Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Response To Those Who Believe Soy Is Healthy

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

>

> -

> 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

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...