The Evidence Against Soy - Articles

[Guest guest]

>FYI anyone who eats lots of soy should read this, one of many

>worrying articles I've read in the last year warning about soy...

>http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/10/07/the-evidence-agai\

nst-soy.aspx?source=nl

 

 

Taking this sort of obvious " scare article " seriously

demonstrates a significant lack of critical reading ability.

 

From the top--

 

 

>Dow Chemical and DuPont, the same corporations that brought misery

>and death to millions around the world through Agent Orange, are now

>the driving forces behind the promotion of soy as a food for humans.

 

Dow Chemical and DuPont have done quite a lot more over the

years, good and bad, than manufacture a chemical on order from the

U.S. government, between 35 and 45 years ago. And in all likelihood

no one working in any kind of leadership capacity for either company

was in any way involved with Agent Orange manufacturing.

 

Merely using this type of rhetorical linkage is a propaganda

ploy similar to Sarah Palin's attempted smears of Barack Obama for

having known a man who once was a radical fugitive, before Obama was

out of the third grade. (John McCain was a lot closer than that to

Oliver North.)

 

 

>They are financing anti-meat and anti-milk campaigns aimed largely

>at those concerned about animal welfare and the environment, trying

>to convince them that imitations such as " soymilk " are not only

>healthier than the real thing, but better for the earth too.

 

Where is the evidence? I have been annually monitoring the

IRS Form 990 filings of the major anti-meat and milk organizations in

the U.S. for the past 20 years, and have yet to see any

contributions from Dow Chemical and DuPont anywhere in sight.

 

Dow and DuPont have, however, been in opposition to some of

these same organizations in countless lawsuits over environmental

issues, patenting life forms, etc.

 

And, as it happens, manufacturing chemicals used in the

production of meat and fodder for meat animals is among their major

activities.

 

 

> There is no evidence that consuming soy products can improve

>health, reduce environmental degradation or slow global warming. In

>fact, the evidence suggests quite the opposite.

 

Defenders of meat consumption often point to the destruction

of Brazilian rainforest to make way for soy crops.

 

What they typically ignore is that 70% of more of the world's

soy production goes to feed livestock, who are then slaughtered to

produce about 1/16th of the volume of edible protein that we would

have if the soy was directly consumed by humans instead of meat.

 

If that was done, the amount of land needed to raise the soy

needed to replace meat in the human diet would be far less than the

amount of land used to raise soy now.

 

 

>The studies below regarding the effects of soy on health are

>eye-opening, particularly the review by the American Heart

>Association -- which no longer supports the health claims about soy

>endorsed by the U.S. government.

 

The American Heart Association is concerned with only one

issue, heart disease, which is only a small part of the total

health issue.

 

On balance, studies pro & con eating soy as an enhancer of

health are about evenly divided.

 

In contrast, studies documenting the negative health effects

of eating meat far outnumber and outweigh those demonstrating

positive effects which could not be achieved by eating protein from

other sources.

 

 

--

Merritt Clifton

Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

P.O. Box 960

Clinton, WA 98236

 

Telephone: 360-579-2505

Fax: 360-579-2575

E-mail: anmlpepl

Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org

 

[ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing

original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide,

founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the

decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations.

We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year;

for free sample, send address.]

 

 

[Guest guest]

>Taking this sort of obvious " scare article " seriously

>demonstrates a significant lack of critical reading ability.

 

I will second this. The problem is that most people are controlled by the

media, don¹t have critical thinking abilities and believe what they read

without thinking about the source.

Thank you Meritt for some clarifications. I used to clarify all these sorts of

posts before but got tired of this.

 

Nandita

SHARAN

[Guest guest]

Further to Merritt''s analysis here is comment and post from Syd Baumel

of Eat Kind/ Canada:

 

Mercola is such a glib health demagogue. Have you read this:

http://eatkind.net/wholesoystory.htm

<http://eatkind.net/wholesoystory.htm>

 

Syd

 

 

aapn , Nandita Shah <shahnandi wrote:

>

> >Taking this sort of obvious " scare article " seriously

> >demonstrates a significant lack of critical reading ability.

>

> I will second this. The problem is that most people are controlled by

the

> media, don¹t have critical thinking abilities and believe what they

read

> without thinking about the source.

> Thank you Meritt for some clarifications. I used to clarify all these

sorts of posts before but got tired of this.

>

> Nandita

> SHARAN

>