This is a minor nitpick, but I’m placing this in GQ in case I’m under a misconception. Here goes:
Some researcher says that “some food” has been shown to cause a decrease in incidences of cancer. The idea then promoted is that “that food” is a cancer preventative. My nitpick is that if “that food” is something that simply has no known carcinogenic properties, it is simply failing to contribute to it, not doing something that prevents the birth of these errant cells.
So, the question: Are there actually foods with quantifiable anti-carcinogenic properties, or are they simply occupying a space in the diet that–while having no carcinogenic properties of their own–might be filled with something could otherwise be filled with some carcinogenic food?
(To me, failure to contribute to something is not quite the same as contributing to prevent something.)