Response To Those Who Believe Soy Is Healthy

[Guest guest]

- 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 gra

ms 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