THE JOY OF SOY AND THE DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN
I've seen the "NEGATIVE" soy letter dozens of times. Bashing soy has become an Internet phenomena, and America's newest "URBAN MYTH."
Soy detractors cite a soy component, "phytoestrogen," as being an endocrine disrupter. In that case, broccoli is an endocrine disrupter too. Caution: You may get graped! Does an apple a day increase an oncologist's pay?
Pyhtochemicals are the most wonderful disease-preventing substances to be found in fresh fruits and vegetables. These miracle substances are now recognized as ammunition against cancer, diabetes, heart disease osteoporosis, and other ailments.
Phytochemicals are what make peppers red or green. Phytochemicals are what give oranges and cherries their sweet perfume-like essences. In 1937, Albert Szent-Gyorgi discovered a powerful group of antioxidants in foods which were named bioflavinoids. These bioflavinoids have been re-named phytoestrogens. They are not estrogen. If you desire a source of dietary estrogen, take Premarin (taken from the urine of pregnant horses) or consume milk and dairy products.
The soy disinformation campaign began with the dairy industry. Milk producers process 170 billion pounds of their product each year. Dairymen see SOY as a threat to their livelihood.
Last year, Sally Fallon wrote a column that appeared in NEXUS magazine.
The February issue of the Townsend Medical Letter for Doctors and Patients contains comments addressing Sally's poorly written and biased paper. Here are brief passages of Bill Sardi's editorial:
"It went from being the darling of the natural products industry to being labeled as a potential toxin.
Sally Fallon and Mary E. Enig, from the Weston A. Price Foundation in Washington DC, write in the April-May edition of Nexus Magazine that soy contains anti-nutrients and toxins, which inhibit digestion and block absorption of vitamins and minerals.
These self-appointed soy antagonists claim the enzyme inhibitors in soy cause pancreatic cancer (not so), and that other components in soy induce clumping of red blood cells.
While Fallon and Enig acknowledge that the Japanese and Asians have lower rates of
breast, prostate and colon cancer and that they eat 30 times more soy than North Americans, they also indicate the Japanese have higher rates of other types of cancer, particularly esophageal, stomach, thyroid, pancreas and liver cancer. They give the misimpression that soy prevents some tumors and promotes others. This just isn't an accurate characterization. The stomach cancers in Japan are attributed to the consumption of pickled, smoked and salted meats and fish as well as raw sushi that may contain parasites. The frying of meats promotes the development of carcinogens. The cancer-promoting agents in these foods can actually be countered by the inclusion of soy protein with ground meat prior to frying.
[Basic Life Science 52: 105-18, 1990]
A hidden epidemic among males in Japan is that of alcoholism, as well as rampant tobacco use, which would be likely causes of liver, esophageal and stomach cancers. Instead, Fallon and Enig imply that soy is a hidden carcinogen in Japan.
Fallon and Enig cite 68 scientific references in their Nexus Magazine report. The 40 scientific journal reports cited were published on average 13 years ago, with many dating back to the 1970s. Among the authoritative references listed in support of their report were "Cheese Marketing News" and "Natural Health News published by L & H Vitamin Company." The Weston Price Foundation website, of which Fallon is president, claims their purpose is to dispel health myths. Yet a report on their own website indicates "the New Zealand government is considering removing soy formula from the market and making it available only by prescription," and lists a citation number #58. Their claim may be true, but when the reader looks for the citation in the end notes, it is missing. So the reader has to wonder why. It appears that Fallon and Enig are making a career out of bashing soy, but are they backing up their opinions with good science?
Much of Fallon and Enig's criticism is generated from reports on the use of soy infant formulas. In 1998, K.O. Klein of the Department of Clinical Science at the A.I. duPont Hospital for Children in Wilmington, Delaware, reported that soy-based infant formulas had been used for over 60 years and fed to millions of infants worldwide and studied in controlled research.
Klein says the medical literature provides "no evidence of endocrine effects in humans from infant consumption of modern soy-based formulas. Growth is normal and no changes in timing of puberty or in fertility rates have been reported in humans who consumed soy formula as infants."
[Nutrition Reviews 56: 193-204, 1998]
The Journal of Pediatrics also conducted an earlier study that came to a similar conclusion.
[Journal Pediatrics 124: 612-20, 1994]
With no supporting evidence, Fallon and Enig state that learning disabilities among male children have reached epidemic proportions and that soy infant feeding, which began in the 1970s, "cannot be ignored as a probable cause for these tragic developments." Yet no citations are listed to back up their claim. They go on to say that one percent of all girls show signs of puberty before the age of three and quote a 1997 report in the Journal of Pediatrics. But that report makes no mention of soy.
Fallon and Enig also make the claim that Asians have lower rates of osteoporosis than Westerners, not because of soy consumption but because their diet provides plenty of vitamin D from shrimp and seafood and plenty of calcium from bone broths. They provide no references for this claim. They go on to claim that high rates of osteoporosis in Western society are attributed to the substitution of soy oil for butter. They advocate butter as a traditional source of vitamin D that helps to build strong bones.
Butter only provides about 56 units of vitamin D, and shrimp about 152 units of vitamin D per 100 gram serving, which are almost insignificant according to the latest reports on the need for vitamin D.
Skin exposure to sunlight is the primary source of vitamin D. Even sunlight-deprived women who consume a diet that provides 600 IU of vitamin D/day have been found to be lacking in this essential nutrient.
[Journal Internal Medicine 247: 260-68, 2000] Recent reports indicate blood levels of vitamin D don't even begin to rise till 4000 IU of vitamin D is consumed.
[American Journal Clinical Nutrition 69: 842-56, 1999]
The textbooks need to be re-written for vitamin D, and Fallon and Enig are using out-dated information. Furthermore, butter raises cholesterol.
[European Journal Clinical Nutrition 52: 650-54, 1998]
The Federal Register, October 26, 1999, Volume 64, Number 206, provides a 66-page discussion on the positive and negative reports concerning soy and health in relation to the approval by the Food & Drug Administration that soy protein helps to reduce cardiovascular risk by lowering cholesterol. The report, written by the Food & Drug Administration, cites 167 pertinent scientific studies.
According to an FDA scientific review, soy does not interfere with childhood growth, does not cause pancreatic or breast cancer, does not significantly interfere with mineral absorption as long as dietary consumption is adequate, does not induce early puberty, and does not interfere with fertility. There is a consistent body of scientific evidence that soy protein consumption results in a significant reduction in total and LDL cholesterol for those whose cholesterol is elevated (above 250 mg per deciliter blood sample). Approximately 25 grams of soy is needed to produce this health benefit."
[I cleaned up the hard returns to make it more readable.]
[This message has been edited by Linda Sutton (edited April 24, 2001).]
![[Frown]](images/icons/frown.gif){kind=icon}
