I tend to find myself a bit wary whenever I read, "New study says that X prevents cancer," or what have you. After all, we aren't so sure yet why we're getting cancer and so how can we determine preventative measures. Perhaps this is also a knee jerk response to the sources that direct us each season toward a solution to our health woes and away from that primary issue that has finally been isolated. First beef and butter and eggs; later breads and pastas, and then we should all be eating raw food.
That said, when the recommendation is eat more plentiful servings of vegetables, by all means. Let me stress, too, that I am by no means diminishing the science that has established a link between BRCA genes and broccoli [and cauliflower and cabbage]. But what if some day we find that our cancer is directly related to our stress? In that case perhaps the finest prophylactic measure is to eat a balanced, moderate diet and thoroughly enjoy our food.
Furthermore, we have this tendency to break things down to their smallest particle in order to establish efficacy. While this may be a useful tool, I think it's erroneous to assume that I3C will have the same effect once removed from broccoli, or maybe it's effect will be minimized by the use of a given insecticidal. All of this to say that we just don't know and isn't that sometimes acceptable?
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)