[Fwd: Fw: Response To Those Who Believe Soy Is Healthy]

[Guest guest]

Response To Those Who Believe Soy Is Healthy

 

4/7/01- http://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