risk, you’re wasting your time with fat reduction.”

But Dr. Robert Kradjian, then the chief of general surgery at Seton Medical Center in Daly City, Calif., remained skeptical. Curious, Kradjian did what medical researchers rarely do–he analyzed the final, published study. His decision: “It was a lousy study that reached an erroneous conclusion.”

Kradjian, in his book Save Yourself From Breast Cancer (Berkeley Books), claims researchers made a crucial mistake: Women classified as having “low-fat” diets consumed an average of 27 percent of their daily calories from fat. “That’s ‘low fat’ by America’s fat-bloated standards,” he says. But he cites a collection of studies that suggests women aren’t protected from breast cancer until fat drops below 20 percent. American and Western European women, for example, report five to six times the breast cancer rate of Asian and African women, whose diets are comparatively low in fat.

So how did Harvard researchers bungle such a high-profile study? He suggests that many doctors don’t believe it’s possible for Americans to reduce dietary fat to 20 percent of their total daily calories. How hard is it? Generally, Kradjian says, it means eliminating butter and margarine in favor of small amounts of olive oil, reducing dairy products, and severely limiting meat consumption. “I know many doctors who say Americans ‘won’t’ or ‘can’t’ do it,” Kradjian says. But the benefits include reducing the risk of heart disease and helping control body weight. “And you know what? It’s not a major sacrifice.”

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest