Response To Those Who Believe Soy Is Healthy

[Guest guest]

-

Response To Those Who Believe Soy Is Healthy 4-7-01.htm

 

 

4/7/01http://www.mercola.com/2001/apr/7/soy.ht

 

> Response To Those Who Believe Soy Is Healthy

> By Sally Fallon and Dr. Mary Enig

>

> In his Guest Editorial of October 2000 in the Townsend Letter, Mr. Bill

> Sardi expresses surprise that the " greatest criticism of soy has come from

> natural health advocates. " Yet most of the soy-based products on the

market

> today can hardly be called " natural " foods.

> They are produced in factories at high temperatures and pressures and with

> the help of a variety of chemicals. The soybeans themselves are grown on

> huge corporate farms, most of which use toxic pesticides and herbicides.

> And a large percentage of soy foods come from genetically engineered

plants.

> The fact that these products can be labeled " natural " only demonstrates

the

> power and duplicity of soy interests in America. Dr. Zava is one of many

> honest scientists who have read the literature and discovered that soy

> contains:

> allergens

> mineral blockers

> enzyme inhibitors

> hormone modifiers

> iodine blockers that interfere with normal thyroid function

> Mr. Sardi says these characterizations are unfair and inaccurate. Like Dr.

> Zava, we do not repeat " claims " that soy contains antinutrients and

toxins;

> we quote the scientific literature. Propaganda is " the systemic

propagation

> of a given doctrine or of allegations reflecting its views and interests;

> material disseminated by the advocates of a doctrine. "

> The promotion of soy as a miracle food has been both systematic and

> reflective of the doctrine of the food industry-that imitation foods are

> good for us and traditional foods are unhealthy.

> The soy campaign is, in fact, a case study in the use of propaganda to

> promote commercial interests.

> Mr. Sardi misquotes us frequently. We stated that soy was not considered

fit

> to eat in Asia a few centuries ago (not a few decades ago); we did not

> " acknowledge that Asians consume 30 times more soy than North Americans. "

We

> pointed out studies showing that soy consumption in Asia is actually much

> lower than claimed-averaging 10 grams per person, less than two teaspoons.

> He does not seem to understand our argument that if soy is given as the

> reason Asians have lower rates of breast, prostate and colon cancer

(simply

> because Asians supposedly eat large amounts of soy), then the same logic

> requires us to blame high rates of cancers of the esophagus, stomach,

> thyroid, pancreas and liver in Asian countries on consumption of soy.

> The truth is that we don't know exactly why Asian countries have certain

> types of cancers and western countries have other types. Eastern types of

> cancers have been attributed to many factors, of which soy consumption is

> one, but to claim that soy consumption is associated with lower rates of

> certain types of cancers while neglecting to mention that soy is also

> associated with higher rates of certain types of cancer is typical of

> industry dishonesty.

> Sardi acknowledges that Asians have higher rates of pancreatic cancers in

> one paragraph, but states that populations that consume high levels of soy

> exhibit decreased rates of pancreatic cancer in another. We are confused.

> Messina did indeed omit the Rackis study in his " exhaustive " survey. In

> fact, Messina did not include any animal studies on pancreatic effects.

The

> Rackis study showed not only enlargement of the pancreas but also

> precancerous changes. And why the double standard? Why is it appropriate

to

> use rats prone to develop breast cancer in experiments with soy, but not

> rats prone to demonstrate disturbances in the pancreas?

> It is standard scientific practice to use rats bred to react in specific

> ways in order to study effects over short periods of time. Normal rat chow

> did not cause pancreatic changes in sensitive rats-only rat chow based on

> soy.

> Birds don't eat soy, says Sardi. They know better. The Jameses should have

> known that soy is not appropriate for birds (something that would come as

a

> surprise to the chicken industry.) The Jameses trusted the literature that

> came with the product, which stated that soy was an excellent food for

> birds. They also trusted the claims made for soy infant formula, that soy

> was " better than breast milk. "

> They should have known that soy was not an appropriate food for humans,

> particularly for babies and so should Mr. Sardi and all the others out

there

> who continue to provide glib assurances that soy formula is a good

> substitute for milk-based formula.

> The James learned a terrible lesson the hard way-that we should not trust

> claims for commercial food products, especially when these claims are too

> good to be true. In the absence of animal instinct, it's important to be

> skeptical. " Scientists cannot infer that animal data applies to humans, "

> says Sardi.

> But they do it all the time, especially when the data show protective

> effects. Only when the studies are negative do scientists get reprimanded

> for using them. Onward with the double standard. It is axiomatic that when

a

> chemical carcinogen is definitely active in one or more animal models, it

> can be stated with certitude that certain individuals of Homo sapiens

would

> be at risk.

> Soy proponents don't want the public to know that phytoestrogens can

induce

> tumors in several different species of animals.

> The younger the animal, the more susceptible it is to the action of

> plant-based estrogens, as it frequently is to other carcinogens. Sardi

> objects to some of our references.

> One of them-Natural Health News published by L & H Vitamin Company- was

> given as an example of promotional advertising, which in this case claimed

> that soy could prevent cancer. He complains of a missing citation, number

> 58, but there is no missing citation. It is published on the website and

was

> published in the Townsend Letter.

> Another criticism is that the average published date of our references is

13

> years old. We were not aware that averaging publication dates was a valid

> method for assessing studies and reports. Nevertheless, one of the aims of

> our article was to show that studies indicating soy toxicity date back as

> far as fifty to sixty years, especially studies showing adverse affects on

> the thyroid gland. (Goitrogenic components have been confirmed very

recently

> by Divi and Doerges.)

> Much good scientific work was done in past decades and it is work that can

> be depended upon because it took place before the soy industry began

funding

> university research.

> We hope that citation of the following recent studies will make our

" average

> published date " more acceptable:

> A study from Cornell University, published in the Journal of the American

> College of Nutrition, 1986, which found that children who develop diabetes

> mellitus were twice as likely to have been fed soy.

> A November 1994 warning published in Pediatrics in which the Nutrition

> Committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics advised against the use of

> soy formulas due to the diabetes risk. These warnings have been neglected

> ever since it was reported that the AAP accepted a multi-dollar donation

> from the Infant Formula Council for their new headquarters building

outside

> Chicago.

> A 1994 article by Lonnerdal published in Acta Paediatr summarizing the

> reduced bioavailability of trace minerals due to high phytic acid content

in

> soy infant formula; and high levels of manganese in soy formula compared

to

> cows milk formula and breast milk. Excessive intake of manganese is linked

> to problems with the central nervous system.

> A 1996 report published in the German magazine Klin Padiatr describing the

> development of hypocalcemic tetany in an infant fed soy formula.

> Two 1997 studies published in Nutrition and Cancer. One found that

> phytoestrogens at levels close to probable levels in humans stimulate

> cellular changes leading to breast cancer; the other found that dietary

soy

> suppressed enzymes protective of breast cancer in mice.

> A 1998 study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

further

> confirming that soy-protein supplementation stimulates cell proliferation

in

> human breast tissue.

> A 1998 study published in Cancer Research which found that dietary

genistein

> enhances the growth of mammary gland tumors in mice.

> A 1998 study by Nagata and others published in the Journal of Nutrition

> which gives daily consumption of tofu in Japan's Gifu prefecture as less

> than 1 gram per day.

> A 1998 study published in Toxicology and Industrial Health indicating the

> phytoestrogens are potential endocrine disrupters in males.

> A March 12, 1999 Daily Express article with the headline " Soy

> Allergy/Adverse Effect Rates Skyrocket - Monsanto's Roundup-Ready Soy

> Blamed "

> A 1999 study at the Clinical Research Center at MIT, published in the

> Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Pacific Coast Reproductive

Society

> which found that estrogens in soy had no effect on menopausal symptoms

such

> as hot flashes and night sweats.

> May 1999 and June 2000 studies published in Brain Research indicating that

> phytoestrogens have adverse affects on brain chemistry.

> An April 2000 study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of

> Science which found that flavonoids, especially genistein, can cross the

> placenta and induce cell changes that lead to infant leukemia.

> An article published in Nutrition and Cancer 2000 which found lower

> testosterone levels and higher estrogen levels in Japanese men who

consumed

> higher levels of soy foods.

> Publication in the British Journal of Urology, January 2000, of the study

> showing a five-time greater risk of delivering a boy with hypospadias, a

> birth defect of the penis, in mothers who ate a vegetarian diet during

> pregnancy. The researchers attributed high rates of the birth defect to

> phytoestrogens in soy products.

> An April 2000 study published in Carcinogenesis found that soy feeding

> stimulated the growth of rat thyroid with iodine deficiency, partly

through

> a pituitary-dependent pathway.

> A June 2000 article in American Journal of Cardiology which found that soy

> had no impact on lipid levels in healthy postmenopausal women

> Evidence that disturbing results were omitted from a 1994 study presented

to

> the FDA during the approval process for Roundup Ready Soybeans.

Researchers

> found that raw Roundup Ready meal contained 27 percent more trypsin

> inhibitor and toasted Roundup Ready meal contained 18 percent more trypsin

> inhibitor compared to non-genetically manipulated controls.

> The most serious concerns regarding soy foods involve the use of soy

infant

> formula.

> Sardi cites a 1998 Nutrition Reviews article by K. O. Klein of duPont

> Hospital for Children as proof that soy infant formulas do no harm.

> Yet in the article Klein notes that effects of isoflavones on various

animal

> species include hormonal changes, increased uterine weight and

infertility.

> " It is clear from the literature, " says Klein, " that different species

and

> different tissues are affected by isoflavones in markedly different ways.

> It is difficult to know which tissue, if any, are affected in infants, and

> the variation among species makes extrapolation to infants inappropriate. "

> This is scientific double talk.

> Scientists may be reluctant to extrapolate but parents would certainly err

> on the side of caution if they knew that " isoflavones affect different

> tissues in markedly different ways. " Klein says that medical literature

> provides " no evidence of endocrine effects. . and no changes in timing of

> puberty. "

> But she makes no mention of the Puerto Rican study which found that

> consumption of soy formula correlated strongly with early maturation in

> girls.

> Why would Dr. Klein leave out any reference to the Puerto Rican study in

her

> review? Is it because DuPont, owner of Protein Technologies International,

> is the leading manufacturer of soy protein isolate?

> Or is it because her review was sponsored by the Infant Formula Council?

Or

> because Nutrition Reviews, which published her whitewash, is funded by

> industry giants, including Pillsbury, Hershey Foods, Kellogg, Roche,

General

> Mills, Kraft, Campbell Soup, Monsanto, Coca-Cola, Cargill, Heinz, Nabisco,

> Proctor and Gamble and Pepsi-Cola?

> Soy can be implicated as a probable cause in the current epidemic of

> learning disabilities because it has similar effects in monkeys. Sardi is

> correct in stating the 1997 Journal of Pediatrics article makes no mention

> of soy. Neither does Time Magazine in their recent article on early

puberty

> in girls.

> The Time article speculates that exogenous estrogens might be the cause.

Is

> it not appropriate to speculate that estrogens in soy formula, which are

not

> " reduced significantly by their first pass through the liver " as Sardi

> claims but end up in the blood of infants in huge amounts, might also be a

> cause?

> Perhaps it is the hormones in meat and milk, say the writers of the

article.

> But hormonal levels in these products are minuscule compared to levels in

> soy formula. And in the Puerto Rican study, consumption of milk was

> negatively correlated with early maturation, which means that it might be

> protective.

> We do not claim that Asians have lower rates of osteoporosis-it is the soy

> supporters who make that claim. But if in fact they do have lower rates of

> bone loss, it is much more likely due to factors in the diet that are

> consumed in large amounts and that provide vitamin D and calcium, such as

> bone broth, shrimp and lard.

> We are aware of new research indicating that consumption of vitamin D is

> optimal at 4000 IU per day, not the RDA of 400 IU. This research is an

> excellent confirmation of the work of Weston Price who found that the

diets

> of healthy primitives peoples had at least ten times more vitamin D than

> that of the average American of his day. (Sunlight will not provide

adequate

> vitamin D unless a large portion of the skin is exposed during the summer

> months or in tropical latitudes.)

> The textbooks do indeed need to be rewritten to stress consumption of

> vitamin-D-rich animal foods and to minimize consumption of foods that

> increase our requirements for vitamin D-like soy. Shrimp sauces and shrimp

> pastes used in Asia and Africa are made from dried shrimp, hence very

> concentrated.

> They are eaten daily, often at every meal and could be expected to provide

> vitamin D in amounts greatly exceeding vitamin D intake levels in the US.

> The vitamin D content of butter varies with the feed of the animals.

Butter

> from cows on green growing grass is likely to provide far more vitamin D

> than butter from cows in confinement. We advocate consumption of butter

from

> pasture-fed animals (and eggs, lard and other animal foods for the same).

> Townsend Letter April 2001 213:100-103

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Although I'm not a great fan of soy, I have to agree with Mr. Sardi

on this one. The naysayer reports on soy are just a product of bad

science. As for the corporate angle, hell you can say that of nearly

every supplement on the market. Check it out. There are virtually

only seven companies putting out supplements, and they are all

divisions and subs of huge conglomerates like ADM and such. So,

let's not take any supplements at all, Elaine. Nada! Eat only whole

foods.

lotecq

 

Gettingwell, " Elaine121 " <Elaine121@e...> wrote:

>

> -

> Response To Those Who Believe Soy Is Healthy 4-7-01.htm

>

>

> 4/7/01http://www.mercola.com/2001/apr/7/soy.ht

>

> > Response To Those Who Believe Soy Is Healthy

> > By Sally Fallon and Dr. Mary Enig

> >

> > In his Guest Editorial of October 2000 in the Townsend Letter,

Mr. Bill

> > Sardi expresses surprise that the " greatest criticism of soy has

come from

> > natural health advocates. " Yet most of the soy-based products on

the

> market

> > today can hardly be called " natural " foods.

> > They are produced in factories at high temperatures and pressures

and with

> > the help of a variety of chemicals. The soybeans themselves are

grown on

> > huge corporate farms, most of which use toxic pesticides and

herbicides.

> > And a large percentage of soy foods come from genetically

engineered

> plants.

> > The fact that these products can be labeled " natural " only

demonstrates

> the

> > power and duplicity of soy interests in America. Dr. Zava is one

of many

> > honest scientists who have read the literature and discovered

that soy

> > contains:

> > allergens

> > mineral blockers

> > enzyme inhibitors

> > hormone modifiers

> > iodine blockers that interfere with normal thyroid function

> > Mr. Sardi says these characterizations are unfair and inaccurate.

Like Dr.

> > Zava, we do not repeat " claims " that soy contains antinutrients

and

> toxins;

> > we quote the scientific literature. Propaganda is " the systemic

> propagation

> > of a given doctrine or of allegations reflecting its views and

interests;

> > material disseminated by the advocates of a doctrine. "

> > The promotion of soy as a miracle food has been both systematic

and

> > reflective of the doctrine of the food industry-that imitation

foods are

> > good for us and traditional foods are unhealthy.

> > The soy campaign is, in fact, a case study in the use of

propaganda to

> > promote commercial interests.

> > Mr. Sardi misquotes us frequently. We stated that soy was not

considered

> fit

> > to eat in Asia a few centuries ago (not a few decades ago); we

did not

> > " acknowledge that Asians consume 30 times more soy than North

Americans. "

> We

> > pointed out studies showing that soy consumption in Asia is

actually much

> > lower than claimed-averaging 10 grams per person, less than two

teaspoons.

> > He does not seem to understand our argument that if soy is given

as the

> > reason Asians have lower rates of breast, prostate and colon

cancer

> (simply

> > because Asians supposedly eat large amounts of soy), then the

same logic

> > requires us to blame high rates of cancers of the esophagus,

stomach,

> > thyroid, pancreas and liver in Asian countries on consumption of

soy.

> > The truth is that we don't know exactly why Asian countries have

certain

> > types of cancers and western countries have other types. Eastern

types of

> > cancers have been attributed to many factors, of which soy

consumption is

> > one, but to claim that soy consumption is associated with lower

rates of

> > certain types of cancers while neglecting to mention that soy is

also

> > associated with higher rates of certain types of cancer is

typical of

> > industry dishonesty.

> > Sardi acknowledges that Asians have higher rates of pancreatic

cancers in

> > one paragraph, but states that populations that consume high

levels of soy

> > exhibit decreased rates of pancreatic cancer in another. We are

confused.

> > Messina did indeed omit the Rackis study in his " exhaustive "

survey. In

> > fact, Messina did not include any animal studies on pancreatic

effects.

> The

> > Rackis study showed not only enlargement of the pancreas but also

> > precancerous changes. And why the double standard? Why is it

appropriate

> to

> > use rats prone to develop breast cancer in experiments with soy,

but not

> > rats prone to demonstrate disturbances in the pancreas?

> > It is standard scientific practice to use rats bred to react in

specific

> > ways in order to study effects over short periods of time. Normal

rat chow

> > did not cause pancreatic changes in sensitive rats-only rat chow

based on

> > soy.

> > Birds don't eat soy, says Sardi. They know better. The Jameses

should have

> > known that soy is not appropriate for birds (something that would

come as

> a

> > surprise to the chicken industry.) The Jameses trusted the

literature that

> > came with the product, which stated that soy was an excellent

food for

> > birds. They also trusted the claims made for soy infant formula,

that soy

> > was " better than breast milk. "

> > They should have known that soy was not an appropriate food for

humans,

> > particularly for babies and so should Mr. Sardi and all the

others out

> there

> > who continue to provide glib assurances that soy formula is a good

> > substitute for milk-based formula.

> > The James learned a terrible lesson the hard way-that we should

not trust

> > claims for commercial food products, especially when these claims

are too

> > good to be true. In the absence of animal instinct, it's

important to be

> > skeptical. " Scientists cannot infer that animal data applies to

humans, "

> > says Sardi.

> > But they do it all the time, especially when the data show

protective

> > effects. Only when the studies are negative do scientists get

reprimanded

> > for using them. Onward with the double standard. It is axiomatic

that when

> a

> > chemical carcinogen is definitely active in one or more animal

models, it

> > can be stated with certitude that certain individuals of Homo

sapiens

> would

> > be at risk.

> > Soy proponents don't want the public to know that phytoestrogens

can

> induce

> > tumors in several different species of animals.

> > The younger the animal, the more susceptible it is to the action

of

> > plant-based estrogens, as it frequently is to other carcinogens.

Sardi

> > objects to some of our references.

> > One of them-Natural Health News published by L & H Vitamin

Company- was

> > given as an example of promotional advertising, which in this

case claimed

> > that soy could prevent cancer. He complains of a missing

citation, number

> > 58, but there is no missing citation. It is published on the

website and

> was

> > published in the Townsend Letter.

> > Another criticism is that the average published date of our

references is

> 13

> > years old. We were not aware that averaging publication dates was

a valid

> > method for assessing studies and reports. Nevertheless, one of

the aims of

> > our article was to show that studies indicating soy toxicity date

back as

> > far as fifty to sixty years, especially studies showing adverse

affects on

> > the thyroid gland. (Goitrogenic components have been confirmed

very

> recently

> > by Divi and Doerges.)

> > Much good scientific work was done in past decades and it is work

that can

> > be depended upon because it took place before the soy industry

began

> funding

> > university research.

> > We hope that citation of the following recent studies will make

our

> " average

> > published date " more acceptable:

> > A study from Cornell University, published in the Journal of the

American

> > College of Nutrition, 1986, which found that children who develop

diabetes

> > mellitus were twice as likely to have been fed soy.

> > A November 1994 warning published in Pediatrics in which the

Nutrition

> > Committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics advised against

the use of

> > soy formulas due to the diabetes risk. These warnings have been

neglected

> > ever since it was reported that the AAP accepted a multi-dollar

donation

> > from the Infant Formula Council for their new headquarters

building

> outside

> > Chicago.

> > A 1994 article by Lonnerdal published in Acta Paediatr

summarizing the

> > reduced bioavailability of trace minerals due to high phytic acid

content

> in

> > soy infant formula; and high levels of manganese in soy formula

compared

> to

> > cows milk formula and breast milk. Excessive intake of manganese

is linked

> > to problems with the central nervous system.

> > A 1996 report published in the German magazine Klin Padiatr

describing the

> > development of hypocalcemic tetany in an infant fed soy formula.

> > Two 1997 studies published in Nutrition and Cancer. One found that

> > phytoestrogens at levels close to probable levels in humans

stimulate

> > cellular changes leading to breast cancer; the other found that

dietary

> soy

> > suppressed enzymes protective of breast cancer in mice.

> > A 1998 study published in the American Journal of Clinical

Nutrition

> further

> > confirming that soy-protein supplementation stimulates cell

proliferation

> in

> > human breast tissue.

> > A 1998 study published in Cancer Research which found that dietary

> genistein

> > enhances the growth of mammary gland tumors in mice.

> > A 1998 study by Nagata and others published in the Journal of

Nutrition

> > which gives daily consumption of tofu in Japan's Gifu prefecture

as less

> > than 1 gram per day.

> > A 1998 study published in Toxicology and Industrial Health

indicating the

> > phytoestrogens are potential endocrine disrupters in males.

> > A March 12, 1999 Daily Express article with the headline " Soy

> > Allergy/Adverse Effect Rates Skyrocket - Monsanto's Roundup-Ready

Soy

> > Blamed "

> > A 1999 study at the Clinical Research Center at MIT, published in

the

> > Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Pacific Coast

Reproductive

> Society

> > which found that estrogens in soy had no effect on menopausal

symptoms

> such

> > as hot flashes and night sweats.

> > May 1999 and June 2000 studies published in Brain Research

indicating that

> > phytoestrogens have adverse affects on brain chemistry.

> > An April 2000 study published in Proceedings of the National

Academy of

> > Science which found that flavonoids, especially genistein, can

cross the

> > placenta and induce cell changes that lead to infant leukemia.

> > An article published in Nutrition and Cancer 2000 which found

lower

> > testosterone levels and higher estrogen levels in Japanese men who

> consumed

> > higher levels of soy foods.

> > Publication in the British Journal of Urology, January 2000, of

the study

> > showing a five-time greater risk of delivering a boy with

hypospadias, a

> > birth defect of the penis, in mothers who ate a vegetarian diet

during

> > pregnancy. The researchers attributed high rates of the birth

defect to

> > phytoestrogens in soy products.

> > An April 2000 study published in Carcinogenesis found that soy

feeding

> > stimulated the growth of rat thyroid with iodine deficiency,

partly

> through

> > a pituitary-dependent pathway.

> > A June 2000 article in American Journal of Cardiology which found

that soy

> > had no impact on lipid levels in healthy postmenopausal women

> > Evidence that disturbing results were omitted from a 1994 study

presented

> to

> > the FDA during the approval process for Roundup Ready Soybeans.

> Researchers

> > found that raw Roundup Ready meal contained 27 percent more

trypsin

> > inhibitor and toasted Roundup Ready meal contained 18 percent

more trypsin

> > inhibitor compared to non-genetically manipulated controls.

> > The most serious concerns regarding soy foods involve the use of

soy

> infant

> > formula.

> > Sardi cites a 1998 Nutrition Reviews article by K. O. Klein of

duPont

> > Hospital for Children as proof that soy infant formulas do no

harm.

> > Yet in the article Klein notes that effects of isoflavones on

various

> animal

> > species include hormonal changes, increased uterine weight and

> infertility.

> > " It is clear from the literature, " says Klein, " that different

species

> and

> > different tissues are affected by isoflavones in markedly

different ways.

> > It is difficult to know which tissue, if any, are affected in

infants, and

> > the variation among species makes extrapolation to infants

inappropriate. "

> > This is scientific double talk.

> > Scientists may be reluctant to extrapolate but parents would

certainly err

> > on the side of caution if they knew that " isoflavones affect

different

> > tissues in markedly different ways. " Klein says that medical

literature

> > provides " no evidence of endocrine effects. . and no changes in

timing of

> > puberty. "

> > But she makes no mention of the Puerto Rican study which found

that

> > consumption of soy formula correlated strongly with early

maturation in

> > girls.

> > Why would Dr. Klein leave out any reference to the Puerto Rican

study in

> her

> > review? Is it because DuPont, owner of Protein Technologies

International,

> > is the leading manufacturer of soy protein isolate?

> > Or is it because her review was sponsored by the Infant Formula

Council?

> Or

> > because Nutrition Reviews, which published her whitewash, is

funded by

> > industry giants, including Pillsbury, Hershey Foods, Kellogg,

Roche,

> General

> > Mills, Kraft, Campbell Soup, Monsanto, Coca-Cola, Cargill, Heinz,

Nabisco,

> > Proctor and Gamble and Pepsi-Cola?

> > Soy can be implicated as a probable cause in the current epidemic

of

> > learning disabilities because it has similar effects in monkeys.

Sardi is

> > correct in stating the 1997 Journal of Pediatrics article makes

no mention

> > of soy. Neither does Time Magazine in their recent article on

early

> puberty

> > in girls.

> > The Time article speculates that exogenous estrogens might be the

cause.

> Is

> > it not appropriate to speculate that estrogens in soy formula,

which are

> not

> > " reduced significantly by their first pass through the liver " as

Sardi

> > claims but end up in the blood of infants in huge amounts, might

also be a

> > cause?

> > Perhaps it is the hormones in meat and milk, say the writers of

the

> article.

> > But hormonal levels in these products are minuscule compared to

levels in

> > soy formula. And in the Puerto Rican study, consumption of milk

was

> > negatively correlated with early maturation, which means that it

might be

> > protective.

> > We do not claim that Asians have lower rates of osteoporosis-it

is the soy

> > supporters who make that claim. But if in fact they do have lower

rates of

> > bone loss, it is much more likely due to factors in the diet that

are

> > consumed in large amounts and that provide vitamin D and calcium,

such as

> > bone broth, shrimp and lard.

> > We are aware of new research indicating that consumption of

vitamin D is

> > optimal at 4000 IU per day, not the RDA of 400 IU. This research

is an

> > excellent confirmation of the work of Weston Price who found that

the

> diets

> > of healthy primitives peoples had at least ten times more vitamin

D than

> > that of the average American of his day. (Sunlight will not

provide

> adequate

> > vitamin D unless a large portion of the skin is exposed during

the summer

> > months or in tropical latitudes.)

> > The textbooks do indeed need to be rewritten to stress

consumption of

> > vitamin-D-rich animal foods and to minimize consumption of foods

that

> > increase our requirements for vitamin D-like soy. Shrimp sauces

and shrimp

> > pastes used in Asia and Africa are made from dried shrimp, hence

very

> > concentrated.

> > They are eaten daily, often at every meal and could be expected

to provide

> > vitamin D in amounts greatly exceeding vitamin D intake levels in

the US.

> > The vitamin D content of butter varies with the feed of the

animals.

> Butter

> > from cows on green growing grass is likely to provide far more

vitamin D

> > than butter from cows in confinement. We advocate consumption of

butter

> from

> > pasture-fed animals (and eggs, lard and other animal foods for

the same).

> > Townsend Letter April 2001 213:100-103

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Just my two cents here. My son is on a gluten-free, casein-free and SOY

free diet. It seems that soy can mimic gluten the same as casein and so

may be responsible for autistic symptoms in some children on the

spectrum. I've often worried about how much soy is promoted as a

substitute for milk, when milk isn't much good for some children or adults

anyway.

 

It's a shame that media hype and the financing of testing by various

interested parties has lead to a world where you don't know what studies to

believe. I feel especially torn as I am perimenopausal and I really don't

know if I wish to ingest on a regular basis something which I believe is as

tainted as soy. Nonetheless, I had tofu and mushrooms for lunch yesterday

in a Chinese restaurant and it was yummy.

 

Avril, still on the fence over conflicting reports of soy's safety and benefits.

[Guest guest]

-

" Avril Dannenbaum " <lorned

 

Wednesday, November 14, 2001 11:51 PM

Re: Response To Those Who Believe Soy Is Healthy

 

 

> Avril, still on the fence over conflicting reports of soy's safety and

benefits.

 

Hi Avril,

 

I love my wife of 30 + years very much. We both eat about 75 mg of soy

isoflavones a day plus 1 tablespoon of ground

flax.

 

We also eat a serve or two a week of seaweed (for it's iodine as we don't use

salt).

 

Here in Oz, we can get locally grown GM free, organically grown Soy.

 

Greg

[Guest guest]

I think the emphasis is on MOST. If you buy organic soy that is not that

processed, it is fine in moderation. Everything in moderation.

 

Tracy

 

-

" Elaine121 " <Elaine121

" 0 Gettingwell 0 "

Wednesday, 14 November 2001 15:58

Response To Those Who Believe Soy Is Healthy

 

 

>

> -

> Response To Those Who Believe Soy Is Healthy 4-7-01.htm

>

>

> 4/7/01http://www.mercola.com/2001/apr/7/soy.ht

>

> > Response To Those Who Believe Soy Is Healthy

> > By Sally Fallon and Dr. Mary Enig

> >

> > In his Guest Editorial of October 2000 in the Townsend Letter, Mr. Bill

> > Sardi expresses surprise that the " greatest criticism of soy has come

from

> > natural health advocates. " Yet most of the soy-based products on the

> market

> > today can hardly be called " natural " foods.

> > They are produced in factories at high temperatures and pressures and

with

> > the help of a variety of chemicals. The soybeans themselves are grown on

> > huge corporate farms, most of which use toxic pesticides and herbicides.

> > And a large percentage of soy foods come from genetically engineered

> plants.

> > The fact that these products can be labeled " natural " only demonstrates

> the

> > power and duplicity of soy interests in America. Dr. Zava is one of many

> > honest scientists who have read the literature and discovered that soy

> > contains:

> > allergens

> > mineral blockers

> > enzyme inhibitors

> > hormone modifiers

> > iodine blockers that interfere with normal thyroid function

> > Mr. Sardi says these characterizations are unfair and inaccurate. Like

Dr.

> > Zava, we do not repeat " claims " that soy contains antinutrients and

> toxins;

> > we quote the scientific literature. Propaganda is " the systemic

> propagation

> > of a given doctrine or of allegations reflecting its views and

interests;

> > material disseminated by the advocates of a doctrine. "

> > The promotion of soy as a miracle food has been both systematic and

> > reflective of the doctrine of the food industry-that imitation foods are

> > good for us and traditional foods are unhealthy.

> > The soy campaign is, in fact, a case study in the use of propaganda to

> > promote commercial interests.

> > Mr. Sardi misquotes us frequently. We stated that soy was not considered

> fit

> > to eat in Asia a few centuries ago (not a few decades ago); we did not

> > " acknowledge that Asians consume 30 times more soy than North

Americans. "

> We

> > pointed out studies showing that soy consumption in Asia is actually

much

> > lower than claimed-averaging 10 grams per person, less than two

teaspoons.

> > He does not seem to understand our argument that if soy is given as the

> > reason Asians have lower rates of breast, prostate and colon cancer

> (simply

> > because Asians supposedly eat large amounts of soy), then the same logic

> > requires us to blame high rates of cancers of the esophagus, stomach,

> > thyroid, pancreas and liver in Asian countries on consumption of soy.

> > The truth is that we don't know exactly why Asian countries have certain

> > types of cancers and western countries have other types. Eastern types

of

> > cancers have been attributed to many factors, of which soy consumption

is

> > one, but to claim that soy consumption is associated with lower rates of

> > certain types of cancers while neglecting to mention that soy is also

> > associated with higher rates of certain types of cancer is typical of

> > industry dishonesty.

> > Sardi acknowledges that Asians have higher rates of pancreatic cancers

in

> > one paragraph, but states that populations that consume high levels of

soy

> > exhibit decreased rates of pancreatic cancer in another. We are

confused.

> > Messina did indeed omit the Rackis study in his " exhaustive " survey. In

> > fact, Messina did not include any animal studies on pancreatic effects.

> The

> > Rackis study showed not only enlargement of the pancreas but also

> > precancerous changes. And why the double standard? Why is it appropriate

> to

> > use rats prone to develop breast cancer in experiments with soy, but not

> > rats prone to demonstrate disturbances in the pancreas?

> > It is standard scientific practice to use rats bred to react in specific

> > ways in order to study effects over short periods of time. Normal rat

chow

> > did not cause pancreatic changes in sensitive rats-only rat chow based

on

> > soy.

> > Birds don't eat soy, says Sardi. They know better. The Jameses should

have

> > known that soy is not appropriate for birds (something that would come

as

> a

> > surprise to the chicken industry.) The Jameses trusted the literature

that

> > came with the product, which stated that soy was an excellent food for

> > birds. They also trusted the claims made for soy infant formula, that

soy

> > was " better than breast milk. "

> > They should have known that soy was not an appropriate food for humans,

> > particularly for babies and so should Mr. Sardi and all the others out

> there

> > who continue to provide glib assurances that soy formula is a good

> > substitute for milk-based formula.

> > The James learned a terrible lesson the hard way-that we should not

trust

> > claims for commercial food products, especially when these claims are

too

> > good to be true. In the absence of animal instinct, it's important to be

> > skeptical. " Scientists cannot infer that animal data applies to humans, "

> > says Sardi.

> > But they do it all the time, especially when the data show protective

> > effects. Only when the studies are negative do scientists get

reprimanded

> > for using them. Onward with the double standard. It is axiomatic that

when

> a

> > chemical carcinogen is definitely active in one or more animal models,

it

> > can be stated with certitude that certain individuals of Homo sapiens

> would

> > be at risk.

> > Soy proponents don't want the public to know that phytoestrogens can

> induce

> > tumors in several different species of animals.

> > The younger the animal, the more susceptible it is to the action of

> > plant-based estrogens, as it frequently is to other carcinogens. Sardi

> > objects to some of our references.

> > One of them-Natural Health News published by L & H Vitamin Company- was

> > given as an example of promotional advertising, which in this case

claimed

> > that soy could prevent cancer. He complains of a missing citation,

number

> > 58, but there is no missing citation. It is published on the website and

> was

> > published in the Townsend Letter.

> > Another criticism is that the average published date of our references

is

> 13

> > years old. We were not aware that averaging publication dates was a

valid

> > method for assessing studies and reports. Nevertheless, one of the aims

of

> > our article was to show that studies indicating soy toxicity date back

as

> > far as fifty to sixty years, especially studies showing adverse affects

on

> > the thyroid gland. (Goitrogenic components have been confirmed very

> recently

> > by Divi and Doerges.)

> > Much good scientific work was done in past decades and it is work that

can

> > be depended upon because it took place before the soy industry began

> funding

> > university research.

> > We hope that citation of the following recent studies will make our

> " average

> > published date " more acceptable:

> > A study from Cornell University, published in the Journal of the

American

> > College of Nutrition, 1986, which found that children who develop

diabetes

> > mellitus were twice as likely to have been fed soy.

> > A November 1994 warning published in Pediatrics in which the Nutrition

> > Committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics advised against the use

of

> > soy formulas due to the diabetes risk. These warnings have been

neglected

> > ever since it was reported that the AAP accepted a multi-dollar donation

> > from the Infant Formula Council for their new headquarters building

> outside

> > Chicago.

> > A 1994 article by Lonnerdal published in Acta Paediatr summarizing the

> > reduced bioavailability of trace minerals due to high phytic acid

content

> in

> > soy infant formula; and high levels of manganese in soy formula compared

> to

> > cows milk formula and breast milk. Excessive intake of manganese is

linked

> > to problems with the central nervous system.

> > A 1996 report published in the German magazine Klin Padiatr describing

the

> > development of hypocalcemic tetany in an infant fed soy formula.

> > Two 1997 studies published in Nutrition and Cancer. One found that

> > phytoestrogens at levels close to probable levels in humans stimulate

> > cellular changes leading to breast cancer; the other found that dietary

> soy

> > suppressed enzymes protective of breast cancer in mice.

> > A 1998 study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

> further

> > confirming that soy-protein supplementation stimulates cell

proliferation

> in

> > human breast tissue.

> > A 1998 study published in Cancer Research which found that dietary

> genistein

> > enhances the growth of mammary gland tumors in mice.

> > A 1998 study by Nagata and others published in the Journal of Nutrition

> > which gives daily consumption of tofu in Japan's Gifu prefecture as less

> > than 1 gram per day.

> > A 1998 study published in Toxicology and Industrial Health indicating

the

> > phytoestrogens are potential endocrine disrupters in males.

> > A March 12, 1999 Daily Express article with the headline " Soy

> > Allergy/Adverse Effect Rates Skyrocket - Monsanto's Roundup-Ready Soy

> > Blamed "

> > A 1999 study at the Clinical Research Center at MIT, published in the

> > Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Pacific Coast Reproductive

> Society

> > which found that estrogens in soy had no effect on menopausal symptoms

> such

> > as hot flashes and night sweats.

> > May 1999 and June 2000 studies published in Brain Research indicating

that

> > phytoestrogens have adverse affects on brain chemistry.

> > An April 2000 study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of

> > Science which found that flavonoids, especially genistein, can cross the

> > placenta and induce cell changes that lead to infant leukemia.

> > An article published in Nutrition and Cancer 2000 which found lower

> > testosterone levels and higher estrogen levels in Japanese men who

> consumed

> > higher levels of soy foods.

> > Publication in the British Journal of Urology, January 2000, of the

study

> > showing a five-time greater risk of delivering a boy with hypospadias, a

> > birth defect of the penis, in mothers who ate a vegetarian diet during

> > pregnancy. The researchers attributed high rates of the birth defect to

> > phytoestrogens in soy products.

> > An April 2000 study published in Carcinogenesis found that soy feeding

> > stimulated the growth of rat thyroid with iodine deficiency, partly

> through

> > a pituitary-dependent pathway.

> > A June 2000 article in American Journal of Cardiology which found that

soy

> > had no impact on lipid levels in healthy postmenopausal women

> > Evidence that disturbing results were omitted from a 1994 study

presented

> to

> > the FDA during the approval process for Roundup Ready Soybeans.

> Researchers

> > found that raw Roundup Ready meal contained 27 percent more trypsin

> > inhibitor and toasted Roundup Ready meal contained 18 percent more

trypsin

> > inhibitor compared to non-genetically manipulated controls.

> > The most serious concerns regarding soy foods involve the use of soy

> infant

> > formula.

> > Sardi cites a 1998 Nutrition Reviews article by K. O. Klein of duPont

> > Hospital for Children as proof that soy infant formulas do no harm.

> > Yet in the article Klein notes that effects of isoflavones on various

> animal

> > species include hormonal changes, increased uterine weight and

> infertility.

> > " It is clear from the literature, " says Klein, " that different species

> and

> > different tissues are affected by isoflavones in markedly different

ways.

> > It is difficult to know which tissue, if any, are affected in infants,

and

> > the variation among species makes extrapolation to infants

inappropriate. "

> > This is scientific double talk.

> > Scientists may be reluctant to extrapolate but parents would certainly

err

> > on the side of caution if they knew that " isoflavones affect different

> > tissues in markedly different ways. " Klein says that medical literature

> > provides " no evidence of endocrine effects. . and no changes in timing

of

> > puberty. "

> > But she makes no mention of the Puerto Rican study which found that

> > consumption of soy formula correlated strongly with early maturation in

> > girls.

> > Why would Dr. Klein leave out any reference to the Puerto Rican study in

> her

> > review? Is it because DuPont, owner of Protein Technologies

International,

> > is the leading manufacturer of soy protein isolate?

> > Or is it because her review was sponsored by the Infant Formula Council?

> Or

> > because Nutrition Reviews, which published her whitewash, is funded by

> > industry giants, including Pillsbury, Hershey Foods, Kellogg, Roche,

> General

> > Mills, Kraft, Campbell Soup, Monsanto, Coca-Cola, Cargill, Heinz,

Nabisco,

> > Proctor and Gamble and Pepsi-Cola?

> > Soy can be implicated as a probable cause in the current epidemic of

> > learning disabilities because it has similar effects in monkeys. Sardi

is

> > correct in stating the 1997 Journal of Pediatrics article makes no

mention

> > of soy. Neither does Time Magazine in their recent article on early

> puberty

> > in girls.

> > The Time article speculates that exogenous estrogens might be the cause.

> Is

> > it not appropriate to speculate that estrogens in soy formula, which are

> not

> > " reduced significantly by their first pass through the liver " as Sardi

> > claims but end up in the blood of infants in huge amounts, might also be

a

> > cause?

> > Perhaps it is the hormones in meat and milk, say the writers of the

> article.

> > But hormonal levels in these products are minuscule compared to levels

in

> > soy formula. And in the Puerto Rican study, consumption of milk was

> > negatively correlated with early maturation, which means that it might

be

> > protective.

> > We do not claim that Asians have lower rates of osteoporosis-it is the

soy

> > supporters who make that claim. But if in fact they do have lower rates

of

> > bone loss, it is much more likely due to factors in the diet that are

> > consumed in large amounts and that provide vitamin D and calcium, such

as

> > bone broth, shrimp and lard.

> > We are aware of new research indicating that consumption of vitamin D is

> > optimal at 4000 IU per day, not the RDA of 400 IU. This research is an

> > excellent confirmation of the work of Weston Price who found that the

> diets

> > of healthy primitives peoples had at least ten times more vitamin D than

> > that of the average American of his day. (Sunlight will not provide

> adequate

> > vitamin D unless a large portion of the skin is exposed during the

summer

> > months or in tropical latitudes.)

> > The textbooks do indeed need to be rewritten to stress consumption of

> > vitamin-D-rich animal foods and to minimize consumption of foods that

> > increase our requirements for vitamin D-like soy. Shrimp sauces and

shrimp

> > pastes used in Asia and Africa are made from dried shrimp, hence very

> > concentrated.

> > They are eaten daily, often at every meal and could be expected to

provide

> > vitamin D in amounts greatly exceeding vitamin D intake levels in the

US.

> > The vitamin D content of butter varies with the feed of the animals.

> Butter

> > from cows on green growing grass is likely to provide far more vitamin D

> > than butter from cows in confinement. We advocate consumption of butter

> from

> > pasture-fed animals (and eggs, lard and other animal foods for the

same).

> > Townsend Letter April 2001 213:100-103

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

> Getting well is done one step at a time, day by day, building health

> and well being.

>

> To learn more about the Gettingwell group,

> Subscription and list archives are at:

> Gettingwell

>

>

[Guest guest]

-

" Nick Grant " <nwgrant

 

Thursday, November 15, 2001 10:48 AM

Re: Response To Those Who Believe Soy Is Healthy

 

 

> I think the emphasis is on MOST. If you buy organic soy that is not that

> processed, it is fine in moderation. Everything in moderation.

>

Hi Tracy,

 

Yup............

 

Well said. There are NO magic bullets. There are NO free lunches.

 

Greg