Is Cancer a Disease of Modern Industrialization? A Look at the Historical Evidence

Table of Contents

• Key Points
• Background: Why This Question Matters
• Traditional Societies and Cancer: What Early Observers Found
• Key Historical Observations From Around the World
• ’Progress’ to Cancer: The Link With Civilization
• The Fall of St. Kilda: A Case Study in Health Decline
• Addressing Some Doubts and Counterarguments
• What This Means for Patients Today
• Limitations of This Historical Evidence
• Recommendations: Acting on What We Know
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Source Information

Key Points

• Historical reports found cancer exceptionally rare among traditional societies worldwide.
• Cancer appeared among traditional peoples only after they adopted Western, industrialized lifestyles.
• Doctors observed no breast cancer in Eskimo women despite years of active searching.
• Traditional diets—unprocessed and free of industrial chemicals—may help reduce cancer risk.
• Prevention should focus on reducing exposure to environmental toxins, not only treating disease.

Background: Why This Question Matters

For many years, the accepted view within mainstream cancer medicine has been that cancer ran rampant among traditional (pre-industrial) peoples — just as much as, or even more than, in modern industrial society. If that were true, then cancer would largely be an unavoidable disease, and the best we can do is focus on treating it rather than preventing it. But is that assumption justified? Could it be that the entire medical establishment has a financial incentive to favor treatment over prevention?

The article points out that economic growth in industrialized nations is often linked — in some ways dependent on — societal sickness. For example, Irish economic analysts note that a lasting peace in Northern Ireland would hurt thousands of people employed in security, policing, and conflict-related industries. Similarly, more cars mean more highways, highway patrol officers, road crews, ambulances, and medical services. More crime creates jobs for police, prisons, lawyers, and a growing “paranoia industry.”

Cancer fits this same pattern. A billion-dollar industry has grown up around the near-epidemic problem of cancer. Powerful institutions, multinational pharmaceutical companies, and many individuals depend on the continued existence and growth of the problem — not on its prevention. If it became widely accepted that man-made chemicals and industrial pollutants cause most cancers, the very pillars of modern industrial economies could be threatened. So, the article argues, it is not surprising that the cancer establishment and large chemical companies have worked systematically to discredit such an analysis.

We are told that cancer is not increasing, that it is normal and natural for more than one in three people to suffer from it, and that if there is an increase, it simply reflects longer life expectancy — since cancer is a disease of old age. We are even told that cancer clusters around nuclear power plants are coincidental, and that natural foods like blue cheese, mushrooms, and Brazil nuts are the real culprits. But a close look at what few traditional, pre-industrial societies existed paints a very different picture.

Traditional Societies and Cancer: What Early Observers Found

Few formal studies have been conducted on cancer among traditional societies, largely because those societies have been colonized, industrialized, or otherwise destroyed. For funding and political reasons, research into the health of traditional people is not a priority for the medical establishment — indeed, such research could undermine the entire “progress” narrative and the lucrative disease-treatment industry. Still, a number of notable reports exist.

One major summary was compiled by Vilhjalmur Stefansson in 1960, titled Cancer: Disease of Civilization? In the preface, René Dubos, the late Professor of Microbiology at Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, noted that “history shows that each type of civilization, like each social group and each way of life, has diseases which are peculiar to it.” He added that “certain diseases such as dental caries, arteriosclerosis, and the cancers are so uncommon among certain primitive people as to remain unnoticed — at least as long as nothing is changed in the ancestral ways of life.”

Earlier, in 1915, the Prudential Insurance Company of America published an 846-page report titled The Mortality from Cancer Throughout the World. Its author, Frederick L. Hoffman (chairman of the committee on statistics of the American Society for the Control of Cancer), reviewed thousands of separate reports and all available data. His conclusion was that “the rarity of cancer among native man suggests that the disease is primarily induced by the conditions and methods of living which typify our modern civilization.” He explained that medical missionaries and other trained observers living for years among native races worldwide would have reported cancer if it were common, but instead the “negative evidence is convincing that, in the opinion of qualified medical observers, cancer is exceptionally rare among the primitive peoples.”

Hoffman also quoted Dr. Charles Powell: “There can be little doubt that the various influences grouped under the title of civilization play a part in producing a tendency to cancer.” And Dr. W. S. Bainbridge, author of The Cancer Problem, wrote that with a “changed environment … there came an increase in susceptibility to cancerous disease … this susceptibility becoming more marked as civilization develops; in other words as environment changes.” Hoffman posed the question: “What are the conditions peculiar to civilized peoples, and absent from primitive races, which are associated with its prevalence and increase in the former, and its almost entire absence or relative infrequency in the latter?” His answer: “Cancer is unquestionably very rare in native races.”

Key Historical Observations From Around the World

Beyond these comprehensive reports, dozens of individual physicians, surgeons, and explorers recorded their own experiences. Here are some of the most notable observations, all documented in the article:

• Nobel laureate Albert Schweitzer wrote of his arrival in Gabon in 1913: “I was astonished to encounter no case of cancer.” He said that like other frontier doctors, he could only report that if any cancer cases existed, they must have been quite rare.
• Dr. Stanislas Tanchou told the Academy of Sciences in 1843 about a Dr. Bac, surgeon-in-chief of the Second African Regiment, who had practiced medicine in Senegal for six years and never once witnessed a case of cancer. He also reported on M. Baudens, surgeon-in-chief at Val-de-Grace, who practiced eight years in Algiers and found only two cancer cases. And a Dr. Puzin, examining 10,000 people, discovered only one case of cancer — a woman’s breast cancer.
• Livingston French Jones wrote in A Study of the Thlingets of Alaska (1914) that while certain diseases had always been found among the Thlingets, others were of recent introduction. “Tumours, cancers and toothache were unknown to them until within recent years.”
• Dr. Samuel King Hutton reported in 1925 on health conditions among the Eskimos of Labrador: “some diseases common in Europe have not come under my notice during a prolonged and careful survey of the health of the Eskimos. Of these diseases, the most striking is cancer.”
• Dr. J. Lyman Bulkley, Associate Editor of the New York City journal Cancer, wrote an article in 1927 called “Cancer Among Primitive Tribes.” After about twelve years among several Alaskan native tribes, he “never discovered among them a single true case of carcinosis [cancer].” He attributed “in a very large measure … the increase in frequency of malignancy” to “civilization and all its influences.”
• Dr. Joseph Herman Romig, Alaska’s “most famous doctor,” told Dr. Preston A. Price in 1939 that in his 36 years of contact with these people, he had “never seen a case of malignant disease among the truly primitive Eskimos and Indians, although it frequently occurs when they become modernized.”
• Dr. L. A. White wrote in a 1958 letter to Stefansson that during his 17 years practicing in Alaska (including at Unalaska, Metlakatla, Klawock, and Bethel), he observed that hypertension and arteriosclerotic diseases were practically nonexistent among native peoples, diabetes was extremely rare, and malignant disease was extremely rare — he saw only one proven case (in Bethel, 1940). He also saw no strokes or coronary heart disease.
• Sir Robert McCarrison, a surgeon in the Indian Health Service, observed “a total absence of all diseases” during his seven years in the Hunza valley. “During the period of my association with these peoples, I never saw a case of … cancer.”
• Dr. Eugene Payne examined approximately 60,000 individuals over a quarter of a century in parts of Brazil and Ecuador and found no evidence of cancer.
• Dr. Hoffman reported on the Indians of Bolivia, “among whom I was unable to trace a single authentic case of malignant disease. All of the physicians whom I interviewed on the subject were emphatically of the opinion that cancer of the breast among Indian women was never met with.”
• Drs. Allen E. Banik and Renée Taylor described the Hunzas’ “freedom from a variety of diseases and physical ailments” as “remarkable … Cancer, heart attacks, vascular complaints and many of the common childhood diseases … are unknown among them.”
• Dr. George Plummer Howe believed that even if some cancers were going undetected, after years of work and thousands of check-ups, “external cancers could not possibly exist in the inspected regions for decades without being recognized or without resulting in deaths.”

’Progress’ to Cancer: The Link With Civilization

The same pattern emerged everywhere observers looked: cancer appeared among “primitive” people only after they adopted modern, Westernized lifestyles. Stefansson summarized it perfectly: “From east to west, the medical missionaries all looked for cancer, and they never found it among the ‘primitive’, though they did find it among the ‘modernized.’”

In 1934, a U.S. Treasury Public Health report surveyed which regions and groups were most and least prone to cancer. The result, as you might expect from the evidence above, was that cancer incidence rose directly in parallel with Western industrial contact. Even more striking, a 1970 study found that African Americans were ten times more likely to contract cancer than rural Africans living in Africa.

Explorer Roald Amundsen, author of The Northwest Passage, wrote in 1908 about the three-year voyage of the Gjoa, during which he came in contact with ten different Eskimo tribes. He compared those who had contact with civilization and those who had not: “I must state it as my firm conviction that the latter, the Eskimos living absolutely isolated from civilization of any kind, are undoubtedly the happiest, healthiest, most honorable and most contented among them … My sincerest wishes for our friends the Nechilli Eskimos is, that civilization may never reach them.”

Dr. George Leavitt, a “stopgap” ship’s doctor, worked with Eskimos for many years. Before the measles epidemic of 1900, he would have been in contact with up to 50,000 people. After years of questioning frontier doctors and looking for a cancer victim among those he encountered, he eventually gave up “because he was so sure by then that, except among civilized Eskimos, no cancers would be found in the Arctic.”

This belief was widespread in the late 1800s. Dr. John Le Conte, called the “Father of the university (of California)” by the National Academy of Sciences, joked that Paris — suffering four times as many cancers as London at the time — must be four times more civilized. He noted that England’s mortuary records from 1860 to 1867 indicated a very remarkable increase in the death rate from cancer.

In the July 1927 issue of Cancer, Dr. William Hay observed that “tribes living naturally will show a complete absence of cancer till mixture with more civilized man corrupts the naturalness of habit; and just as these habits conform to those civilizations, even so does cancer begin to show its head.” Dr. Berglas called civilization, in terms of cancer, “a juggernaut that cannot be stopped,” and quoted Dr. G. Schenk: “It is the nature and essence of industrial civilization to be toxic in every sense … We are faced with the grim prospect that the advance of cancer and of civilization parallel each other.”

The Fall of St. Kilda: A Case Study in Health Decline

To understand what happens when a traditional society meets industrialization, there is perhaps no better example than the remote Hebridean island of St. Kilda. The island was extensively documented from the eighteenth century until its collapse in 1930. For centuries, the St. Kildans lived in self-sufficiency, with their own customs, arts, religion, language, and a unique cliff-based culture.

Charles Maclean, who documented St. Kilda’s history, wrote: “As long as St. Kilda remained remote from the world, its society was viable, even Utopian; but in the 19th century the island was ‘discovered’ by missionaries, do-gooders and tourists, who under the impression that they were bringing to St. Kilda the benefits of civilization brought money, disease and despotism.” The population dwindled, the culture disintegrated, and in 1930 the few remaining islanders asked to be evacuated because they could no longer support themselves.

Before the corruption set in, visitors were in awe of the St. Kildans’ health. In the nineteenth century, Dr. MacCulloch acknowledged “the good physique of the males,” who were “well-looking, and appeared, as they indeed are, well fed … and bearing the marks of easy circumstances, or rather wealth.” George Seton in 1877 wrote that “the remarkably healthy look of the children in arms was the subject of universal comment.” A Mr. Wilson described the men as strong, handsome, and “with bright eyes, and an expression of great intelligence.” Rear Admiral Otter believed that “those that survive infancy grow up strong, healthy men and women.” One nineteenth-century observer dismissed any suggestion of famine: “ludicrous insinuations as to the possibility of ‘famine’ are hardly worthy of notice.”

Maclean’s own research revealed that “in the days when they lived in almost complete isolation from the rest of the world the St. Kildans had been a strong and healthy race afflicted by few diseases.” An earlier writer, Martin, noted: “They never had a potion or physic given them in their lives, nor know anything of phlebotomy; a physician could not expect his bread in this commonwealth.” But as contact with civilization increased, the islanders’ health declined. They became susceptible to diseases previously unknown on St. Kilda. By the 20th century, a general debilitating weakness had set in. They suffered more and more frequently from colds, coughs, headaches, and rheumatism, while dyspepsia (indigestion), scrofula (a form of tuberculosis), ear disease, and dysentery soon became common complaints.

Contemporary observers blamed the St. Kildans’ poor health on their diet and hard way of life, but they failed to account for the fact that the islanders’ diet and lifestyle had changed little over the centuries — what had changed was their contact with the modern world.

Addressing Some Doubts and Counterarguments

Today, many of these historical observations are dismissed as “unscientific.” But they were readily accepted by those who had regular, first-hand contact with traditional peoples before their demise. Some skeptics argue that cancer simply went undetected in these populations, or that traditional people didn’t live long enough to develop cancer. Let’s examine those arguments.

First, the idea that cancer went undetected is hard to swallow for cancers that would be visible or cause obvious symptoms. Dr. George Plummer Howe pointed out that external cancers could not exist for decades in inspected regions without being recognized. And Dr. L. A. White, with all his years in Alaska, saw only one proven case. Dr. Romig’s 36 years of contact produced zero cases among truly traditional people.

Second, consider breast cancer specifically. Today, breast cancerafflicts roughly one in eight women in the United States. Yet in the Canadian Arctic, medical professionals made extraordinary efforts to find even a single case. In 1957, Mrs. Griest, head nurse of Farthest North Hospital, said: “This I know, in all my 17 years of nursing in the hospital, we never found any women with lumps in their breasts.” Moreover, the Canadian Medical Association Journal printed an article in 1956 by Drs. Lawson, Saunders, and Cowen, who stated that “for the past ten years we have been aware of the relative freedom of Eskimos [of the Canadian eastern Arctic] from breast cancer and cystic disease. In spite of strenuous efforts, we have been unable to discover one authenticated case of Eskimo breast malignancy.”

Third, the “life expectancy” argument fails. Even if cancer is more common in old age, traditional societies did have older members. Contrary to popular belief, the life expectancy of traditional people can be higher than ours — if it is calculated from the age of ten rather than from birth. As René Dubos explained, “The increase in life expectancy is almost exclusively the result of the virtual elimination of mortality in the young age groups.” So-called increases in life expectancy in industrialized societies often represent merely the survival of more children to adulthood, not longer life for adults. Older traditional people certainly existed, and they were not dying of cancer.

What This Means for Patients Today

This historical evidence has deep implications for how we think about cancer prevention and treatment. If cancer is not simply a random, unavoidable disease, but is largely driven by environmental factors associated with industrialization, then prevention becomes far more important than the current “accommodation” model of treating the disease after it appears. As the article argues, the medical establishment’s assumption that cancer is traditional and unavoidable helps justify the huge, profitable industry built on detection, treatment, and research — rather than on stopping the causes of cancer in the first place.

For patients and their families, this means several things:

• You may be able to reduce your cancer risk by minimizing exposure to man-made chemicals, industrial pollutants, and other environmental toxins.
• A whole-food, traditional-style diet — similar to what these pre-industrial societies ate — may be protective. The St. Kildans, Hunzas, Eskimos, and others ate natural, unprocessed foods, and they did not get cancer.
• It is worth questioning claims that natural foods like blue cheese, mushrooms, and Brazil nuts are significant causes of cancer, especially when industrial pollution and widespread chemical use are far more obvious suspects.
• Prevention should be a higher priority — both personally and at the policy level. The enormous investment in cancer research and treatment, while valuable, does not replace the need to remove cancer-causing substances from our environment.

Of course, this does not mean that all cancers are caused by industrialization, nor that modern cancer treatments are useless. But the historical record deserves serious attention, and it suggests that our ancestors who lived close to nature had much lower rates of cancer than we do today — and that adopting their lifestyles could help protect us.

Limitations of This Historical Evidence

It is important to acknowledge the weaknesses of the evidence presented in this article. Very few systematic, controlled studies have been done on cancer rates in traditional societies, because by the time scientists became interested, most of these societies had already been destroyed or transformed. The evidence is largely anecdotal — based on the observations of individual doctors, missionaries, and explorers. Such accounts can be biased, imprecise, or exaggerated.

Furthermore, some of these observers may not have been able to diagnose internal cancers without modern imaging tools. Cancer can hide inside the body for years without being noticed. However, the sheer consistency of reports — from Africa to Alaska, from Brazil to the Himalayas — is striking. Even allowing for underdiagnosis, the complete absence of breast cancer (a disease that is hard to miss in its later stages) among Eskimo women, despite strenuous efforts to find it, is difficult to explain away.

Also, traditional societies were not free from all diseases. They suffered from infections, parasites, accidents, and other health problems. But the specific claim here is about cancer, and the historical record consistently shows that cancer was rare until modern industrialization arrived.

Recommendations: Acting on What We Know

Even with these limitations, there are practical steps that individuals and society can take based on the weight of historical and environmental evidence:

1. Eat a whole-food, minimally processed diet. Traditional diets varied widely — from fish and marine mammals in the Arctic to grains and vegetables in the Hunza valley — but they all had one thing in common: they were unprocessed and free of industrial chemicals.
2. Avoid unnecessary exposure to industrial chemicals and pollutants. This includes pesticides, plastics, synthetic fragrances, and air pollution. Choose organic food when possible, filter your drinking water, and ventilate your home.
3. Support research into environmental causes of cancer. Instead of funding only new drugs and treatments, we should also invest in understanding what in our environment is driving cancer rates up — and then removing those causes.
4. Be skeptical of claims that cancer is “natural” or “unavoidable.” While some cancers are genetic or random, the historical evidence suggests that many cancers can be prevented by avoiding the toxins of modern industrial life.
5. Discuss risk factors with your doctor. If you have a family history of cancer, or if you have been exposed to environmental toxins, talk to your healthcare provider about surveillance and lifestyle changes.

At a societal level, the article calls for a fundamental rethinking of “progress.” If economic growth depends on the continued production of cancer-causing chemicals, then we need a new model of health that truly values prevention over treatment. The story of St. Kilda and so many other traditional societies shows that “civilization” brought not only benefits, but also disease. It would be wise, as the article urges, to question the assumptions that justify our current path.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does the historical evidence say about cancer rates in traditional societies?

Doctors, missionaries, and explorers reported that cancer was exceptionally rare—often completely absent—among people living traditional, pre-industrial lifestyles. Reports came from Africa, the Arctic, South America, and the Himalayas. Many physicians spent decades among such peoples without seeing a single cancer case. Cancer appeared only after these groups adopted Western, modernized habits, suggesting industrialization plays a major role in many cancers.

Does eating a traditional-style diet help protect against cancer?

Historical evidence indicates that traditional peoples who ate unprocessed, natural foods rarely developed cancer. Diets varied widely, from Arctic marine foods to Hunza grains and vegetables, but all were free of industrial chemicals. The article suggests that adopting a whole-food, minimally processed diet may reduce cancer risk. However, it acknowledges that not all cancers are preventable through diet alone.

Are natural foods like blue cheese, mushrooms, and Brazil nuts real causes of cancer?

The article argues that claims blaming natural foods such as blue cheese, mushrooms, and Brazil nuts for cancer may distract from more obvious suspects like industrial pollution and widespread chemical use. Historical accounts show traditional peoples eating natural diets without cancer. While some natural foods may contain trace carcinogens, the article urges skepticism about their importance compared to industrial toxins.

Should I worry about environmental chemicals and pesticides increasing my cancer risk?

The historical evidence suggests that cancer rates rose when traditional peoples came into contact with industrialization and its accompanying chemical exposures. The article recommends avoiding unnecessary exposure to pesticides, plastics, synthetic fragrances, and air pollution. Practical steps include choosing organic food when possible, filtering drinking water, and ventilating homes to lower potential cancer risks.

What should I discuss with my doctor about cancer prevention based on this evidence?

Given this historical evidence, you might ask your doctor about minimizing exposures to environmental toxins and industrial chemicals. If you have a family history of cancer or past toxin exposure, discuss surveillance and lifestyle changes. The article emphasizes that prevention deserves higher priority, and being skeptical of claims that cancer is 'unavoidable' can guide your conversation with healthcare providers.

Is the argument that cancer is just a disease of old age correct?

The article challenges this. While cancer is more common in older age, traditional societies did have older members who did not die of cancer. Robert Johnson counters that modern life expectancy increases mainly by preventing childhood deaths, not by making adults live longer. Historical observers reported no cancer even among elderly traditional individuals, so age alone does not explain the cancer epidemic.

Can I still get cancer even if I live a traditional, natural lifestyle?

Yes, the article clearly states that not all cancers are caused by industrialization. Some cancers are genetic or random. Traditional societies suffered from infections, parasites, and accidents, but cancer was rare. Adopting a traditional diet and avoiding industrial chemicals may reduce risk, but it cannot guarantee complete protection. Consult your doctor for personalized risk assessment.

I was diagnosed with cancer and my oncologist only wants to treat it. Should I get a second opinion to ask whether my cancer could be linked to environmental or industrial causes and whether prevention and lifestyle changes should be part of my plan?

Historical evidence indicates that cancer was exceptionally rare in traditional societies and appeared mainly after industrialization, suggesting environmental factors may drive many cancers. A whole-food, minimally processed diet and avoiding industrial chemicals may be protective. If your treatment plan focuses only on treatment and overlooks these possible environmental contributors, a second opinion can help you evaluate whether lifestyle and preventive measures are relevant. Not all cancers are caused by industrialization, and modern cancer treatments are not useless. Diagnostic Detectives Network provides independent expert second opinions.

Source Information

This patient-friendly article is based on peer-reviewed research originally published in The Ecologist, Vol. 28, No. 2, March/April 1998, pages 93–97. The original article is titled “Cancer: A Disease of Industrialization” by Zac Goldsmith. This is a translation and explanation of that article for a general audience; it is not a substitute for professional medical advice. Readers interested in the original sources and citations are encouraged to consult the full text of the article.