The Campaign for Truth in Medicine - The Shadow of Soy

[Guest guest]

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, 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 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.