Guest guest Posted June 10, 2000 Report Share Posted June 10, 2000 I'd have to agree Maynard, I drink a lot of soy milk, and eat my share of soy burgers, but I've always done this knowing that I was most likely eating/drinking a product derived from genetically modified plants (with the acception of a few products labeled as such). From what I've read, soy is one of the most modified crops out there, and it is none to common to find a commercially grown strain that doesn't have some sort of GM tampering. It seems the more soy products that become availible, the more plague-of-our-modern-society type corporations (like Monsanto) want to mess with it and let us all be test subjects in their own long term study (which consists primarily of a couple of consciousless scientist crossing their fingers for the next 50 years). out, patrick k. > " Maynard S. Clark " <vrc > >antipreophogist (Tom Crimmins) > Is all soy in question? >Sat, 10 Jun 2000 13:14:04 -0400 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Received: from [208.50.144.73] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id >MHotMailBB0BD0DF0025D82197DCD032904924E476; Sat Jun 10 11:23:33 2000 >Received: from [10.1.10.37] by fk. with NNFMP; 10 Jun 2000 >18:17:27 -0000 >Received: (qmail 26385 invoked from network); 10 Jun 2000 18:17:21 -0000 >Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Jun >2000 18:17:21 -0000 >Received: from unknown (HELO relay20.smtp.psi.net) (38.8.20.2) by mta2 with >SMTP; 10 Jun 2000 18:17:21 -0000 >Received: from ip5.bedford9.ma.pub-ip.psi.net ([38.32.79.5] >helo=vrc.tiac.net) by relay20.smtp.psi.net with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #3) id >130poo-0002f0-00; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 14:17:15 -0400 >From sentto-360024-992-960661043-patrickkeller Sat Jun 10 11:23:35 2000 >X-eGroups-Return: >sentto-360024-992-960661043-patrickkeller=hotmail.com (AT) returns (DOT) >Message-Id: <4.3.2.6.2.20000610120819.045e5810 >X-Sender: vrc >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2.6 (Beta) >In-<14821683.960614679323.JavaMail.imail >Mailing-List: list ; contact >-owner >Delivered-mailing list >Precedence: bulk >List-Un: <-> > >Only so much can be explored in 15-20 minutes, >and many members of the vegetarian community >have refused to believe that there even MIGHT >be a prudential (health or safety) issue with soy. > >At 10:24 PM 6/9/00 -0700, Tom Crimmins wrote: > >Thank you for the information. Remember that 20/20 was > >the program that aired that segment about organic foods > >( http://www.vegsource.com/articles/organics.2020.htm ). > >It looks like an effort to confuse people into sticking with the SAD. > >Actually, Barbara Walters noted that she was a soy eater >and that she wondered whether everyone was vulnerable >to these presumed downsides (about which there will >certainly need to be more pertinent research) and >whether or not one needs to be a LARGE eater of soy >in order to see these results. > >The medical research journalist noted that this was >a study in the USA, but only in Hawaii, and it only >included Japanese men who ate large amounts of >tofu - not the other soy products. > >We were not told what other foods these elderly >Japanese men in Hawaii ate, nor what might have >been concurrent lifestyle behaviors, such as >tobacco smoking (isn't that popular among >older Japanese men), nor were there any mentions >of controls groups in which these observations were >not made - with whom were they being compared. >We don't know how other factors in their lifestyles >could perhaps have contributed to these conditions. > >Lest one cite " biochemical individuality " and >human differences as a factor of relevance here, >we certainly are likely to think that a study of >Japanese HUMAN men is likely to yield >at least as much information as a study >on rodents or cats or dogs. I would call for >MORE such studies of human beings >who eat the way we do, and I would >agree with Dr. Michael Klaper that we >ought to do many more longterm medical >and nutritional studies on vegans (and >vegetarians, too), since we're moving >(or hoping to move) in that direction, >and studies like this on the elderly >Japanese men begins to open the >door towards and long future or >research relevant to the kinds of >behaviors that - AT PRESENT - >we are both advocating and practicing. > >Furthermore, since most soy sold for >human consumption in the USA, >where the TV originated, is not >organically grown, and the majority >is genetically modified, and most of >the soy is sold as a constiuent ingredient >in other foods (eg. tomato sauce, etc.), and >we have a moral and prudential (which is moral) >mandate to conduct systematic studies on >the longterm impacts on any item which >is used widely for human consumption, >the society at large would have a serious >and legitimate interest in this research. >Additionally, while soy is a " cultural fact " >for the diets of many vegetarians, it is >not as such the " definition " of vegetarianism, >regardless of how many vegetarians think. > >However, while they did say that we ought to continue >to enjoy our soy, what they did NOT do is to defend >soy or to respond to any of the medical critiques, >as they could not do, because there is not as yet any >scientific evidence to the contrary in those particular >areas - >(1) evidence of premature aging in the brain >(2) some increase of cancer risk in some women > (which is from a different study) > >There are many questions which have not been >discussed in this public exposé - >the issue of organic vs. non--inorganic growing >tofu vs. other soyfoods or soybeans and soyflour. >other lifestyle behaviors (wasn't longitudinal) > >On the prudential side for consumer interest, >the program DID point out that the soy industry has >skirted this issue, has made few public statements >on the controversies (presumably hoping that it would >die down from neglect from their side), that the >soy industry officials have usually refused to comment >at all to the news media, and > >IMO the soy industry's statements need to be >taken seriously - that contrad > >In my understanding, the vegetarian community >ought to UNDERSTAND the various dimensions >of this controversial issue, and not shy away from >studying it objectively. > >The presentations we make ought to be informed >by current and relevant factual information, and >we will have the upper hand in the discussions >if we know more deeply what is being done around us. > ( " So that we don't get fooled again... " ) > >I earnestly thank Mark Graffis and Ian Goddard >for first alerting me to these concerns about soy. > >Maynard > >PS - What is an " antipreophogist " ? > > >Personally, it makes much more sense to me to eat a variety > >of whole seed foods, of which tofu is _not_ one, but eating > >a high soy diet has got to be much better than the SAD.... > >Peace and love to you all, > >Tom > > > >On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 23:04:37 -0400, Vegetarian Resource Center wrote: > > > Tonight on 20/20 a special investigative report on > > > the upsides and downsides of soy. > > > > > > Is a high soy diet for everyone. > > > Friday evening - on 20/20 - ABC-TV > > > http://abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/2020_000609_soy_feature.html > > > > > > “We are doing a large uncontrolled and unmonitored experiment on >human > > > infants.” > > > — Dr. Daniel Sheehan, research scientist for the Food and Drug > > > Administration and expert on soy. > > > > > > By Brian Ross and Richard D. Allyn > > > > > > June 9 — From tofu and tacos to burgers and baby formula, soy >products > > > have swept the nation as a healthy source of high protein, with a > > > reputation for being all natural and all good. > > > > > > But a 20/20 investigation has found that amid all of this praise, >some > > > scientists are now challenging this popular wisdom, and suggesting >there > > > may be a downside to this “miracle food.” > > > > > > “The safety issues are largely unanswered,” says Daniel Doerge, > > > a research scientist for the Food and Drug Administration and an >expert > > > on soy. > ______________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2000 Report Share Posted June 10, 2000 Only so much can be explored in 15-20 minutes, and many members of the vegetarian community have refused to believe that there even MIGHT be a prudential (health or safety) issue with soy. At 10:24 PM 6/9/00 -0700, Tom Crimmins wrote: >Thank you for the information. Remember that 20/20 was >the program that aired that segment about organic foods >( http://www.vegsource.com/articles/organics.2020.htm ). >It looks like an effort to confuse people into sticking with the SAD. Actually, Barbara Walters noted that she was a soy eater and that she wondered whether everyone was vulnerable to these presumed downsides (about which there will certainly need to be more pertinent research) and whether or not one needs to be a LARGE eater of soy in order to see these results. The medical research journalist noted that this was a study in the USA, but only in Hawaii, and it only included Japanese men who ate large amounts of tofu - not the other soy products. We were not told what other foods these elderly Japanese men in Hawaii ate, nor what might have been concurrent lifestyle behaviors, such as tobacco smoking (isn't that popular among older Japanese men), nor were there any mentions of controls groups in which these observations were not made - with whom were they being compared. We don't know how other factors in their lifestyles could perhaps have contributed to these conditions. Lest one cite " biochemical individuality " and human differences as a factor of relevance here, we certainly are likely to think that a study of Japanese HUMAN men is likely to yield at least as much information as a study on rodents or cats or dogs. I would call for MORE such studies of human beings who eat the way we do, and I would agree with Dr. Michael Klaper that we ought to do many more longterm medical and nutritional studies on vegans (and vegetarians, too), since we're moving (or hoping to move) in that direction, and studies like this on the elderly Japanese men begins to open the door towards and long future or research relevant to the kinds of behaviors that - AT PRESENT - we are both advocating and practicing. Furthermore, since most soy sold for human consumption in the USA, where the TV originated, is not organically grown, and the majority is genetically modified, and most of the soy is sold as a constiuent ingredient in other foods (eg. tomato sauce, etc.), and we have a moral and prudential (which is moral) mandate to conduct systematic studies on the longterm impacts on any item which is used widely for human consumption, the society at large would have a serious and legitimate interest in this research. Additionally, while soy is a " cultural fact " for the diets of many vegetarians, it is not as such the " definition " of vegetarianism, regardless of how many vegetarians think. However, while they did say that we ought to continue to enjoy our soy, what they did NOT do is to defend soy or to respond to any of the medical critiques, as they could not do, because there is not as yet any scientific evidence to the contrary in those particular areas - (1) evidence of premature aging in the brain (2) some increase of cancer risk in some women (which is from a different study) There are many questions which have not been discussed in this public exposé - the issue of organic vs. non--inorganic growing tofu vs. other soyfoods or soybeans and soyflour. other lifestyle behaviors (wasn't longitudinal) On the prudential side for consumer interest, the program DID point out that the soy industry has skirted this issue, has made few public statements on the controversies (presumably hoping that it would die down from neglect from their side), that the soy industry officials have usually refused to comment at all to the news media, and IMO the soy industry's statements need to be taken seriously - that contrad In my understanding, the vegetarian community ought to UNDERSTAND the various dimensions of this controversial issue, and not shy away from studying it objectively. The presentations we make ought to be informed by current and relevant factual information, and we will have the upper hand in the discussions if we know more deeply what is being done around us. ( " So that we don't get fooled again... " ) I earnestly thank Mark Graffis and Ian Goddard for first alerting me to these concerns about soy. Maynard PS - What is an " antipreophogist " ? >Personally, it makes much more sense to me to eat a variety >of whole seed foods, of which tofu is _not_ one, but eating >a high soy diet has got to be much better than the SAD.... >Peace and love to you all, >Tom > >On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 23:04:37 -0400, Vegetarian Resource Center wrote: > > Tonight on 20/20 a special investigative report on > > the upsides and downsides of soy. > > > > Is a high soy diet for everyone. > > Friday evening - on 20/20 - ABC-TV > > http://abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/2020_000609_soy_feature.html > > > > “We are doing a large uncontrolled and unmonitored experiment on human > > infants.” > > — Dr. Daniel Sheehan, research scientist for the Food and Drug > > Administration and expert on soy. > > > > By Brian Ross and Richard D. Allyn > > > > June 9 — From tofu and tacos to burgers and baby formula, soy products > > have swept the nation as a healthy source of high protein, with a > > reputation for being all natural and all good. > > > > But a 20/20 investigation has found that amid all of this praise, some > > scientists are now challenging this popular wisdom, and suggesting there > > may be a downside to this “miracle food.” > > > > “The safety issues are largely unanswered,” says Daniel Doerge, > > a research scientist for the Food and Drug Administration and an expert > > on soy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.