One group was given fibre supplements, another doses of calcium, also thought to reduce the incidence of bowel cancer, and the third received a placebo over a period of three years. The authors of the study express a number of qualifications regarding these results, as we would expect in peer-reviewed journal. The study has been reported in a number of British newspapers, including the Independent and the Express in a generally accurate way. The fact that this was a study of people who already had precursors for bowel cancer in the form of polyps was not always made clear, but a sense of balance has been evident. What this study really highlights is the near impossibility of providing definitive dietary prescriptions when the body of scientific evidence on which they are, or should be, founded is constantly shifting.
High fibre is still good for the heart, but now it is possibly bad for the bowel.
And red meat, another alleged villain of cancer causation, is now firmly on the school meals menu to prevent nutritional deficiencies. It is difficult to find any single food item that has not, at one time or another, been found to be both beneficial and, at others, toxic or carcinogenic. Broccoli, perhaps, is one of the few which has survived the pendulum swings of dietary correctness. Any contributions to this work will be extremely welcome. In the meantime, instead of being slaves to whatever dietary fad is currently fashionable, we might take a leaf out of Desmond Morris's book and start to believe that 'A little bit of what you fancy' might actually be good for you as well.