Guest guest Posted November 22, 2001 Report Share Posted November 22, 2001 > > - > 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 > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.