Three guesses as to who is behind this message...

First guess: (powerful) dairy industry;
Cecond guess: (powerful) dairy & cattlemen's association;
Third guess: (powerful) dairy Political Action Campaign (PAC) which directs
FDA research and results.


----Original Message Follows----
From: "Pulse Colorado" <pulsecolo@...>
Subject: soy safety
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 22:40:08 -0600

Shadow of Soy

Faster than you can say "isoflavone," the humble soybean has insinuated
itself into a dominant position in the standard diet. And that shouldn't be
a surprise.

Cheap, versatile and karma-free, soy in the 1990s went from obscurity as
vegan-and-hippie staple to Time magazine. With mad cows lurking between
whole wheat buns, and a growing distrust of conventionally-produced dairy
products, soy seemed like the ideal choice, the perfect protein.

But like all seemingly perfect things, a shadow lurked. By the final years
of the last decade, a number of soy researchers began to cry foul. Soy Good?
Soy Bad?

As the soy industry lobbied the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for a
cardiovascular health claim for soy protein, two senior FDA scientists,
Daniel Sheehan and Daniel Doerge--both specialists in estrogen
research--wrote a letter vigorously opposing such a claim. In fact, they
suggested a warning might be more appropriate.

Their Concern?
Two isoflavones found in soy, genistein and daidzen, the same two promoted
by the industry for everything from menopause relief to cancer protection,
were said to “demonstrate toxicity in estrogen sensitive tissues and in
the thyroid.” Moreover, “adverse effects in humans occur in several
tissues and, apparently, by several distinct mechanisms.” Sheehan also
quoted a landmark study (Cassidy, et al. 1994), showing that as little as 45
mg of isoflavones could alter the length of a pre-menopausal woman’s
menstrual cycle.
The scientists were particularly concerned about the effects of these two
plant estrogens on foetuses and young infants, because “development is
recognized as the most sensitive life stage for estrogen toxicity.”
It wasn’t the first time scientists found problems with soy, but coupled
with a Hawaiian study by Dr. Lon White on men, the controversy ended up on
national television. While industry scientists criticized both the White
study and the two FDA researchers (who are now disallowed from commenting
publicly on the issue), other researchers weighed in on the anti-soy side.
The tofu’d fight had begun.
What About Asia?
One of the favourite mantras of soy advocates is that the ubiquitous bean
has been used “safely by Asians for thousands of years.” With many soy
“experts” (often with ties to the soy industry) recommending more than
250 grams of soy foods--and in some cases, more than 100 mg of isoflavones
each day--it’s easy to get the impression that soy plays a major role in
the Asian diet. If you saw it on TV or read it in a magazine, it must be
true, right? Well, not exactly.
Sally Fallon, president of the Weston A. Price Foundation and author of
Nourishing Traditions, responds that the soy industry and media have spun a
self-serving version of the traditional use of soy in Asia. “The tradition
with soy is that it was fermented for a long time, from six months to three
years, and then eaten as a condiment, not as a replacement for animal
foods,” she says.
Fallon states that the so-called Asian diet--far from centring around
soy--is based on meat. Approximately 65 percent of Japanese calorie intake
comes from fish in Japan, while in China the same percentage comes from
pork. “They’re not using a lot of soy in Asia--an average of 2 teaspoons
a day in China and up to a quarter cup in some parts of Japan, but not a
huge amount.”
Contrast that with modern America, home of “if a little is good for you,
more must be better.” Walk into any grocery store, especially the
health-oriented variety, and you’ll find the ever-present bean. Soy is
found in dozens and dozens of items: granola, vegetarian chilli, a vast
sundry of imitation animal foods, pasta, most protein powders and
“power” bars, and even something called “nature’s burger,” which,
given the kind of elaborate (and often toxic) processing that goes into
making soy isolate and TVP, would make Mother Nature wince.
There’s even a bread--directly marketed to women--containing more than 80
mg of soy isoflavones per serving, which is more than the daily dose in
purified isoflavone supplements. All of this, in addition to the traditional
soy fare of tempeh, tofu, miso and soy sauce. It’s no wonder that
Californians are edamame dreaming.
So, while Asians were using limited to moderate amounts of painstakingly
prepared soy foods--the alleged benefits of which are still
controversial--Americans, especially vegetarians, are consuming more soy
products and isoflavones than any culture in human history, and as one
researcher put it, “entering a great unknown.”
Oddly, nowhere in industry promotion does anyone differentiate between
traditional, painstakingly prepared “Asian” soy foods and the modern,
processed items that Fallon calls “imitation food.” And therein lies the
rub. Modern soy protein foods in no way resemble the traditional Asian soy
foods, and may contain carcinogens like nitrates, lysinoalanine, as well as
a number of anti-nutrients that are only significantly degraded by
fermentation or other traditional processing.
“People need to realize that when they’re eating these soy foods--and
I’m not talking about miso or tofu--but soy “burgers,” soy
“cheese,” soy “ice cream,” and all of this stuff, that they are not
the real thing. They may look like the real thing and they may taste like
the real thing, but they do not have the life-supporting qualities of real
foods,” Fallon says.
There’s No Business Like Soy Business
“The reason there’s so much soy in America is because they started to
plant soy to extract the oil from it and soy oil became a very large
industry,” says lipid specialist and nutritionist Mary Enig, PhD. “Once
they had as much oil as they did in the food supply they had a lot of soy
protein residue left over, and since they can’t feed it to animals, except
in small amounts, they had to find another market.”
According to Enig, female pigs can only ingest it in amounts approximating
one percent during their gestational phase and a few percent greater during
their lactation diet, or else face reproduction damage and developmental
problems in the piglets. “It can be used for chickens, but it really has
limitations. So, if you can’t feed it to animals, than you find gullible
human beings, and you develop a health claim, and you feed it to them.”
In a co-written article, Enig and Fallon state that soybean producers pay a
mandatory assessment of one-half to one percent of the net market price of
soybeans to help fund programs to “strengthen the position of soybeans in
the marketplace and maintain and expand foreign markets for uses for
soybeans and soy products.”
They also cite advertising figures--multi-million dollar figures--that
soy-oriented companies like Archer Daniels Midland or ADM spend for spots on
national television. Money is also used to fund PR campaigns, favourable
articles and lobbying interests. A relaxation of USDA rules has lead to an
increase in soy use in school lunches. Far from being the “humble” or
“simple” soybean, soy is now big business--very big business. This is
not your father’s soybean.
There’s been such a rush to market isoflavones that the before-mentioned
multinational corporation, ADM, in 1998, petitioned the FDA for GRAS
(generally recognized as safe) status for soy isoflavones. For those who
don’t know GRAS, the designation is used for foods, and in some cases,
food additives, that have been used safely for many years by humans. For
those who didn’t know--like a number of protesting scientists--that soy
isoflavones had been widely used by generations of Americans before the late
1950s, it was a revelation indeed. Ahem.
Dr. Sheehan, in his 1998 letter to the FDA referenced earlier, states
“that soy protein foods are GRAS is in conflict with the recent return by
CFSAN to Archer Daniels Midland of a petition for GRAS status for soy
protein because of deficiencies in reporting the adverse effects in the
petition. Thus GRAS status has not been granted.” And what about those
safety issues?
Requiem for a Thyroid
One of the biggest concerns about high intake of soy isoflavones is their
clearly defined toxic effect on the thyroid gland. You don’t have to work
too hard to convince Dr. Larrian Gillespie of that. Dr. Gillespie, author of
The Menopause Diet, in the name of scientific empiricism, decided to run her
own soy experiment--on herself. She notes that she fits the demographic soy
isoflavones are most marketed to: borderline hypothyroid, menopausal
females.
“I did it in two different ways. I tried the (isoflavone) supplements (at
40mg), where I went into flagrant hypothryoidism within 72 hours, and I did
the ‘eat lots of tofu category,’ and it did the same thing, but it took
me five days with that. I knew what I was doing but it still took me another
seven to 10 days to come out of it.”
Harvard-trained medical doctor Richard Shames, MD, a thyroid specialist who
has had a long time practice in Marin, says that “genistein is the most
difficult for the metabolic processes of people with low thyroid, so when
you have that present in high enough concentrations, the result is an
antagonism to the function of thyroid hormone.”
“If you’re a normal person, and one in 10 are not normal, the effect [of
50 mg of soy isoflavones] may be fairly insignificant, but even a normal
person can have problems at levels greater than that,” says Shames.
Dr. Gillespie says the daily amount to cause thyroid problems may be as low
as 30 mg, or less than a serving of soymilk.
A number of soy proponents say the thyroid concerns are exaggerated and that
if dietary iodine is sufficient, problems won’t likely happen. Not so,
says Shames: “Iodine is a double-edged sword for people with thyroid
problems, and for those people, more is going to increase their chance for
an autoimmune reaction ... throwing iodine at it is not going to be the
protective solution.” Shames recommends limiting soy foods to a few times
a week, preferably fermented or well cooked.
Birth Control Pills for Babies?
Environmental toxicologist Mike Fitzpatrick, PhD says he doesn’t have it
out for soy. His original concern was for babies: “They were getting more
soy isoflavones, at least on a bodyweight basis, than anybody else,” he
notes. “It wasn’t so much that I knew what that would do, but that I
didn’t know what that would do.” Fitzpatrick, who is also webmaster of
... Soy Online Services (www.soyonline-service.co.nz), a Web site devoted to
informing people about the potential problems with soy, stresses the
potential dangers for the developing human body: “Any person with any kind
of understanding of environmental endocrine disruptors, compounds [like
isoflavones] that are not in the body normally and can modify hormones and
the way they work in the body, any expert will say that infants need to
avoid these things like the plague.”
Fitzpatrick was quoted--and misquoted--worldwide a few years ago when he
suggested that the isoflavones in soy formula were the equivalent of birth
control pills: “When I first did my review, I did compare the estrogenic
equivalents of the contraceptive pill with how much soy infants and adults
would be consuming,” he says. “It’s at least the equivalent of one or
two estrogen pills a day, on an estrogenic basis. I’ve been criticised
that it’s not the same form of estrogen, but in terms of estrogenicity,
it’s a crude but valid and alarming statistic.”
The typical response by industry experts has been to downplay the uniqueness
of soy isoflavones, stating--accurately--that isoflavones of various kinds
are prevalent in most fruits, vegetables, and legumes.
Is it Time to Toss Out the Apple Sauce?
“No, you’re not going to do that because you get exposure from all kinds
of things, but the exposure you get from soy is way, way higher,”
Fitzpatrick says. “Soy formula is going to give babies a real whack, far
in excess of what you might find in apples. Soy is a very rich source of
isoflavones--that’s how the industry markets its product. You don’t see
an apple extract to help women deal with menopause.”
You’ve got to wonder how the industry can market soy isoflavones as a form
of estrogen replacement therapy for menopausal women (and a host of other
health claims) and still claim that soy formula is safe for infants. And
while the mechanism for biological activity is clearly defined, the industry
keeps repeating the same tune: “no credible evidence exists.”
But credible for whom? Says Fitzpatrick: “We’re not talking about little
studies here but long-term effects on infants and adults, and that’s what
concerns me. It’s very trite. They (the industry) give half-baked answers.
What you really need is long-term studies.” Likewise, “no credible
evidence” is not good enough for Dr. Naomi Baumslag, professor of
paediatrics at Georgetown University Medical School. She joined a host of
others in criticising a recent article in the Journal of the American
Medical Association (JAMA), purported to be the definitive study on soy
formula safety.
“It was not an acceptable epidemiological study--you can take it to any
decent epidemiologist and hear what they think about it, and they use it to
say that soy is safe,” says Baumslag. “It’s totally
unsubstantiated.”
Manganese Madness
Besides the dangers of prematurity and other reproductive problems posed by
isoflavones, Baumslag mentions the high levels of the mineral manganese (no,
not magnesium) often found in soy formula. The problem of manganese is so
serious that even one soy manufacturer put warning labels on its soymilk.
The company’s president, in a press release, stated that “there is
mounting evidence of a correlation between manganese in soy milk (including
soy-based infant formula) and neurotoxicity in small infants.” With
manganese toxicity known for producing behavioural disorders, the press
release even goes further stating, “If research continues, showing that
the current epidemic levels of ADHD in children, as well as impulsivity and
violence among adolescents, are connected with the increase in soy-based
infant formula use, our industry could suffer a serious setback by not
dealing with the issue upfront.”
With all the potential problems with soy formula, Baumslag notes that
formula is also missing key immunological factors only found in mother’s
milk, the lack of which could give a child a life sentence of chronic health
problems. She links soy-pushing to corporate profits and the PR campaigns
that they fund.
“There’s been so much PR in regards to soy formula and I think you also
have to ask yourself why it’s so much cheaper for them to make, which
means there’s more profit. How come only one percent in the UK are on
formula, where it’s closer to 30 percent in the United States? I don’t
know why it’s so important for them to push soy, they should push
breast-feeding.” Perhaps it’s because breast milk for babies isn’t as
lucrative as milking the soybean for profits.
Caveat Emptor
As a former vegan--and big soy-eater--I’m disturbed by the vast array of
modern, processed soy products that have come on the market in the last few
years, without any recognition of potential pitfalls. Safe bet: If it
hasn’t been eaten safely for thousands of years, you probably shouldn’t
put it at the center of your diet. We’ve been sold a bill of goods that
says “soy is good for you,” but it doesn’t tell you what kind of soy
or how much, or even definitively if soy really is what makes Asians so
supposedly healthy.
It’s well known that the Japanese also eat a very large amount of omega-3
fatty acids from fish each day--substances which have been clearly shown to
have anti-cancer and anti-heart disease effects. So, is it the soy or is it
the fish? As the industry spends millions and millions of dollars to find
something that isoflavones are good for--some health claim to justify their
unprecedented presence in the American diet--I have to ask: why are they
trying so hard? Why is there such a push to push soy?
Soy isoflavones are clearly biologically active--they affect change in your
body. It’s no longer acceptable for the industry to see no bad, hear no
bad, and speak no bad. Legitimate concerns need to be studied--and not
studies funded by the industry, conducted by soy scientists.
In the meantime, I’ve located a wonderful, old miso company on the north
coast. They age their miso for three years in wood barrels and sell it in
glass jars. It’s rich, earthy and real. I enjoy a teaspoon in a glass of
hot water a few times a week after dinner. It tastes lively and feels good.
I no longer get the “urge” to eat soy “dogs” or soy “burgers,”
though I now suspect that urge didn’t come from my own instinct, but from
the lofty dictates of the soy experts.
But why wait years while ignorant armies clash over this and that isoflavone
and studies that say one thing or another? Perhaps the safest way to use
soy, if you choose to use soy, is the way it’s been used by Asians for
thousands of years: fermented, in moderation, as a condiment. In short,
color me cautious.
Extracted from: Food For Thought by Phillip Day
(Available from www.credence.org)

DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT:E-mail to a friend

A nice review of some of the major challenges associated with soy. If the
fact that non-fermented soy products are not likely to be health foods
surprises you, you will want to review the soy health page or the links
below.
Related Articles:
Scientists Protest Soy Approval
Soy Formula Exposes Infants To High Hormone Levels
How Safe is Soy Infant Formula
Why Soy Can Damage Your Health

Return to Table of Contents #417


©Copyright 1997-2002 Dr. Joseph Mercola. All Rights Reserved. This content
may be copied in full, with copyright; contact; creation; and information
intact, without specific permission, when used only in a not-for-profit
format. If any other use is desired, permission in writing from Dr. Mercola
is required.

Disclaimer - Newsletters are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola. They
are not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified
health care professional and they are not intended as medical advice. They
are intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and
experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to
make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in
partnership with a qualified health care professional.


_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail