Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...
Yes, Please make this my home page!
This weeks feature - Soya Saga 2
Soya Saga 2 09 - 05 - 2003
Soya Saga 2
Dear Readers,
And the soya saga continuous....
I would like to share with you some very interesting newsletters
that I have received over the past week.
Here goes........
1- We also received this email a few weeks ago and I forwarded
it to my homoepath, Dr do Ramos, but haven’t had her response
yet. If you find out more will you please let us know. Our baby
grandson now 6 months is being brought up on soya milk as he
has bad reactions to dairy products. It’s a bit alarming!
Thanks - John & Pat
2- I would not say that there is nothing in this story, but would
hesitate to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" because
women in Japan have used Soya for years and they appear to be
healthy ,with very few menopausal symptoms if what I have read
is correct. I do believe that one can overdo anything ,so
everything should be taken in moderation.I use Soya milk as I have
lactose intolerance.Many babies over the years have had it too ,and
one would need a survey of these babies to be able to draw any
conclusions .Therefore I would say use it but in moderation. I
wonder if the product she has used has been genetically modified?
There are too many other factors in our lives to pin this down to
one product such as Soya,at first glance.
Regards Elizabeth Mannall
3- Dear Crazy Nutters Thank you for all the articles you send me all
the time, but especially for the Soya one. I think the problem lies in
eating only soya proteine instead of using it just some of the time.
As in every aspect of life. moderation is the golden rule.I have
never been able to eat a lot of soya ( mixes, Tofu or straight beans).
My body seems unable to recognize it as food and rejects it. On
the other hand, my one son who was terribly allergic to dairy
products and drank only soy milk from about the age of nine months
when my own milk dried up, is very healthy and a gorgeous
specimin. What would I have done without mulsoy? On the whole,
I believe we all eat too much protein. We think if we stop eating
meat we MUST substitute plant protein and we rush for the beans
and other unnatural, processed foods. That is simply not
neccessary. The body produces through synthesis its own proteins
from the amino-acids that are present in almost all foods. Think of
elephants: they eat only grass and leaves and maybe in season a
few fruits and berries, and what masses of muscle they develop!
The solution is not simple but I think an elderly Frenchwoman of
my acquaintance is at least on the right track. She says one should
eat the foods that are grown on the soil where you were born and
grew up and where your ancesters have lived for generations.
Exotic foods although they may have real nutritional and even
medicinal value, will almost always disagree with you. You should
also try to eat foods in season when the energy of the sun has
activated the nutritional and medicinal values to their optimum.
Besides, everything tastes better that way! This from a European
where they dare not eat any meat anymore.( Because, as I'm sure
you all know, cattle were fed unnatural foods!) I might add just
one thought of my own: listen to your body. We are not all alike.
Thanks again!
Ina Brand-van Rooyen.
4- Dear Crazy Nut Team,
Had a similar experience and suffered near fatal cardiac failure..the
culprit? You guessed it...SOYA!!!! Has to be the biggest lie in the
health industry....stopped using it a year ago, and my lung function
shot right up from 37% to 82%
5- Elisabetta writing in connection to soya.
After having read the e-mail hereunder, I would not feel like
completely deleting soya from the diet as it seems it all depends
on not over-doing with it. I did notice it made my tummy swollen
at times, but depending on what I ate and combined it with.
Is this right or even a balanced in-take should be reconsidered?
Thanks for the interesting subjects,
Elisabetta
6- Hi, Thank you for interesting information. I went into internet
and search for " soja and cancer". I found a lot but everything was
written in Spanish. I then ask " can I get cancer from using soja"
(English) and I received websites BUT most was again in Spanish.
Hope you have better luck.
7- Anne-Marie Venter Hello there, many thanks for the article about
soya. I have never felt comfortable with the product and always had
the feeling that the hype about its amazing qualities was more a case
of someone or some company making a great deal of money at our
expense - something like the pharmaceutical companies who buy up
anyone who is interested in researching cheaper and healthier ways
of treating illnesses. Having said that I also think any product in
overdose is not good for anyone look forward to hearing of any
developments in this regard.
sheila wächtler from Namibia
8- Dear Crazy Nut Team,
Thank you for the e-mail below regarding the controversies
surrounding soya. It really is alarming if what is said below, is true.
I am very much in the same mindset - ie that soya is indeed good
for one. I would really appreciate any inputs that you may have
that will shed light on this subject.
Many thanks, also for the wonderfully interesting e-mail service
you provide,
Colleen
9- In response to your letter on Soya, I thought you might find
this info interesting. You could get updated health info on
www.campaignfortruth.com
Kindly Heidi du Preez (Richter)
The Shadow of Soy
or
How I stopped loving and learned
to worry about the bean
by Sean McNary Carson
Extracted from Food For Thought by Phillip Day
The excellent recipe companion to
Health Wars and Cancer: Why We’re Still Dying to Know the Truth
Available from www.credence.org
You’ve joined an army of thousands committed to being all you
can be. You rise at dawn to pound the pavement, or climb the
Stairmaster to heavenly buttocks while listening to Deepak Chopra
on your Walkman. Or, maybe you contort yourself into yoga
asanas in rooms hotter than a Korean chutney. You drink only
purified water as you toss a handful of the latest longevity pills into
your mouth. You’re hungry, hungry for health, and no doubt about
it, you’re no stranger to 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 1990’s 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 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 recognised 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
( www.westonaprice.org ) 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% 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.
My recent, limited survey of Marin, California food stores found
soy 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 which
are only significantly degraded by fermentation or other traditional
processing.
"People need to realise 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 1% 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, then 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 ½ to 1 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 1950’s, 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 7-10 days to come out of it."
In the current issue of the Whole Earth Review, herbalist
Susan Weed tells the story of Michael Moore - no, not that
Michael Moore, but the founder of the Southwest School of
Herbal Medicine. In an e-mail to Weed, Moore declares that
"soy did me in." Weed describes how Moore, in his own
experiment, ate a large amount of manufactured soy products -
protein powders, "power" bars, and soy drinks, over a period
of three weeks. Weed writes that Moore ended up in a cardiac
care unit because the action on his thyroid had been so
pronounced.
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."
Far from being an isolated problem, Shames says that recent
data tags twenty million Americans being treated for thyroid
problems, another thirteen million who ought to be treated if
they would get a TSH (thyroid stimulating hormone) test, and
another thirteen million who would show up normal on a TSH
test but would test positive on another, more specific test. All
in all, Shames believes that low thyroid conditions - many due
to exposure to oestrogen-mimicking chemicals like PCBs and
DDT in environment - are the mother of most modern health
epidemics.
That’s a lot of thyroid problems. Some estimate the number
to be as high as one in ten. Shames says that 8 of 10 thyroid
sufferers are women - often older women - like Dr. Gillespie.
The same demographic the soy industry has set its targets on.
"If you’re a normal person, and one in ten 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 website
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, states 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 1% in the UK are on
formula, where it’s closer to 30% 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 centre 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, colour me cautious.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Food for thought?
If you would like to explore the subject further here are
a few web addresses worth visiting.
http://www.geocities.com/chadrx/soya.html
http://www.mercola.com/2000/feb/13/more_on_soy.htm
http://www.mercola.com/article/soy/avoid_soy.htm
http://www.mercola.com/2001/jun/13/soy_formula.htm
http://www.mercola.com/2000/sept/17/soy_brain.htm
http://www.geocities.com/virtuesofsoy/Soy-Articles.html
Next week we will resume our "normal" newsletter.
Warm regards,
Elise
