Why Soy Can Damage Your Health

[Marillia]

http://www.mercola.com/article/soy/

The articles on this site are simply frightening. It seems that soy can cause infertility, early maturation in females, increase the risk of Alzheimer's, and many other nasty things.

A snippet of Page 2 of the top article:

In 1991, Richard and Valerie James, bird breeders in Whangerai, New Zealand, purchased a new kind of feed for their birds - one based largely on soy protein.47 When soy-based feed was used, their birds 'colored up' after just a few months. In fact, one bird-food manufacturer claimed that this early development was an advantage imparted by the feed.

A 1992 ad for Roudybush feed formula showed a picture of the male crimson rosella, an Australian parrot that acquires beautiful red plumage at 18 to 24 months, already brightly colored at 11 weeks old.

Unfortunately, in the ensuing years, there was decreased fertility in the birds, with precocious maturation, deformed, stunted and stillborn babies, and premature deaths, especially among females, with the result that the total population in the aviaries went into steady decline.

The birds suffered beak and bone deformities, goiter, immune system disorders and pathological, aggressive behavior. Autopsy revealed digestive organs in a state of disintegration. The list of problems corresponded with many of the problems the Jameses had encountered in their two children, who had been fed soy-based infant formula.

***

Wow. 0_o

[ItsTheWooo]

Hi :)
Please keep the source in mind when reading anti-soy stuff. Mercola is an infamous naturalist holistic doctor, meaning his naturalist slant colors him with a bias against anything that appears "overly processed" "synthetic" or "non-natural", and soy definitely falls in that category.

As for the claims against soy, I think they are worthy of consideration but it is a little premature to condemn soy as a toxin! Most of the adverse associations between soy and its usage in humans can be traced back to the estrogenic phytochemicals in them. Soy has very high levels of plant estrogen. In most people who eat soy in moderation, this slight bit of estrogen won't be problematic. In menopausal women it might even be beneficial. However, for women who eat soy frequently (several servings a day), who have a condition like estrogen dominance, and/or are already on synthetic estrogens (birth control)... then the the "risk" of soy of course goes up. Having too much estrogen - including from soy sources - has been linked to certain cancers, hypothyroidism, and fertility abnormalities.

It is important to remember though that estrogenic compounds are in almost all foods we eat. All vegetation has phytoestrogens, the difference between soy and the rest is concentration, soy is a much more potent source. Let's not also forget the bovine estrogens present in the fat from meat and dairy we eat and drink without abandon either... these too have been linked to certain cancers, hypothyroidism, and fertility abnormalities just as the soy estrogens have.

Anyway, in my opinion if someone is sensitive to estrogen then they should avoid soy, as they should avoid excessively fatty animal products because they tend to negatively contribute. I think the majority of people they should have very little hormonal problems though.

As for the problems between feeding birds soy & failure to thrive... the problem is wrong macronutrient composition, not soy itself. Those birds can't be on a high protein diet and soy is very high protein.

Its really easy to get scared into abstaining from certain types of foods by these "doctors" who are motivated more by subjective emotional biases or financial interests than actually helping people. They selectively present information (example: though soy estrogen may be harmful to certain estrogen-sensitive high risk groups, there is no evidence that soy itself is a bigger danger than other estrogen containing products like animal fat and birth control pills) and outright twist words & facts (example: birds that failed to thrive on an unnaturally high protein diet are cited as evidence that soy is dangeorus) to make their cases very convincing. I too get taken in by it, more often than I'd like to admit. Keeping a critical eye and trying to question everything you are being told is essential to avoid being suckered by these people. A few days ago someone posted this really good site which is an all too realistic parody of these scare tactics, check it out: www.dhmo.org .

[Heath]

And given the very high amount of soy that constitutes the average Japanese diet (with low rates of heart disease, etc.), I'd view the findings with more than a bit of skepticisim.

H

[bluesmoke]

Actually the Japanese do not eat alot of the type of soy available here. Traditional uses of soy products are fermented and otherwise naturally processed foods such as miso and tofu. Soy isolates as used in our food are a whole different thing. Among other information available on the weston A price website are studies from japan showing a direct corelation between soy consumtion ( above a certain level ) with decreased thyroid function. Nyah levi

[daninmidmo]

Please keep the source in mind when reading anti-soy stuff. Mercola is an infamous naturalist holistic doctor, meaning his naturalist slant colors him with a bias against anything that appears "overly processed" "synthetic" or "non-natural", and soy definitely falls in that category.

Its really easy to get scared into abstaining from certain types of foods by these "doctors" who are motivated more by subjective emotional biases or financial interests than actually helping people. They selectively present information (example: though soy estrogen may be harmful to certain estrogen-sensitive high risk groups, there is no evidence that soy itself is a bigger danger than other estrogen containing products like animal fat and birth control pills) and outright twist words & facts (example: birds that failed to thrive on an unnaturally high protein diet are cited as evidence that soy is dangeorus) to make their cases very convincing

Interesting point of view. Dr. Mercola is as much a doctor as anyone else practicing medicine and I am unsure why you put "doctors" in quotes except to try to denigrate him as a source of information.

I believe that the ones with a financial stake in the soy industry are probably the so called "health food" industry which pushes its waste soy proteins into every "healthy" highly-processed bar, vitamin, "ice cream", "milk," and "cheese". These are the people with a vested interest in manipulating us, not the naturalist "doctors" with their "subjective emotional biases."

If you like pumping endocrine disrupting anti nutrient high dose female hormone analogs in your body on a daily basis then by all means eat all the soy you want.

[rishamoon]

I am still unsure as to the exact mechanisims, but I know that I can not consume anything with too much soy in it. I found out the hard way last summer when I started drinking soy milk. I became a zombie for weeks with no energy at all, it was very similar to the problems I had before I started taking Synthroid only about 10 times worse.

My hair was falling out in clumps and I slept about 18 hours a day.

I've always taken what Mercola says with a grain of salt, but I do know first hand that soy causes me problems.

[EvelynS]

Let's not also forget the bovine estrogens present in the fat from meat and dairy we eat and drink without abandon either... these too have been linked to certain cancers, hypothyroidism, and fertility abnormalities just as the soy estrogens have.

Could you provide a few good references for bovine estrogens being linked to cancer, hypothyroidism, fertility abnormalities please? I don't know of any. Or are you referring to studies on animals that are given hormones to make them produce more milk or grow faster? Have you any references for grass fed cattle who are not given hormones?



there is no evidence that soy itself is a bigger danger than other estrogen containing products like ........birth control pills)

100grams of soy protein provides the oestrogenic equivalent of a birth control pill. I suppose this might be an expensive way of achieving contraception!



Japanese/Chinese soy consumption: a 1998 survey found they ate on average about 10 grams (2 teaspooons) per day. Far below what many in the West eat. They eat it as a condiment, not a main course.

[Nancy LC]

Just another view-point:

I eat soy fairly regularly (daily for breakfast cereal). I'm also on thyroid pills because I had to have my thyroid nuked. I haven't experienced any obvious signs of hypothyroidism, which I'm intimately familiar with, when eating soy.

Personally I'm not making any judgements on light use of soy until I hear something a little more concrete than from random web sites on the Internet.

[Hellistile]

And given the very high amount of soy that constitutes the average Japanese diet (with low rates of heart disease, etc.), I'd view the findings with more than a bit of skepticisim.

H
The Japanese eat traditionally fermented soy in the fashion of their ancestors and in very small quantities, not the soy we eat here in North America.

Besides Dr. Mercola, the Weston Price Foundation, The Omnivore Guy Anthony Colpo, NeanderThin's Ray Audette, and Thyroid Doctor, Dr. Mary Shomon, among others, condemn the type of soy available for consumption here in North America.

[Hellistile]

I was just rooting around in the Barry Groves website (author of Eat Fat, Get Thin book) and found the attached. Seems that Groves is also on the anti-soy bandwagon.
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/no-joy.html
His article is highly referenced as well.

[ItsTheWooo]

Could you provide a few good references for bovine estrogens being linked to cancer, hypothyroidism, fertility abnormalities please? I don't know of any. Or are you referring to studies on animals that are given hormones to make them produce more milk or grow faster? Have you any references for grass fed cattle who are not given hormones?

Hi,
Most people do not eat grass fed free range cattle. Most people eat factory farmed meat. Arguing that meat and animal products contain far less estrogens if you eat the expensive fancy free range Trader Joes stuff is like someone trying to say soy is OK because fermented soy has minimal isoflavones. Lets not compare apples and oranges. The fact is the overwhelming majority of people eat the meat and soy in their grocery stores. The way this meat and soy is prepared leaves them with relatively high estrogenic properties.

As for a reference linking the estrogens in animal products to declining health (re: endocrine disorders, fertility, & certain cancers)...
http://www.peta.org/feat/sperm/main.html

"The 1994 and 1975 studies, by the University of Missouri-Columbia and the California Department of Health Services, report that sperm counts are plummeting a staggering 1.5% per year. The consequence: American men now have less than half the sperm that their far more virile fathers and grandfathers had in the 1930s. These findings have been published by the U.S. Government’s National Institutes of Health in its Environmental Health Perspectives journal."
...
"Scientists believe that exposure to synthetic estrogens, in addition to causing cancer, can significantly reduce a man’s sperm count. Almost all dietary exposure to these “estrogen mimics” comes from chicken, fish, and other meats and dairy products. These estrogen mimics are highly fat-soluble, are not biodegradable, and cannot be excreted easily. They accumulate in the fat tissue of animals and humans and are taken up by the estrogen-receptor sites in the body, seriously interfering with natural biochemical change."

Yes, the source is from PeTA. In fact, I chose PeTA on purpose to illustrate my point. Is PeTA really any more objective about the "hormonal dangers of meat" than WestonAPrice.org or Dr. Mercola is about the "hormonal dangers of soy"? Both clearly have agendas. PeTA's agenda is to get everyone to stop eating & drinking milk due to an irrational emotional bias against "exploiting animals". WestonAPrice.org & Mercola's agenda is to get everyone to reject synthetic/processed foods & lifestyles due to an irrational emotional bias they have against industrialization and progress. I think you will be hard pressed to find a moderate, uninterested party preaching total abstinence from animal products or soy (in absence of special individual complications; example, people prone to certain kidney stones will be told to minimize meat by doctors, people prone to hypothyroidism might be told to minimize high soy consumption & high animal fat as well).

Either way, you can't deny that most animal products AND soy have highly estrogenic properties. Besides the naturally occurring estrogens in animals, factory farms tend to pump animals full of synthetic estrogen as well. Even if it is true that hormone therapy is stopped a few days before slaughter, estrogen accumulates in fat tissue. So, all those hormones they were exposed to their entire lives are sitting around in the pockets of fat in the meat, milk, butter and possibly in the cheese & yogurt we eat (although it should be mentioned the processing probably destroys some of the estrogen in cheese & yogurt, just like fermentation of soy destroys its estrogen).

Sure you can always claim that the problem is the processing, not the product. It's true, there are way less estrogens when meat is processed the right way. However, is this no less true of soy? When soy is processed traditionally its estrogenic properties are minimal, just as when meat is processed traditionally. When processed traditionally, foods tend to be better & healthier, I agree and I think so do most people. Everyone knows whole, natural foods tend to be the best option. Even though, just because the stuff in the grocer is less healthy than it could be, it is a LONG leap to make from there to assume that these foods are toxins to which strict abstinence should be demonstrated. It's probably not a good idea to eat nothing but meat, or nothing but soy, especially for the estrogen-sensitive population (women with estrogen dominance, hypothyroidism, etc), though in moderation these foods should pose no problem for the overwhelming majority.

All I'm trying to say is that when foods & substances are enjoyed in moderation, they tend to enrich life. I seriously doubt soy poses any real threat to health and well being for the majority of people.

Japanese/Chinese soy consumption: a 1998 survey found they ate on average about 10 grams (2 teaspoons) per day. Far below what many in the West eat. They eat it as a condiment, not a main course.
I question the accuracy of that statistic. You can't just take the assumed soy consumption of a nation and divide it by the total population, and say the average eastern soy-eater consumes only 2 teaspoons. This statistic is intended to give the (probably totally incorrect) message that the asians "know something we don't" about soy - or that the Asians aren't all dying of estrogenic cancers, infertile, and hypothyroid because they just "happen" to eat less of it by chance.

In reality, asian soy consumption is probably less - if it is even less - because of reasons not directly related to soy's healthfulness:
...They are poor and can't afford as much food,
...They tend to eat less even when they can afford more (because westerners, particularly Americans, have a "super size" mentality in that quantity > quality),
In fact, I doubt the average soy-eater in China eats the minuscule 2 teaspoons a day you are claiming they do. China is a very high density country; I doubt the entire country eats soy with the same degree of frequency. Very rural, traditional China might eat soy more often than the rest of China, just as vegetarians, vegans & low carbers tend to eat more soy than the rest of America. Those who do eat it probably eat it very often whereas those who do not don't... just like in America. Because there are so many people, and because relatively few might eat soy, calculating average soy consumption this way might artificially lower the average portion size.

No offense, it's just that statistics can be very misleading, and I don't tend to put much stock in what they say w/o a broad range of additional facts. This statistic, isolated, is really meaningless.

[ItsTheWooo]

The Japanese eat traditionally fermented soy in the fashion of their ancestors and in very small quantities, not the soy we eat here in North America.

True, however the same argument can be applied to animal products. All that dairy and meat we eat is loaded with synthetic estrogen, which affects health just like soy isoflavones we do. Does this mean the meat in your supermarket is bad for you, simply because it is relatively less healthy than it optimally could be?

Besides Dr. Mercola, the Weston Price Foundation, The Omnivore Guy Anthony Colpo, NeanderThin's Ray Audette, and Thyroid Doctor, Dr. Mary Shomon, among others, condemn the type of soy available for consumption here in North America.
All of those sources are emotionally biased against processing/industrialization of lifestyle as a principle. The only exception is the Thyroid Doctor, although I'm sure her stance on soy applies only to those with that particular medical condition.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just trying to get people to be objective about this. There really is not sufficient evidence to condemn casual soy usage as any more dangerous than any other food for the average person.

[LilaCotton]

All I'm trying to say is that when foods & substances are enjoyed in moderation, they tend to enrich life.

I agree that soy used in moderation could be fine. But as someone mentioned, what's moderation? What about the person who consumes it for breakfast, lunch and supper (soy burgers, soy milk, tofu, etc.)? And what about the infants who are on soy-based formula?

I'm not saying this is the case, because I certainly have very little information to back it up, but I do have a nephew that drank strictly soy formula as an infant (up to 1 year old), and he does have behavioral problems. As I said, I can't make a case out of this one instance--could've been any one or several of a number of things that played into the problem, but if I was to have another child, I sure wouldn't give them soy-based formula. Goat's milk would be a much better option, although not always so easily available.

I truly wish there were better alternatives to both meat and milk in our grocery stores. My husband works at a dairy where they shoot up the cows with BST. That particular dairy sells all their milk to a cheese factory, so at least possibly some of the hormone doesn't reach the store shelves. Still, that milk was previously being sold to Darigold, where it was used for ice cream, sour cream and butter.

One thing to keep in mind with a lot of the beef we buy is that not all of it is pumped full of hormones all its life. Much of it is rasied on the open range right here around where I live. Millions of acres of BLM are turned over to cattle grazing every year. Often the cattle are later sent to feed lots where they are grown out for slaughter, and who knows what's in their feed then, but at least they haven't been completely raised on hormone-enhanced feeds.

What sickens me about meat production, though, is that some of the milk cows that are about to wear out are sent to slaughter--and they aren't given any time to get any of the hormones or medications out of their bodies before they're butchered. And this is often the kind of cattle that's put into burger and beef wieners.

It looks to me that unless we can grow our own meat or afford to buy organic (and few of us have that privilege), our proverbial boats are sunk before they can even get into the water.

[Nancy LC]

I know kids that drank cows milk with behavioral problems. What does that prove? I know kids that eat hamburgers wtih behavioral problems. I bet some of those kids eat carrots. Maybe carrots cause behavioral problems. I loved turnips as a kid. But I didn't have behavioral problems. So turnips must cause good behavoir.

How can you take one food someone has eaten in their lifetime and blame their problems on it?

[EvelynS]

[QUOTE=ItsTheWooo]Hi,
Most people do not eat grass fed free range cattle. Most people eat factory farmed meat. Arguing that meat and animal products contain far less estrogens if you eat the expensive fancy free range Trader Joes stuff is like someone trying to say soy is OK because fermented soy has minimal isoflavones.

I think this is what Westonaprice would say, as far as isoflavones are concerned, as long as the amount eaten daily does not exceed the government recommended level.

If more people who could afford to gave a higher priority to the quality of their food and paid the extra to get grass fed free range meat and milk, the price would come down and more people could have the benefit. This is already happening to some extent in the UK, for example, with free range pigs. Wouldn't this be better than giving in to Peta's counsel of despair?


Yes, the source is from PeTA. In fact, I chose PeTA on purpose to illustrate my point. Is PeTA really any more objective about the "hormonal dangers of meat" than WestonAPrice.org or Dr. Mercola is about the "hormonal dangers of soy"? Both clearly have agendas. PeTA's agenda is to get everyone to stop eating & drinking milk due to an irrational emotional bias against "exploiting animals". WestonAPrice.org & Mercola's agenda is to get everyone to reject synthetic/processed foods & lifestyles due to an irrational emotional bias they have against industrialization and progress.


In my mind there is a big difference between the information given by Peta and Westonaprice. Peta gave no proper references to support their assertions about the dangers of oestrogens in meat fat or milk fat. Westonaprice gives many about soy isoflavones.

Peta believes the only way to end farm animal suffering is to convert everyone to a vegan diet. Their interest in human nutrition stretches only so far as it supports that view. So anything they say on the subject of animal food is unreliable unless supported by extensive, checkable references (which they don't give). Westonaprice's purpose is to provide information on human nutrition. There is no a priori bias against industrialization and progress. Do you really think someone with the credentials of Mary Enig would speak against soy because of a bias against industrialization? I doubt it.


Either way, you can't deny that most animal products AND soy have highly estrogenic properties.



I've tried to find out how much oestrogen is in animal fat but failed, so I don't know. But after hours of searching the recent literature, I found nothing to say that oestrogens in animal fat were a danger. Lots for soy though.


All I'm trying to say is that when foods & substances are enjoyed in moderation, they tend to enrich life. I seriously doubt soy poses any real threat to health and well being for the majority of people.

Ok, define a moderate dose of soy isoflavones. It doesn't take much to have an effect. A study by Cassidy et al. (I can give the reference) gave 60g (4 tablespoons) of soy protein (45mg isoflavone) to women daily. After 1 month, all experienced delayed menstruation.

Would you agree that a start would be to provide the average isoflavone content of each soy product in the nutritional information box? For example, soy milk from whole soybeans has on average 64 mg. in a 1 litre carton.

[PlaneCrazy]

I have no scientific evidence to point to for the good or bad properties of soy. I did live in Taiwan for a year and observed how the Chinese who live there consume soy. Just about everyone cooks with soybean oil and eats some form of soy product every day, sometimes at every meal. I always started my day with Dou Jiang, or soy milk. I have no idea of how this relates to what they call soy milk here in the US, but this was served warm and was either sweet or salty. It was also fresh and was the byproduct of the tofu-making process. Another by-product that was widely used is called Dou Bi, or tofu skin. This is, as far as I could tell, the "skin" that forms on top of the water when making tofu. Kind of like the skin you can get on top of custard. They take this and use it to role up all kinds of things or to imitate meat in many different dishes. (The idea behind traditional Chinese vegetarian diets was to imitate the taste and texture of meat as closely as possible. I've had some outstanding tofu smoked duck and tofu "red" pork in Taipei) They also use soy extensively in soy sauce which is added to almost every dish. I'm sure they eat more than 2 teaspoons of soy sauce alone each day. I'm not sure how much soy is in soy sauce, or how much is in tofu or dou jiang or dou bi, but they sure seem to eat a lot of all of them. Even in the big city, tofu is made fresh daily. Just as an aside, they also don't seem to have much trouble with infertility in China.

Just my experience, not a scientific study or proof one way or another. Take it for what it's worth.

Plane

[ItsTheWooo]

I think this is what Westonaprice would say, as far as isoflavones are concerned, as long as the amount eaten daily does not exceed the government recommended level.

If more people who could afford to gave a higher priority to the quality of their food and paid the extra to get grass fed free range meat and milk, the price would come down and more people could have the benefit. This is already happening to some extent in the UK, for example, with free range pigs. Wouldn't this be better than giving in to Peta's counsel of despair?

I agree; ideally we could get people to care about their health and then the market could do its job. However, I sincerely doubt this will ever happen to the point where free range naturally raised meat is ever an economical option. The majority of people simply do not care. Even if they knew free range beef was healthier, they still wouldn't care. Look how popular smoking, drinking, and junkfoods are today in this age of freely available information... people know it's bad for them, but the thing is they just don't care. Too many people live only for today.


In my mind there is a big difference between the information given by Peta and Westonaprice. Peta gave no proper references to support their assertions about the dangers of oestrogens in meat fat or milk fat. Westonaprice gives many about soy isoflavones.

Peta believes the only way to end farm animal suffering is to convert everyone to a vegan diet. Their interest in human nutrition stretches only so far as it supports that view. So anything they say on the subject of animal food is unreliable unless supported by extensive, checkable references (which they don't give). Westonaprice's purpose is to provide information on human nutrition. There is no a priori bias against industrialization and progress. Do you really think someone with the credentials of Mary Enig would speak against soy because of a bias against industrialization? I doubt it.

I do think the comparison is accurate. While I agree that PeTA/PCRM is less scientifically inclined (and therefore, more biased) than westonaprice, westonaprice's irrational bias against non-natural foods is still very prevalant and obvious.
I give you this completely unscientific article as evidence: http://www.westonaprice.org/modernfood/sugarfree_blues.html

In the article the writer goes on to explain why every single modern artifical sweetener is a toxin which should be strictly avoided. They often rely on specious circumstantial evidence to make their case; for example, in the splenda section they say splenda usage was correlated with weaker control in diabetics. However what they neglect to mention is that splenda is the only sweetener which can be used for baking. The weaker control in diabetics may be from the splenda itself, or it may be from the increased refined carb consumption via splenda-sweetened baked goods. The truth is, the reader doesn’t really know why this correlation exists, because the writer doesn’t elaborate more. We are (intentionally) left to assume the worst.

If this weren't bad enough, at the end of the article they recommend some "better" alternatives. They hypocritically recommend stevia as a better choice to the "harmful" sweeteners. What westonaprice fails to mention is that the stevia extract stevioside (the source of the sweet taste) has many well documented health risks, including the potential to be a cancer-causing mutagen, the potential to cause DNA damage, and an association with deletarious effects on carbohydrate metabolism in very high dosage. In fact, stevia does not even have GRAS status to be used as an artificial sweetener. Stevia is only legal for sale in USA if it is labeled as a dietary supplement.

One has to ask themselves why westonaprice gives the advice it is giving here; if westonaprice condemns some sweeteners with established potential health consequences, and if it also promotes some sweeteners with established potential health consequences, it can't be an objective analysis of the studies which are guiding their recommendations. After all, items on both list have been shown in studies to have potential side effects. So, what do all items on the “bad list” have in common, what is the thing all items on the “good list” have in common? The one and only thing all items on the “bad list” have in common is that they are synthetic sweeteners. The one and only thing all items on the “good list” have in common is that they are “natural” plant & food extracts. What does the origin of a food product have to do with anything? For some odd reason, westonaprice thinks it matters – a lot – to the point where objective scientific observations are secondary. How can you call that scientific and unbiased?

This is really very typical of westonaprice.org. Yes, it is true that westonaprice often cites research studies and tries to appear scientific; however what they don’t tell you is that they pay attention to & cite only the studies that support their “natural is better” bias, often to exaggeration, but then they ignore the ones that don’t fit this bias. This is how westonaprice is comfortable condemning aspartame saccharin and sucralose (both with GRAS status, and enjoyed by millions of people), yet they can hypocritically promote stevioside (the side effects of which are well documented, and which does not even have GRAS status to be used as a sweetener). I’m not saying stevioside is any worse than the pink yellow or blue packets, all I’m saying is it’s probably not any better, either, and the majority of people will not have any problem tolerating any of those 4 artificial sweeteners. Westonaprice wants you to think pink yellow and blue packets are toxic to your body, irregardless of reality. They want you to think this because they have the preconceived notion that says everything which seems overly synthetic is bad. This irrational emotional bias held by westonaprice is why they can’t be considered a scientific authority on health. Their bias against synthetic substances is not founded in any objective observations of reality – some synthetic things are good, and some natural things are bad. The problem with westonaprice is that they think ALL excessively processed & synthetic things are bad, and almost certainly worse than their “natural” alternative, when this may or may not be true. They then seek out the studies which prove this point, and ignore the ones that don’t. They are saddled with romantic notions of “heritage”, “free living” and “simpler times”, the spirit of which permeates almost all their articles. I personally think these silly irrational notions about what it means to live “naturally” influences if not completely fuels the bias.

The basic point I’m trying to make is that the founding principles & ideals of westonaprice are completely unscientific in nature – returning to a natural life style, the feeling of warmth and sense of purpose & belonging associated with becoming connected with and following the traditions of your ancestors, the sense of empowerment and fulfillment that comes from seeking out your own foods and then lovingly preparing it at home, etc. This is what westonaprice is REALLY about – they are seeking spiritual health with their naturalist crusade. Physical health and objective scientific reality is secondary. Going to westonaprice for say, soy or artificial sweetener advice, is kind of like listening to PCRM for advice on where to get the best sources of protein. Westonaprice will tell you the best source of soy & artificially sweeteners are only the forms which are naturally occurring (and traditionally processed if possible), and to express strict abstinence to soy or artificial sweetener products which have been in any way structurally altered – the synthetic/non-naturally processed stuff is a toxin with a deleterious effect on health. PCRM will tell you the best sources of protein are those which are completely vegan – animal products cause cancer, heart disease, infertility, and osteoporosis. The advice from both organizations are completely biased and not scientifically objective.

Organizations which are heavily biased as a principle can’t be considered scientifically objective. Biases are never scientific in nature, as the definition of a bias is any sort of subjective emotional feeling which prejudices you from seeing reality. Needless to say, I take everything said from westonaprice (and PCRM) with a grain of salt and I think most people should as well.

I've tried to find out how much oestrogen is in animal fat but failed, so I don't know. But after hours of searching the recent literature, I found nothing to say that oestrogens in animal fat were a danger. Lots for soy though.

[quote]

Ok, define a moderate dose of soy isoflavones. It doesn't take much to have an effect. A study by Cassidy et al. (I can give the reference) gave 60g (4 tablespoons) of soy protein (45mg isoflavone) to women daily. After 1 month, all experienced delayed menstruation.

A quarter cup packed soy protein every single day is a fairly frequent consumption rate. 60 grams of soy protein is higher than the average woman’s daily protein requirements (we low carbers need more for gluconeogenesis, but the average woman on a carb-adequate diet needs not more than 40-50 grams). That’s basically the same thing as getting all your protein from soy, every day… I’m not surprised there were problems, soy is extremely estrogenic.

I think one serving of soy every couple of days shouldn’t be a problem. I have always eaten soy very infrequently, however I’ve recently started eating soy more frequently as I just purchased a couple of boxes of Atkins cereal & protein bars. Before this I almost never ate soy. I have one bar a month if that, and a bowl of cereal (20+ grams of soy protein) every couple of days. I haven’t noticed any difference in how I feel at all, no hypothyroid symptoms, no lump on my thyroid, nothing like that. I’ve never had regular menstruation cycles (due to PCOS) so I really can’t use that as a guide, unfortunately.

Would you agree that a start would be to provide the average isoflavone content of each soy product in the nutritional information box? For example, soy milk from whole soybeans has on average 64 mg. in a 1 litre carton.
Yes, I would very much like to see that. In fact I think it should be mandatory, as should it be mandatory that the entire nutritional panel of a food item be listed on the package (most just give 4 nutrients, if that). People should know what they are eating so they can make better choices.

However, I still maintain that eating a serving of soy every couple of days isn’t going to cause a problem.

[arkie6]

...What westonaprice fails to mention is that the stevia extract stevioside (the source of the sweet taste) has many well documented health risks, including the potential to be a cancer-causing mutagen, the potential to cause DNA damage, and an association with deletarious effects on carbohydrate metabolism in very high dosage...

Where can one find those well documented health risks associated with stevia? I've never come across them in my research. I'm talking scientific research, not opinion. The only thing I could find that was potentially negative regarding stevia was one study done on rats (A. Yamada et al, 1985 - no text available), and one done on hamsters ( C. Wasuntarawat et al - 1998 - abstract available on Medline - "...From the result of the present study concerning maternal toxic condition and embryotoxicity, an oral dose of 0.25 g steviol/kg BW/day is regarded as having no observable effect. This steviol-treated dose is derived from stevioside 625 mg/kg BW/day which is approximately 80 times higher than the suggested acceptable daily intake of stevioside for humans (7.938 mg/kg BW/day).")

[ItsTheWooo]

Where can one find those well documented health risks associated with stevia? I've never come across them in my research. I'm talking scientific research, not opinion. The only thing I could find that was potentially negative regarding stevia was one study done on rats (A. Yamada et al, 1985 - no text available), and one done on hamsters ( C. Wasuntarawat et al - 1998 - abstract available on Medline - "...From the result of the present study concerning maternal toxic condition and embryotoxicity, an oral dose of 0.25 g steviol/kg BW/day is regarded as having no observable effect. This steviol-treated dose is derived from stevioside 625 mg/kg BW/day which is approximately 80 times higher than the suggested acceptable daily intake of stevioside for humans (7.938 mg/kg BW/day).")
First let me state right off that I do not think stevia is dangerous, at least not any more so than any synthetic artificial sweetener.

There have been studies done in laboratories on animals showing potentially deleterious side effects from the body metabolizing stevioside. A byproduct of stevioside metabolism is steviol. Steviol has been reported to have a questionable affect on health, the most damning reports of which show steviol as a DNA damaging mutagen in studies on hampsters.

http://www.saunalahti.fi/~manarkia/Stevioside.html#sec4

Please also note that the above source also believes that stevia is safe for human consumption in moderation.

The point I was trying to make was not that stevia is dangerous, my point was that westonaprice are biased and hypocritical. Much of the negative aspartame research (and sucralose and saccharin) is seen only in laboratory animals at ridiculously high dosages, just as in the stevioside research. However, westonaprice recommends stevioside but warns against aspartame, despite the fact both substances have about the same level of "danger" (read: not much at all). One must ask themself why it is that westonaprice would back stevioside but not the mainstream sweeteners. I personally think they have an emotional bias against non-natural lifestyles which drives them. Maybe they have a financial interest. Who knows. Whatever the reason, it seems quite apparent that objective scientific reality does not figure in as a priority in their recommendations for living a healthy life. Synthetic does not always equal toxic, and natural is not always superior.

[bluesmoke]

It's funny how someone who knows more than anyone else about low carb can't respond with anything but personal opinion. The attack on the Weston A Price foundation has no credibility with me, I can read the research they quote and see for myself. Nyah Levi

[Paleoanth]

I asked my doctor about the soy thing as I have hypothryroidism and am a vegetarian. I was worried about what I read by Dr. Shomon about soy. His basic response was that there seemed to be conflicting studies and opinions out there about soy and it's effect on the thyroid. He and I decided to closely watch my thyroid levels. They seemed to be unaffected by my soy consumption over a period of several months.

Not a scientific study-but interesting.

[woodpecker]

They then seek out the studies which prove this point, and ignore the ones that don’t. They are saddled with romantic notions of “heritage”, “free living” and “simpler times”, the spirit of which permeates almost all their articles. I personally think these silly irrational notions about what it means to live “naturally” influences if not completely fuels the bias.

The basic point I’m trying to make is that the founding principles & ideals of westonaprice are completely unscientific in nature – returning to a natural life style, the feeling of warmth and sense of purpose & belonging associated with becoming connected with and following the traditions of your ancestors, the sense of empowerment and fulfillment that comes from seeking out your own foods and then lovingly preparing it at home, etc. This is what westonaprice is REALLY about – they are seeking spiritual health with their naturalist crusade.

Woo you make a good argument. I agree that Weston Price could be guilty of "cherry-picking" in some areas. Sally Fallon's book has been criticized for its one-sidedness. Probably got the blubber thing right tho.

[DebPenny]

Much of the negative aspartame research (and sucralose and saccharin) is seen only in laboratory animals at ridiculously high dosages
Unfortunately, the people I've seen with reactive problems to aspartame have been people who consume "ridiculously high dosages" of aspartame. I drink maybe two sodas a month. I've never noticed an adverse reaction.

On the other hand, I know I have an estrogen dominance problem due to the extra fat I'm still carrying around and also losing. I have had PCOS, which has been reversed for me by low-carb -- I've had regular periods since 3 months after starting low-carb. I will avoid soy so as not to exacerbate my estrogen dominance problem. Besides I don't want all those soy replacement foods -- but tofu is OK once in a great while.

Woo, your arguments are compelling. I think, though, that we all need to take such commentaries, studies, reports, etc., with a "grain of salt." They are all presented with the biases of the reporters, be they scientists or journalists or whatever. They can't help it.

[ewert]

Whereas I agree that like every single living being, the writers of WestonAPrice also have an opinion on matters they write about, I think you picked a very poor argument focusing on the GRAS & number of people consuming. One has to be quite gullible to believe that there is something more important deciding factor in those issues than money.. sure there ARE other issues too, but lets face it, money is all the megacorps care about.

Not to mention, wasn't Stevia widely used elsewhere on the globe already?

[ItsTheWooo]

Whereas I agree that like every single living being, the writers of WestonAPrice also have an opinion on matters they write about,
Yes, all people have an opinion, but the nature of your opinions are *very* important. Are your opinions strongly coloured by a subjective emotional bias, or are they the result of your observations of objective reality?

It's like comparing PCRM to the Atkins Center. One of those organizations developed the bias first and then sought to back it up with science (PCRM). The other did their research first and then came to their conclusions (Atkins). Did science influence the bias more, or did the bias influence your interpretations of the science more? Are you willing to change your perspective in face of conflicting observations of objective realty, or will you merely bury the evidence which doesn't fit your view? Which of these do you think westonaprice falls under? I've already caught them manipulating the facts to fit their agenda (burying the scientific evidence against stevioside, yet crusading against aspartame with the same specious laboratory animal studies).


I think you picked a very poor argument focusing on the GRAS & number of people consuming. One has to be quite gullible to believe that there is something more important deciding factor in those issues than money.. sure there ARE other issues too, but lets face it, money is all the megacorps care about.

I do agree, the lack of GRAS status for stevioside to be used as a sweetener has more to do with financial interests of corporations than with any threat to public safety. If stevioside were so dangerous, why wouldn't they ban it for use as a supplement like they did with ephedra?

I simply pointed those things out to bolster my argument that the anti-aspartame hysteria has very little basis in objective reality. Aspartame has GRAS status (generally recognized as *safe* - generally meaning most people, safe meaning normal consumption rates will not pose a health risk over time). Aspartame is also the #1 diet soda sweetener. Millions of people drink diet soda every day. The only health problems I express from drinking a lot of diet soda are related to over consumption of caffeine (for me I don't do well on caffeine, it triggers my adrenals which I am sensitive to, it messes up my blood sugar, and makes me feel like crap... does this mean all people are that sensitive to caffeine and it should be avoided by all people?).

If aspartame were really as dangerous - for all people - as westonaprice claims, why aren't there more people who are getting sick? The only problems I've observed in individuals associated with aspartame consumption were related more to caffeine dependency than aspartame toxicity.


Not to mention, wasn't Stevia widely used elsewhere on the globe already?
Stevioside - the powdered extract of the stevia leaf - hasn't ever been used in any communities in high volume. Traditional societies have used the stevia leaves for sweetening purposes, but a crumbled up leaf or two in your drink is quite different from directly consuming the extract. No society has ever used the concentrated powdered stevioside as a sweetener.

edit: answered another question from the OP

[arkie6]

First let me state right off that I do not think stevia is dangerous, at least not any more so than any synthetic artificial sweetener.

There have been studies done in laboratories on animals showing potentially deleterious side effects from the body metabolizing stevioside. A byproduct of stevioside metabolism is steviol. Steviol has been reported to have a questionable affect on health, the most damning reports of which show steviol as a DNA damaging mutagen in studies on hampsters.

http://www.saunalahti.fi/~manarkia/Stevioside.html#sec4

Please also note that the above source also believes that stevia is safe for human consumption in moderation.

Thanks for the link. Very informative. I added it to my health related bookmarks. I found nothing damning in the article regarding human consumption of stevia. And regarding the statement "A byproduct of stevioside metabolism is steviol." was not supported in the link with regard to humans. It said "It has been shown that oral stevioside is not taken up by the human body or the uptake is extremely low...and none of the digestive enzymes from the gastro-intestinal tract of different animals and man are able to degrade stevioside into steviol, the aglycone of stevioside..." Also, "Although bacteria isolated from the human colon are able to transform stevioside into steviol in vitro,... it has never been proven that this is also the case in vivo nor that the steviol possibly formed in the colon is taken up directly from it."

Sorry to keep dragging this discussion off the topic of soy.

[Nancy LC]

Nice analysis, Woo. I think people getting caught up in the yearning for simpler days and simpler ways forget how many people died at very early ages in the old days from diseases, food/water borne illnesses and other stuff.

[arkie6]

Stevioside - the powdered extract of the stevia leaf - hasn't ever been used in any communities in high volume. Traditional societies have used the stevia leaves for sweetening purposes, but a crumbled up leaf or two in your drink is quite different from directly consuming the extract. No society has ever used the concentrated powdered stevioside as a sweetener.Where did you get that? Virtually everything that I have read regarding stevia shows that it has been used and approved in Japan as a sweetener since the mid 1970's. A quick google search for [stevia japan] shows that most sources claim stevia currently comprises a large percentage of the sweetener market (including sugar) in Japan.

This link >>> http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/crops/facts/stevia.htm states in part "In the Pacific Rim countries, China, Korea and Japan, stevia is regularly used in preparation of food and pharmaceutical products. In Japan alone, an estimated 50 tons of stevioside is used annually with sales valued in the order of $220 million Canadian.

[ewert]

Thanks arkie6, that was what I was remembering too, that it is highly used in the Asian populace.

Also, even though I'm not taking sides on the issue which side is more "right" (bias source inherent or gained through research), even more importantly the GRAS is definitely not a good indication of something being "generally safe". There are zillions of different mild malaises, chronic problems etc. that nobody can pin on anything spesific. Just because BigBusiness (with none other than Rumsfeld, the most honest man in America no doubt...) has decided to get GRAS status for something, and it gets approved, it does not give proof to one way or the other. Not until the research is shown... which if I recall correctly on the aspartame case, was the reason it did not get GRAS status until BigBusiness intervention. I could remember wrong, so take this with a grain of sugar. :P

[woodpecker]

GRAS status of soy


A key argument in PTI's recently approved health claim was that soy protein was a GRAS foodstuff and that were no risks associated with the daily consumption of between 25 g and 100g of soy protein.

In fact, the FDA has never granted soy protein GRAS status and the very real risks associated with consuming soy protein have largely been ignored, firstly by PTI and, now, by the FDA. These risks relate to exposures to isoflavones and nitrosamines that will occur on daily exposure to soy protein.

PTI describe soy protein as a safe and lawful food and claim GRAS status by self-determination based on common use in food before January 1 1958. PTI also claim that the "FDA has recognised soy protein products as having GRAS status" and argue that the reason soy protein is not listed as GRAS is because "it is impractical for FDA to list all substances that are GRAS for their intended use".

Firstly, one must note that the self-determination of GRAS status of soy protein by the soy industry is meaningless and such self determinations should not be given any credence. In order to protect consumers only independent bodies, or those with recognised legal status, can perform legitimate determinations on the safety of consumer products.

Secondly, PTI’s claim that products such as soy protein isolate were in common use in food before January 1 1958 is incorrect. The Select Committee of GRAS Substances (SCOGS) provided an independent evaluation of soy protein in the form of isolated soy protein in its ‘Evaluation of the Health Aspects of Soy Protein Isolates as Food Ingredients’ (1). The SCOGS committee found that at the time of their review (some 20 years after 1958) the use of soy protein was uncommon. In their determination of the likely average dietary exposure to soy protein isolate, the SCOGS committee reported a maximum per capita daily intake of soy protein isolate of about 150 mg from food items and a negligible amount due to migration from packaging.

Thirdly, and quite simply, soy protein is not legally a GRAS foodstuff, as the FDA has never codified it as such. In their review of soy protein isolates the SCOGS committee noted that such products were initially developed as binders in paper coatings. Soy protein isolates were GRAS under the provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations as substances migrating from paper and paperboard products used in food packaging because it was assumed that only very small amounts would be subject to human ingestion.

The SCOGS committee concluded that there was no evidence that soy protein isolates were a hazard when consumed at levels typical at that time (or levels that might reasonably be expected to be in future use) provided acceptable levels of lysinoalanine, nitrite and nitrosamines were established. To this end the committee recommended that food-grade soy protein isolates have specified acceptable levels of lysinoalanine, nitrite and nitrosamines. To date, acceptable levels of lysinoalanine, nitrite and nitrosamines have not been established for food-grade soy protein isolates and one might conclude that soy protein isolates have not been granted GRAS status for this reason.

To claim, as PTI had done, that the FDA has not codified soy protein isolate as GRAS because it is impractical to list all substances that are GRAS for their intended is inconsistent with the fact that other food items that the SCOGS committee found were GRAS have subsequently been codified as such. Had the SCOGS committee been satisfied that soy protein isolate was safe for intended use, there is little reason to suggest that GRAS status would not have been codified. Quite simply, soy protein was not granted GRAS status because the SCOGS committee was not convinced it was GRAS.

The findings of the SCOGS committee still have particular relevance to the PTI health claim petition. The PTI petition recommends a daily intake of 25 to 100 g of soy protein and it is quite evident that at this level of intake is far greater than the SCOGS committee ever anticipated when they were conducting their GRAS review. Hence, the concerns expressed by the SCOGS committee relating to exposure to lysinoalanine, nitrite and nitrosamines take on additional significance. For example, a daily consumption of 25 to 100 g of isolated soy protein may result in nitrosamine exposures that exceed established No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL’s).

Until such safety issues are adequately addressed soy protein still cannot, and should not, be viewed as GRAS.
So what is soy protein isolate safe for?

http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/gras.htm

[Paleoanth]

OK, then I have a question. Is it the isoflavones that are the problem or the isolates?