Four Great Values of Soybeans
by: Arnulfo Yu Laniba
Agape Foundation (Agasoft)
A. Superb Cancer-fighting agents or substances
B. Superior Quality Protein
C. Soybeans has been recognized as the main cause of health (disease-free) and longevity in Japan and China
D. Creates anti-cancer environment
A. Soybeans’ Superb Cancer-fighting Agents
“For centuries the soybean has been prized as one of the best sources of protein available in the world, but its most important attribute may be that it is a superb cancer fighting agent.”
- Dr. Jau-Fei Chen, U.S. scientist and nutritional immunologist, Nutritional Immunology, p. 72
Anti-cancer PHYTOCHEMICALS found in soybeans and soy products:
1. Isoflavones – help prevent the growth of hormone-dependent cancers such as breast and prostate cancers.
2. Genistein – superb cancer-fighting agent, is like a plumber who cuts the supply lines (that is, our capillaries or small blood vessels which are like pipes or tubes delivering nutrients and oxygen to every cell) – capillaries that the cancer cell had previously seized and installed upon itself, thus, Genistein starves the cancer cell, not just making it more difficult for cancer to spread but causing its eventual death;
-- promotes cell identification among cancer cells which means: healthy cells made cancerous forget their identity which makes it difficult for treatment or for these cells to get restored to health. Genistein ‘wakes’ them up and remind them of who they were (namely: as healthy useful cells) – that they were not cancer cells from the beginning, thus, leading them back to health.
3. Daidzein – another phytochemical that promotes cell differentiation and inhibit growth of cancer cells.
4. Protease inhibitors – is described as a ‘universal anti-carcinogen’ because it works to prevent or inhibit a wide range of cancers, from liver cancer to colon cancer to breast cancer;
-- blocks the action of protease, enzymes that may promote tumor growth;
5. Phytic Acids – is a chelator, that is, it binds with certain metals that promote tumor or cancer growth;
6. Saponins – kills colon-cancer cells.
B. Superior Quality Protein
What is soy protein?
1. It is as complete as animal protein but without the dangerous saturated fats and cholesterol in meat which cause cancer, diabetes, heart attack and stroke.
2. Soy is found to ‘one of the best sources of protein in the world,’ ‘an excellent source of protein,’ ‘the quality of soy protein is superior,’ the only plant protein classified as ‘complete proteins’.
3. ‘soy milk is a complete substitute for cow’s milk”
4. in a gram-for-gram comparison, soy protein is: twice that of meat;
5. soy protein is 4 times that of eggs, wheat and other cereals;
6. soy protein is 5 to 6 times that of bread;
7. soy protein is twice that of walnuts and other nuts;
8. soy protein is 12 (read: twelve!) times that of milk!
C. Soybeans: main cause of health and longevity in Japan and China
Comparison of Effects Japanese-Chinese ‘Soy Protein Diet’ vs. American Meat Protein Diet:
1. Japanese – longest lifespan of any nationality;
2. Japanese - lower rates of colon cancer and lung cancer than Americans;
3. Japan has the lowest rate of death from heart disease for men in the world and the 2nd lowest for women;
4. American women are 4 times more likely to die from breast cancer than Japanese women;
5. American men are 5 times more likely to die from prostate cancer than Japanese men;
6. Consistent No. 1 killer disease in America and also in the Philippines: CVD or Cardio-Vascular Diseases which includes heart disease, heart attack; hypertension, high blood pressure; sclerosis, stroke; etc. – due to saturated fats such as: a) animal fat, b) transfat (or so-called hydrogenated fat which was liquid plant oil hardened by the chemical process called hydrogenation) and c) synthetic (chemical) fat ;
7. The Chinese are said to be “singularly free from several of our most deadly disease such as CVDs, cancers and diabetes” ;
8. Chinese men have one-tenth (1/10th) the rate of heart disease as American men;
9. Chinese women die from breast cancer at one-sixth (1/6th) the rate of American women, while in the U.S., 8 out of every 10 Americans will suffer from heart disease (CVD) or cancer at some point in their lifetimes;
Comparison of Japanese-Chinese and American consumptions of protein:
1. The Japanese eat 50 – 80 grams of soy a day in different forms, e.g., soy milk, tofu, tempeh, natto, miso, soy sauce, kinnoko flour, soy oil, etc.;
2. Chinese diet is 95% vegetable protein esp. soybeans and only 5% animal protein (meat);
3. Americans eat only 5 grams of soy food daily, hidden or mixed in foods;
4. American protein is at least 55% animal protein (meat);
Conclusion: “A plant-based diet (especially soy) clearly leads to a stronger immune system…” that leads to disease-free or disease-less health and long life.
- Dr. Jau-Fei Chen, U.S. scientist, Nutritional Immunologist
Fact: Animal Protein found or mixed in animal meat is linked to CVDs, cancers and diabetes. Fats are feeds to cancer cells.
Nutrition and Diet Therapy, Sue Rodwell Williams
www.mercola.com
Solution: Replace your animal protein (found in meat fats) with soy protein.
What is Protein and how important it is to our health and life?
What is protein?
Protein is one of the 7 nutrient groups which are essentials of life. The other six are: carbohydrates, (including fiber and sugar), fats (including cholesterol), vitamins, minerals, water, and phytochemicals.
Like carbohydrates and fats, proteins have a basic structure of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. But unlike carbohydrates and fats, which contain no nitrogen, protein is about 16% nitrogen. In addition, some proteins contain small but valuable amounts of sulfur, phosphorus, iron and iodine.
Protein is made up of amino acids which carry nitrogen, an essential element needed for human life. There are 22 kinds amino acids. 12 of them are manufactured by the body. The remaining 10 cannot be, therefore, must be absorbed from food, animal and/or plant. The 10 are: methionine (plus cystine), threnine, tryptophan, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, valine, phenylalanine (plus tyrosine), histidine, taurine.
These 10 are called “essential amino acids” because the body does not manufacture them and must be absorbed from food.
What are the types of protein?
1. Simple – example: serum albumin, insulin, and the enzymes;
2. Complex – is simple protein plus some other non-protein groups
Examples:
a. Nucleoproteins – one or more proteins plus acid, such as DNA, protein complex in cell nuclei;
b. Glycoproteins and mycoproteins – protein and carbohydrates, such as mucin, found in secrations from mucous membranes;
c. Phosphoproteins – protein and a phosphorus-containing radical other than phospholipids or nucleic acid, such as casein in milk;
d. Chromoprotein – protein and a chromophoric or pigmented group, such as hemoglobin in red blood cells;
e. Lipoproteins – protein and a triglyceride or other lipid, phospholipids, or cholesterol-lipid transport package traveling in the bloodstream;
f. Metalloproteins - protein and a metal (mineral) such as copper or iron, suich as heme, the iron-bonding portion of hemoglobin;
TISSUE PROTEINS: proteins classified in broad categories according to their role in body structure and metabolism, namely:
1. Structural proteins – ex. Collagen (connective tissue)
2. Contractile proteins – ex. Myosin (muscle)
3. Antibodies - ex. Gammaglobulin
4. Blood proteins – ex. Albumin, fibrinogen, hemoglobin
5. Hormones – ex. Insulin
6. Enzymes – all the enzymes
How important is protein? What is its relevance or role in the body?
1. TISSUE BUILDING – is the primary function of protein. No protein, no form or structure to pair with the skeletons. Of the traditional groupings of food into GO, GROW and GLOW foods, protein consists the GROW food group.
2. CALORIES or ENERGY. Protein sometimes provide energy. When carbohydrates (first source of energy) and fats (second source of energy) are exhausted as first sources of energy, such as during fasting, sickness, or in extended physical efforts such as marathon, protein provides energy through its residue, glucogen to be converted into glucose (body sugar) which the type the body insulin hormones convert into energy. Calories or energy comes from only 3 of the nutrients groups, namely: carbohydrates, fats, protein. Vitamins, minerals and water contain no calories.
3. PERFORMS VARIOUS SPECIFIC ADDITIONAL PHYSIOLOGIC ROLES – e.g., precursor of B Vitamins, hormones, etc.
4. IMMUNE SYSTEM. Protein makes antibodies, one of the body-produced “army” which help fight infection;
5. Transports nutrients and oxygen both in the blood and in and out of cells;
6. Regulates the balance of water, acids and bases (alkaline);
7. METABOLISM. Regulates the chemical and physical processes in the body (metabolism).
8. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) - Inside the nucleus of every cell is deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), a tightly coiled molecule that contains genes. Genes determine all the features found in living things, such as eye color, the pattern on a butterfly’s wings, or the color of a flower’s petals. DNA is protein-based, carries the genetic “blueprint” of a living beings such as man passed from one generation to the next or characteristics of parents to children.
3 Myths & Deceptions about Protein:
Myth No. 1: Animal (meat) protein contains all of these essential amino acids (except taurine); therefore, animal protein (meat) is called complete protein and high-quality protein.
Fact/Truth: Complete does not necessarily mean high quality and safe. Animal (meat) protein is the single main cause of cardio-vascular diseases that claims the most number of lives in the U.S., the Philippines and other meat-eating countries.
Myth No. 2: Meat is the only source of protein.
“Many people, often under the mistaken assumption that meat is the only source of protein, eat too much of it. Two-thirds (2/3) of the (US) nation’s protein comes from animal sources and (only) one-third from vegetable. In 1909, half came from animal sources and half from vegetable.
“…the change in America’s dietary habits (from low-fat, high fiber diet before the 19th century to high-fat, low fiber diet) is unfortunate and undesirable for several reasons:
“1. Red meats high in fat (saturated fat) and cholesterol, both are mainly responsible for cardio-vascular diseases (CVDs), the No. 1 killer disease in the US, other advanced countries as well as in the Philippines;
“2. Meat protein is the most expensive protein to produce. Cows must be fed 21 pounds of vegetable protein to produce one pound of usable meat protein. An acre of cereals can produce 5 times more protein than an acre devoted to meat production. An acre of legumes produces 10 times more, and an acre of leafy vegetables produces 15 times more.”
Fact/Truth: Protein can be found in fish, seeds (grains, legumes, nuts) and vegetables.
Myth No. 3: Meat is the only source of high-quality protein.
Fact/Truth: Proteins from soybeans equal or even exceed the quality of protein in meat, not only because it is as complete as meat protein, but also soy protein does not have cholesterol and other saturated fats that are responsible for CVDs (Cardio-Vascular Diseases), one of which is heart disease, the consistent leading killer disease in the U.S. and the Philippines.
D. Creates anti-cancer environment
Soy has the unique ability to create a favorable hormonal environment that can help prevent cancer.
Here’s how it works.
Estrogen - useful
The hormone estrogen produced mainly in women’s ovaries controls the development of secondary sexual organs in women such as breasts, pubic hairs, etc. Estrogen is also a major player in the female menstrual cycle. In a delicate interplay with other hormones, estrogen stimulates the development of ovum (unfertilized egg) and helps grow the lining of the uterus, where the egg will implant if it is fertilized.
Estrogen turns harmful
But if cells in breasts or cervix have been damaged or wounded by free radicals (unstable oxygen molecule) and turned cancerous, estrogen becomes a traitor and takes a harmful role as feeds or stimulators or promoters to these cancer cells. Thus, the more estrogen a woman has, the greater that chances that cancerous cells can multiply and spread very fast. Here the free radical is the initiator or cause of cancer cells while estrogen becomes the promoter – read: feeds! – to cancer cells!
Solution: limit estrogen.
How?
Let soybeans supply phyto-estrogen, to replace estrogen!
How soybeans help in preventing hormone-dependent cancers?
Breast and prostate cancers are called “hormone-dependent cancers” because hormones like estrogen can stimulate their growth .
Soybeans contain abundant phyto-estrogen (plant estrogen) called EQUOL that can be converted to estrogen in the body. When equol is abundant, ovary-produced estrogen decreases. Phyto-estrogen like equol is anti-cancer; estrogen is pro-cancer!
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
1. Nutrition and Diet Therapy, Sue Rodwell Williams
2. Parents’ Guide to Nutrition, Dras. Susan Baker and Roberta Henry
3. Nutritional Immunology, Dr. Jau-Fei Chen
Posted by cocoy777 at 4:05 AM
Friday, August 29, 2008
Nothing beats mama’s breastmilk! What about the traditional use of soy in infant feeding?
Nothing beats mama’s breastmilk!
What about the traditional use of soy in infant feeding?
Source: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/01/09/truth-about-soy.aspx
Ever heard the industry line that 'soy formulas must be safe because Asian infants have been eating soy for centuries'? Just another piece of false advertising, a little like the claims that 'soy formulas are better than breast milk' that many parents that have fed soy formulas testify to. And to set the record straight, soy was seldom used in infant feeding in Asia.
Ernest Tso is credited with the development of the first soymilk diet that was able to sustain an infant for the first eight months of life. Writing in the Chinese Journal of Physiology in 1928, Tso noted that soybean milk is a native food used in certain parts of the country as a morning beverage but it is little used as part of the diet for children. Its nutritive properties as a food for young infants are practically unknown.
Eight years later, Tso's comments were still valid. Writing in the 1930's, Dr RA Guy of the Department of Public Health of the Peiping Union Medical College found it 'pertinent to note that we have never found soybean milk naturally used by Peiping women to feed their children. This beverage is not made in the home in Peiping, but is sold by street vendors, as a hot, very weak solution of soybean protein and is usually drunk by old people in place of tea. The milk, as reinforced for the feeding of young infants, is rather tedious and difficult to prepare. As dispensed recently by the various health stations, it is in demand, but is just as artificial in this community as cow's milk' (Guy RA. Chinese Med J. 1936; 50:434-442).
In a later publication, Guy reported on the use of soybean milk as a food for infants. The whole purpose of this report was to comment on the possible use of soymilk to address the problem of feeding those infants without sufficient maternal milk in a country where cow's milk was not native. He again noted that although a weak soy milk or 'tofu chiang' was 'sold hot in Peking by street vendors and was taken by old people in place of tea', that 'contrary to Western notions' it was not usual to feed soy milk to infants (Guy RA and Yeh KS. Chinese Med J. 1938; 54:1-30).
It seems those same Western notions that made Asians out to be greater soy consumers than they were are still prevalent. Why is that? Asia is a huge market for the soy industry and the soy industry efforts to convince Asians that their ancestors ate much more soy than they actually did are purely profit driven. We view the attempts of the soy industry to re-write the history books with the contempt it deserves.
COMMENTS: God made soy beans without the intention to replace mother's breastmilk. Each has its own place and time of use. No conflict and no usurpation! No interchange either, I'm sure.
What about the traditional use of soy in infant feeding?
Source: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/01/09/truth-about-soy.aspx
Ever heard the industry line that 'soy formulas must be safe because Asian infants have been eating soy for centuries'? Just another piece of false advertising, a little like the claims that 'soy formulas are better than breast milk' that many parents that have fed soy formulas testify to. And to set the record straight, soy was seldom used in infant feeding in Asia.
Ernest Tso is credited with the development of the first soymilk diet that was able to sustain an infant for the first eight months of life. Writing in the Chinese Journal of Physiology in 1928, Tso noted that soybean milk is a native food used in certain parts of the country as a morning beverage but it is little used as part of the diet for children. Its nutritive properties as a food for young infants are practically unknown.
Eight years later, Tso's comments were still valid. Writing in the 1930's, Dr RA Guy of the Department of Public Health of the Peiping Union Medical College found it 'pertinent to note that we have never found soybean milk naturally used by Peiping women to feed their children. This beverage is not made in the home in Peiping, but is sold by street vendors, as a hot, very weak solution of soybean protein and is usually drunk by old people in place of tea. The milk, as reinforced for the feeding of young infants, is rather tedious and difficult to prepare. As dispensed recently by the various health stations, it is in demand, but is just as artificial in this community as cow's milk' (Guy RA. Chinese Med J. 1936; 50:434-442).
In a later publication, Guy reported on the use of soybean milk as a food for infants. The whole purpose of this report was to comment on the possible use of soymilk to address the problem of feeding those infants without sufficient maternal milk in a country where cow's milk was not native. He again noted that although a weak soy milk or 'tofu chiang' was 'sold hot in Peking by street vendors and was taken by old people in place of tea', that 'contrary to Western notions' it was not usual to feed soy milk to infants (Guy RA and Yeh KS. Chinese Med J. 1938; 54:1-30).
It seems those same Western notions that made Asians out to be greater soy consumers than they were are still prevalent. Why is that? Asia is a huge market for the soy industry and the soy industry efforts to convince Asians that their ancestors ate much more soy than they actually did are purely profit driven. We view the attempts of the soy industry to re-write the history books with the contempt it deserves.
COMMENTS: God made soy beans without the intention to replace mother's breastmilk. Each has its own place and time of use. No conflict and no usurpation! No interchange either, I'm sure.
GOD’S OLD LAW ON MODERATION IS STILL THE RULE -- Just How Much Soy Do Asians Eat?
GOD’S OLD LAW ON MODERATION IS STILL THE RULE
Just How Much Soy Do Asians Eat?
Source: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/01/09/truth-about-soy.aspx
Just How Much Soy Did Asians Eat?
In short, not that much, and contrary to what the industry may claim soy has never been a staple in Asia. A study of the history of soy use in Asia shows that the poor used it during times of extreme food shortage, and only then the soybeans were carefully prepared (e.g. by lengthy fermentation) to destroy the soy toxins. Yes, the Asians understood soy all right!
Many vegetarians in the USA, and Europe and Australia would think nothing of consuming 8 ounces (about 220 grams) of tofu and a couple of glasses of soy milk per day, two or three times a week. But this is well in excess of what Asians typically consume; they generally use small portions of soy to complement their meal. It should also be noted that soy is not the main source of dietary protein and that a regime of calcium-set tofu and soymilk bears little resemblance to the soy consumed traditionally in Asia.
Perhaps the best survey of what types/quantities of soy eaten in Asia comes from data from a validated, semi quantitative food frequency questionnaire that surveyed 1242 men and 3596 women who participated in an annual health check-up program in Takayama City, Japan. This survey identified that the soy products consumed were tofu (plain, fried, deep-fried, or dried), miso, fermented soybeans, soymilk, and boiled soybeans. The estimated amount of soy protein consumed from these sources was 8.00 ± 4.95 g/day for men and 6.88 ± 4.06 g/day for women (Nagata C, Takatsuka N, Kurisu Y, Shimizu H; J Nutr 1998, 128:209-13).
According to KC Chang, editor of Food in Chinese Culture, the total caloric intake due to soy in the Chinese diet in the 1930's was only 1.5%, compared with 65% for pork. For more information on the traditional use of soy products, contact the Price Pottenger Nutrition Foundation.
The chief concern we have about the consumption of large amounts of soy is that there is a risk of mega-dosing on isoflavones. If soy consumers follow the advice of Protein Technologies International (manufacturers of isolated soy protein) and consume 100 grams of soy protein per day, their daily genistein intake could easily exceed 200 milligrams per day. This level of genistein intake should definitely be avoided. For comparison, it should be noted that Japanese males consume, on average, less than 10 milligrams of genistein per day (Fukutake M, Takahashi M, Ishida K, Kawamura H, Sugimura T, Wakabayashi K; Food Chem Toxicol 1996, 34:457-61).
GOD’S OLD LAW ON MODERATION IS STILL THE RULE.
Blog comments:
Apparently you've never been to Japan. I lived there for 6 months, and almost everyone I knew ate soy every day, if not at every meal. Natto mixed with a raw egg dropped on top of a bowl of rice is a staple breakfast food, and miso soup is eaten with almost every lunch or dinner, unless another soup (often containing tofu or miso) is the main dish. Miso soup's main ingredient is soy and it is usually garnished with small block of tofu. A block of cold tofu drizzled with soy sauce is also a very common dish.
Source: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/01/09/truth-about-soy.aspx
Just How Much Soy Do Asians Eat?
Source: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/01/09/truth-about-soy.aspx
Just How Much Soy Did Asians Eat?
In short, not that much, and contrary to what the industry may claim soy has never been a staple in Asia. A study of the history of soy use in Asia shows that the poor used it during times of extreme food shortage, and only then the soybeans were carefully prepared (e.g. by lengthy fermentation) to destroy the soy toxins. Yes, the Asians understood soy all right!
Many vegetarians in the USA, and Europe and Australia would think nothing of consuming 8 ounces (about 220 grams) of tofu and a couple of glasses of soy milk per day, two or three times a week. But this is well in excess of what Asians typically consume; they generally use small portions of soy to complement their meal. It should also be noted that soy is not the main source of dietary protein and that a regime of calcium-set tofu and soymilk bears little resemblance to the soy consumed traditionally in Asia.
Perhaps the best survey of what types/quantities of soy eaten in Asia comes from data from a validated, semi quantitative food frequency questionnaire that surveyed 1242 men and 3596 women who participated in an annual health check-up program in Takayama City, Japan. This survey identified that the soy products consumed were tofu (plain, fried, deep-fried, or dried), miso, fermented soybeans, soymilk, and boiled soybeans. The estimated amount of soy protein consumed from these sources was 8.00 ± 4.95 g/day for men and 6.88 ± 4.06 g/day for women (Nagata C, Takatsuka N, Kurisu Y, Shimizu H; J Nutr 1998, 128:209-13).
According to KC Chang, editor of Food in Chinese Culture, the total caloric intake due to soy in the Chinese diet in the 1930's was only 1.5%, compared with 65% for pork. For more information on the traditional use of soy products, contact the Price Pottenger Nutrition Foundation.
The chief concern we have about the consumption of large amounts of soy is that there is a risk of mega-dosing on isoflavones. If soy consumers follow the advice of Protein Technologies International (manufacturers of isolated soy protein) and consume 100 grams of soy protein per day, their daily genistein intake could easily exceed 200 milligrams per day. This level of genistein intake should definitely be avoided. For comparison, it should be noted that Japanese males consume, on average, less than 10 milligrams of genistein per day (Fukutake M, Takahashi M, Ishida K, Kawamura H, Sugimura T, Wakabayashi K; Food Chem Toxicol 1996, 34:457-61).
GOD’S OLD LAW ON MODERATION IS STILL THE RULE.
Blog comments:
Apparently you've never been to Japan. I lived there for 6 months, and almost everyone I knew ate soy every day, if not at every meal. Natto mixed with a raw egg dropped on top of a bowl of rice is a staple breakfast food, and miso soup is eaten with almost every lunch or dinner, unless another soup (often containing tofu or miso) is the main dish. Miso soup's main ingredient is soy and it is usually garnished with small block of tofu. A block of cold tofu drizzled with soy sauce is also a very common dish.
Source: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/01/09/truth-about-soy.aspx
Thursday, August 28, 2008
THEY MADE SOY BAD BY CONVERTING IT INTO TRANSFAT!
THEY MADE SOY BAD BY CONVERTING IT INTO TRANSFAT!
Franky,
I have just made a quick look at the anti-soy website that you had given
me.
Result: confusion.
I am confused if my final basis or authority are these warring
scientists. I have Dr. Chen of E.Excel and Dr. Earl Mindell of Pacific
Western University, LA. California (I have their books) supported and
promoting soy as superb anti-CVDs, anti-cancer, anti-osteoporosis, etc.
Now, the website you gave me is giving different views -- opposite
views.
And look, i have started promoting soy as ingredient in our bakery.
What should we do? To be safe, we have to go to the Father for His
enlightenment.
To start, I trust what He said in Genesis 1:29 "I have given man seeds
and fruits with seeds in them for food."
Soy is a seed.
Trusting in God's statement, i have an explanation why soy (I
specifically refer to chemically grown soy in America et al) is linked
in promoting cancer instead of preventing it. It is the chemicals from
sowing, to processing that MUST HAVE TURNED THE GOOD OLD SOY INTO A
DEVIL!
Like what they do in the US. They are the world's biggest producer of
soy but they turn soy into oil and then as transfat, that is, they
harden the oil by adding hydrogen ions (hydrogenation), making it solid,
thus, converting it from unsaturated to saturated fats which cause heart
attack, stroke and gangrene!
I also hydrogen ions (atoms) to soy oil or any liquid oil, they not only
turn liquid to solid, but the hydrogen ions add weight! Thus, profits!
That is why if soy is naturally an angel, they have turned it into a
devil.
And i am so sad about that. The Americans do not eat soy but turn it into
oil and transform it into hydrogenated (hardened) fat or transfat which
is mainly the reason why cardio-vascular diseases (CVDs) is the no. 1
killer disease in the U.S. They eat saturated fats, first from animal
meat and now from plant oil such as soy oil turned into saturated fat --
saturated with hydrogen ions, solid that can clog and suffocate the
heart arteries and blood vessels.
What do you think? Or more specifically, what does the Father think my
friend? I want to know His revelation about this. What i have is only up
to what i have read in Leviticus 3 and 7 which prohibits fat --
specifically, animal fat; classifically, saturated fat.
I will be glad for your informed reply. I trust you more than other
people.
Very truly yours,
Cocoy
Franky,
I have just made a quick look at the anti-soy website that you had given
me.
Result: confusion.
I am confused if my final basis or authority are these warring
scientists. I have Dr. Chen of E.Excel and Dr. Earl Mindell of Pacific
Western University, LA. California (I have their books) supported and
promoting soy as superb anti-CVDs, anti-cancer, anti-osteoporosis, etc.
Now, the website you gave me is giving different views -- opposite
views.
And look, i have started promoting soy as ingredient in our bakery.
What should we do? To be safe, we have to go to the Father for His
enlightenment.
To start, I trust what He said in Genesis 1:29 "I have given man seeds
and fruits with seeds in them for food."
Soy is a seed.
Trusting in God's statement, i have an explanation why soy (I
specifically refer to chemically grown soy in America et al) is linked
in promoting cancer instead of preventing it. It is the chemicals from
sowing, to processing that MUST HAVE TURNED THE GOOD OLD SOY INTO A
DEVIL!
Like what they do in the US. They are the world's biggest producer of
soy but they turn soy into oil and then as transfat, that is, they
harden the oil by adding hydrogen ions (hydrogenation), making it solid,
thus, converting it from unsaturated to saturated fats which cause heart
attack, stroke and gangrene!
I also hydrogen ions (atoms) to soy oil or any liquid oil, they not only
turn liquid to solid, but the hydrogen ions add weight! Thus, profits!
That is why if soy is naturally an angel, they have turned it into a
devil.
And i am so sad about that. The Americans do not eat soy but turn it into
oil and transform it into hydrogenated (hardened) fat or transfat which
is mainly the reason why cardio-vascular diseases (CVDs) is the no. 1
killer disease in the U.S. They eat saturated fats, first from animal
meat and now from plant oil such as soy oil turned into saturated fat --
saturated with hydrogen ions, solid that can clog and suffocate the
heart arteries and blood vessels.
What do you think? Or more specifically, what does the Father think my
friend? I want to know His revelation about this. What i have is only up
to what i have read in Leviticus 3 and 7 which prohibits fat --
specifically, animal fat; classifically, saturated fat.
I will be glad for your informed reply. I trust you more than other
people.
Very truly yours,
Cocoy
SOY IS EMPTY BUT ONLY POPULARIZED FOR GAIN?
SOY POPULARITY STEMS FROM MONETARY MOTIVE?
Facts About the Soy Protein Council
http://www.spcouncil.org
________________________________________
________________________________________
The Soy Protein Council members are U.S. manufacturers that process and sell soy proteins or food products containing soy proteins. The three firms comprising the council are Archer Daniels Midland Company, Cargill, Inc., and The Solae Company.
The Soy Protein Council was originally founded in 1971 as the Food Protein Council. Companies joined the Council to establish a forum to discuss and act on common issues of concern to their industry. It was renamed the Soy Protein Council in 1981 to more closely reflect the objectives and interests of the member companies. Since its creation, the Council continually meets with key federal decision-makers, files formal comments with government agencies, participates in international conferences and seminars, exhibits at trade shows, and monitors scientific developments, and has published information on the value of soy protein.
The Council's primary purpose is to promote the growth and interests of the soy protein industry and broaden the acceptance of soy products as key components of the worldwide food system. To that end, the Council:
• builds awareness of the established nutritional properties of commercially available soy proteins, and participates in the formulation of U.S. nutrition goals and policies;
• assists government agencies, the scientific community, the food processing industry and public interest groups to better understand the role and use of soy proteins in the food system; and,
• works toward harmonizing world food regulations that permit and encourage maximum use of soy proteins in the world food supply.
Facts About the Soy Protein Council
http://www.spcouncil.org
________________________________________
________________________________________
The Soy Protein Council members are U.S. manufacturers that process and sell soy proteins or food products containing soy proteins. The three firms comprising the council are Archer Daniels Midland Company, Cargill, Inc., and The Solae Company.
The Soy Protein Council was originally founded in 1971 as the Food Protein Council. Companies joined the Council to establish a forum to discuss and act on common issues of concern to their industry. It was renamed the Soy Protein Council in 1981 to more closely reflect the objectives and interests of the member companies. Since its creation, the Council continually meets with key federal decision-makers, files formal comments with government agencies, participates in international conferences and seminars, exhibits at trade shows, and monitors scientific developments, and has published information on the value of soy protein.
The Council's primary purpose is to promote the growth and interests of the soy protein industry and broaden the acceptance of soy products as key components of the worldwide food system. To that end, the Council:
• builds awareness of the established nutritional properties of commercially available soy proteins, and participates in the formulation of U.S. nutrition goals and policies;
• assists government agencies, the scientific community, the food processing industry and public interest groups to better understand the role and use of soy proteins in the food system; and,
• works toward harmonizing world food regulations that permit and encourage maximum use of soy proteins in the world food supply.
MORE ANTI-SOY - Soy May Cause Cancer and Brain Damage
MORE ANTI-SOY
Soy May Cause Cancer and Brain Damage
Source: www.mercola.com
Two senior US government scientists, Drs. Daniel Doerge and Daniel Sheehan, have revealed that chemicals in soy could increase the risk of breast cancer in women, brain damage in both men and women, and abnormalities in infants.
• The scientists decided to break ranks with colleagues in the FDA and oppose its decision last year to approve a health claim that soy reduced the risk of heart disease.
• They wrote an internal protest letter warning of 28 studies revealing toxic effects of soy, mostly focusing on chemicals in soy known as isoflavones, which have effects similar to the female hormone estrogen.
• They claim that research has shown a clear link between soy and the potential for adverse effects in humans.
• Soy may lead to health problems in animals including altering sexual development of fetuses and causing thyroid disorders.
• Some studies show that chemicals in soy may increase the chances of estrogen-dependent breast cancer.
According to their letter:
• 'There is abundant evidence that some of the isoflavones found in soy demonstrate toxicity in estrogen sensitive tissues and in the thyroid.'
• 'During pregnancy in humans, isoflavones per se could be a risk factor for abnormal brain and reproductive tract development.'
According to one of the scientists, parents who give their children soy milk or formulas "are exposing their children to chemicals which we know have adverse effects in animals. It's like doing a large uncontrolled and unmonitored experiment on infants.'
The soy industry insists that the adverse effects seen in animals do not apply to humans.
The Guardian August 13, 2000
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
As time goes on I suspect the real truth regarding soy will begin to emerge in even the traditional media. If my schedule ever opens up, I plan on promoting this message more widely and I have even reserved the domain www.nosoy.com.
If you do not yet understand the reason why soy should not be considered a health food please review the following links:
The ABC television news program 20/20 aired a feature story on June 8, 2000, on the dangers of soy. It was great to see some in the mainstream media finally picking up on this story.
Besides the articles linked below, another good resource for information on the dangers of soy is The Weston A. Price Foundation, which has a goal to achieve a ban on the use of soy formula for infants.
Related Articles:
Soy: Too Good to be True
Newest Research On Why You Should Avoid Soy
**************************************************
Soy: Too Good to be True
Soybean Products: A Recipe for Disaster?? Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Apr-May 1997), http://www.icom.net/ ~nexus/soya.html
By Brandon Finucan & Charlotte Gerson
While even in 1966 there was considerable research on the harmful substances within soybeans, you'll be hard pressed to find articles today that claim soy is anything short of a miracle-food. As soy gains more and more popularity through industry advertising, we are moved once again to raise our voice of concern.
The Soybean Industry in America
In 1924 soybean production in the U.S. was only at 1.8 million acres harvested, but by 1954, the harvested acres grew to 18.9 million. Today, the soybean is America's third largest crop (harvesting 72 million acres in 1998), supplying more than 50 percent of the world's soybean demand.
Most of these beans are made into animal feed and are manufactured into soy oil for use as vegetable oil, margarine and shortening. Of the traditional uses for soy as a food, only soy sauce enjoys widespread consumption in the American diet. Tofu, measuring 90 percent of Asia's use of the soybean, has gained more popularity in the U.S., but soy is still nowhere near a measurable component of the average American diet - or is it?
For more than 20 years now, the soy industry has concentrated on finding alternative uses and new markets for soybeans and soy byproducts. At your local supermarket, soy can now be found disguised as everything from soy cheese, milk, burgers and hot dogs, to ice cream, yogurt, vegetable oil, baby formula and flour (to name just a few). These are often marketed as low-fat, dairy-free, or as a high-protein, meat substitute for vegetarians. But soy isn?t always mentioned on the box cover. Today, an alarming 60% of the food on America's supermarket shelves contain soy derivatives (i.e. soy flour, textured vegetable protein, partially hydrogenated soy bean oil, soy protein isolate). When you look at the ingredients list, and really look at the contents of the "Average American Diet," from snack foods and fast foods to prepackaged frozen meals, soy plays a major role.
Where the soybean goes wrong?
Here at the Gerson Institute, we feel the positive aspects of the soybean are overshadowed by their potential for harm. Soybeans in fact contain a large number of dangerous substances. One among them is phytic acid, also called phytates. This organic acid is present in the bran or hulls of all seeds and legumes, but none have the high level of phytates that soybeans do. These acids block the body?s uptake of essential minerals like calcium, magnesium, iron and especially zinc. Adding to the high-phytate problem, soybeans are very resistant to phytate reducing techniques, such as long, slow cooking.
Soybeans also contain potent enzyme inhibitors. These inhibitors block uptake of trypsin and other enzymes that the body needs for protein digestion. Normal cooking does not deactivate these harmful "antinutrients," that can cause serious gastric distress, reduced protein digestion and can lead to chronic deficiencies in amino acid uptake.
Beyond these, soybeans also contain hemagglutinin, a clot promoting substance that causes red blood cells to clump together. These clustered blood cells are unable to properly absorb oxygen for distribution to the body's tissues, and cannot help in maintaining good cardiac health. Hemagglutinin and trypsin inhibitors are both "growth depressant" substances. Although the act of fermenting soybeans does deactivate both trypsin inhibitors and hemagglutinin, precipitation and cooking do not. Even though these enzyme inhibitors are reduced in levels within precipitated soy products like tofu, they are not altogether eliminated.
Only after a long period of fermentation (as in the creation of miso or tempeh) are the phytate and "antinutrient" levels of soybeans reduced, making their nourishment available to the human digestive system. The high levels of harmful substances remaining in precipitated soy products leave their nutritional value questionable at best, and in the least, potentially harmful.
What About the Studies?
In recent years, several studies have been made regarding the soybean’s effect on human health. The results of those studies, largely underwritten by various factions of the soy industry, were of course overwhelmingly in favor of soy. The primary claims about soy's health benefits are based purely on bad science. Although primary arguments for cancer patients to use soy focus on statistics showing low rates of breast, colon and prostate cancer among Asian people, there are obvious facts being utterly ignored. While the studies boast that Asian women suffer far fewer cases of breast cancer than American women do, the hype neglects to point out that these Asian women eat a diet that is dramatically different than their American counterparts.
The standard Asian diet consists of more natural products, far less fatty meat, greater amounts of vegetables and more fish. Their diets are also lower in chemicals and toxins, as they eat far fewer processed (canned, jarred, pickled, frozen) foods. It is likely these studies are influenced by the fact that cancer rates rise among Asian people who move to the U.S. and adopt American-ized diets. Of course, this change of diet goes hand-in-hand with a dramatic shift in lifestyle. Ignoring the remarkable diet and lifestyle changes, to assume only that reduced levels of soy in these Americanized Asian diets is a primary factor in greater cancer rates is poor judgment, and as stated above, bad science. The changes of diet and lifestyle must be considered to reach the correct conclusion.
A widely circulated article, written by Jane E. Allen, AP Science Writer, titled, "Scientists Suggest More Soy in Diet", cites in the course of a symposium, numerous speakers discussing the probable advantages of soy under the title, "Health Impact of Soy Protein." However, the article states that the $50,000 symposium "was underwritten by Protein Technologies International of St. Louis, a DuPont subsidiary that makes soy protein!" In the course of the same symposium, Thomas Clarkson, professor of comparative medicine at Wake Forest University, states "Current hormone replacement therapy has been a dismal failure from a public health point of view," not because Premarin? is known to cause uterine or other female organ cancers, but "because only 20 percent of the women who could benefit from it are taking it."
Other popular arguments in support of soy state that fermented products, like tempeh or natto, contain high levels of vitamin B-12. However, these supportive arguments fail to mention that soy's B-12 is an inactive B-12 analog, not utilized as a vitamin in the human body. Some researchers speculate this analog may actually serve to block the body's B-12 absorption. It has also been found that allergic reactions to soybeans are far more common than to all other legumes. Even the American Academy of Pediatrics admits that early exposure to soy through commercial infant formulas, may be a leading cause of soy allergies among older children and adults.
In his classic book, A Cancer Therapy - Results of 50 Cases (p. 237), Dr. Gerson put "Soy and Soy Products" on the "FORBIDDEN" list of foods for Gerson Therapy patients. At the time, his greatest concerns were two items: the high oil content of soy and soy products, and the rather high rate of allergic reactions to soy. Soybeans can add as much as 9 grams of fat per serving, typically adding an average of 5 grams of fat per serving when part of an average American diet.
The Extraction Process
The processes which render the soybean "edible" are also the processes which render it "inedible." In fermenting soybeans, the process entails that the beans be pur?ed and soaked in an alkaline solution. The pur?ed mixture is then heated to about 115?C (239?F) inside a pressure cooker. This heating and soaking process destroys most, but not all, of the anti-nutrients. At the same time, it has the unwelcome effect of denaturing the proteins of the beans so they become very difficult to digest and greatly reduced in effectiveness. Unfortunately, the alkaline solution also produces a carcinogen, lysinealine, while it reduces the already low cystine content within the soybean. Cystine plays an essential role in liver detoxification, allowing our bodies to filter and eliminate toxins. Without proper amounts of cystine, the protein complex of the soybean becomes useless, unless the diet is fortified with cystine-rich meat, egg, or dairy products - not an option for Gerson patients.
To the soybean?s credit, they do contain large amounts of beneficial omega-3 fatty acids, but these are particularly susceptible to rancidity when subjected to high pressures and temperatures. Unfortunately, high pressure and temperature are required to remove soybean oil from the soybean.
Before soybeans are sent to your table, they undergo a rigorous process to strip them of their oil. Hexane or other solvents are first applied to help separate the oil from the beans, leaving trace amounts of these toxins in the commercial product. Hexane by definition is; "any of five colorless, volatile, liquid hydrocarbons C6H14 of the paraffin series," and cannot be the least bit beneficial in anyone?s diet. After the oil is extracted, the defatted flakes are used to form the three basic soy protein products. With the exception of full-fat soy flour, all soybean products contain trace amounts of carcinogenic solvents.
Personal Experiences
The following letter was received in November 1998: "I have used soy milk for 12 years with no problems. About 9 months ago, I started to have heart palpitations. I thought maybe that I was in menopause, but I wasn?t. I added more potassium to my diet and magnesium and vitamin E. No change. I am already decaffeinated but I also took all sugar out of my diet. I lost 25 pounds and felt great except for the palpitations. I tried hawthorn and garlic but nothing was helping. Recently I came down with acute bronchitis and could only drink water because even the soy milk made me have horrendous bouts of coughing. I realized that after a few days my heart palpitations had stopped. I didn't think anything of it because it never occurred to me that soy was the culprit. As soon as I started drinking it again, my heart went crazy. I went off it for a week and then changed brands. Within 30 minutes of drinking only 4 ounces [of soy milk], my heart was all over the place. I've noticed that it takes about 24 to 36 hours for my heart to settle down. I wondered if your research turned up anything like this in regard to soy. I know it is not within the definition of an allergy, but something is definitely going on. I called the manufacturer of the soy milk, but they were of no help. I am very upset because I only drink soy milk and water. I also use the soy milk to make protein shakes (with what else?but soy protein)."
In our November/December 1996 issue of the Gerson Healing Newsletter we described another case: a pregnant lady who looked very ill and was terribly deficient! She also described her son, age five, who had many allergies and infections - both were using a good deal of soy in their diet. I recommended that they discontinue the use of all soy products. At the time, I had only just run across this situation. However, a year later, I was in the same area for a lecture, and the lady invited me to dinner. She had cut out all soy products: her skin was now rosy, her face filled out, her sunken eyes normal, her black circles gone and her little boy, now six, was in greatly improved health.
Just last week, another interesting story came to our attention. A patient at the Gerson Certified Hospital in Mexico told us of her son, now 25, who has total lack of hair (Alopecia) with the exception of eyebrows and eyelashes. She added that this started when he was just three years old. Since the mother asked me about this situation, I considered the problem for a moment. Then, looking at the parents who both have normal hair, I figured that the boy's problem was most probably not genetic. So, I asked the mother if he used a lot of soy. She said, no. But then, after thinking about the question for a moment, she said that at about one year of age, the boy had many allergies, so she regularly fed him soy milk! I explained to her that the enzyme and nutrient blocking ability of soy and the likelihood of the soy milk being the cause of his condition starting at age three. Since we had just witnessed the case of a patient whose hair grew back on his bald pate, (See "Practitioner Training" article in this issue) after being bald for some 20 years, I cautiously suggested that a complete change of diet accompanied by intensive detoxification, may be able to overcome the problem.
Gerson Institute Newsletter Volume 14 #3
This article is the first of two parts. Part Two will be next week
http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/
?Soybean Products: A Recipe for Disaster?? Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Apr-May 1997), http://www.icom.net/ ~nexus/soya.html
Soy Protein Council, http://www.spcouncil.org
?Jeopardizing the Future? Genetic Engineering, Food and the Environment?, by Dr. Michael Hanson and Jean Halloran, http://www.pmac.net/
?Monsanto Genetically Engineered Soya has Elevated Hormone Levels: Public Health Threat? (Oct. 1997), http://www.holisticmed.com/
?Monsanto?s Toxic Roundup? (Nov. 1996),http://www.holisticmed.com/
?Toxicity from Genetically-Engineered Foods?, http://www.holisticmed.com/
Eat the State!, ?Nature & Politics? by Jeffrey St. Clair and Alexander Cockburn (Feb. 1999),
'Concerns Regarding Soybeans?, http://www.rheumatic.org/soy.htm
________________________________________
Dr. Mercola's Comment:
This is an excellent summary of some of the major reasons why soy is not the health food that you think it is. There are literally billions of dollars of influence in the edible oil industry that is promoting soy's use in natural medical circles so it's use can be then promoted in the general medical public. They are even able to fool otherwise knowledgeable natural medical physicians. I am a monthly columnist in the Townsend Letters and another columnist, Dr. Hudson, who was voted Naturopathic doctor of the year, has an article this month extolling soy's values. Needless to say I quickly wrote a letter to Townsend asking them to print the other side of the soy story. In the meantime, you can save you and your family some potential problems by limiting any soy use to fermented products only, like tempeh or miso.
***************************************
Soy May Cause Cancer and Brain Damage
Source: www.mercola.com
Two senior US government scientists, Drs. Daniel Doerge and Daniel Sheehan, have revealed that chemicals in soy could increase the risk of breast cancer in women, brain damage in both men and women, and abnormalities in infants.
• The scientists decided to break ranks with colleagues in the FDA and oppose its decision last year to approve a health claim that soy reduced the risk of heart disease.
• They wrote an internal protest letter warning of 28 studies revealing toxic effects of soy, mostly focusing on chemicals in soy known as isoflavones, which have effects similar to the female hormone estrogen.
• They claim that research has shown a clear link between soy and the potential for adverse effects in humans.
• Soy may lead to health problems in animals including altering sexual development of fetuses and causing thyroid disorders.
• Some studies show that chemicals in soy may increase the chances of estrogen-dependent breast cancer.
According to their letter:
• 'There is abundant evidence that some of the isoflavones found in soy demonstrate toxicity in estrogen sensitive tissues and in the thyroid.'
• 'During pregnancy in humans, isoflavones per se could be a risk factor for abnormal brain and reproductive tract development.'
According to one of the scientists, parents who give their children soy milk or formulas "are exposing their children to chemicals which we know have adverse effects in animals. It's like doing a large uncontrolled and unmonitored experiment on infants.'
The soy industry insists that the adverse effects seen in animals do not apply to humans.
The Guardian August 13, 2000
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
As time goes on I suspect the real truth regarding soy will begin to emerge in even the traditional media. If my schedule ever opens up, I plan on promoting this message more widely and I have even reserved the domain www.nosoy.com.
If you do not yet understand the reason why soy should not be considered a health food please review the following links:
The ABC television news program 20/20 aired a feature story on June 8, 2000, on the dangers of soy. It was great to see some in the mainstream media finally picking up on this story.
Besides the articles linked below, another good resource for information on the dangers of soy is The Weston A. Price Foundation, which has a goal to achieve a ban on the use of soy formula for infants.
Related Articles:
Soy: Too Good to be True
Newest Research On Why You Should Avoid Soy
**************************************************
Soy: Too Good to be True
Soybean Products: A Recipe for Disaster?? Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Apr-May 1997), http://www.icom.net/ ~nexus/soya.html
By Brandon Finucan & Charlotte Gerson
While even in 1966 there was considerable research on the harmful substances within soybeans, you'll be hard pressed to find articles today that claim soy is anything short of a miracle-food. As soy gains more and more popularity through industry advertising, we are moved once again to raise our voice of concern.
The Soybean Industry in America
In 1924 soybean production in the U.S. was only at 1.8 million acres harvested, but by 1954, the harvested acres grew to 18.9 million. Today, the soybean is America's third largest crop (harvesting 72 million acres in 1998), supplying more than 50 percent of the world's soybean demand.
Most of these beans are made into animal feed and are manufactured into soy oil for use as vegetable oil, margarine and shortening. Of the traditional uses for soy as a food, only soy sauce enjoys widespread consumption in the American diet. Tofu, measuring 90 percent of Asia's use of the soybean, has gained more popularity in the U.S., but soy is still nowhere near a measurable component of the average American diet - or is it?
For more than 20 years now, the soy industry has concentrated on finding alternative uses and new markets for soybeans and soy byproducts. At your local supermarket, soy can now be found disguised as everything from soy cheese, milk, burgers and hot dogs, to ice cream, yogurt, vegetable oil, baby formula and flour (to name just a few). These are often marketed as low-fat, dairy-free, or as a high-protein, meat substitute for vegetarians. But soy isn?t always mentioned on the box cover. Today, an alarming 60% of the food on America's supermarket shelves contain soy derivatives (i.e. soy flour, textured vegetable protein, partially hydrogenated soy bean oil, soy protein isolate). When you look at the ingredients list, and really look at the contents of the "Average American Diet," from snack foods and fast foods to prepackaged frozen meals, soy plays a major role.
Where the soybean goes wrong?
Here at the Gerson Institute, we feel the positive aspects of the soybean are overshadowed by their potential for harm. Soybeans in fact contain a large number of dangerous substances. One among them is phytic acid, also called phytates. This organic acid is present in the bran or hulls of all seeds and legumes, but none have the high level of phytates that soybeans do. These acids block the body?s uptake of essential minerals like calcium, magnesium, iron and especially zinc. Adding to the high-phytate problem, soybeans are very resistant to phytate reducing techniques, such as long, slow cooking.
Soybeans also contain potent enzyme inhibitors. These inhibitors block uptake of trypsin and other enzymes that the body needs for protein digestion. Normal cooking does not deactivate these harmful "antinutrients," that can cause serious gastric distress, reduced protein digestion and can lead to chronic deficiencies in amino acid uptake.
Beyond these, soybeans also contain hemagglutinin, a clot promoting substance that causes red blood cells to clump together. These clustered blood cells are unable to properly absorb oxygen for distribution to the body's tissues, and cannot help in maintaining good cardiac health. Hemagglutinin and trypsin inhibitors are both "growth depressant" substances. Although the act of fermenting soybeans does deactivate both trypsin inhibitors and hemagglutinin, precipitation and cooking do not. Even though these enzyme inhibitors are reduced in levels within precipitated soy products like tofu, they are not altogether eliminated.
Only after a long period of fermentation (as in the creation of miso or tempeh) are the phytate and "antinutrient" levels of soybeans reduced, making their nourishment available to the human digestive system. The high levels of harmful substances remaining in precipitated soy products leave their nutritional value questionable at best, and in the least, potentially harmful.
What About the Studies?
In recent years, several studies have been made regarding the soybean’s effect on human health. The results of those studies, largely underwritten by various factions of the soy industry, were of course overwhelmingly in favor of soy. The primary claims about soy's health benefits are based purely on bad science. Although primary arguments for cancer patients to use soy focus on statistics showing low rates of breast, colon and prostate cancer among Asian people, there are obvious facts being utterly ignored. While the studies boast that Asian women suffer far fewer cases of breast cancer than American women do, the hype neglects to point out that these Asian women eat a diet that is dramatically different than their American counterparts.
The standard Asian diet consists of more natural products, far less fatty meat, greater amounts of vegetables and more fish. Their diets are also lower in chemicals and toxins, as they eat far fewer processed (canned, jarred, pickled, frozen) foods. It is likely these studies are influenced by the fact that cancer rates rise among Asian people who move to the U.S. and adopt American-ized diets. Of course, this change of diet goes hand-in-hand with a dramatic shift in lifestyle. Ignoring the remarkable diet and lifestyle changes, to assume only that reduced levels of soy in these Americanized Asian diets is a primary factor in greater cancer rates is poor judgment, and as stated above, bad science. The changes of diet and lifestyle must be considered to reach the correct conclusion.
A widely circulated article, written by Jane E. Allen, AP Science Writer, titled, "Scientists Suggest More Soy in Diet", cites in the course of a symposium, numerous speakers discussing the probable advantages of soy under the title, "Health Impact of Soy Protein." However, the article states that the $50,000 symposium "was underwritten by Protein Technologies International of St. Louis, a DuPont subsidiary that makes soy protein!" In the course of the same symposium, Thomas Clarkson, professor of comparative medicine at Wake Forest University, states "Current hormone replacement therapy has been a dismal failure from a public health point of view," not because Premarin? is known to cause uterine or other female organ cancers, but "because only 20 percent of the women who could benefit from it are taking it."
Other popular arguments in support of soy state that fermented products, like tempeh or natto, contain high levels of vitamin B-12. However, these supportive arguments fail to mention that soy's B-12 is an inactive B-12 analog, not utilized as a vitamin in the human body. Some researchers speculate this analog may actually serve to block the body's B-12 absorption. It has also been found that allergic reactions to soybeans are far more common than to all other legumes. Even the American Academy of Pediatrics admits that early exposure to soy through commercial infant formulas, may be a leading cause of soy allergies among older children and adults.
In his classic book, A Cancer Therapy - Results of 50 Cases (p. 237), Dr. Gerson put "Soy and Soy Products" on the "FORBIDDEN" list of foods for Gerson Therapy patients. At the time, his greatest concerns were two items: the high oil content of soy and soy products, and the rather high rate of allergic reactions to soy. Soybeans can add as much as 9 grams of fat per serving, typically adding an average of 5 grams of fat per serving when part of an average American diet.
The Extraction Process
The processes which render the soybean "edible" are also the processes which render it "inedible." In fermenting soybeans, the process entails that the beans be pur?ed and soaked in an alkaline solution. The pur?ed mixture is then heated to about 115?C (239?F) inside a pressure cooker. This heating and soaking process destroys most, but not all, of the anti-nutrients. At the same time, it has the unwelcome effect of denaturing the proteins of the beans so they become very difficult to digest and greatly reduced in effectiveness. Unfortunately, the alkaline solution also produces a carcinogen, lysinealine, while it reduces the already low cystine content within the soybean. Cystine plays an essential role in liver detoxification, allowing our bodies to filter and eliminate toxins. Without proper amounts of cystine, the protein complex of the soybean becomes useless, unless the diet is fortified with cystine-rich meat, egg, or dairy products - not an option for Gerson patients.
To the soybean?s credit, they do contain large amounts of beneficial omega-3 fatty acids, but these are particularly susceptible to rancidity when subjected to high pressures and temperatures. Unfortunately, high pressure and temperature are required to remove soybean oil from the soybean.
Before soybeans are sent to your table, they undergo a rigorous process to strip them of their oil. Hexane or other solvents are first applied to help separate the oil from the beans, leaving trace amounts of these toxins in the commercial product. Hexane by definition is; "any of five colorless, volatile, liquid hydrocarbons C6H14 of the paraffin series," and cannot be the least bit beneficial in anyone?s diet. After the oil is extracted, the defatted flakes are used to form the three basic soy protein products. With the exception of full-fat soy flour, all soybean products contain trace amounts of carcinogenic solvents.
Personal Experiences
The following letter was received in November 1998: "I have used soy milk for 12 years with no problems. About 9 months ago, I started to have heart palpitations. I thought maybe that I was in menopause, but I wasn?t. I added more potassium to my diet and magnesium and vitamin E. No change. I am already decaffeinated but I also took all sugar out of my diet. I lost 25 pounds and felt great except for the palpitations. I tried hawthorn and garlic but nothing was helping. Recently I came down with acute bronchitis and could only drink water because even the soy milk made me have horrendous bouts of coughing. I realized that after a few days my heart palpitations had stopped. I didn't think anything of it because it never occurred to me that soy was the culprit. As soon as I started drinking it again, my heart went crazy. I went off it for a week and then changed brands. Within 30 minutes of drinking only 4 ounces [of soy milk], my heart was all over the place. I've noticed that it takes about 24 to 36 hours for my heart to settle down. I wondered if your research turned up anything like this in regard to soy. I know it is not within the definition of an allergy, but something is definitely going on. I called the manufacturer of the soy milk, but they were of no help. I am very upset because I only drink soy milk and water. I also use the soy milk to make protein shakes (with what else?but soy protein)."
In our November/December 1996 issue of the Gerson Healing Newsletter we described another case: a pregnant lady who looked very ill and was terribly deficient! She also described her son, age five, who had many allergies and infections - both were using a good deal of soy in their diet. I recommended that they discontinue the use of all soy products. At the time, I had only just run across this situation. However, a year later, I was in the same area for a lecture, and the lady invited me to dinner. She had cut out all soy products: her skin was now rosy, her face filled out, her sunken eyes normal, her black circles gone and her little boy, now six, was in greatly improved health.
Just last week, another interesting story came to our attention. A patient at the Gerson Certified Hospital in Mexico told us of her son, now 25, who has total lack of hair (Alopecia) with the exception of eyebrows and eyelashes. She added that this started when he was just three years old. Since the mother asked me about this situation, I considered the problem for a moment. Then, looking at the parents who both have normal hair, I figured that the boy's problem was most probably not genetic. So, I asked the mother if he used a lot of soy. She said, no. But then, after thinking about the question for a moment, she said that at about one year of age, the boy had many allergies, so she regularly fed him soy milk! I explained to her that the enzyme and nutrient blocking ability of soy and the likelihood of the soy milk being the cause of his condition starting at age three. Since we had just witnessed the case of a patient whose hair grew back on his bald pate, (See "Practitioner Training" article in this issue) after being bald for some 20 years, I cautiously suggested that a complete change of diet accompanied by intensive detoxification, may be able to overcome the problem.
Gerson Institute Newsletter Volume 14 #3
This article is the first of two parts. Part Two will be next week
http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/
?Soybean Products: A Recipe for Disaster?? Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Apr-May 1997), http://www.icom.net/ ~nexus/soya.html
Soy Protein Council, http://www.spcouncil.org
?Jeopardizing the Future? Genetic Engineering, Food and the Environment?, by Dr. Michael Hanson and Jean Halloran, http://www.pmac.net/
?Monsanto Genetically Engineered Soya has Elevated Hormone Levels: Public Health Threat? (Oct. 1997), http://www.holisticmed.com/
?Monsanto?s Toxic Roundup? (Nov. 1996),http://www.holisticmed.com/
?Toxicity from Genetically-Engineered Foods?, http://www.holisticmed.com/
Eat the State!, ?Nature & Politics? by Jeffrey St. Clair and Alexander Cockburn (Feb. 1999),
'Concerns Regarding Soybeans?, http://www.rheumatic.org/soy.htm
________________________________________
Dr. Mercola's Comment:
This is an excellent summary of some of the major reasons why soy is not the health food that you think it is. There are literally billions of dollars of influence in the edible oil industry that is promoting soy's use in natural medical circles so it's use can be then promoted in the general medical public. They are even able to fool otherwise knowledgeable natural medical physicians. I am a monthly columnist in the Townsend Letters and another columnist, Dr. Hudson, who was voted Naturopathic doctor of the year, has an article this month extolling soy's values. Needless to say I quickly wrote a letter to Townsend asking them to print the other side of the soy story. In the meantime, you can save you and your family some potential problems by limiting any soy use to fermented products only, like tempeh or miso.
***************************************
YES, GENETIC ENGINEERING MAKES SOY & OTHER SEEDS EVIL!
YES, GENETIC ENGINEERING MAKES SOY & OTHER SEEDS EVIL!
MONSANTO
THE BAD SEED
by Peter Montague
(National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO)
Source: http://www.newfrontier.com/asheville/bad_seed.htm
For more than a decade, the Monsanto Corporation of St. Louis has been maneuvering to dominate the world's supply of seed for staple crops (corn, soybeans, potatoes) -- a business plan that Monsanto's critics say is nothing short of diabolical. Monsanto says it is just devilishly good business.
Monsanto has spent over $8 billion in recent years buying numerous U.S. seed companies. As a result, two firms, Monsanto and Pioneer (recently purchased by DuPont), now dominate the U.S. seed business. Monsanto specializes in genetically modified seeds -- seeds having particular properties that Monsanto has patented.
The U.S. government is very enthusiastic about these new technologies. From the viewpoint of U.S. foreign policy, genetically modified seeds offer a key advantage over traditional seeds: because genetically modified seeds are patented, it is illegal for a farmer to retain seed from this year's crop to plant next year.
To use these patented seeds, farmers must buy new seed from Monsanto every year. Thus, a farmer who adopts genetically modified seeds and fails to retain a stock of traditional seeds could become dependent upon a transnational corporation.
Nations, whose farmers are dependent upon corporations for seed, might forfeit considerable political independence. The Clinton/Gore administration has been aggressively helping Monsanto promote new, untested gene-altered products, by-passing U.S. health and safety regulations.
A key component of the U.S./Monsanto plan to dominate world agriculture with genetically modified seeds is the absence of labeling of genetically engineered foods. All U.S. foods must carry labels listing the ingredients: salt, sugar, water, vitamins, additives, etc. However, three separate U.S. government agencies -- the. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) , the. Department of Agriculture( USDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) -- have ruled that genetically- modified foods deserve an exception: they can be sold without being labeled "genetically modified."
This strategy has successfully prevented consumers from exercising informed choice in the marketplace, reducing the likelihood of a consumer revolt, at least in the U.S., at least for now.
Earlier this year, opposition to genetically modified foods exploded in England and quickly spread to the European continent. (See REHW #649.) Burgeoning consumer opposition has now swept into Asia and back to North America. The New York Times recently reported that, "the Clinton Administration's efforts have grown increasingly urgent, in an attempt to contain the aversion to these crops that is leaping from continent to continent." 1
In that same NY Times article, it states that Japan -- the largest Asian importer of U.S. food -- passed a law requiring the labeling of genetically modified foods.1 A subsidiary of Honda Motor Company immediately announced that it will build a plant in Ohio and hire farmers to supply it with traditional, unaltered soy beans. Soy is the basis of tofu, a staple food in Japan.
Subsequently, the largest and third-largest Japanese beer makers, Kirin Brewery and Sapporo Breweries, Ltd., announced that they have stopped using genetically modified corn. Other Japanese brewers are expected to follow suit. (American micro-breweries take note.)
South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand have all recently passed laws requiring the labeling of genetically modified foods.
However, the U.S. government has publicly protested against such labeling laws, and has privately lobbied hard against them, unsuccessfully.
Grupo Maseca, Mexico's leading producer of corn flour -- recently announced it will no longer purchase any genetically modified corn. Corn flour is made into tortillas, a Mexicanstaple. Mexico buys $500 million of U.S. corn each year, so the Grupo Maseca announcement sent a chill through Midwestern corn farmers who planted Monsanto's genetically modified seeds.1
Over 1/3 of this year's U.S. corn crop is being
grown from genetically modified seeds.
Gerber and Heinz, the two leading manufacturers of baby foods in the United States, announced that they would not allow genetically modified corn or soybeans in any of their baby foods.2 After the baby food announcements, Iams, the high-end pet food producer, announced that it would not purchase any of the seven varieties of genetically modified corn that have not been approved by the European Union. This announcement cut off an alternative use that U.S. farmer's had hoped to make of corn rejected by overseas buyers.
As the demand for traditional, unmodified corn and soy has grown, a two-price system for crops has developed in the U.S. -- a higher price for traditional, unmodified crops, and a lower price for genetically modified crops. For example, Archer-Daniels-Midland is paying some farmers 18 cents less per bushel for genetically modified soybeans, compared to the traditional product.1
The American Corn Growers Association, which represents mainly family farmers, has told its members that they should consider planting only traditional, unmodified seed next spring because it soon may not be possible to export genetically modified corn.1
Deutsche Bank, Europe's largest bank, has issued two reports within the past six months advising its large institutional investors to abandon ag-biotech companies like Monsanto and Novartis.3
In its most recent report, Deutsche Bank said, "...[I]t appears the food companies, retailers, grain processors, and governments are sending a signal to the seed producers that 'we are not ready for GMOs [genetically modified organisms].'"
Deutsche Bank's Washington, D.C., analysts, Frank Mitsch and Jennifer Mitchell, announced nine months ago that ag-biotech "was going the way of the nuclear industry in this country."
"But we count ourselves surprised at how rapidly this forecast appears to be playing out," they told the London Guardian.3
In Europe, the ag-biotech controversy is playing out upon a stage created by an earlier -- and ongoing -- scientific dispute over sex hormones in beef.4
Over 90% of U.S. beef cattle are treated with sex hormones -- three naturally-occurring (estradiol, progesterone, and testosterone) and three synthetic hormones that mimic the natural ones (zeranol, melengesterol acetate, and trenbolone acetate). Hormone treatment makes cattle grow faster and produces more tender, flavorful cuts of beef.
Since 1995, the European Union has prohibited the treatment of any farm animals with sex hormones intended to promote growth, on grounds that sex hormones are known to cause several human cancers. As a by-product of that prohibition, the EU refuses to allow the import of hormone-treated beef from the U.S. and Canada.
The U.S. asserts that hormone-treated beef is entirely safe and that the European ban violates the global free trade regime that the U.S. has worked religiously for 20 years to create. The U.S. argues that sex hormones only promote human cancers in hormone-sensitive tissues, such as the female breast and uterus.
Therefore, the U.S. argues, the mechanism of carcinogenic action must be activation of hormone "receptors" and therefore there is a "threshold" -- a level of hormones below which no cancers will occur. Based on risk assessments, the U.S. government claims to know where that threshold level lies. Furthermore, the U.S. claims it has established a regulatory process that prevents any farmer from exceeding the threshold level in his or her cows.
An EU scientific committee argues that hormones may cause some human cancers by an entirely different mechanism -- by interfering directly with DNA.5 If that were true, there would be no threshold for safety and the only safe dose of sex hormones in beef would be zero. "If you assume no threshold, you should continually be taking steps to get down to lower levels, because no level is safe," says James Bridges, a toxicologist at the University of Surrey in Guilford, England.4
Secondly, the EU spot-checked 258 meat samples from the Hormone Free Cattle program run jointly by the U.S. beef industry and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This program is intended to raise beef cattle without the use of hormones, thus producing beef eligible for import into Europe. The spot check found that 12% of the "hormone free" cattle had in fact been treated with sex hormones. EU officials cite this as evidence that growth hormones are poorly regulated in the U.S. beef industry and that Europeans might be exposed to higher- than-allowed concentrations if the ban on North American imports were lifted.
"These revelations are embarrassing for U.S. officials," reports Science magazine.4 Nevertheless, the U.S. government continues to assert that its hormone- treated beef is 100% safe.
Thus we have a classic scientific controversy characterized by considerable scientific uncertainty. This particular scientific dispute has pro- found implications for the future of all regulation under a global free trade regime -- including regulation of toxic chemicals -- because the European Union is basing its opposition to hormone-treated beef on the pre- cautionary principle. The American government insists that this pre- cautionary approach is an illegal restraint of free trade.
The EU's position is clearly precautionary: "Where scientific evidence is not black and white, policy should err on the side of caution so that there is zero risk to the consumer," says the EU.6
The Danish pediatric researcher, Niels Skakkebaek, MD, says the burden of proof lies with those putting hormones in beef: "The possible health effects from the hormones have hardly been studied -- the burden of proof should lie with the American beef industry," Dr. Skakkebaek told Chemical Week, a U.S. chemical industry publication that is following the beef controversy closely.6
It appears that European activists have seized upon hormones in beef, and upon Monsanto's seed domination plan, as a vehicle for opposing a "global free trade" regime in which nations lose their power to regulate markets to protect public health or the environment. The New York Times reports that the Peasant Confederation of European farmers derives much of its intellectual inspiration and direction from a new organization, called Attac, formed last year in France to fight the spread of global free trade regimes.7
The Confederation has destroyed several McDonald's restaurants and dumped rotten vegetables in others. Patrice Vidieu, the secretary-general of the Peasant Confederation, told the NY Times, "What we reject is the idea that the power of the marketplace becomes the dominant force in all societies, and that multinationals like McDonald's or Monsanto come to impose the food we eat and the seeds we plant."
What began as consumer opposition to genetically-modified seed appears to be turning into an open revolt against the 25-year-old U.S.-led effort to impose free-trade regimes world-wide, enthroning transnational corporations in the process. If approached strategically by alliances of U.S. activists and their overseas counterparts (and it must not be viewed as merely a labeling dispute), genetic engineering could become the most important controversy in this century.
________________________________________
Millions Against Monsanto
Monsanto Buys Out Seminis
http://www.gmwatch.org
Deception and Disinformation
1 "Melody Petersen, "New Trade Threat for U.S. Farmers," New York Times, August 29, 1999, pgs. A1, A18.
2 Lucette Lagnado, "Strained Peace: Gerber Baby Food, Grilled by Greenpeace, Plans Swift Overhaul -- Gene-Modified Corn and Soy Will Go, Although Firm Feels Sure They Are Safe -- Heinz Takes Action, Too," Wall Street Journal, July 30, 1999, pg. A1.
3 Paul Brown and John Vidal, "GM Investors Told to Sell Their Shares," The Guardian [London] August 25, 1999, pg. unknown.
4 Michael Balter, "Scientific Cross-Claims Fly in Continuing Beef War," Science magazine Vol. 284 (May 28, 1999), pgs. 1453-1455.
5 "Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures Relating to Public Health; Assessment of Potential Risks to Human Health from Hormone Residues in Bovine Meat and Meat Products." European Commission, April 30, 1999. 139 pgs. The report is available in PDF format from: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24/health/sc/scv/out21_en.html
6 "Europe's Beef Ban Tests Precautionary Principle," Chemical Week, August 11, 1999, pg. unknown.
7 Roger Cohen, "Fearful Over the Future, Europe Seizes on Food," New York Times, August 29, 1999, pg. unknown.
********************
More Biotech Industry Deception & Disinformation
March 3, 2005
GM WATCH daily
http://www.gmwatch.org
------
1.Public Research & Regulation Fraud - GM Watch
2.Biotechnolgy meeting convenes here - press article
3.Public Research & Regulation Foundation
*Steering Commitee.
*Organisation, coordination and further contacts
------
1.Public Research & Regulation Fraud - GM Watch
The article below describes a new initiative - The Public Research Sector
Initiative executed by a foundation called "Public Research and Regulation".
The initiative is based on deceit.
The biotech scientists involved, who are meeting today anjd tomorrow, are
saying that they represent a third non-aligned group between civil society
and industry who should "weigh in" at meetings of the Cartagena Protocol
that help determine biosafety rules. They claim "the public research sector
has been not able to provide scientific input for the benefit of the
negotiations nor to express its views about the effectiveness and
workability of the provisions of the Protocol."
Their call for increased leverage for "nonprofit" "public sector" players
belies the heavy industrial-alignment of most public sector agricultural
biotechnology where there is a long history of involvement with intensive
agricultural R&D and of collaboration with agribusiness multinationals, not
to mention dependence on industry funding. The effect of this is to generate
convergence between private sector and public sector operators.
This convergence means that the "third" group would not be non-aligned but
would have interests and an agenda that would all too often be
indistinguishable from that of the industry - in other words biotech
proponents would get two bites of the cherry to the rest of society's one.
The problem is apparent as soon as one looks at the detail of this
initiative and those that are driving it forward. Although the biotech
scientists claim it is a "misconception that modern biotechnology, and in
particular its agricultural application, is the exclusive domain of a
handful of big, western multinationals", they are actually holding their
meeting today at the Donald Danforth Plant Sciences Center in St Louis,
Missouri ¬ the home town of Monsanto.
This is no coincidence. The Danforth Center was established by Monsanto
Corporation "and academic partners" with a $70-million pledge from Monsanto.
The company also donated the 40-acre tract of land, valued at $11.4 million,
on which the Center is built.
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=200
And don't be fooled when a scientist turned political lobbyist is quoted at
the end of the article as saying, "My career would be much better served if
I wasn't doing this," and "My dream is to win this battle and go back to the
lab full time". For many of the scientists involved in this initiative,
their labs, their research and their current careers would simply not exist
if it were not for the largesse of the biotech industry.
Take, for instance, Roger Beachy, the Danforth Center President, who is
helping to drive forward this initiative and who is quoted in the article.
Monsanto and other biotech companies have helped to fund Beachy's research,
quite apart from the massive corporate support underlying the Center he
heads.
One of the 2 key contacts for the group, and a member of the Steering
Committee, is Willy de Greef of the Institute for Plant Biotechnology for
Developing Countries (IPBO). Prior to that de Greef was a leading light of
Syngenta ¬ the world's biggest biotech corporation. And Beachy and de Greef
are very far from alone - see the list below.
And when the article asks, "Can public-sector scientists become better
salesmen?", it misses the point that many of those involved are "salesmman"
and often their lobbying is underwritten directly or indirectly by the
biotech industry.
Here are more of those who "support the initiative and wish to be actively
involved in its activities":
Prof. Klaus Ammann, Botanical Garden, University of Bern, Switzerland
-ardent supporter and lobbyist for GM crops and co-editor of the Bio-Scope,
supported by GM industry lobby group Europabio.
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=8
Dr. Gerard Barry, The International Rice Research Institute, Philippines
-former Director of Research, Production and Technical Cooperation at
Monsanto
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=294
Dr. Andrew Bennett, Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture,
Switzerland
-Syngenta directors occupy 3 of the 5 seats on the Syngenta Foundation's
board.
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=175
Dr. Joel Cohen, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington,
United States
-when at USAID Cohen worked with Monsanto to establish the notorious GM
sweet potato project
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=131
Prof. Philip J. Dale, Genetic Modification and Biosafety Research Group,
John Innes Centre, United Kingdom
-Dale is on the advisory council of the controversial lobby group Sense
About Science which the John Innes Centre also helps to fund. JIC has been
involved in multi-million pound research alliances with Syngenta, Dupont and
others.
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=34
Dr Roger Kalla, Primary Industries Research Victoria, Australia
-active in lobby group AusBiotech
Prof. Drew L. Kershen, University of Oklahoma College of Law, United States
-Well known Prakash supporter
Dr. Muffy Koch, AgBios, Canada
-highly controversial lobbyist. Part of biotech industry-funded AfricaBio
lobby group
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=271
Piet van der Meer, HORIZONS sprl, Belgium
-regarded as "having let the industry in" to biosafety development in the
developing world
Dr. James Peacock, Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research
Organisation, Australia
-collaboration between the CSIRO and Monsanto generated Australia's first
major GM commercial crop. According to John Stocker, CSIRO's former chief
executive, "Working with the transnationals makes a lot of sense, in the
context of market accessŠ Yes, we do find that it is often the best strategy
to get into bed with these companies. "
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=187
Prof. Ingo Potrykus, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Institute
of Plant Science, Switzerland
-golden rice originator who has happily used it for PR purposes for genetic
engineering. Accuses Greenpeace of 'crimes against humanity'
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=105
Prof. Jennifer Thompson, Department of Microbiology University of Cape Town,
South-Africa
-board member of the biotech industry-funded lobby groups AfricaBio and
ISAAA
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=170
Dr. Florence Wambugu, A Harvest Biotech Foundation International, Kenya
-notorious GM propagandist, trained by Monsanto. A Harvest is backed by
CropLife International.
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=131
------
2.Biotechnolgy meeting convenes here
By Eric Hand
St Louis Post-Dispatch, 03/02/2005
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/sciencemedicine/story/9C9E
EC401D3450EA86256FB9001A6BF2?OpenDocument
Can public-sector scientists become better salesmen?
Nearly 50 university, nonprofit and government biotechnologists from around
the globe will try at a two-day conference beginning today at the Donald
Danforth Plant Sciences Center in Creve Coeur.
Center president Roger Beachy wants them to talk up the benefits of public
research into genetically modified foods and crops, an industry where debate
so far has largely been between for-profit companies like St. Louis-based
Monsanto and environmental activists.
"We think the absence of the voice of public-sector scientists skews the
discussion," he said.
Beachy hopes to encourage public-sector scientists to weigh in by attending
a meeting in June for the Cartagena Protocol, a treaty that governs
biosafety rules.
With Washington University researchers advocating on the stem cell research
issue before the Missouri Legislature, some scientists are finding
themselves in an unusual position: To get public money or permission, they
have to join the political fray.
The Cartagena Protocol took effect Sept. 11, 2003, after 50 nations ratified
the treaty. It was named for the Colombian city in which it was primarily
negotiated in 1999. The treaty contains safety rules for genetically
modified organisms, specifying, for example, that food products must be
labeled and that the international transport of any modified organisms must
be declared.
To date, 114 nations have ratified the treaty. The United States has not.
The treaty is mute about the benefits of biotechnology, said Joel Cohen, a
researcher with the International Food Policy Research Institute, which is
based in Washington. He says that's because treaty negotiations included
for-profit scientists, representatives from the environmental ministries and
non-governmental organization activists, but didn't include public-sector
scientists.
"Nobody has mobilized these scientists before," he said. "The
meeting in St. Louis is intended to address that void"
Public-sector scientists in 15 countries have genetically engineered 45
crops, according to a paper Cohen published January in the journal Nature
Biotechnology.
All but one of the crops - an insect-resistant cotton in China - are stuck
in a regulatory pipeline and have not been released commercially. For-profit
companies are good at navigating regulatory agencies, but the public
researchers need more money for that, Cohen said.
Cohen, who will present his work at the Danforth Center today, says that
some environmental organizations have unjustly ignored the potential
benefits of public-sector engineered products, which would be freely
available.
"They prefer this black-and-white split between right and wrong" he said.
That's not true, said Kristin Dawkins, vice president of the Institute for
Agriculture and Trade Policy, a nonprofit group in Minneapolis that opposes
genetically engineered foods. She says the goals of public-sector
biotechnologists are well-intentioned and sincere, but perhaps too hurried.
Dawkins calls for more research into the health and ecological effects of
genetically modified organisms before they are released commercially.
Two conference attendees, a regulator from Tanzania and a researcher from
Colombia, said that farmers in their countries were less concerned with
possible hazards of modified products and more concerned with their
potential price tags.
Beachy said that this is where the scientists need to be better salesmen and
let people know about products that would eventually be free
He understands the risks of scientists venturing into a political arena.
"There will be accusations, that public scientists are dupes of the big
companies and pushing a profit motive" he said.
Washington University professor Steve Teitelbaum knows about becoming an
advocate. The bone doctor became the university spokesman on the issue of
stem cell research. He has spent many nights dining with state legislators
and debating opponents
"My career would be much better served if I wasn't doing this" he said. "My
dream is to win this battle and go back to the lab full time."
The Cartagena Protocol
Sets up a biosafety clearinghouse where information about genetically
modified organisms is filed and shared after commercial approval.
Requires products to be accompanied by labels and documents that identify
the scientific name and characteristics of genetically modified ingredients
Operates under the "precautionary principle" meaning that worst-case
scenarios for a genetically modified product can justify banning it, even if
no scientific evidence exists of it causing harm
Source: United Nations Environment Programme Convention on Biological
Diversity
Reporter Eric Hand
E-mail: ehand@post-dispatch.com
Phone: 314-340-8250
------
3.Public Research & Regulation Foundation
www.pubresreg.org
Countries and organisations throughout the world have invested considerably
in public sector research, and are continuing to do, so in order to develop
biotechnological applications that meet a variety of crucial needs...
The extent to which modern biotechnology will be able to achieve these goals
will depend to a large extent on the regulatory regimes that apply to
biotechnology and on the way in which they are implemented. These national
regulations in turn are strongly influenced by international agreements,
particularly the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
This Protocol was negotiated between 1995 and 2000, adopted in January 2000,
and came into force in September 2003. The first Meeting of the Parties
(MOP1) took place in February 2004 in Kuala Lumpur and MOP2 is scheduled for
May - June 2005.
A central aim of the negotiations was to involve all stakeholders. Records
of the negotiations show that NGOs and the private sector were indeed well
represented.
However, the public research sector involved in developing biotechnological
applications, which includes over a hundred thousand researchers of
thousands governmental, academic and international research institutions in
developing and developed countries, was not represented in any significant
or organised way during the negotiations or during MOP1.
As a result, the public research sector has been not able to provide
scientific input for the benefit of the negotiations nor to express its
views about the effectiveness and workability of the provisions of the
Protocol. Another consequence of the absence of the public research sector
during the negotiations is the persistence of the misconception that modern
biotechnology, and in particular its agricultural application, is the
exclusive domain of a handful of big, western multinationals.
The initiative described below proposes to offer a forum for the public
research sector to be involved in the forthcoming Meetings of the Parties to
the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in May 2005 and related meetings.
Approach of the initiative.
The initiative consists of three phases:
Phase 1: Raising awareness among the public research community about the
issue.
Phase 2: Involvement of the public research sector in MOP2 ( 31 May ¬ 3 June
2005)
Phase 3: Organised involvement of the public research sector in subsequent
MOPs.
*Organisation, coordination and further contacts
This initiative is coordinated by a Steering Committee, of which currently
the members are:
- Prof. Philip J Dale, former Leader of the Genetic Modification and
Biosafety Research
Group, John Innes Centre, United Kingdom (chairman of the Steering
Committee)
- Prof. Atanas Atanassov, Director of the AgriBiotech Institute of Bulgaria.
- Dr. Roger Beachy, Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, St-Louis, USA
- Willy de Greef, Institute for Plant Biotechnology for Developing Countries
(IPBO) and International Biotech Regulatory Services (IBRS), Belgium
(vice-chair)
- Prof. Calestous Juma, Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University,
USA
- Drs. Piet van der Meer, esq., Horizons sprl, Belgium (vice-chair)
- Prof. Marc van Montagu, Institute for Plant Biotechnology for Developing
Countries (IPBO), Belgium.
- Prof. Paul S. Teng, Nanyang Technological University, National Institute
of Education,
Singapore.
The Steering Committee will be further expanded to include public research
sector scientists from all regions of the world.
Contact persons for the Steering Committee are Willy de Greef
(ibsr@telenet.be) and Piet van der Meer (pietvandermeer@cs.com).
For the execution of this initiative, a foundation has been established in
the Netherlands with the name Public Research and Regulation, and with the
objective to involve the public research sector in regulations relevant to
the development and application of biotechnology.
Administrative and logistical support for this initiative is provided,
through Delft University of Technology, by Dr. David Bennett and Mrs. Kim
Meulenbroeks. Contact references: kim.meulenbroeks@pubresreg.org, Phone:
+31-15-212-7800, Fax:+31-15-212-7111.
Updates of this initiative, including the list of people who endorse it,
will be made available on www.pubresreg.org.
****************************************************************************
****************************
This GMO news service is underwritten by a generous grant from the Newman's
Own Foundation, edited by Thomas Wittman and is a production of the
Ecological Farming Association www.eco-farm.org
****************************************************************************
****************************
Dominic Lawson's attack on Prince Charles
Source: http://www.gmwatch.eu/
1.The Prince is entitled to his views – but not his ignorance
2.Comments on the Lawson article
NOTE: By far the nastiest of the responses to the recent criticisms by the Prince of Wales of GM crops and heavily industrialised ag, was the following piece in The Independent by Dominic Lawson.
Curiously, we've seen only one letter published critical of this article, even though it's certain The Independent will have received many. In item 2 we reproduce that letter, plus comments made on the The Independent's website or in letters copied to us. Some comments have been shortened. If you would like to comment, you can easily do so at the url for the Lawson article.
---
---
1.The Prince is entitled to his views – but not his ignorance
Dominic Lawson
The Independent, 15 August 2008
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-the-prince-is-entitled-to-his-views-ndash-but-not-his-ignorance-897493.html
It's shocking to hear this millionaire Gloucestershire farmer denounce the 'Green Revolution' in India
There are any number of reasons why someone such as His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales should be passionately opposed to genetically modified crops. For a start, his own position – and future one as head of state – is based entirely on genetic purity (formerly known as "royal blood").
One characteristic he might have inherited from his grandfather, King George VI, is a propensity for sudden, almost incoherent, rage. This week, that excellent journalist Jeff Randall gently suggested to the heir to the throne that the future of farming might be with industrial-scale production, rather than the sort of methods he practises. "What?" exploded the Prince. "All run by gigantic corporations? That would be the absolute destruction of everything!" Randall went on to report that "bouncing in his chair", the Prince set out a nightmarish vision in which millions of small farmers "are driven off their land into unsustainable, unmanageable, degraded and dysfunctional conurbations of unmentionable awfulness".
The Prince, predictably, continued his rant by attacking GM technology – although Randall had never raised it – which he said was: "Guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time. Snakes, some of them thousands of miles long, will roam the countryside." Well, I made that last sentence up, but you get the gist: the world as we know it will come to an end if wicked big business is allowed to introduce GM crops on an industrial scale. The main empirical problem for this argument is that GM crops have already been grown for more than a decade across the globe, providing trillions of meals, with no observable malign consequences for humanity or the environment. Quite the reverse, in fact: many types of GM crops have been designed to produce high yield with minimal soil tillage; others require much lower use of pesticide than conventional crops, thus saving vast amounts in agricultural fuel use.
Now that the area covered by GM crops has reached more than 100 million hectares, involving farmers in countries as varied as China, Uruguay, South Africa and Iran, it is possible to assess the truth of the various "Frankenfood" scare stories promulgated by the likes of the Daily Mail (which yesterday was alone in publishing a leading article endorsing every word of the Prince of Wales's outburst).
Such a study has recently been published by the European Commission. This is especially significant because the member countries of the EU have been more nervous about the consequences of GM technology than any other developed nations. The report, ominously titled "Economic Impact of Dominant GM Crops Worldwide", gives the lie to the notion that GM is somehow only designed for large-scale agribusiness. It states that "analyses show that adoption of dominant GM crops and on-farm economic gains have benefited both small and large farmers... Moreover, detailed analyses show that increases in gross margin are comparatively larger for small and lower-income farmers than for larger and higher income farmers." In other words, Prince Charles's notion that such methods will in themselves cause the extinction of small farmers is simply refuted by the experiences of real people in the real world.
One of the most persistent complaints of the anti-GM lobby is that the owners of transgenic technology will make huge profits at the expense of the farmers. On general grounds alone one might question this: farmers are not known for persisting with methods which reduce their own income. The more innovative among them will try out new methods, and if it improves their business, they will continue with it. If not, they will dump it.
The European Commission report shows how in practice the increased profits are divided, based on an analysis of the adoption on Indian farms of Bt cotton, a cotton modified by the insertion of a bacterium resistant to the blight known as bollworm. It observes that "Indian farmers adopting Bt cotton were the main beneficiaries of adoption, capturing 67 per cent of generated welfare, followed by seed companies with 33 per cent". You might argue that 33 per cent is a pretty big royalty for the GM seed salesmen, but the point is that the farmers would still be well ahead of the game: the Commission's report shows that "in a sample of 157 farmers from three Indian states, the average yield gains of Bt cotton were up to 87 per cent over the non-Bt counterpart". So everyone's happy – except for the Prince of Wales .
It is undeniable that the technology which produces these transgenic strains is dominated by a small number of multinational companies. But if you object to that, you might also wonder why it is: after all, there is no theoretical reason why experiments should not be successfully carried out by much smaller companies. The reason lies in the very neurosis of European consumers and governments about the potential dangers of GM. The number of trials required and the regulatory hoops are so many that only very large companies have the stomach – and the wallet – for the fight.
It's not just a matter of regulation – which is obviously necessary. Groups such as Greenpeace take pride in destroying field trials of GM crops; almost all of the 54 crop trials attempted in Britain since 2000 have been vandalised, a record which would completely deter any small-scale investor from even contemplating such a venture.
These vandals share the Prince of Wales's quasi-religious belief that transgenic technology – presumably including that used in insulin for diabetics – runs counter to the divine order of nature: he has argued that they interfere in matters that are "the realm of God and God alone". With such metaphysical self-assurance, these people have no conscience about wrecking trials which are designed precisely to assess the environmental impact of GM technology: even if such experiments produced no observable adverse impact, ever, they would not alter the mindset which puts "blood and soil" mysticism above mere evidence.
Prince Charles would argue that he is motivated by a concern for humanity – and I don't doubt his sincerity or passion. Still, it was shocking to hear this multi-millionaire Gloucestershire organic farmer denouncing India's "Green Revolution" – the plant-breeding precursor to GM pioneered by Norman Borlaug. It was these techniques that saved millions in the sub-continent from the famines which slaughtered so many of their ancestors, and for which Borlaug received a Nobel Prize.
I can do no better than quote Professor Borlaug's remarks about those who denounced his work as destructive of traditional methods: "They've never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for 50 years, they'd be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things."
d.lawson@independent.co.uk
---
---
2.Comments on the Lawson article
Dominic Glover:
It would be appropriate if Dominic Lawson did some more thorough research. The article is riddled with misleading claims. Basing his argument on a single EU summary is insufficient. As a researcher who has followed the story of GM crops and the agri-biotech industry in the developing world for 8 years, I can assure Mr. Lawson that the story is much more complex than he pretends.
The 'average' benefits that he cites are just that - averages, which obscure the huge variability of GM crop performance between fields, farms, regions and seasons. That variability, combined with the high costs of GM seeds, creates serious risks for small-scale farmers, who are most certainly not the ones benefiting from GM crops. Read the original studies! GMCs may well have some environmental and economic benefits for some farmers in some contexts but, like any technological innovation, they also have risks. They are certainly not the silver bullet that Lawson, Norman Borlaug, Dick Taverne and others claim.
****
PeterW:
I'm sure Mr. Lawson your rich privileged background makes you an excellent candidate to defend the interest of Indian farmers. My bet is Professor Borlaug and you have never faced starvation either.
Borlaug's "Green" revolution is nothing of the kind. It has mortgaged future agriculture by draining aquifers and depleting topsoil. It has made farming more dependent on external inputs not less.
Did Monsanto write this piece for you?
****
Claire Robinson:
This is an extremely ill-informed article. There are currently no GM crops on the market that [are designed to] increase yields and even the USDA admits that they often result in yield reductions. There has been a lot of research on GM soy yields in the US and some on GM maize showing yield drag. Most of the GM crops currently available are designed either to contain an inbuilt pesticide or to resist herbicide, enabling MORE herbicide, not less, to be used on the crop. Herbicides are made from oil, which is running out. And no tests have been done to ensure that eating GM pesticidal crops is safe. It's obvious that the reason multinational companies don't promote organics is not because organic doesn't work, but because they can't make money from it, unlike the patented GM seeds and accompanying chemicals.
****
Clare Oxborrow
The Independent (Letters), 16 August 2008-08-20 http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/letters/letters-visa-shame-899043.html
Dominic Lawson (Opinion, 15 August) makes the fundamental error of ignoring the most relevant research into science and technology in agriculture, published this year. The UN International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), written by 400 scientists and backed by 60 governments, was so unconvinced about GM crops feeding the world that the biotechnology industry pulled out of the process despite contributing substantial funds at the outset.
Lawson's statement that "many types of GM crops have been designed to produce high yield" is simply wrong. The IAASTD found no conclusive evidence that GM crops increase yields. Even the US Department of Agriculture has admitted there is not a single GM crop designed to increase yield.
Prince Charles is right to highlight the risks to the environment and small farmers posed by GM crops. His central point, that GM crops are part of the export-led, oil-reliant model of food production that has created the food crisis in the first place, is spot on.
****
Umendra Dutt (Punjab):
umendradutt.blogspot.com
Green revolution brought a short lived prosperity which has taken away the very sustainability of our State. Its perishable prosperity left us with poisoned eco-system , contaminated food chain, empty aquifers, contaminated water sources, destroyed biodiversity, debts, disease and suicides...
****
Dr. Amar Singh Azad
Asstt. Professor
Community Medicine Dept.
Guru Gobind Singh Medical College
FARIDKOT(Punjab):
The Green Revolution in Punjab has indeed played havoc with nature, the environment, and all forms of life including humans. The cumulative effects of forty years of chemical farming are now strikingly visible. The concentration of highly poisonous chemicals-pesticides, chemical fertilizers and heavy metals are much beyond permissible levels in the air, soil, water, food chain and tissues of animals and human beings... Drinking water (surface as well as ground water) in Punjab is not safe for drinking. It contains all sorts of pathogens and highly poisonous toxins.
****
Dominic Lawson:
All right, many of you may feel that my article is badly researched. It's not because I verified every word I wrote on a telecon with my friend Hugh Grant in St. Louis, Missouri. And those who have suggested that my head is stuck up my you-know-what, are again wrong. If the Independent sacks me, Hugh has promised me a PR job with his firm. Jeez... Luddites.
****
Jonathan Matthews:
Dominic Lawson's sounding rattled - see his comment about checking his facts with Monsanto's CEO. I certainly don't think that that's where he gets his dubious information, because Lawson's personal assistant once rang me up by mistake in an effort to check one of his climate sceptical pieces with Philip Stott. I'd done a profile of the GM-loving, climate-change-denying Stotty and her lazy googling for Stotty's contact details had turned mine up by mistake. To give some idea of Lawson's climate guru's passion for all things biotechnik, here's what Stotty had to say about the completion of the human genome project: 'Today, we shall truly ''eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil'' (Genesis 1.17), for two teams of scientists... have come together to announce the decoding of the alphabet of human life. And "we shall be as gods".' What was it Lawson was saying about zealots carried away by their pseudo-religious enthusiasm???
*******
Biotech Companies Denounce UK's Most Famous Organic Farmer, Prince Charles
• GM Watch (EU), August 14, 2008
Straight to the Source
1. Prince Charles, science and global hunger
2. JIC scientists' anger at Prince's GM comments
3. GM crops: Here's a health unto His Future Majesty
EXTRACTS: Prince Charles' concerns over GM food are well-founded. Current genetics' methodologies are far from rigorous science and are more aligned to educated (albeit improving) guesswork... In a nutshell, the world is potentially a hundred years from a rigorous understanding of genetics and, critically, in the hands of biologists, we are now on the brink of devastating much of the earth's natural genetic pool through ignorance.
- Kevin Nolan, Institute of Technology, Dublin, 14 Aug 2008 (item 1)
It does not seem to have occurred to these strident critics that... unlike the innumerable special pleaders on this issue - he disinterestedly desires the security of the nation, not profits from mega corporations manipulating nature on the suck-it-and-see principle.
...giant corporations... are ruthlessly cornering the world's food market. Have we learned nothing from the hunger now being suffered by tens of millions as a consequence of biofuels production?
- Gerald Warner, The Telegraph, 13 August 2008, (item 3)
--- ---
1. Prince Charles, science and global hunger
The Guardian (Letters), August 14 2008 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/14/gmcrops...
Prince Charles' concerns over GM food are well-founded. Current genetics' methodologies are far from rigorous science and are more aligned to educated (albeit improving) guesswork.
Most of genetic science is driven by those from the biological sciences. Hence, with a failure of the biology science world to police the application of such crude science practices, a world debate must be engaged that questions the quality of genetics as a true science.
In a nutshell, the world is potentially a hundred years from a rigorous understanding of genetics and, critically, in the hands of biologists, we are now on the brink of devastating much of the earth's natural genetic pool through ignorance.
Kevin Nolan
Physicist, Institute of Technology, Tallaght, Dublin
--- ---
2. Scientists' anger at Prince's GM comments
LORNA MARSH
Eastern Daily Press, 14 August 2008
http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPO...
Leading Norfolk scientists last night hit back at the Prince of Wales for his attack against genetically-modified crops, branding his outburst "shocking and ill-informed".
And experts at the John Innes Centre [JIC] in Colney [the leading research institute for GM plants in the UK with a history of big industry links and funding], Norwich, now want the prince to visit their laboratories so they can answer his questions and address his concerns.
Prof Alison Smith, research group leader at the centre, who was made an OBE for her services to plant biochemistry, accused Prince Charles of abusing his role and said he should have used it to launch a debate into the issue instead of making "unhelpful" remarks.
She said: "I was really quite shocked and saddened by what the prince had to say. It was really rather ill-informed and very negative.
"And I'm saddened that the Prince of Wales, who is in a leadership role and able to solve some of the problems he identifies - by bringing scientists, technicians and agricultural and climate change experts together - instead tried to blame the problems of the planet on a technology he clearly does not understand.
"He has a lot of understandable concerns about the way the planet is going but it would be good to see him looking broadly and objectively at how those concerns can be addressed and leading a constructive debate rather than dismiss something out of hand that we need to keep the door open on."
Prince Charles drew criticism with his outspoken attack on industrial farming, warning genetically- modified food could be the "biggest disaster environmentally of all time".
He said millions of small farmers around the world could be driven off their land into "degraded and dysfunctional conurbations of unmentionable awfulness" by the rise of global conglomerates.
The heir to the throne is a long-term supporter of sustainability and locally-produced food and often speaks out on environmental issues.
He has an organic farm on his Highgrove estate in Gloucestershire and set up the Duchy Originals brand, which sells exclusively organic produce, in 1990.
Prof Smith said: "GM is not a silver bullet but it is one of many things we need to look at to produce sustainable crops in the future. Obviously we have to take cautious, rational decisions in developing that technology."
She claimed that, converse to the prince's comments, GM could be beneficial as global warming increases and crops become unsustainable in the rapidly changing climate.
"Crops at the moment are not going to sustain themselves in this time of unprecedented change. We need to have crops which can survive and will have less impact on the environment."
Farmer William Brigham, of Lyng, near Dereham, whose GM trial crops were destroyed by Greenpeace protesters in the late 1990s, said the prince's comments were "condescending" to farmers who were "really astute businessmen who would not have anything foisted upon them". He added: "I think it is extremely short-sighted to blame GM crops for everything that is going on in the world as far as the environment is concerned."
--- ---
3. GM crops: Here's a health unto His Future Majesty
Gerald Warner
The Telegraph, 13 August 2008
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/gerald_warner/blog/2008/08/1...
_heres_a_health_unto_his_future_majesty
God bless the Prince of Wales. The abuse being heaped on him by the acolytes of genetically engineered food reflects the rage of the Nomenklatura at having its received wisdom challenged by somebody who commands public attention.
The evidence against GM food production is overwhelming
The party line is: what can this polo-playing grand seigneur know about the brave new world of genetically modified agriculture, compared to, say, a Labour MP sponsored by the National Union of Widget Makers, a bloke who subscribes to Nerds' Monthly, or Mr Angry from Tooting who believes that Progress is inevitable and crowned heads do not feature largely in that Orwellian landscape? Apparently "Luddite" is now a term of disparagement on the Left.
It does not seem to have occurred to these strident critics that HRH has spent half his life discussing these issues with leading scientists and agriculturalists, that papers daily cross his desk as authoritative as anything on Gordon Brown's and that - unlike the innumerable special pleaders on this issue - he disinterestedly desires the security of the nation, not profits from mega corporations manipulating nature on the suck-it-and-see principle.
The evidence against GM food production is overwhelming. The profiteers are proceeding with no sense of responsibility. As long ago as 2004 a report from the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee warned that more than two-thirds of conventional crops in the United States are contaminated with genetically modified material. Why did the "trials" even in this country take place in open fields, from which the wind and insects would spread contamination? Because that is what the big corporations and the Government wanted to happen: to end opposition by presenting the public with a fait accompli.
Royalty has dared to challenge the New Order - the Scientocracy - and the white-coat arrogance of the new priesthood knows no bounds, whether it is colliding particles at CERN or polluting the global food supply. For these know-alls who cannot cure the common cold, the Earth is theirs and the fullness thereof.
Where are all the Elfin Safety [Health & Safety] control freaks now? Note, too, how "progressives" who normally exhibit a knee-jerk hostility to big business are suddenly supportive of the giant corporations that are ruthlessly cornering the world's food market. Have we learned nothing from the hunger now being suffered by tens of millions as a consequence of biofuels production?
The Prince had a broader agenda than scientific objections to GM production, important though that is: he recognised the cultural degradation that will overtake humanity if farmers no longer exist at a non-industrial level and the whole of mankind is herded into cities to work in call centres. If there was a minimal case for republicanism 24 hours ago, it has evaporated now.
Source: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_14152.cfm
******************
MONSANTO
THE BAD SEED
by Peter Montague
(National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO)
Source: http://www.newfrontier.com/asheville/bad_seed.htm
For more than a decade, the Monsanto Corporation of St. Louis has been maneuvering to dominate the world's supply of seed for staple crops (corn, soybeans, potatoes) -- a business plan that Monsanto's critics say is nothing short of diabolical. Monsanto says it is just devilishly good business.
Monsanto has spent over $8 billion in recent years buying numerous U.S. seed companies. As a result, two firms, Monsanto and Pioneer (recently purchased by DuPont), now dominate the U.S. seed business. Monsanto specializes in genetically modified seeds -- seeds having particular properties that Monsanto has patented.
The U.S. government is very enthusiastic about these new technologies. From the viewpoint of U.S. foreign policy, genetically modified seeds offer a key advantage over traditional seeds: because genetically modified seeds are patented, it is illegal for a farmer to retain seed from this year's crop to plant next year.
To use these patented seeds, farmers must buy new seed from Monsanto every year. Thus, a farmer who adopts genetically modified seeds and fails to retain a stock of traditional seeds could become dependent upon a transnational corporation.
Nations, whose farmers are dependent upon corporations for seed, might forfeit considerable political independence. The Clinton/Gore administration has been aggressively helping Monsanto promote new, untested gene-altered products, by-passing U.S. health and safety regulations.
A key component of the U.S./Monsanto plan to dominate world agriculture with genetically modified seeds is the absence of labeling of genetically engineered foods. All U.S. foods must carry labels listing the ingredients: salt, sugar, water, vitamins, additives, etc. However, three separate U.S. government agencies -- the. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) , the. Department of Agriculture( USDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) -- have ruled that genetically- modified foods deserve an exception: they can be sold without being labeled "genetically modified."
This strategy has successfully prevented consumers from exercising informed choice in the marketplace, reducing the likelihood of a consumer revolt, at least in the U.S., at least for now.
Earlier this year, opposition to genetically modified foods exploded in England and quickly spread to the European continent. (See REHW #649.) Burgeoning consumer opposition has now swept into Asia and back to North America. The New York Times recently reported that, "the Clinton Administration's efforts have grown increasingly urgent, in an attempt to contain the aversion to these crops that is leaping from continent to continent." 1
In that same NY Times article, it states that Japan -- the largest Asian importer of U.S. food -- passed a law requiring the labeling of genetically modified foods.1 A subsidiary of Honda Motor Company immediately announced that it will build a plant in Ohio and hire farmers to supply it with traditional, unaltered soy beans. Soy is the basis of tofu, a staple food in Japan.
Subsequently, the largest and third-largest Japanese beer makers, Kirin Brewery and Sapporo Breweries, Ltd., announced that they have stopped using genetically modified corn. Other Japanese brewers are expected to follow suit. (American micro-breweries take note.)
South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand have all recently passed laws requiring the labeling of genetically modified foods.
However, the U.S. government has publicly protested against such labeling laws, and has privately lobbied hard against them, unsuccessfully.
Grupo Maseca, Mexico's leading producer of corn flour -- recently announced it will no longer purchase any genetically modified corn. Corn flour is made into tortillas, a Mexicanstaple. Mexico buys $500 million of U.S. corn each year, so the Grupo Maseca announcement sent a chill through Midwestern corn farmers who planted Monsanto's genetically modified seeds.1
Over 1/3 of this year's U.S. corn crop is being
grown from genetically modified seeds.
Gerber and Heinz, the two leading manufacturers of baby foods in the United States, announced that they would not allow genetically modified corn or soybeans in any of their baby foods.2 After the baby food announcements, Iams, the high-end pet food producer, announced that it would not purchase any of the seven varieties of genetically modified corn that have not been approved by the European Union. This announcement cut off an alternative use that U.S. farmer's had hoped to make of corn rejected by overseas buyers.
As the demand for traditional, unmodified corn and soy has grown, a two-price system for crops has developed in the U.S. -- a higher price for traditional, unmodified crops, and a lower price for genetically modified crops. For example, Archer-Daniels-Midland is paying some farmers 18 cents less per bushel for genetically modified soybeans, compared to the traditional product.1
The American Corn Growers Association, which represents mainly family farmers, has told its members that they should consider planting only traditional, unmodified seed next spring because it soon may not be possible to export genetically modified corn.1
Deutsche Bank, Europe's largest bank, has issued two reports within the past six months advising its large institutional investors to abandon ag-biotech companies like Monsanto and Novartis.3
In its most recent report, Deutsche Bank said, "...[I]t appears the food companies, retailers, grain processors, and governments are sending a signal to the seed producers that 'we are not ready for GMOs [genetically modified organisms].'"
Deutsche Bank's Washington, D.C., analysts, Frank Mitsch and Jennifer Mitchell, announced nine months ago that ag-biotech "was going the way of the nuclear industry in this country."
"But we count ourselves surprised at how rapidly this forecast appears to be playing out," they told the London Guardian.3
In Europe, the ag-biotech controversy is playing out upon a stage created by an earlier -- and ongoing -- scientific dispute over sex hormones in beef.4
Over 90% of U.S. beef cattle are treated with sex hormones -- three naturally-occurring (estradiol, progesterone, and testosterone) and three synthetic hormones that mimic the natural ones (zeranol, melengesterol acetate, and trenbolone acetate). Hormone treatment makes cattle grow faster and produces more tender, flavorful cuts of beef.
Since 1995, the European Union has prohibited the treatment of any farm animals with sex hormones intended to promote growth, on grounds that sex hormones are known to cause several human cancers. As a by-product of that prohibition, the EU refuses to allow the import of hormone-treated beef from the U.S. and Canada.
The U.S. asserts that hormone-treated beef is entirely safe and that the European ban violates the global free trade regime that the U.S. has worked religiously for 20 years to create. The U.S. argues that sex hormones only promote human cancers in hormone-sensitive tissues, such as the female breast and uterus.
Therefore, the U.S. argues, the mechanism of carcinogenic action must be activation of hormone "receptors" and therefore there is a "threshold" -- a level of hormones below which no cancers will occur. Based on risk assessments, the U.S. government claims to know where that threshold level lies. Furthermore, the U.S. claims it has established a regulatory process that prevents any farmer from exceeding the threshold level in his or her cows.
An EU scientific committee argues that hormones may cause some human cancers by an entirely different mechanism -- by interfering directly with DNA.5 If that were true, there would be no threshold for safety and the only safe dose of sex hormones in beef would be zero. "If you assume no threshold, you should continually be taking steps to get down to lower levels, because no level is safe," says James Bridges, a toxicologist at the University of Surrey in Guilford, England.4
Secondly, the EU spot-checked 258 meat samples from the Hormone Free Cattle program run jointly by the U.S. beef industry and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This program is intended to raise beef cattle without the use of hormones, thus producing beef eligible for import into Europe. The spot check found that 12% of the "hormone free" cattle had in fact been treated with sex hormones. EU officials cite this as evidence that growth hormones are poorly regulated in the U.S. beef industry and that Europeans might be exposed to higher- than-allowed concentrations if the ban on North American imports were lifted.
"These revelations are embarrassing for U.S. officials," reports Science magazine.4 Nevertheless, the U.S. government continues to assert that its hormone- treated beef is 100% safe.
Thus we have a classic scientific controversy characterized by considerable scientific uncertainty. This particular scientific dispute has pro- found implications for the future of all regulation under a global free trade regime -- including regulation of toxic chemicals -- because the European Union is basing its opposition to hormone-treated beef on the pre- cautionary principle. The American government insists that this pre- cautionary approach is an illegal restraint of free trade.
The EU's position is clearly precautionary: "Where scientific evidence is not black and white, policy should err on the side of caution so that there is zero risk to the consumer," says the EU.6
The Danish pediatric researcher, Niels Skakkebaek, MD, says the burden of proof lies with those putting hormones in beef: "The possible health effects from the hormones have hardly been studied -- the burden of proof should lie with the American beef industry," Dr. Skakkebaek told Chemical Week, a U.S. chemical industry publication that is following the beef controversy closely.6
It appears that European activists have seized upon hormones in beef, and upon Monsanto's seed domination plan, as a vehicle for opposing a "global free trade" regime in which nations lose their power to regulate markets to protect public health or the environment. The New York Times reports that the Peasant Confederation of European farmers derives much of its intellectual inspiration and direction from a new organization, called Attac, formed last year in France to fight the spread of global free trade regimes.7
The Confederation has destroyed several McDonald's restaurants and dumped rotten vegetables in others. Patrice Vidieu, the secretary-general of the Peasant Confederation, told the NY Times, "What we reject is the idea that the power of the marketplace becomes the dominant force in all societies, and that multinationals like McDonald's or Monsanto come to impose the food we eat and the seeds we plant."
What began as consumer opposition to genetically-modified seed appears to be turning into an open revolt against the 25-year-old U.S.-led effort to impose free-trade regimes world-wide, enthroning transnational corporations in the process. If approached strategically by alliances of U.S. activists and their overseas counterparts (and it must not be viewed as merely a labeling dispute), genetic engineering could become the most important controversy in this century.
________________________________________
Millions Against Monsanto
Monsanto Buys Out Seminis
http://www.gmwatch.org
Deception and Disinformation
1 "Melody Petersen, "New Trade Threat for U.S. Farmers," New York Times, August 29, 1999, pgs. A1, A18.
2 Lucette Lagnado, "Strained Peace: Gerber Baby Food, Grilled by Greenpeace, Plans Swift Overhaul -- Gene-Modified Corn and Soy Will Go, Although Firm Feels Sure They Are Safe -- Heinz Takes Action, Too," Wall Street Journal, July 30, 1999, pg. A1.
3 Paul Brown and John Vidal, "GM Investors Told to Sell Their Shares," The Guardian [London] August 25, 1999, pg. unknown.
4 Michael Balter, "Scientific Cross-Claims Fly in Continuing Beef War," Science magazine Vol. 284 (May 28, 1999), pgs. 1453-1455.
5 "Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures Relating to Public Health; Assessment of Potential Risks to Human Health from Hormone Residues in Bovine Meat and Meat Products." European Commission, April 30, 1999. 139 pgs. The report is available in PDF format from: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24/health/sc/scv/out21_en.html
6 "Europe's Beef Ban Tests Precautionary Principle," Chemical Week, August 11, 1999, pg. unknown.
7 Roger Cohen, "Fearful Over the Future, Europe Seizes on Food," New York Times, August 29, 1999, pg. unknown.
********************
More Biotech Industry Deception & Disinformation
March 3, 2005
GM WATCH daily
http://www.gmwatch.org
------
1.Public Research & Regulation Fraud - GM Watch
2.Biotechnolgy meeting convenes here - press article
3.Public Research & Regulation Foundation
*Steering Commitee.
*Organisation, coordination and further contacts
------
1.Public Research & Regulation Fraud - GM Watch
The article below describes a new initiative - The Public Research Sector
Initiative executed by a foundation called "Public Research and Regulation".
The initiative is based on deceit.
The biotech scientists involved, who are meeting today anjd tomorrow, are
saying that they represent a third non-aligned group between civil society
and industry who should "weigh in" at meetings of the Cartagena Protocol
that help determine biosafety rules. They claim "the public research sector
has been not able to provide scientific input for the benefit of the
negotiations nor to express its views about the effectiveness and
workability of the provisions of the Protocol."
Their call for increased leverage for "nonprofit" "public sector" players
belies the heavy industrial-alignment of most public sector agricultural
biotechnology where there is a long history of involvement with intensive
agricultural R&D and of collaboration with agribusiness multinationals, not
to mention dependence on industry funding. The effect of this is to generate
convergence between private sector and public sector operators.
This convergence means that the "third" group would not be non-aligned but
would have interests and an agenda that would all too often be
indistinguishable from that of the industry - in other words biotech
proponents would get two bites of the cherry to the rest of society's one.
The problem is apparent as soon as one looks at the detail of this
initiative and those that are driving it forward. Although the biotech
scientists claim it is a "misconception that modern biotechnology, and in
particular its agricultural application, is the exclusive domain of a
handful of big, western multinationals", they are actually holding their
meeting today at the Donald Danforth Plant Sciences Center in St Louis,
Missouri ¬ the home town of Monsanto.
This is no coincidence. The Danforth Center was established by Monsanto
Corporation "and academic partners" with a $70-million pledge from Monsanto.
The company also donated the 40-acre tract of land, valued at $11.4 million,
on which the Center is built.
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=200
And don't be fooled when a scientist turned political lobbyist is quoted at
the end of the article as saying, "My career would be much better served if
I wasn't doing this," and "My dream is to win this battle and go back to the
lab full time". For many of the scientists involved in this initiative,
their labs, their research and their current careers would simply not exist
if it were not for the largesse of the biotech industry.
Take, for instance, Roger Beachy, the Danforth Center President, who is
helping to drive forward this initiative and who is quoted in the article.
Monsanto and other biotech companies have helped to fund Beachy's research,
quite apart from the massive corporate support underlying the Center he
heads.
One of the 2 key contacts for the group, and a member of the Steering
Committee, is Willy de Greef of the Institute for Plant Biotechnology for
Developing Countries (IPBO). Prior to that de Greef was a leading light of
Syngenta ¬ the world's biggest biotech corporation. And Beachy and de Greef
are very far from alone - see the list below.
And when the article asks, "Can public-sector scientists become better
salesmen?", it misses the point that many of those involved are "salesmman"
and often their lobbying is underwritten directly or indirectly by the
biotech industry.
Here are more of those who "support the initiative and wish to be actively
involved in its activities":
Prof. Klaus Ammann, Botanical Garden, University of Bern, Switzerland
-ardent supporter and lobbyist for GM crops and co-editor of the Bio-Scope,
supported by GM industry lobby group Europabio.
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=8
Dr. Gerard Barry, The International Rice Research Institute, Philippines
-former Director of Research, Production and Technical Cooperation at
Monsanto
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=294
Dr. Andrew Bennett, Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture,
Switzerland
-Syngenta directors occupy 3 of the 5 seats on the Syngenta Foundation's
board.
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=175
Dr. Joel Cohen, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington,
United States
-when at USAID Cohen worked with Monsanto to establish the notorious GM
sweet potato project
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=131
Prof. Philip J. Dale, Genetic Modification and Biosafety Research Group,
John Innes Centre, United Kingdom
-Dale is on the advisory council of the controversial lobby group Sense
About Science which the John Innes Centre also helps to fund. JIC has been
involved in multi-million pound research alliances with Syngenta, Dupont and
others.
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=34
Dr Roger Kalla, Primary Industries Research Victoria, Australia
-active in lobby group AusBiotech
Prof. Drew L. Kershen, University of Oklahoma College of Law, United States
-Well known Prakash supporter
Dr. Muffy Koch, AgBios, Canada
-highly controversial lobbyist. Part of biotech industry-funded AfricaBio
lobby group
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=271
Piet van der Meer, HORIZONS sprl, Belgium
-regarded as "having let the industry in" to biosafety development in the
developing world
Dr. James Peacock, Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research
Organisation, Australia
-collaboration between the CSIRO and Monsanto generated Australia's first
major GM commercial crop. According to John Stocker, CSIRO's former chief
executive, "Working with the transnationals makes a lot of sense, in the
context of market accessŠ Yes, we do find that it is often the best strategy
to get into bed with these companies. "
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=187
Prof. Ingo Potrykus, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Institute
of Plant Science, Switzerland
-golden rice originator who has happily used it for PR purposes for genetic
engineering. Accuses Greenpeace of 'crimes against humanity'
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=105
Prof. Jennifer Thompson, Department of Microbiology University of Cape Town,
South-Africa
-board member of the biotech industry-funded lobby groups AfricaBio and
ISAAA
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=170
Dr. Florence Wambugu, A Harvest Biotech Foundation International, Kenya
-notorious GM propagandist, trained by Monsanto. A Harvest is backed by
CropLife International.
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=131
------
2.Biotechnolgy meeting convenes here
By Eric Hand
St Louis Post-Dispatch, 03/02/2005
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/sciencemedicine/story/9C9E
EC401D3450EA86256FB9001A6BF2?OpenDocument
Can public-sector scientists become better salesmen?
Nearly 50 university, nonprofit and government biotechnologists from around
the globe will try at a two-day conference beginning today at the Donald
Danforth Plant Sciences Center in Creve Coeur.
Center president Roger Beachy wants them to talk up the benefits of public
research into genetically modified foods and crops, an industry where debate
so far has largely been between for-profit companies like St. Louis-based
Monsanto and environmental activists.
"We think the absence of the voice of public-sector scientists skews the
discussion," he said.
Beachy hopes to encourage public-sector scientists to weigh in by attending
a meeting in June for the Cartagena Protocol, a treaty that governs
biosafety rules.
With Washington University researchers advocating on the stem cell research
issue before the Missouri Legislature, some scientists are finding
themselves in an unusual position: To get public money or permission, they
have to join the political fray.
The Cartagena Protocol took effect Sept. 11, 2003, after 50 nations ratified
the treaty. It was named for the Colombian city in which it was primarily
negotiated in 1999. The treaty contains safety rules for genetically
modified organisms, specifying, for example, that food products must be
labeled and that the international transport of any modified organisms must
be declared.
To date, 114 nations have ratified the treaty. The United States has not.
The treaty is mute about the benefits of biotechnology, said Joel Cohen, a
researcher with the International Food Policy Research Institute, which is
based in Washington. He says that's because treaty negotiations included
for-profit scientists, representatives from the environmental ministries and
non-governmental organization activists, but didn't include public-sector
scientists.
"Nobody has mobilized these scientists before," he said. "The
meeting in St. Louis is intended to address that void"
Public-sector scientists in 15 countries have genetically engineered 45
crops, according to a paper Cohen published January in the journal Nature
Biotechnology.
All but one of the crops - an insect-resistant cotton in China - are stuck
in a regulatory pipeline and have not been released commercially. For-profit
companies are good at navigating regulatory agencies, but the public
researchers need more money for that, Cohen said.
Cohen, who will present his work at the Danforth Center today, says that
some environmental organizations have unjustly ignored the potential
benefits of public-sector engineered products, which would be freely
available.
"They prefer this black-and-white split between right and wrong" he said.
That's not true, said Kristin Dawkins, vice president of the Institute for
Agriculture and Trade Policy, a nonprofit group in Minneapolis that opposes
genetically engineered foods. She says the goals of public-sector
biotechnologists are well-intentioned and sincere, but perhaps too hurried.
Dawkins calls for more research into the health and ecological effects of
genetically modified organisms before they are released commercially.
Two conference attendees, a regulator from Tanzania and a researcher from
Colombia, said that farmers in their countries were less concerned with
possible hazards of modified products and more concerned with their
potential price tags.
Beachy said that this is where the scientists need to be better salesmen and
let people know about products that would eventually be free
He understands the risks of scientists venturing into a political arena.
"There will be accusations, that public scientists are dupes of the big
companies and pushing a profit motive" he said.
Washington University professor Steve Teitelbaum knows about becoming an
advocate. The bone doctor became the university spokesman on the issue of
stem cell research. He has spent many nights dining with state legislators
and debating opponents
"My career would be much better served if I wasn't doing this" he said. "My
dream is to win this battle and go back to the lab full time."
The Cartagena Protocol
Sets up a biosafety clearinghouse where information about genetically
modified organisms is filed and shared after commercial approval.
Requires products to be accompanied by labels and documents that identify
the scientific name and characteristics of genetically modified ingredients
Operates under the "precautionary principle" meaning that worst-case
scenarios for a genetically modified product can justify banning it, even if
no scientific evidence exists of it causing harm
Source: United Nations Environment Programme Convention on Biological
Diversity
Reporter Eric Hand
E-mail: ehand@post-dispatch.com
Phone: 314-340-8250
------
3.Public Research & Regulation Foundation
www.pubresreg.org
Countries and organisations throughout the world have invested considerably
in public sector research, and are continuing to do, so in order to develop
biotechnological applications that meet a variety of crucial needs...
The extent to which modern biotechnology will be able to achieve these goals
will depend to a large extent on the regulatory regimes that apply to
biotechnology and on the way in which they are implemented. These national
regulations in turn are strongly influenced by international agreements,
particularly the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
This Protocol was negotiated between 1995 and 2000, adopted in January 2000,
and came into force in September 2003. The first Meeting of the Parties
(MOP1) took place in February 2004 in Kuala Lumpur and MOP2 is scheduled for
May - June 2005.
A central aim of the negotiations was to involve all stakeholders. Records
of the negotiations show that NGOs and the private sector were indeed well
represented.
However, the public research sector involved in developing biotechnological
applications, which includes over a hundred thousand researchers of
thousands governmental, academic and international research institutions in
developing and developed countries, was not represented in any significant
or organised way during the negotiations or during MOP1.
As a result, the public research sector has been not able to provide
scientific input for the benefit of the negotiations nor to express its
views about the effectiveness and workability of the provisions of the
Protocol. Another consequence of the absence of the public research sector
during the negotiations is the persistence of the misconception that modern
biotechnology, and in particular its agricultural application, is the
exclusive domain of a handful of big, western multinationals.
The initiative described below proposes to offer a forum for the public
research sector to be involved in the forthcoming Meetings of the Parties to
the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in May 2005 and related meetings.
Approach of the initiative.
The initiative consists of three phases:
Phase 1: Raising awareness among the public research community about the
issue.
Phase 2: Involvement of the public research sector in MOP2 ( 31 May ¬ 3 June
2005)
Phase 3: Organised involvement of the public research sector in subsequent
MOPs.
*Organisation, coordination and further contacts
This initiative is coordinated by a Steering Committee, of which currently
the members are:
- Prof. Philip J Dale, former Leader of the Genetic Modification and
Biosafety Research
Group, John Innes Centre, United Kingdom (chairman of the Steering
Committee)
- Prof. Atanas Atanassov, Director of the AgriBiotech Institute of Bulgaria.
- Dr. Roger Beachy, Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, St-Louis, USA
- Willy de Greef, Institute for Plant Biotechnology for Developing Countries
(IPBO) and International Biotech Regulatory Services (IBRS), Belgium
(vice-chair)
- Prof. Calestous Juma, Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University,
USA
- Drs. Piet van der Meer, esq., Horizons sprl, Belgium (vice-chair)
- Prof. Marc van Montagu, Institute for Plant Biotechnology for Developing
Countries (IPBO), Belgium.
- Prof. Paul S. Teng, Nanyang Technological University, National Institute
of Education,
Singapore.
The Steering Committee will be further expanded to include public research
sector scientists from all regions of the world.
Contact persons for the Steering Committee are Willy de Greef
(ibsr@telenet.be) and Piet van der Meer (pietvandermeer@cs.com).
For the execution of this initiative, a foundation has been established in
the Netherlands with the name Public Research and Regulation, and with the
objective to involve the public research sector in regulations relevant to
the development and application of biotechnology.
Administrative and logistical support for this initiative is provided,
through Delft University of Technology, by Dr. David Bennett and Mrs. Kim
Meulenbroeks. Contact references: kim.meulenbroeks@pubresreg.org, Phone:
+31-15-212-7800, Fax:+31-15-212-7111.
Updates of this initiative, including the list of people who endorse it,
will be made available on www.pubresreg.org.
****************************************************************************
****************************
This GMO news service is underwritten by a generous grant from the Newman's
Own Foundation, edited by Thomas Wittman and is a production of the
Ecological Farming Association www.eco-farm.org
****************************************************************************
****************************
Dominic Lawson's attack on Prince Charles
Source: http://www.gmwatch.eu/
1.The Prince is entitled to his views – but not his ignorance
2.Comments on the Lawson article
NOTE: By far the nastiest of the responses to the recent criticisms by the Prince of Wales of GM crops and heavily industrialised ag, was the following piece in The Independent by Dominic Lawson.
Curiously, we've seen only one letter published critical of this article, even though it's certain The Independent will have received many. In item 2 we reproduce that letter, plus comments made on the The Independent's website or in letters copied to us. Some comments have been shortened. If you would like to comment, you can easily do so at the url for the Lawson article.
---
---
1.The Prince is entitled to his views – but not his ignorance
Dominic Lawson
The Independent, 15 August 2008
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-the-prince-is-entitled-to-his-views-ndash-but-not-his-ignorance-897493.html
It's shocking to hear this millionaire Gloucestershire farmer denounce the 'Green Revolution' in India
There are any number of reasons why someone such as His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales should be passionately opposed to genetically modified crops. For a start, his own position – and future one as head of state – is based entirely on genetic purity (formerly known as "royal blood").
One characteristic he might have inherited from his grandfather, King George VI, is a propensity for sudden, almost incoherent, rage. This week, that excellent journalist Jeff Randall gently suggested to the heir to the throne that the future of farming might be with industrial-scale production, rather than the sort of methods he practises. "What?" exploded the Prince. "All run by gigantic corporations? That would be the absolute destruction of everything!" Randall went on to report that "bouncing in his chair", the Prince set out a nightmarish vision in which millions of small farmers "are driven off their land into unsustainable, unmanageable, degraded and dysfunctional conurbations of unmentionable awfulness".
The Prince, predictably, continued his rant by attacking GM technology – although Randall had never raised it – which he said was: "Guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time. Snakes, some of them thousands of miles long, will roam the countryside." Well, I made that last sentence up, but you get the gist: the world as we know it will come to an end if wicked big business is allowed to introduce GM crops on an industrial scale. The main empirical problem for this argument is that GM crops have already been grown for more than a decade across the globe, providing trillions of meals, with no observable malign consequences for humanity or the environment. Quite the reverse, in fact: many types of GM crops have been designed to produce high yield with minimal soil tillage; others require much lower use of pesticide than conventional crops, thus saving vast amounts in agricultural fuel use.
Now that the area covered by GM crops has reached more than 100 million hectares, involving farmers in countries as varied as China, Uruguay, South Africa and Iran, it is possible to assess the truth of the various "Frankenfood" scare stories promulgated by the likes of the Daily Mail (which yesterday was alone in publishing a leading article endorsing every word of the Prince of Wales's outburst).
Such a study has recently been published by the European Commission. This is especially significant because the member countries of the EU have been more nervous about the consequences of GM technology than any other developed nations. The report, ominously titled "Economic Impact of Dominant GM Crops Worldwide", gives the lie to the notion that GM is somehow only designed for large-scale agribusiness. It states that "analyses show that adoption of dominant GM crops and on-farm economic gains have benefited both small and large farmers... Moreover, detailed analyses show that increases in gross margin are comparatively larger for small and lower-income farmers than for larger and higher income farmers." In other words, Prince Charles's notion that such methods will in themselves cause the extinction of small farmers is simply refuted by the experiences of real people in the real world.
One of the most persistent complaints of the anti-GM lobby is that the owners of transgenic technology will make huge profits at the expense of the farmers. On general grounds alone one might question this: farmers are not known for persisting with methods which reduce their own income. The more innovative among them will try out new methods, and if it improves their business, they will continue with it. If not, they will dump it.
The European Commission report shows how in practice the increased profits are divided, based on an analysis of the adoption on Indian farms of Bt cotton, a cotton modified by the insertion of a bacterium resistant to the blight known as bollworm. It observes that "Indian farmers adopting Bt cotton were the main beneficiaries of adoption, capturing 67 per cent of generated welfare, followed by seed companies with 33 per cent". You might argue that 33 per cent is a pretty big royalty for the GM seed salesmen, but the point is that the farmers would still be well ahead of the game: the Commission's report shows that "in a sample of 157 farmers from three Indian states, the average yield gains of Bt cotton were up to 87 per cent over the non-Bt counterpart". So everyone's happy – except for the Prince of Wales .
It is undeniable that the technology which produces these transgenic strains is dominated by a small number of multinational companies. But if you object to that, you might also wonder why it is: after all, there is no theoretical reason why experiments should not be successfully carried out by much smaller companies. The reason lies in the very neurosis of European consumers and governments about the potential dangers of GM. The number of trials required and the regulatory hoops are so many that only very large companies have the stomach – and the wallet – for the fight.
It's not just a matter of regulation – which is obviously necessary. Groups such as Greenpeace take pride in destroying field trials of GM crops; almost all of the 54 crop trials attempted in Britain since 2000 have been vandalised, a record which would completely deter any small-scale investor from even contemplating such a venture.
These vandals share the Prince of Wales's quasi-religious belief that transgenic technology – presumably including that used in insulin for diabetics – runs counter to the divine order of nature: he has argued that they interfere in matters that are "the realm of God and God alone". With such metaphysical self-assurance, these people have no conscience about wrecking trials which are designed precisely to assess the environmental impact of GM technology: even if such experiments produced no observable adverse impact, ever, they would not alter the mindset which puts "blood and soil" mysticism above mere evidence.
Prince Charles would argue that he is motivated by a concern for humanity – and I don't doubt his sincerity or passion. Still, it was shocking to hear this multi-millionaire Gloucestershire organic farmer denouncing India's "Green Revolution" – the plant-breeding precursor to GM pioneered by Norman Borlaug. It was these techniques that saved millions in the sub-continent from the famines which slaughtered so many of their ancestors, and for which Borlaug received a Nobel Prize.
I can do no better than quote Professor Borlaug's remarks about those who denounced his work as destructive of traditional methods: "They've never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for 50 years, they'd be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things."
d.lawson@independent.co.uk
---
---
2.Comments on the Lawson article
Dominic Glover:
It would be appropriate if Dominic Lawson did some more thorough research. The article is riddled with misleading claims. Basing his argument on a single EU summary is insufficient. As a researcher who has followed the story of GM crops and the agri-biotech industry in the developing world for 8 years, I can assure Mr. Lawson that the story is much more complex than he pretends.
The 'average' benefits that he cites are just that - averages, which obscure the huge variability of GM crop performance between fields, farms, regions and seasons. That variability, combined with the high costs of GM seeds, creates serious risks for small-scale farmers, who are most certainly not the ones benefiting from GM crops. Read the original studies! GMCs may well have some environmental and economic benefits for some farmers in some contexts but, like any technological innovation, they also have risks. They are certainly not the silver bullet that Lawson, Norman Borlaug, Dick Taverne and others claim.
****
PeterW:
I'm sure Mr. Lawson your rich privileged background makes you an excellent candidate to defend the interest of Indian farmers. My bet is Professor Borlaug and you have never faced starvation either.
Borlaug's "Green" revolution is nothing of the kind. It has mortgaged future agriculture by draining aquifers and depleting topsoil. It has made farming more dependent on external inputs not less.
Did Monsanto write this piece for you?
****
Claire Robinson:
This is an extremely ill-informed article. There are currently no GM crops on the market that [are designed to] increase yields and even the USDA admits that they often result in yield reductions. There has been a lot of research on GM soy yields in the US and some on GM maize showing yield drag. Most of the GM crops currently available are designed either to contain an inbuilt pesticide or to resist herbicide, enabling MORE herbicide, not less, to be used on the crop. Herbicides are made from oil, which is running out. And no tests have been done to ensure that eating GM pesticidal crops is safe. It's obvious that the reason multinational companies don't promote organics is not because organic doesn't work, but because they can't make money from it, unlike the patented GM seeds and accompanying chemicals.
****
Clare Oxborrow
The Independent (Letters), 16 August 2008-08-20 http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/letters/letters-visa-shame-899043.html
Dominic Lawson (Opinion, 15 August) makes the fundamental error of ignoring the most relevant research into science and technology in agriculture, published this year. The UN International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), written by 400 scientists and backed by 60 governments, was so unconvinced about GM crops feeding the world that the biotechnology industry pulled out of the process despite contributing substantial funds at the outset.
Lawson's statement that "many types of GM crops have been designed to produce high yield" is simply wrong. The IAASTD found no conclusive evidence that GM crops increase yields. Even the US Department of Agriculture has admitted there is not a single GM crop designed to increase yield.
Prince Charles is right to highlight the risks to the environment and small farmers posed by GM crops. His central point, that GM crops are part of the export-led, oil-reliant model of food production that has created the food crisis in the first place, is spot on.
****
Umendra Dutt (Punjab):
umendradutt.blogspot.com
Green revolution brought a short lived prosperity which has taken away the very sustainability of our State. Its perishable prosperity left us with poisoned eco-system , contaminated food chain, empty aquifers, contaminated water sources, destroyed biodiversity, debts, disease and suicides...
****
Dr. Amar Singh Azad
Asstt. Professor
Community Medicine Dept.
Guru Gobind Singh Medical College
FARIDKOT(Punjab):
The Green Revolution in Punjab has indeed played havoc with nature, the environment, and all forms of life including humans. The cumulative effects of forty years of chemical farming are now strikingly visible. The concentration of highly poisonous chemicals-pesticides, chemical fertilizers and heavy metals are much beyond permissible levels in the air, soil, water, food chain and tissues of animals and human beings... Drinking water (surface as well as ground water) in Punjab is not safe for drinking. It contains all sorts of pathogens and highly poisonous toxins.
****
Dominic Lawson:
All right, many of you may feel that my article is badly researched. It's not because I verified every word I wrote on a telecon with my friend Hugh Grant in St. Louis, Missouri. And those who have suggested that my head is stuck up my you-know-what, are again wrong. If the Independent sacks me, Hugh has promised me a PR job with his firm. Jeez... Luddites.
****
Jonathan Matthews:
Dominic Lawson's sounding rattled - see his comment about checking his facts with Monsanto's CEO. I certainly don't think that that's where he gets his dubious information, because Lawson's personal assistant once rang me up by mistake in an effort to check one of his climate sceptical pieces with Philip Stott. I'd done a profile of the GM-loving, climate-change-denying Stotty and her lazy googling for Stotty's contact details had turned mine up by mistake. To give some idea of Lawson's climate guru's passion for all things biotechnik, here's what Stotty had to say about the completion of the human genome project: 'Today, we shall truly ''eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil'' (Genesis 1.17), for two teams of scientists... have come together to announce the decoding of the alphabet of human life. And "we shall be as gods".' What was it Lawson was saying about zealots carried away by their pseudo-religious enthusiasm???
*******
Biotech Companies Denounce UK's Most Famous Organic Farmer, Prince Charles
• GM Watch (EU), August 14, 2008
Straight to the Source
1. Prince Charles, science and global hunger
2. JIC scientists' anger at Prince's GM comments
3. GM crops: Here's a health unto His Future Majesty
EXTRACTS: Prince Charles' concerns over GM food are well-founded. Current genetics' methodologies are far from rigorous science and are more aligned to educated (albeit improving) guesswork... In a nutshell, the world is potentially a hundred years from a rigorous understanding of genetics and, critically, in the hands of biologists, we are now on the brink of devastating much of the earth's natural genetic pool through ignorance.
- Kevin Nolan, Institute of Technology, Dublin, 14 Aug 2008 (item 1)
It does not seem to have occurred to these strident critics that... unlike the innumerable special pleaders on this issue - he disinterestedly desires the security of the nation, not profits from mega corporations manipulating nature on the suck-it-and-see principle.
...giant corporations... are ruthlessly cornering the world's food market. Have we learned nothing from the hunger now being suffered by tens of millions as a consequence of biofuels production?
- Gerald Warner, The Telegraph, 13 August 2008, (item 3)
--- ---
1. Prince Charles, science and global hunger
The Guardian (Letters), August 14 2008 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/14/gmcrops...
Prince Charles' concerns over GM food are well-founded. Current genetics' methodologies are far from rigorous science and are more aligned to educated (albeit improving) guesswork.
Most of genetic science is driven by those from the biological sciences. Hence, with a failure of the biology science world to police the application of such crude science practices, a world debate must be engaged that questions the quality of genetics as a true science.
In a nutshell, the world is potentially a hundred years from a rigorous understanding of genetics and, critically, in the hands of biologists, we are now on the brink of devastating much of the earth's natural genetic pool through ignorance.
Kevin Nolan
Physicist, Institute of Technology, Tallaght, Dublin
--- ---
2. Scientists' anger at Prince's GM comments
LORNA MARSH
Eastern Daily Press, 14 August 2008
http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPO...
Leading Norfolk scientists last night hit back at the Prince of Wales for his attack against genetically-modified crops, branding his outburst "shocking and ill-informed".
And experts at the John Innes Centre [JIC] in Colney [the leading research institute for GM plants in the UK with a history of big industry links and funding], Norwich, now want the prince to visit their laboratories so they can answer his questions and address his concerns.
Prof Alison Smith, research group leader at the centre, who was made an OBE for her services to plant biochemistry, accused Prince Charles of abusing his role and said he should have used it to launch a debate into the issue instead of making "unhelpful" remarks.
She said: "I was really quite shocked and saddened by what the prince had to say. It was really rather ill-informed and very negative.
"And I'm saddened that the Prince of Wales, who is in a leadership role and able to solve some of the problems he identifies - by bringing scientists, technicians and agricultural and climate change experts together - instead tried to blame the problems of the planet on a technology he clearly does not understand.
"He has a lot of understandable concerns about the way the planet is going but it would be good to see him looking broadly and objectively at how those concerns can be addressed and leading a constructive debate rather than dismiss something out of hand that we need to keep the door open on."
Prince Charles drew criticism with his outspoken attack on industrial farming, warning genetically- modified food could be the "biggest disaster environmentally of all time".
He said millions of small farmers around the world could be driven off their land into "degraded and dysfunctional conurbations of unmentionable awfulness" by the rise of global conglomerates.
The heir to the throne is a long-term supporter of sustainability and locally-produced food and often speaks out on environmental issues.
He has an organic farm on his Highgrove estate in Gloucestershire and set up the Duchy Originals brand, which sells exclusively organic produce, in 1990.
Prof Smith said: "GM is not a silver bullet but it is one of many things we need to look at to produce sustainable crops in the future. Obviously we have to take cautious, rational decisions in developing that technology."
She claimed that, converse to the prince's comments, GM could be beneficial as global warming increases and crops become unsustainable in the rapidly changing climate.
"Crops at the moment are not going to sustain themselves in this time of unprecedented change. We need to have crops which can survive and will have less impact on the environment."
Farmer William Brigham, of Lyng, near Dereham, whose GM trial crops were destroyed by Greenpeace protesters in the late 1990s, said the prince's comments were "condescending" to farmers who were "really astute businessmen who would not have anything foisted upon them". He added: "I think it is extremely short-sighted to blame GM crops for everything that is going on in the world as far as the environment is concerned."
--- ---
3. GM crops: Here's a health unto His Future Majesty
Gerald Warner
The Telegraph, 13 August 2008
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/gerald_warner/blog/2008/08/1...
_heres_a_health_unto_his_future_majesty
God bless the Prince of Wales. The abuse being heaped on him by the acolytes of genetically engineered food reflects the rage of the Nomenklatura at having its received wisdom challenged by somebody who commands public attention.
The evidence against GM food production is overwhelming
The party line is: what can this polo-playing grand seigneur know about the brave new world of genetically modified agriculture, compared to, say, a Labour MP sponsored by the National Union of Widget Makers, a bloke who subscribes to Nerds' Monthly, or Mr Angry from Tooting who believes that Progress is inevitable and crowned heads do not feature largely in that Orwellian landscape? Apparently "Luddite" is now a term of disparagement on the Left.
It does not seem to have occurred to these strident critics that HRH has spent half his life discussing these issues with leading scientists and agriculturalists, that papers daily cross his desk as authoritative as anything on Gordon Brown's and that - unlike the innumerable special pleaders on this issue - he disinterestedly desires the security of the nation, not profits from mega corporations manipulating nature on the suck-it-and-see principle.
The evidence against GM food production is overwhelming. The profiteers are proceeding with no sense of responsibility. As long ago as 2004 a report from the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee warned that more than two-thirds of conventional crops in the United States are contaminated with genetically modified material. Why did the "trials" even in this country take place in open fields, from which the wind and insects would spread contamination? Because that is what the big corporations and the Government wanted to happen: to end opposition by presenting the public with a fait accompli.
Royalty has dared to challenge the New Order - the Scientocracy - and the white-coat arrogance of the new priesthood knows no bounds, whether it is colliding particles at CERN or polluting the global food supply. For these know-alls who cannot cure the common cold, the Earth is theirs and the fullness thereof.
Where are all the Elfin Safety [Health & Safety] control freaks now? Note, too, how "progressives" who normally exhibit a knee-jerk hostility to big business are suddenly supportive of the giant corporations that are ruthlessly cornering the world's food market. Have we learned nothing from the hunger now being suffered by tens of millions as a consequence of biofuels production?
The Prince had a broader agenda than scientific objections to GM production, important though that is: he recognised the cultural degradation that will overtake humanity if farmers no longer exist at a non-industrial level and the whole of mankind is herded into cities to work in call centres. If there was a minimal case for republicanism 24 hours ago, it has evaporated now.
Source: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_14152.cfm
******************
DOES NOT SOY BECOME BAD BECAUSE OF GENETIC ENGINEERING?
DOES NOT SOY BECOME BAD BECAUSE OF GENETIC ENGINEERING?
Does this refer to Genetically Modified Soy grown using chemical fertilizers and pesticides in the USA, and not to the Organic Soy grown in China & Japan for centuries?
Has Genetic Engineering and chemistry (chemical fertilizers and pesticides) and chemical processing altered God’s angel Soy into a devil Soy?
Newest Research On Why You Should Avoid Soy
www.mercola.com
Page 1 of 3 (Page 2, Page 3)
by Sally Fallon & Mary G. Enig, Ph.D.
Cinderella's Dark Side
The propaganda that has created the soy sales miracle is all the more remarkable because, only a few decades ago, the soybean was considered unfit to eat - even in Asia. During the Chou Dynasty (1134-246 BC) the soybean was designated one of the five sacred grains, along with barley, wheat, millet and rice.
However, the pictograph for the soybean, which dates from earlier times, indicates that it was not first used as a food; for whereas the pictographs for the other four grains show the seed and stem structure of the plant, the pictograph for the soybean emphasizes the root structure. Agricultural literature of the period speaks frequently of the soybean and its use in crop rotation. Apparently the soy plant was initially used as a method of fixing nitrogen.13
The soybean did not serve as a food until the discovery of fermentation techniques, some time during the Chou Dynasty. The first soy foods were fermented products like tempeh, natto, miso and soy sauce.
At a later date, possibly in the 2nd century BC, Chinese scientists discovered that a purée of cooked soybeans could be precipitated with calcium sulfate or magnesium sulfate (plaster of Paris or Epsom salts) to make a smooth, pale curd - tofu or bean curd. The use of fermented and precipitated soy products soon spread to other parts of the Orient, notably Japan and Indonesia.
The Chinese did not eat unfermented soybeans as they did other legumes such as lentils because the soybean contains large quantities of natural toxins or "antinutrients". First among them are potent enzyme inhibitors that block the action of trypsin and other enzymes needed for protein digestion.
These inhibitors are large, tightly folded proteins that are not completely deactivated during ordinary cooking. They can produce serious gastric distress, reduced protein digestion and chronic deficiencies in amino acid uptake. In test animals, diets high in trypsin inhibitors cause enlargement and pathological conditions of the pancreas, including cancer.14
Soybeans also contain haemagglutinin, a clot-promoting substance that causes red blood cells to clump together.
Trypsin inhibitors and haemagglutinin are growth inhibitors. Weanling rats fed soy containing these antinutrients fail to grow normally. Growth-depressant compounds are deactivated during the process of fermentation, so once the Chinese discovered how to ferment the soybean, they began to incorporate soy foods into their diets.
In precipitated products, enzyme inhibitors concentrate in the soaking liquid rather than in the curd. Thus, in tofu and bean curd, growth depressants are reduced in quantity but not completely eliminated.
Soy also contains goitrogens - substances that depress thyroid function.
Additionally 99% a very large percentage of soy is genetically modified and it also has one of the highest percentages contamination by pesticides of any of our foods.
Soybeans are high in phytic acid, present in the bran or hulls of all seeds. It's a substance that can block the uptake of essential minerals - calcium, magnesium, copper, iron and especially zinc - in the intestinal tract.
Although not a household word, phytic acid has been extensively studied; there are literally hundreds of articles on the effects of phytic acid in the current scientific literature. Scientists are in general agreement that grain- and legume-based diets high in phytates contribute to widespread mineral deficiencies in third world countries.15
Analysis shows that calcium, magnesium, iron and zinc are present in the plant foods eaten in these areas, but the high phytate content of soy- and grain-based diets prevents their absorption.
The soybean has one of the highest phytate levels of any grain or legume that has been studied,16 and the phytates in soy are highly resistant to normal phytate-reducing techniques such as long, slow cooking.17 Only a long period of fermentation will significantly reduce the phytate content of soybeans.
When precipitated soy products like tofu are consumed with meat, the mineral-blocking effects of the phytates are reduced.18 The Japanese traditionally eat a small amount of tofu or miso as part of a mineral-rich fish broth, followed by a serving of meat or fish.
Vegetarians who consume tofu and bean curd as a substitute for meat and dairy products risk severe mineral deficiencies. The results of calcium, magnesium and iron deficiency are well known; those of zinc are less so.
Zinc is called the intelligence mineral because it is needed for optimal development and functioning of the brain and nervous system. It plays a role in protein synthesis and collagen formation; it is involved in the blood-sugar control mechanism and thus protects against diabetes; it is needed for a healthy reproductive system.
Zinc is a key component in numerous vital enzymes and plays a role in the immune system. Phytates found in soy products interfere with zinc absorption more completely than with other minerals.19 Zinc deficiency can cause a "spacey" feeling that some vegetarians may mistake for the "high" of spiritual enlightenment.
Milk drinking is given as the reason why second-generation Japanese in America grow taller than their native ancestors. Some investigators postulate that the reduced phytate content of the American diet - whatever may be its other deficiencies - is the true explanation, pointing out that both Asian and Western children who do not get enough meat and fish products to counteract the effects of a high phytate diet, frequently suffer rickets, stunting and other growth problems.20
Soy Protein Isolate: Not So Friendly
Soy processors have worked hard to get these antinutrients out of the finished product, particularly soy protein isolate (SPI) which is the key ingredient in most soy foods that imitate meat and dairy products, including baby formulas and some brands of soy milk.
SPI is not something you can make in your own kitchen. Production takes place in industrial factories where a slurry of soy beans is first mixed with an alkaline solution to remove fiber, then precipitated and separated using an acid wash and, finally, neutralized in an alkaline solution.
Acid washing in aluminum tanks leaches high levels of aluminum into the final product. The resultant curds are spray- dried at high temperatures to produce a high-protein powder. A final indignity to the original soybean is high-temperature, high-pressure extrusion processing of soy protein isolate to produce textured vegetable protein (TVP).
Much of the trypsin inhibitor content can be removed through high-temperature processing, but not all. Trypsin inhibitor content of soy protein isolate can vary as much as fivefold.21 (In rats, even low-level trypsin inhibitor SPI feeding results in reduced weight gain compared to controls.22)
But high-temperature processing has the unfortunate side-effect of so denaturing the other proteins in soy that they are rendered largely ineffective.23 That's why animals on soy feed need lysine supplements for normal growth.
Nitrites, which are potent carcinogens, are formed during spray-drying, and a toxin called lysinoalanine is formed during alkaline processing.24 Numerous artificial flavorings, particularly MSG, are added to soy protein isolate and textured vegetable protein products to mask their strong "beany" taste and to impart the flavor of meat.25
In feeding experiments, the use of SPI increased requirements for vitamins E, K, D and B12 and created deficiency symptoms of calcium, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, copper, iron and zinc.26 Phytic acid remaining in these soy products greatly inhibits zinc and iron absorption; test animals fed SPI develop enlarged organs, particularly the pancreas and thyroid gland, and increased deposition of fatty acids in the liver.27
Yet soy protein isolate and textured vegetable protein are used extensively in school lunch programs, commercial baked goods, diet beverages and fast food products. They are heavily promoted in third world countries and form the basis of many food giveaway programs.
In spite of poor results in animal feeding trials, the soy industry has sponsored a number of studies designed to show that soy protein products can be used in human diets as a replacement for traditional foods.
An example is "Nutritional Quality of Soy Bean Protein Isolates: Studies in Children of Preschool Age", sponsored by the Ralston Purina Company.28 A group of Central American children suffering from malnutrition was first stabilized and brought into better health by feeding them native foods, including meat and dairy products. Then, for a two-week period, these traditional foods were replaced by a drink made of soy protein isolate and sugar.
All nitrogen taken in and all nitrogen excreted was measured in truly Orwellian fashion: the children were weighed naked every morning, and all excrement and vomit gathered up for analysis. The researchers found that the children retained nitrogen and that their growth was "adequate", so the experiment was declared a success.
Whether the children were actually healthy on such a diet, or could remain so over a long period, is another matter. The researchers noted that the children vomited "occasionally", usually after finishing a meal; that over half suffered from periods of moderate diarrhea; that some had upper respiratory infections; and that others suffered from rash and fever.
It should be noted that the researchers did not dare to use soy products to help the children recover from malnutrition, and were obliged to supplement the soy-sugar mixture with nutrients largely absent in soy products - notably, vitamins A, D and B12, iron, iodine and zinc.
Marketing The Perfect Food
"Just imagine you could grow the perfect food. This food not only would provide affordable nutrition, but also would be delicious and easy to prepare in a variety of ways. It would be a healthful food, with no saturated fat. In fact, you would be growing a virtual fountain of youth on your back forty."
The author is Dean Houghton, writing for The Furrow,2 a magazine published in 12 languages by John Deere. "This ideal food would help prevent, and perhaps reverse, some of the world's most dreaded diseases. You could grow this miracle crop in a variety of soils and climates. Its cultivation would build up, not deplete, the land...this miracle food already exists... It's called soy."
Just imagine. Farmers have been imagining - and planting more soy. What was once a minor crop, listed in the 1913 US Department of Agriculture (USDA) handbook not as a food but as an industrial product, now covers 72 million acres of American farmland. Much of this harvest will be used to feed chickens, turkeys, pigs, cows and salmon. Another large fraction will be squeezed to produce oil for margarine, shortenings and salad dressings.
Advances in technology make it possible to produce isolated soy protein from what was once considered a waste product - the defatted, high-protein soy chips - and then transform something that looks and smells terrible into products that can be consumed by human beings. Flavorings, preservatives, sweeteners, emulsifiers and synthetic nutrients have turned soy protein isolate, the food processors' ugly duckling, into a New Age Cinderella.
The new fairy-tale food has been marketed not so much for her beauty but for her virtues. Early on, products based on soy protein isolate were sold as extenders and meat substitutes - a strategy that failed to produce the requisite consumer demand. The industry changed its approach.
"The quickest way to gain product acceptability in the less affluent society," said an industry spokesman, "is to have the product consumed on its own merit in a more affluent society."3 So soy is now sold to the upscale consumer, not as a cheap, poverty food but as a miracle substance that will prevent heart disease and cancer, whisk away hot flushes, build strong bones and keep us forever young.
The competition - meat, milk, cheese, butter and eggs - has been duly demonised by the appropriate government bodies. Soy serves as meat and milk for a new generation of virtuous vegetarians.
Marketing Costs Money
This is especially when it needs to be bolstered with "research", but there's plenty of funds available. All soybean producers pay a mandatory assessment of one-half to one per cent of the net market price of soybeans. The total - something like US$80 million annually4 - supports United Soybean's program to "strengthen the position of soybeans in the marketplace and maintain and expand domestic and foreign markets for uses for soybeans and soybean products".
State soybean councils from Maryland, Nebraska, Delaware, Arkansas, Virginia, North Dakota and Michigan provide another $2.5 million for "research".5 Private companies like Archer Daniels Midland also contribute their share. ADM spent $4.7 million for advertising on Meet the Press and $4.3 million on Face the Nation during the course of a year.6
Public relations firms help convert research projects into newspaper articles and advertising copy, and law firms lobby for favorable government regulations. IMF money funds soy processing plants in foreign countries, and free trade policies keep soybean abundance flowing to overseas destinations.
The push for more soy has been relentless and global in its reach. Soy protein is now found in most supermarket breads. It is being used to transform "the humble tortilla, Mexico's corn-based staple food, into a protein-fortified 'super-tortilla' that would give a nutritional boost to the nearly 20 million Mexicans who live in extreme poverty".7 Advertising for a new soy-enriched loaf from Allied Bakeries in Britain targets menopausal women seeking relief from hot flushes. Sales are running at a quarter of a million loaves per week.8
The soy industry hired Norman Robert Associates, a public relations firm, to "get more soy products onto school menus".9 The USDA responded with a proposal to scrap the 30 per cent limit for soy in school lunches. The NuMenu program would allow unlimited use of soy in student meals. With soy added to hamburgers, tacos and lasagna, dieticians can get the total fat content below 30 per cent of calories, thereby conforming to government dictates. "With the soy-enhanced food items, students are receiving better servings of nutrients and less cholesterol and fat."
Soy milk has posted the biggest gains, soaring from $2 million in 1980 to $300 million in the US last year.10 Recent advances in processing have transformed the gray, thin, bitter, beany-tasting Asian beverage into a product that Western consumers will accept - one that tastes like a milkshake, but without the guilt.
Processing miracles, good packaging, massive advertising and a marketing strategy that stresses the products' possible health benefits account for increasing sales to all age groups. For example, reports that soy helps prevent prostate cancer have made soy milk acceptable to middle-aged men. "You don't have to twist the arm of a 55- to 60-year-old guy to get him to try soy milk," says Mark Messina. Michael Milken, former junk bond financier, has helped the industry shed its hippie image with well-publicized efforts to consume 40 grams of soy protein daily.
America today, tomorrow the world. Soy milk sales are rising in Canada, even though soy milk there costs twice as much as cow's milk. Soybean milk processing plants are sprouting up in places like Kenya.11 Even China, where soy really is a poverty food and whose people want more meat, not tofu, has opted to build Western-style soy factories rather than develop western grasslands for grazing animals.12
FDA Health Claim Challenged
On October 25, 1999 the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decided to allow a health claim for products "low in saturated fat and cholesterol" that contain 6.25 grams of soy protein per serving. Breakfast cereals, baked goods, convenience food, smoothie mixes and meat substitutes could now be sold with labels touting benefits to cardiovascular health, as long as these products contained one heaping teaspoon of soy protein per 100-gram serving.
The best marketing strategy for a product that is inherently unhealthy is, of course, a health claim.
"The road to FDA approval," writes a soy apologist, "was long and demanding, consisting of a detailed review of human clinical data collected from more than 40 scientific studies conducted over the last 20 years. Soy protein was found to be one of the rare foods that had sufficient scientific evidence not only to qualify for an FDA health claim proposal but to ultimately pass the rigorous approval process."29
The "long and demanding" road to FDA approval actually took a few unexpected turns. The original petition, submitted by Protein Technology International, requested a health claim for isoflavones, the estrogen-like compounds found plentifully in soybeans, based on assertions that "only soy protein that has been processed in a manner in which isoflavones are retained will result in cholesterol lowering".
In 1998, the FDA made the unprecedented move of rewriting PTI's petition, removing any reference to the phyto-estrogens and substituting a claim for soy protein - a move that was in direct contradiction to the agency's regulations. The FDA is authorized to make rulings only on substances presented by petition.
The abrupt change in direction was no doubt due to the fact that a number of researchers, including scientists employed by the US Government, submitted documents indicating that isoflavones are toxic.
The FDA had also received, early in 1998, the final British Government report on phytoestrogens, which failed to find much evidence of benefit and warned against potential adverse effects.30
Even with the change to soy protein isolate, FDA bureaucrats engaged in the "rigorous approval process" were forced to deal nimbly with concerns about mineral blocking effects, enzyme inhibitors, goitrogenicity, endocrine disruption, reproductive problems and increased allergic reactions from consumption of soy products.31
One of the strongest letters of protest came from Dr Dan Sheehan and Dr Daniel Doerge, government researchers at the National Center for Toxicological Research.32 Their pleas for warning labels were dismissed as unwarranted.
"Sufficient scientific evidence" of soy's cholesterol-lowering properties is drawn largely from a 1995 meta-analysis by Dr James Anderson, sponsored by Protein Technologies International and published in the New England Journal of Medicine.33
A meta-analysis is a review and summary of the results of many clinical studies on the same subject. Use of meta-analyses to draw general conclusions has come under sharp criticism by members of the scientific community.
"Researchers substituting meta-analysis for more rigorous trials risk making faulty assumptions and indulging in creative accounting," says Sir John Scott, President of the Royal Society of New Zealand. "Like is not being lumped with like. Little lumps and big lumps of data are being gathered together by various groups."34
There is the added temptation for researchers, particularly researchers funded by a company like Protein Technologies International, to leave out studies that would prevent the desired conclusions. Dr Anderson discarded eight studies for various reasons, leaving a remainder of twenty-nine.
The published report suggested that individuals with cholesterol levels over 250 mg/dl would experience a "significant" reduction of 7 to 20 per cent in levels of serum cholesterol if they substituted soy protein for animal protein. Cholesterol reduction was insignificant for individuals whose cholesterol was lower than 250 mg/dl.
In other words, for most of us, giving up steak and eating vegieburgers instead will not bring down blood cholesterol levels. The health claim that the FDA approved "after detailed review of human clinical data" fails to inform the consumer about these important details.
Research that ties soy to positive effects on cholesterol levels is "incredibly immature", said Ronald M. Krauss, MD, head of the Molecular Medical Research Program and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.35 He might have added that studies in which cholesterol levels were lowered through either diet or drugs have consistently resulted in a greater number of deaths in the treatment groups than in controls - deaths from stroke, cancer, intestinal disorders, accident and suicide.36
Cholesterol-lowering measures in the US have fuelled a $60 billion per year cholesterol-lowering industry, but have not saved us from the ravages of heart disease.
PAGE 2
Soy And Cancer
The new FDA ruling does not allow any claims about cancer prevention on food packages, but that has not restrained the industry and its marketers from making them in their promotional literature.
"In addition to protecting the heart," says a vitamin company brochure, "soy has demonstrated powerful anticancer benefits...the Japanese, who eat 30 times as much soy as North Americans, have a lower incidence of cancers of the breast, uterus and prostate."37
Indeed they do. But the Japanese, and Asians in general, have much higher rates of other types of cancer, particularly cancer of the esophagus, stomach, pancreas and liver.38 Asians throughout the world also have high rates of thyroid cancer.39 The logic that links low rates of reproductive cancers to soy consumption requires attribution of high rates of thyroid and digestive cancers to the same foods, particularly as soy causes these types of cancers in laboratory rats.
Just how much soy do Asians eat? A 1998 survey found that the average daily amount of soy protein consumed in Japan was about eight grams for men and seven for women - less than two teaspoons.40 The famous Cornell China Study, conducted by Colin T. Campbell, found that legume consumption in China varied from 0 to 58 grams per day, with a mean of about twelve.41
Assuming that two-thirds of legume consumption is soy, then the maximum consumption is about 40 grams, or less than three tablespoons per day, with an average consumption of about nine grams, or less than two teaspoons. A survey conducted in the 1930s found that soy foods accounted for only 1.5 per cent of calories in the Chinese diet, compared with 65 per cent of calories from pork.42 (Asians traditionally cooked with lard, not vegetable oil!)
Traditionally fermented soy products make a delicious, natural seasoning that may supply important nutritional factors in the Asian diet. But except in times of famine, Asians consume soy products only in small amounts, as condiments, and not as a replacement for animal foods - with one exception. Celibate monks living in monasteries and leading a vegetarian lifestyle find soy foods quite helpful because they dampen libido.
It was a 1994 meta-analysis by Mark Messina, published in Nutrition and Cancer, that fuelled speculation on soy's anticarcinogenic properties.43 Messina noted that in 26 animal studies, 65 per cent reported protective effects from soy. He conveniently neglected to include at least one study in which soy feeding caused pancreatic cancer - the 1985 study by Rackis.44 In the human studies he listed, the results were mixed.
A few showed some protective effect, but most showed no correlation at all between soy consumption and cancer rates. He concluded that "the data in this review cannot be used as a basis for claiming that soy intake decreases cancer risk". Yet in his subsequent book, The Simple Soybean and Your Health, Messina makes just such a claim, recommending one cup or 230 grams of soy products per day in his "optimal" diet as a way to prevent cancer.
Thousands of women are now consuming soy in the belief that it protects them against breast cancer. Yet, in 1996, researchers found that women consuming soy protein isolate had an increased incidence of epithelial hyperplasia, a condition that presages malignancies.45 A year later, dietary genistein was found to stimulate breast cells to enter the cell cycle - a discovery that led the study authors to conclude that women should not consume soy products to prevent breast cancer.46
Phytoestrogens: Panacea Or Poison?
The male species of tropical birds carries the drab plumage of the female at birth and 'colors up' at maturity, somewhere between nine and 24 months.
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.
Startled, aghast, angry, the Jameses hired toxicologist Mike Fitzpatrick. PhD, to investigate further. Dr Fitzpatrick's literature review uncovered evidence that soy consumption has been linked to numerous disorders, including infertility, increased cancer and infantile leukemia; and, in studies dating back to the 1950s,48 that genistein in soy causes endocrine disruption in animals.
Dr Fitzpatrick also analyzed the bird feed and found that it contained high levels of phytoestrogens, especially genistein. When the Jameses discontinued using soy-based feed, the flock gradually returned to normal breeding habits and behavior.
The Jameses embarked on a private crusade to warn the public and government officials about toxins in soy foods, particularly the endocrine-disrupting isoflavones, genistein and diadzen. Protein Technology International received their material in 1994.
In 1991, Japanese researchers reported that consumption of as little as 30 grams or two tablespoons of soybeans per day for only one month resulted in a significant increase in thyroid-stimulating hormone.49 Diffuse goiter and hypothyroidism appeared in some of the subjects and many complained of constipation, fatigue and lethargy, even though their intake of iodine was adequate.
In 1997, researchers from the FDA's National Center for Toxicological Research made the embarrassing discovery that the goitrogenic components of soy were the very same isoflavones.50
Twenty-five grams of soy protein isolate, the minimum amount PTI claimed to have cholesterol-lowering effects, contains from 50 to 70 mg of isoflavones. It took only 45 mg of isoflavones in premenopausal women to exert significant biological effects, including a reduction in hormones needed for adequate thyroid function. These effects lingered for three months after soy consumption was discontinued.51
One hundred grams of soy protein - the maximum suggested cholesterol-lowering dose, and the amount recommended by Protein Technologies International - can contain almost 600 mg of isoflavones,52 an amount that is undeniably toxic. In 1992, the Swiss health service estimated that 100 grams of soy protein provided the estrogenic equivalent of the Pill.53
In vitro studies suggest that isoflavones inhibit synthesis of estradiol and other steroid hormones.54 Reproductive problems, infertility, thyroid disease and liver disease due to dietary intake of isoflavones have been observed for several species of animals including mice, cheetah, quail, pigs, rats, sturgeon and sheep.55
It is the isoflavones in soy that are said to have a favorable effect on postmenopausal symptoms, including hot flushes, and protection from osteoporosis. Quantification of discomfort from hot flushes is extremely subjective, and most studies show that control subjects report reduction in discomfort in amounts equal to subjects given soy.56 The claim that soy prevents osteoporosis is extraordinary, given that soy foods block calcium and cause vitamin D deficiencies.
If Asians indeed have lower rates of osteoporosis than Westerners, it is because their diet provides plenty of vitamin D from shrimp, lard and seafood, and plenty of calcium from bone broths. The reason that Westerners have such high rates of osteoporosis is because they have substituted soy oil for butter, which is a traditional source of vitamin D and other fat-soluble activators needed for calcium absorption.
Birth Control Pills For Babies
But it was the isoflavones in infant formula that gave the Jameses the most cause for concern. In 1998, investigators reported that the daily exposure of infants to isoflavones in soy infant formula is 6 to11 times higher on a body-weight basis than the dose that has hormonal effects in adults consuming soy foods. Circulating concentrations of isoflavones in infants fed soy-based formula were 13,000 to 22,000 times higher than plasma estradiol concentrations in infants on cow's milk formula.57
Approximately 25 per cent of bottle-fed children in the US receive soy-based formula - a much higher percentage than in other parts of the Western world. Fitzpatrick estimated that an infant exclusively fed soy formula receives the estrogenic equivalent (based on body weight) of at least five birth control pills per day.58 By contrast, almost no phytoestrogens have been detected in dairy-based infant formula or in human milk, even when the mother consumes soy products.
Scientists have known for years that soy-based formula can cause thyroid problems in babies. But what are the effects of soy products on the hormonal development of the infant, both male and female?
Male infants undergo a "testosterone surge" during the first few months of life, when testosterone levels may be as high as those of an adult male. During this period, the infant is programmed to express male characteristics after puberty, not only in the development of his sexual organs and other masculine physical traits, but also in setting patterns in the brain characteristic of male behavior.
In monkeys, deficiency of male hormones impairs the development of spatial perception (which, in humans, is normally more acute in men than in women), of learning ability and of visual discrimination tasks (such as would be required for reading).59 It goes without saying that future patterns of sexual orientation may also be influenced by the early hormonal environment.
Male children exposed during gestation to diethylstilbestrol (DES), a synthetic estrogen that has effects on animals similar to those of phytoestrogens from soy, had testes smaller than normal on manturation.60
Learning disabilities, especially in male children, have reached epidemic proportions. Soy infant feeding - which began in earnest in the early 1970s - cannot be ignored as a probable cause for these tragic developments.
As for girls, an alarming number are entering puberty much earlier than normal, according to a recent study reported in the journal Pediatrics.61 Investigators found that one per cent of all girls now show signs of puberty, such as breast development or pubic hair, before the age of three; by age eight, 14.7 per cent of white girls and almost 50 per cent of African-American girls have one or both of these characteristics.
New data indicate that environmental estrogens such as PCBs and DDE (a breakdown product of DDT) may cause early sexual development in girls.62 In the 1986 Puerto Rico Premature Thelarche study, the most significant dietary association with premature sexual development was not chicken - as reported in the press - but soy infant formula.63
The consequences of this truncated childhood are tragic. Young girls with mature bodies must cope with feelings and urges that most children are not well-equipped to handle. And early maturation in girls is frequently a harbinger for problems with the reproductive system later in life, including failure to menstruate, infertility and breast cancer.
Parents who have contacted the Jameses recount other problems associated with children of both sexes who were fed soy-based formula, including extreme emotional behavior, asthma, immune system problems, pituitary insufficiency, thyroid disorders and irritable bowel syndrome - the same endocrine and digestive havoc that afflicted the Jameses' parrots.
Dissension In The Ranks
Organizers of the Third International Soy Symposium would be hard-pressed to call the conference an unqualified success. On the second day of the symposium, the London-based Food Commission and the Weston A. Price Foundation of Washington, DC, held a joint press conference, in the same hotel as the symposium, to present concerns about soy infant formula.
Industry representatives sat stony-faced through the recitation of potential dangers and a plea from concerned scientists and parents to pull soy-based infant formula from the market. Under pressure from the Jameses, the New Zealand Government had issued a health warning about soy infant formula in 1998; it was time for the American government to do the same.
On the last day of the symposium, presentations on new findings related to toxicity sent a well-oxygenated chill through the giddy helium hype. Dr Lon White reported on a study of Japanese Americans living in Hawaii, that showed a significant statistical relationship between two or more servings of tofu a week and "accelerated brain aging".64
Those participants who consumed tofu in mid-life had lower cognitive function in late life and a greater incidence of Alzheimer's disease and dementia. "What's more," said Dr White, "those who ate a lot of tofu, by the time they were 75 or 80 looked five years older".65 White and his colleagues blamed the negative effects on isoflavones - a finding that supports an earlier study in which postmenopausal women with higher levels of circulating estrogen experienced greater cognitive decline.66
Scientists Daniel Sheehan and Daniel Doerge, from the National Center for Toxicological Research, ruined PTI's day by presenting findings from rat feeding studies, indicating that genistein in soy foods causes irreversible damage to enzymes that synthesise thyroid hormones.67
"The association between soybean consumption and goiter in animals and humans has a long history," wrote Dr Doerge. "Current evidence for the beneficial effects of soy requires a full understanding of potential adverse effects as well."
Dr Claude Hughes reported that rats born to mothers that were fed genistein had decreased birth weights compared to controls, and onset of puberty occurred earlier in male offspring.68 His research suggested that the effects observed in rats "...will be at least somewhat predictive of what occurs in humans.
There is no reason to assume that there will be gross malformations of fetuses but there may be subtle changes, such as neurobehavioral attributes, immune function and sex hormone levels." The results, he said, "could be nothing or could be something of great concern...if mom is eating something that can act like sex hormones, it is logical to wonder if that could change the baby's development".69
A study of babies born to vegetarian mothers, published in January 2000, indicated just what those changes in baby's development might be. Mothers who ate a vegetarian diet during pregnancy had a fivefold greater risk of delivering a boy with hypospadias, a birth defect of the penis.70 The authors of the study suggested that the cause was greater exposure to phytoestrogens in soy foods popular with vegetarians.
Problems with female offspring of vegetarian mothers are more likely to show up later in life. While soy's estrogenic effect is less than that of diethylstilbestrol (DES), the dose is likely to be higher because it's consumed as a food, not taken as a drug. Daughters of women who took DES during pregnancy suffered from infertility and cancer when they reached their twenties.
PAGE 3
Newest Research On Why You Should Avoid Soy
Page 3 of 3 (Page 1, Page 2)
Question Marks Over GRAS Status
Lurking in the background of industry hype for soy is the nagging question of whether it's even legal to add soy protein isolate to food. All food additives not in common use prior to 1958, including casein protein from milk, must have GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) status. In 1972, the Nixon administration directed a re-examination of substances believed to be GRAS, in the light of any scientific information then available.
This re-examination included casein protein that became codified as GRAS in 1978. In 1974, the FDA obtained a literature review of soy protein because, as soy protein had not been used in food until 1959 and was not even in common use in the early 1970s, it was not eligible to have its GRAS status grandfathered under the provisions of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.71
The scientific literature up to 1974 recognized many antinutrients in factory-made soy protein, including trypsin inhibitors, phytic acid and genistein. But the FDA literature review dismissed discussion of adverse impacts, with the statement that it was important for "adequate processing" to remove them.
Genistein could be removed with an alcohol wash, but it was an expensive procedure that processors avoided. Later studies determined that trypsin inhibitor content could be removed only with long periods of heat and pressure, but the FDA has imposed no requirements for manufacturers to do so.
The FDA was more concerned with toxins formed during processing, specifically nitrites and lysinoalanine.72 Even at low levels of consumption - averaging one-third of a gram per day at the time - the presence of these carcinogens was considered too great a threat to public health to allow GRAS status.
Soy protein did have approval for use as a binder in cardboard boxes, and this approval was allowed to continue, as researchers considered that migration of nitrites from the box into the food contents would be too small to constitute a cancer risk. FDA officials called for safety specifications and monitoring procedures before granting of GRAS status for food.
These were never performed. To this day, use of soy protein is codified as GRAS only for this limited industrial use as a cardboard binder. This means that soy protein must be subject to premarket approval procedures each time manufacturers intend to use it as a food or add it to a food.
Soy protein was introduced into infant formula in the early 1960s. It was a new product with no history of any use at all. As soy protein did not have GRAS status, premarket approval was required. This was not and still has not been granted. The key ingredient of soy infant formula is not recognized as safe.
The Next Asbestos?
"Against the backdrop of widespread praise...there is growing suspicion that soy - despite its undisputed benefits - may pose some health hazards," writes Marian Burros, a leading food writer for the New York Times. More than any other writer, Ms Burros's endorsement of a low-fat, largely vegetarian diet has herded Americans into supermarket aisles featuring soy foods.
Yet her January 26, 2000 article, "Doubts Cloud Rosy News on Soy", contains the following alarming statement: "Not one of the 18 scientists interviewed for this column was willing to say that taking isoflavones was risk free." Ms Burros did not enumerate the risks, nor did she mention that the recommended 25 daily grams of soy protein contain enough isoflavones to cause problems in sensitive individuals, but it was evident that the industry had recognized the need to cover itself.
Because the industry is extremely exposed...contingency lawyers will soon discover that the number of potential plaintiffs can be counted in the millions and the pockets are very, very deep. Juries will hear something like the following: "The industry has known for years that soy contains many toxins.
At first they told the public that the toxins were removed by processing. When it became apparent that processing could not get rid of them, they claimed that these substances were beneficial. Your government granted a health claim to a substance that is poisonous, and the industry lied to the public to sell more soy."
The "industry" includes merchants, manufacturers, scientists, publicists, bureaucrats, former bond financiers, food writers, vitamin companies and retail stores. Farmers will probably escape because they were duped like the rest of us. But they need to find something else to grow before the soy bubble bursts and the market collapses: grass-fed livestock, designer vegetables...or hemp to make paper for thousands and thousands of legal briefs.
Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 7, Number 3 (April-May 2000)
________________________________________
About the Authors:
Sally Fallon is the author of Nourishing Traditions: The Cookbook that Challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats (1999, 2nd edition, New Trends Publishing, tel +1 877 707 1776 or +1 219 268 2601) and President of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Washington, DC (www.WestonAPrice.org)
Mary G. Enig, Ph.D., a nutritionist widely known for her research on the nutritional aspects of fats and oils, is a consultant, clinician, and the Director of the Nutritional Sciences Division of Enig Associates, Inc., Silver Spring, Maryland.
She received her PhD in Nutritional Sciences from the University of Maryland, College Park in 1984, taught a graduate course in nutrient-drug interactions for the University's Graduate Program in Nutritional Sciences, and held a Faculty Research Associateship from 1984 through 1991 with the Lipids Research Group in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry.
Dr. Enig is a Fellow of the American College of Nutrition, and a member of the American Institute of Nutrition. Her many years of experience as a "bench chemist" in the analysis of food fats and oils, provides a foundation for her active roles in food labeling and composition issues at the federal and state levels.
Dr. Enig is a Consulting Editor to the "Journal of the American College of Nutrition" and formerly served as a Contributing Editor to "Clinical Nutrition." She has published 14 scientific papers on the subject of food fats and oils, several chapters on nutrition for books, and presented over 35 scientific papers on food and nutrition topics.
She is the President of the Maryland Nutritionists Association, past President of the Coalition of Nutritionists of Maryland and was appointed by the Governor in 1986 to the Maryland State Advisory Council on Nutrition and served as the Chairman of the Health Subcommittee until the Council was disbanded in 1988.
________________________________________
COMMENT:
Sally Fallon and Dr. Enig are to be highly commended for this much needed soy update. Together they have compiled the most definitive document to date on why one should avoid soy. This is a MAJOR work and I am hoping to promote it for the national media attention that it deserves.
Another article on How Much Soy Asians Actually Eat
ENDNOTES:
1. Program for the Third International Symposium on the Role of Soy in Preventing and Treating Chronic Disease, Sunday, October 31, through Wednesday, November 3, 1999, Omni Shoreham Hotel, Washington, DC.
2. Houghton, Dean, "Healthful Harvest", The Furrow, January 2000, pp. 10-13.
3. Coleman, Richard J., "Vegetable Protein - A Delayed Birth?" Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society 52:238A, April 1975.
4. See www/unitedsoybean.org.
5. These are listed in www.soyonlineservice.co.nz.
6. Wall Street Journal, October 27, 1995.
7. Smith, James F., "Healthier tortillas could lead to healthier Mexico", Denver Post, August 22, 1999, p. 26A.
8. "Bakery says new loaf can help reduce hot flushes", Reuters, September 15, 1997.
9. "Beefing Up Burgers with Soy Products at School", Nutrition Week, Community Nutrition Institute, Washington, DC, June 5, 1998, p. 2.
10. Urquhart, John, "A Health Food Hits Big Time", Wall Street Journal, August 3, 1999, p. B1
11. "Soyabean Milk Plant in Kenya", Africa News Service, September 1998.
12. Simoons, Frederick J., Food in China: A Cultural and Historical Inquiry, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1991, p. 64.
13. Katz, Solomon H., "Food and Biocultural Evolution: A Model for the Investigation of Modern Nutritional Problems", Nutritional Anthropology, Alan R. Liss Inc., 1987, p. 50.
14. Rackis, Joseph J. et al., "The USDA trypsin inhibitor study. I. Background, objectives and procedural details", Qualification of Plant Foods in Human Nutrition, vol. 35, 1985.
15. Van Rensburg et al., "Nutritional status of African populations predisposed to esophageal cancer", Nutrition and Cancer, vol. 4, 1983, pp. 206-216; Moser, P.B. et al., "Copper, iron, zinc and selenium dietary intake and status of Nepalese lactating women and their breastfed infants", American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 47:729-734, April 1988; Harland, B.F. et al., "Nutritional status and phytate: zinc and phytate X calcium: zinc dietary molar ratios of lacto-ovovegetarian Trappist monks: 10 years later", Journal of the American Dietetic Association 88:1562-1566, December 1988.
16. El Tiney, A.H., "Proximate Composition and Mineral and Phytate Contents of Legumes Grown in Sudan", Journal of Food Composition and Analysis (1989) 2:6778.
17. Ologhobo, A.D. et al., "Distribution of phosphorus and phytate in some Nigerian varieties of legumes and some effects of processing", Journal of Food Science 49(1):199-201, January/February 1984.
18. Sandstrom, B. et al., "Effect of protein level and protein source on zinc absorption in humans", Journal of Nutrition 119(1):48-53, January 1989; Tait, Susan et al., "The availability of minerals in food, with particular reference to iron", Journal of Research in Society and Health 103(2):74-77, April 1983.
19. Phytate reduction of zinc absorption has been demonstrated in numerous studies. These results are summarised in Leviton, Richard, Tofu, Tempeh, Miso and Other Soyfoods: The 'Food of the Future' - How to Enjoy Its Spectacular Health Benefits, Keats Publishing, Inc., New Canaan, CT, USA, 1982, p. 1415.
20. Mellanby, Edward, "Experimental rickets: The effect of cereals and their interaction with other factors of diet and environment in producing rickets", Journal of the Medical Research Council 93:265, March 1925; Wills, M.R. et al., "Phytic Acid and Nutritional Rickets in Immigrants", The Lancet, April 8,1972, pp. 771-773.
21. Rackis et al., ibid.
22. Rackis et al., ibid., p. 232.
23. Wallace, G.M., "Studies on the Processing and Properties of Soymilk", Journal of Science and Food Agriculture 22:526-535, October 1971.
24. Rackis, et al., ibid., p. 22; "Evaluation of the Health Aspects of Soy Protein Isolates as Food Ingredients", prepared for FDA by Life Sciences Research Office, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (9650 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20014), USA, Contract No. FDA 223-75-2004, 1979.
25. See www/truthinlabeling.org.
26. Rackis, Joseph, J., "Biological and Physiological Factors in Soybeans", Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society 51:161A-170A, January 1974.
27. Rackis, Joseph J. et al., "The USDA trypsin inhibitor study", ibid.
28. Torum, Benjamin, "Nutritional Quality of Soybean Protein Isolates: Studies in Children of Preschool Age", in Soy Protein and Human Nutrition, Harold L Wilcke et al. (eds), Academic Press, New York, 1979.
29. Zreik, Marwin, CCN, "The Great Soy Protein Awakening", Total Health 32(1), February 2000.
30. IEH Assessment on Phytoestrogens in the Human Diet, Final Report to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, UK, November 1997, p. 11.
31. Food Labeling: Health Claims: Soy Protein and Coronary Heart Disease, Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR, Part 101 (Docket No. 98P-0683).
32. Sheegan, Daniel M. and Daniel R Doerge, Letter to Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), February 18, 1999.
33. Anderson, James W. et al., "Meta-analysis of the Effects of Soy Protein Intake on Serum Lipids", New England Journal of Medicine (1995) 333:(5):276-282.
34. Guy, Camille, "Doctors warned against magic, quackery", New Zealand Herald, September 9, 1995, section 8, p. 5.
35. Sander, Kate and Hilary Wilson, "FDA approves new health claim for soy, but litte fallout expected for dairy", Cheese Market News, October 22, 1999, p. 24.
36. Enig, Mary G. and Sally Fallon, "The Oiling of America", NEXUS Magazine, December 1998-January 1999 and February-March 1999; also available at www.WestonAPrice.org.
37. Natural Medicine News (L & H Vitamins, 32-33 47th Avenue, Long Island City, NY 11101), USA, January/February 2000, p. 8.
38. Harras, Angela (ed.), Cancer Rates and Risks, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, 1996, 4th edition.
39. Searle, Charles E. (ed.), Chemical Carcinogens, ACS Monograph 173, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 1976.
40. Nagata, C. et al., Journal of Nutrition (1998) 128:209-213.
41. Campbell, Colin T. et al., The Cornell Project in China.
42. Chang, K.C. (ed.), Food in Chinese Culture: Anthropological and Historical Perspectives, New Haven, 1977.
43. Messina, Mark J. et al., "Soy Intake and Cancer Risk: A Review of the In Vitro and In Vivo Data", Nutrition and Cancer (1994) 21(2):113-131.
44. Rackis et al, "The USDA trypsin inhibitor study", ibid.
45. Petrakis, N.L. et al., "Stimulatory influence of soy protein isolate on breast secretion in pre- and post-menopausal women", Cancer Epid. Bio. Prev. (1996) 5:785-794.
46. Dees, C. et al., "Dietary estrogens stimulate human breast cells to enter the cell cycle", Environmental Health Perspectives (1997) 105(Suppl. 3):633-636.
47. Woodhams, D.J., "Phytoestrogens and parrots: The anatomy of an investigation", Proceedings of the Nutrition Society of New Zealand (1995) 20:22-30.
48. Matrone, G. et al., "Effect of Genistin on Growth and Development of the Male Mouse", Journal of Nutrition (1956) 235-240.
49. Ishizuki, Y. et al., "The effects on the thyroid gland of soybeans administered experimentally in healthy subjects", Nippon Naibunpi Gakkai Zasshi (1991) 767:622-629.
50. Divi, R.L. et al., "Anti-thyroid isoflavones from the soybean", Biochemical Pharmacology (1997) 54:1087-1096.
51. Cassidy, A. et al., "Biological Effects of a Diet of Soy Protein Rich in Isoflavones on the Menstrual Cycle of Premenopausal Women", American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1994) 60:333-340.
52. Murphy, P.A., "Phytoestrogen Content of Processed Soybean Foods", Food Technology, January 1982, pp. 60-64.
53. Bulletin de L'Office Fédéral de la Santé Publique, no. 28, July 20, 1992.
54. Keung, W.M., "Dietary oestrogenic isoflavones are potent inhibitors of B-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase of P. testosteronii", Biochemical and Biophysical Research Committee (1995) 215:1137-1144; Makela, S.I. et al., "Estrogen-specific 12 B-hydroxysteroid oxidoreductase type 1 (E.C. 1.1.1.62) as a possible target for the action of phytoestrogens", PSEBM (1995) 208:51-59.
55. Setchell, K.D.R. et al., "Dietary oestrogens - a probable cause of infertility and liver disease in captive cheetahs", Gastroenterology (1987) 93:225-233; Leopald, A.S., "Phytoestrogens: Adverse effects on reproduction in California Quail," Science (1976) 191:98-100; Drane, H.M. et al., "Oestrogenic activity of soya-bean products", Food, Cosmetics and Technology (1980) 18:425-427; Kimura, S. et al., "Development of malignant goiter by defatted soybean with iodine-free diet in rats", Gann. (1976) 67:763-765; Pelissero, C. et al., "Oestrogenic effect of dietary soybean meal on vitellogenesis in cultured Siberian Sturgeon Acipenser baeri", Gen. Comp. End. (1991) 83:447-457; Braden et al., "The oestrogenic activity and metabolism of certain isoflavones in sheep", Australian J. Agricultural Research (1967) 18:335-348.
56. Ginsburg, Jean and Giordana M. Prelevic, "Is there a proven place for phytoestrogens in the menopause?", Climacteric (1999) 2:75-78.
57. Setchell, K.D. et al., "Isoflavone content of infant formulas and the metabolic fate of these early phytoestrogens in early life", American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, December 1998 Supplement, 1453S-1461S.
58. Irvine, C. et al., "The Potential Adverse Effects of Soybean Phytoestrogens in Infant Feeding", New Zealand Medical Journal May 24, 1995, p. 318.
59. Hagger, C. and J. Bachevalier, "Visual habit formation in 3-month-old monkeys (Macaca mulatta): reversal of sex difference following neonatal manipulations of androgen", Behavior and Brain Research (1991) 45:57-63.
60. Ross, R.K. et al., "Effect of in-utero exposure to diethylstilbestrol on age at onset of puberty and on post-pubertal hormone levels in boys", Canadian Medical Association Journal 128(10):1197-8, May 15, 1983.
61. Herman-Giddens, Marcia E. et al., "Secondary Sexual Characteristics and Menses in Young Girls Seen in Office Practice: A Study from the Pediatric Research in Office Settings Network", Pediatrics 99(4):505-512, April 1997.
62. Rachel's Environment & Health Weekly 263, "The Wingspread Statement", Part 1, December 11, 1991; Colborn, Theo, Dianne Dumanoski and John Peterson Myers, Our Stolen Future, Little, Brown & Company, London, 1996.
63. Freni-Titulaer, L.W., "Premature Thelarch in Puerto Rico: A search for environmental factors", American Journal of Diseases of Children 140(12):1263-1267, December 1986.
64. White, Lon, "Association of High Midlife Tofu Consumption with Accelerated Brain Aging", Plenary Session #8: Cognitive Function, The Third International Soy Symposium, November 1999, Program, p. 26.
65. Altonn, Helen, "Too much tofu induces 'brain aging', study shows", Honolulu Star-Bulletin, November 19, 1999.
66. Journal of the American Geriatric Society (1998) 46:816-21.
67. Doerge, Daniel R., "Inactivation of Thyroid Peroxidase by Genistein and Daidzein in Vitro and in Vivo; Mechanism for Anti-Thyroid Activity of Soy", presented at the November 1999 Soy Symposium in Washington, DC, National Center for Toxicological Research, Jefferson, AR 72029, USA.
68. Hughes, Claude, Center for Women's Health and Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA.
69. Soy Intake May Affect Fetus", Reuters News Service, November 5, 1999.
70. "Vegetarian diet in pregnancy linked to birth defect", BJU International 85:107-113, January 2000.
71. FDA ref 72/104, Report FDABF GRAS - 258.
72. "Evaluation of the Health Aspects of Soy Protein Isolates as Food Ingredients", prepared for FDA by Life Sciences Research Office, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) (9650 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20014, USA), Contract No, FDA 223-75-2004, 1979.
Does this refer to Genetically Modified Soy grown using chemical fertilizers and pesticides in the USA, and not to the Organic Soy grown in China & Japan for centuries?
Has Genetic Engineering and chemistry (chemical fertilizers and pesticides) and chemical processing altered God’s angel Soy into a devil Soy?
Newest Research On Why You Should Avoid Soy
www.mercola.com
Page 1 of 3 (Page 2, Page 3)
by Sally Fallon & Mary G. Enig, Ph.D.
Cinderella's Dark Side
The propaganda that has created the soy sales miracle is all the more remarkable because, only a few decades ago, the soybean was considered unfit to eat - even in Asia. During the Chou Dynasty (1134-246 BC) the soybean was designated one of the five sacred grains, along with barley, wheat, millet and rice.
However, the pictograph for the soybean, which dates from earlier times, indicates that it was not first used as a food; for whereas the pictographs for the other four grains show the seed and stem structure of the plant, the pictograph for the soybean emphasizes the root structure. Agricultural literature of the period speaks frequently of the soybean and its use in crop rotation. Apparently the soy plant was initially used as a method of fixing nitrogen.13
The soybean did not serve as a food until the discovery of fermentation techniques, some time during the Chou Dynasty. The first soy foods were fermented products like tempeh, natto, miso and soy sauce.
At a later date, possibly in the 2nd century BC, Chinese scientists discovered that a purée of cooked soybeans could be precipitated with calcium sulfate or magnesium sulfate (plaster of Paris or Epsom salts) to make a smooth, pale curd - tofu or bean curd. The use of fermented and precipitated soy products soon spread to other parts of the Orient, notably Japan and Indonesia.
The Chinese did not eat unfermented soybeans as they did other legumes such as lentils because the soybean contains large quantities of natural toxins or "antinutrients". First among them are potent enzyme inhibitors that block the action of trypsin and other enzymes needed for protein digestion.
These inhibitors are large, tightly folded proteins that are not completely deactivated during ordinary cooking. They can produce serious gastric distress, reduced protein digestion and chronic deficiencies in amino acid uptake. In test animals, diets high in trypsin inhibitors cause enlargement and pathological conditions of the pancreas, including cancer.14
Soybeans also contain haemagglutinin, a clot-promoting substance that causes red blood cells to clump together.
Trypsin inhibitors and haemagglutinin are growth inhibitors. Weanling rats fed soy containing these antinutrients fail to grow normally. Growth-depressant compounds are deactivated during the process of fermentation, so once the Chinese discovered how to ferment the soybean, they began to incorporate soy foods into their diets.
In precipitated products, enzyme inhibitors concentrate in the soaking liquid rather than in the curd. Thus, in tofu and bean curd, growth depressants are reduced in quantity but not completely eliminated.
Soy also contains goitrogens - substances that depress thyroid function.
Additionally 99% a very large percentage of soy is genetically modified and it also has one of the highest percentages contamination by pesticides of any of our foods.
Soybeans are high in phytic acid, present in the bran or hulls of all seeds. It's a substance that can block the uptake of essential minerals - calcium, magnesium, copper, iron and especially zinc - in the intestinal tract.
Although not a household word, phytic acid has been extensively studied; there are literally hundreds of articles on the effects of phytic acid in the current scientific literature. Scientists are in general agreement that grain- and legume-based diets high in phytates contribute to widespread mineral deficiencies in third world countries.15
Analysis shows that calcium, magnesium, iron and zinc are present in the plant foods eaten in these areas, but the high phytate content of soy- and grain-based diets prevents their absorption.
The soybean has one of the highest phytate levels of any grain or legume that has been studied,16 and the phytates in soy are highly resistant to normal phytate-reducing techniques such as long, slow cooking.17 Only a long period of fermentation will significantly reduce the phytate content of soybeans.
When precipitated soy products like tofu are consumed with meat, the mineral-blocking effects of the phytates are reduced.18 The Japanese traditionally eat a small amount of tofu or miso as part of a mineral-rich fish broth, followed by a serving of meat or fish.
Vegetarians who consume tofu and bean curd as a substitute for meat and dairy products risk severe mineral deficiencies. The results of calcium, magnesium and iron deficiency are well known; those of zinc are less so.
Zinc is called the intelligence mineral because it is needed for optimal development and functioning of the brain and nervous system. It plays a role in protein synthesis and collagen formation; it is involved in the blood-sugar control mechanism and thus protects against diabetes; it is needed for a healthy reproductive system.
Zinc is a key component in numerous vital enzymes and plays a role in the immune system. Phytates found in soy products interfere with zinc absorption more completely than with other minerals.19 Zinc deficiency can cause a "spacey" feeling that some vegetarians may mistake for the "high" of spiritual enlightenment.
Milk drinking is given as the reason why second-generation Japanese in America grow taller than their native ancestors. Some investigators postulate that the reduced phytate content of the American diet - whatever may be its other deficiencies - is the true explanation, pointing out that both Asian and Western children who do not get enough meat and fish products to counteract the effects of a high phytate diet, frequently suffer rickets, stunting and other growth problems.20
Soy Protein Isolate: Not So Friendly
Soy processors have worked hard to get these antinutrients out of the finished product, particularly soy protein isolate (SPI) which is the key ingredient in most soy foods that imitate meat and dairy products, including baby formulas and some brands of soy milk.
SPI is not something you can make in your own kitchen. Production takes place in industrial factories where a slurry of soy beans is first mixed with an alkaline solution to remove fiber, then precipitated and separated using an acid wash and, finally, neutralized in an alkaline solution.
Acid washing in aluminum tanks leaches high levels of aluminum into the final product. The resultant curds are spray- dried at high temperatures to produce a high-protein powder. A final indignity to the original soybean is high-temperature, high-pressure extrusion processing of soy protein isolate to produce textured vegetable protein (TVP).
Much of the trypsin inhibitor content can be removed through high-temperature processing, but not all. Trypsin inhibitor content of soy protein isolate can vary as much as fivefold.21 (In rats, even low-level trypsin inhibitor SPI feeding results in reduced weight gain compared to controls.22)
But high-temperature processing has the unfortunate side-effect of so denaturing the other proteins in soy that they are rendered largely ineffective.23 That's why animals on soy feed need lysine supplements for normal growth.
Nitrites, which are potent carcinogens, are formed during spray-drying, and a toxin called lysinoalanine is formed during alkaline processing.24 Numerous artificial flavorings, particularly MSG, are added to soy protein isolate and textured vegetable protein products to mask their strong "beany" taste and to impart the flavor of meat.25
In feeding experiments, the use of SPI increased requirements for vitamins E, K, D and B12 and created deficiency symptoms of calcium, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, copper, iron and zinc.26 Phytic acid remaining in these soy products greatly inhibits zinc and iron absorption; test animals fed SPI develop enlarged organs, particularly the pancreas and thyroid gland, and increased deposition of fatty acids in the liver.27
Yet soy protein isolate and textured vegetable protein are used extensively in school lunch programs, commercial baked goods, diet beverages and fast food products. They are heavily promoted in third world countries and form the basis of many food giveaway programs.
In spite of poor results in animal feeding trials, the soy industry has sponsored a number of studies designed to show that soy protein products can be used in human diets as a replacement for traditional foods.
An example is "Nutritional Quality of Soy Bean Protein Isolates: Studies in Children of Preschool Age", sponsored by the Ralston Purina Company.28 A group of Central American children suffering from malnutrition was first stabilized and brought into better health by feeding them native foods, including meat and dairy products. Then, for a two-week period, these traditional foods were replaced by a drink made of soy protein isolate and sugar.
All nitrogen taken in and all nitrogen excreted was measured in truly Orwellian fashion: the children were weighed naked every morning, and all excrement and vomit gathered up for analysis. The researchers found that the children retained nitrogen and that their growth was "adequate", so the experiment was declared a success.
Whether the children were actually healthy on such a diet, or could remain so over a long period, is another matter. The researchers noted that the children vomited "occasionally", usually after finishing a meal; that over half suffered from periods of moderate diarrhea; that some had upper respiratory infections; and that others suffered from rash and fever.
It should be noted that the researchers did not dare to use soy products to help the children recover from malnutrition, and were obliged to supplement the soy-sugar mixture with nutrients largely absent in soy products - notably, vitamins A, D and B12, iron, iodine and zinc.
Marketing The Perfect Food
"Just imagine you could grow the perfect food. This food not only would provide affordable nutrition, but also would be delicious and easy to prepare in a variety of ways. It would be a healthful food, with no saturated fat. In fact, you would be growing a virtual fountain of youth on your back forty."
The author is Dean Houghton, writing for The Furrow,2 a magazine published in 12 languages by John Deere. "This ideal food would help prevent, and perhaps reverse, some of the world's most dreaded diseases. You could grow this miracle crop in a variety of soils and climates. Its cultivation would build up, not deplete, the land...this miracle food already exists... It's called soy."
Just imagine. Farmers have been imagining - and planting more soy. What was once a minor crop, listed in the 1913 US Department of Agriculture (USDA) handbook not as a food but as an industrial product, now covers 72 million acres of American farmland. Much of this harvest will be used to feed chickens, turkeys, pigs, cows and salmon. Another large fraction will be squeezed to produce oil for margarine, shortenings and salad dressings.
Advances in technology make it possible to produce isolated soy protein from what was once considered a waste product - the defatted, high-protein soy chips - and then transform something that looks and smells terrible into products that can be consumed by human beings. Flavorings, preservatives, sweeteners, emulsifiers and synthetic nutrients have turned soy protein isolate, the food processors' ugly duckling, into a New Age Cinderella.
The new fairy-tale food has been marketed not so much for her beauty but for her virtues. Early on, products based on soy protein isolate were sold as extenders and meat substitutes - a strategy that failed to produce the requisite consumer demand. The industry changed its approach.
"The quickest way to gain product acceptability in the less affluent society," said an industry spokesman, "is to have the product consumed on its own merit in a more affluent society."3 So soy is now sold to the upscale consumer, not as a cheap, poverty food but as a miracle substance that will prevent heart disease and cancer, whisk away hot flushes, build strong bones and keep us forever young.
The competition - meat, milk, cheese, butter and eggs - has been duly demonised by the appropriate government bodies. Soy serves as meat and milk for a new generation of virtuous vegetarians.
Marketing Costs Money
This is especially when it needs to be bolstered with "research", but there's plenty of funds available. All soybean producers pay a mandatory assessment of one-half to one per cent of the net market price of soybeans. The total - something like US$80 million annually4 - supports United Soybean's program to "strengthen the position of soybeans in the marketplace and maintain and expand domestic and foreign markets for uses for soybeans and soybean products".
State soybean councils from Maryland, Nebraska, Delaware, Arkansas, Virginia, North Dakota and Michigan provide another $2.5 million for "research".5 Private companies like Archer Daniels Midland also contribute their share. ADM spent $4.7 million for advertising on Meet the Press and $4.3 million on Face the Nation during the course of a year.6
Public relations firms help convert research projects into newspaper articles and advertising copy, and law firms lobby for favorable government regulations. IMF money funds soy processing plants in foreign countries, and free trade policies keep soybean abundance flowing to overseas destinations.
The push for more soy has been relentless and global in its reach. Soy protein is now found in most supermarket breads. It is being used to transform "the humble tortilla, Mexico's corn-based staple food, into a protein-fortified 'super-tortilla' that would give a nutritional boost to the nearly 20 million Mexicans who live in extreme poverty".7 Advertising for a new soy-enriched loaf from Allied Bakeries in Britain targets menopausal women seeking relief from hot flushes. Sales are running at a quarter of a million loaves per week.8
The soy industry hired Norman Robert Associates, a public relations firm, to "get more soy products onto school menus".9 The USDA responded with a proposal to scrap the 30 per cent limit for soy in school lunches. The NuMenu program would allow unlimited use of soy in student meals. With soy added to hamburgers, tacos and lasagna, dieticians can get the total fat content below 30 per cent of calories, thereby conforming to government dictates. "With the soy-enhanced food items, students are receiving better servings of nutrients and less cholesterol and fat."
Soy milk has posted the biggest gains, soaring from $2 million in 1980 to $300 million in the US last year.10 Recent advances in processing have transformed the gray, thin, bitter, beany-tasting Asian beverage into a product that Western consumers will accept - one that tastes like a milkshake, but without the guilt.
Processing miracles, good packaging, massive advertising and a marketing strategy that stresses the products' possible health benefits account for increasing sales to all age groups. For example, reports that soy helps prevent prostate cancer have made soy milk acceptable to middle-aged men. "You don't have to twist the arm of a 55- to 60-year-old guy to get him to try soy milk," says Mark Messina. Michael Milken, former junk bond financier, has helped the industry shed its hippie image with well-publicized efforts to consume 40 grams of soy protein daily.
America today, tomorrow the world. Soy milk sales are rising in Canada, even though soy milk there costs twice as much as cow's milk. Soybean milk processing plants are sprouting up in places like Kenya.11 Even China, where soy really is a poverty food and whose people want more meat, not tofu, has opted to build Western-style soy factories rather than develop western grasslands for grazing animals.12
FDA Health Claim Challenged
On October 25, 1999 the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decided to allow a health claim for products "low in saturated fat and cholesterol" that contain 6.25 grams of soy protein per serving. Breakfast cereals, baked goods, convenience food, smoothie mixes and meat substitutes could now be sold with labels touting benefits to cardiovascular health, as long as these products contained one heaping teaspoon of soy protein per 100-gram serving.
The best marketing strategy for a product that is inherently unhealthy is, of course, a health claim.
"The road to FDA approval," writes a soy apologist, "was long and demanding, consisting of a detailed review of human clinical data collected from more than 40 scientific studies conducted over the last 20 years. Soy protein was found to be one of the rare foods that had sufficient scientific evidence not only to qualify for an FDA health claim proposal but to ultimately pass the rigorous approval process."29
The "long and demanding" road to FDA approval actually took a few unexpected turns. The original petition, submitted by Protein Technology International, requested a health claim for isoflavones, the estrogen-like compounds found plentifully in soybeans, based on assertions that "only soy protein that has been processed in a manner in which isoflavones are retained will result in cholesterol lowering".
In 1998, the FDA made the unprecedented move of rewriting PTI's petition, removing any reference to the phyto-estrogens and substituting a claim for soy protein - a move that was in direct contradiction to the agency's regulations. The FDA is authorized to make rulings only on substances presented by petition.
The abrupt change in direction was no doubt due to the fact that a number of researchers, including scientists employed by the US Government, submitted documents indicating that isoflavones are toxic.
The FDA had also received, early in 1998, the final British Government report on phytoestrogens, which failed to find much evidence of benefit and warned against potential adverse effects.30
Even with the change to soy protein isolate, FDA bureaucrats engaged in the "rigorous approval process" were forced to deal nimbly with concerns about mineral blocking effects, enzyme inhibitors, goitrogenicity, endocrine disruption, reproductive problems and increased allergic reactions from consumption of soy products.31
One of the strongest letters of protest came from Dr Dan Sheehan and Dr Daniel Doerge, government researchers at the National Center for Toxicological Research.32 Their pleas for warning labels were dismissed as unwarranted.
"Sufficient scientific evidence" of soy's cholesterol-lowering properties is drawn largely from a 1995 meta-analysis by Dr James Anderson, sponsored by Protein Technologies International and published in the New England Journal of Medicine.33
A meta-analysis is a review and summary of the results of many clinical studies on the same subject. Use of meta-analyses to draw general conclusions has come under sharp criticism by members of the scientific community.
"Researchers substituting meta-analysis for more rigorous trials risk making faulty assumptions and indulging in creative accounting," says Sir John Scott, President of the Royal Society of New Zealand. "Like is not being lumped with like. Little lumps and big lumps of data are being gathered together by various groups."34
There is the added temptation for researchers, particularly researchers funded by a company like Protein Technologies International, to leave out studies that would prevent the desired conclusions. Dr Anderson discarded eight studies for various reasons, leaving a remainder of twenty-nine.
The published report suggested that individuals with cholesterol levels over 250 mg/dl would experience a "significant" reduction of 7 to 20 per cent in levels of serum cholesterol if they substituted soy protein for animal protein. Cholesterol reduction was insignificant for individuals whose cholesterol was lower than 250 mg/dl.
In other words, for most of us, giving up steak and eating vegieburgers instead will not bring down blood cholesterol levels. The health claim that the FDA approved "after detailed review of human clinical data" fails to inform the consumer about these important details.
Research that ties soy to positive effects on cholesterol levels is "incredibly immature", said Ronald M. Krauss, MD, head of the Molecular Medical Research Program and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.35 He might have added that studies in which cholesterol levels were lowered through either diet or drugs have consistently resulted in a greater number of deaths in the treatment groups than in controls - deaths from stroke, cancer, intestinal disorders, accident and suicide.36
Cholesterol-lowering measures in the US have fuelled a $60 billion per year cholesterol-lowering industry, but have not saved us from the ravages of heart disease.
PAGE 2
Soy And Cancer
The new FDA ruling does not allow any claims about cancer prevention on food packages, but that has not restrained the industry and its marketers from making them in their promotional literature.
"In addition to protecting the heart," says a vitamin company brochure, "soy has demonstrated powerful anticancer benefits...the Japanese, who eat 30 times as much soy as North Americans, have a lower incidence of cancers of the breast, uterus and prostate."37
Indeed they do. But the Japanese, and Asians in general, have much higher rates of other types of cancer, particularly cancer of the esophagus, stomach, pancreas and liver.38 Asians throughout the world also have high rates of thyroid cancer.39 The logic that links low rates of reproductive cancers to soy consumption requires attribution of high rates of thyroid and digestive cancers to the same foods, particularly as soy causes these types of cancers in laboratory rats.
Just how much soy do Asians eat? A 1998 survey found that the average daily amount of soy protein consumed in Japan was about eight grams for men and seven for women - less than two teaspoons.40 The famous Cornell China Study, conducted by Colin T. Campbell, found that legume consumption in China varied from 0 to 58 grams per day, with a mean of about twelve.41
Assuming that two-thirds of legume consumption is soy, then the maximum consumption is about 40 grams, or less than three tablespoons per day, with an average consumption of about nine grams, or less than two teaspoons. A survey conducted in the 1930s found that soy foods accounted for only 1.5 per cent of calories in the Chinese diet, compared with 65 per cent of calories from pork.42 (Asians traditionally cooked with lard, not vegetable oil!)
Traditionally fermented soy products make a delicious, natural seasoning that may supply important nutritional factors in the Asian diet. But except in times of famine, Asians consume soy products only in small amounts, as condiments, and not as a replacement for animal foods - with one exception. Celibate monks living in monasteries and leading a vegetarian lifestyle find soy foods quite helpful because they dampen libido.
It was a 1994 meta-analysis by Mark Messina, published in Nutrition and Cancer, that fuelled speculation on soy's anticarcinogenic properties.43 Messina noted that in 26 animal studies, 65 per cent reported protective effects from soy. He conveniently neglected to include at least one study in which soy feeding caused pancreatic cancer - the 1985 study by Rackis.44 In the human studies he listed, the results were mixed.
A few showed some protective effect, but most showed no correlation at all between soy consumption and cancer rates. He concluded that "the data in this review cannot be used as a basis for claiming that soy intake decreases cancer risk". Yet in his subsequent book, The Simple Soybean and Your Health, Messina makes just such a claim, recommending one cup or 230 grams of soy products per day in his "optimal" diet as a way to prevent cancer.
Thousands of women are now consuming soy in the belief that it protects them against breast cancer. Yet, in 1996, researchers found that women consuming soy protein isolate had an increased incidence of epithelial hyperplasia, a condition that presages malignancies.45 A year later, dietary genistein was found to stimulate breast cells to enter the cell cycle - a discovery that led the study authors to conclude that women should not consume soy products to prevent breast cancer.46
Phytoestrogens: Panacea Or Poison?
The male species of tropical birds carries the drab plumage of the female at birth and 'colors up' at maturity, somewhere between nine and 24 months.
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.
Startled, aghast, angry, the Jameses hired toxicologist Mike Fitzpatrick. PhD, to investigate further. Dr Fitzpatrick's literature review uncovered evidence that soy consumption has been linked to numerous disorders, including infertility, increased cancer and infantile leukemia; and, in studies dating back to the 1950s,48 that genistein in soy causes endocrine disruption in animals.
Dr Fitzpatrick also analyzed the bird feed and found that it contained high levels of phytoestrogens, especially genistein. When the Jameses discontinued using soy-based feed, the flock gradually returned to normal breeding habits and behavior.
The Jameses embarked on a private crusade to warn the public and government officials about toxins in soy foods, particularly the endocrine-disrupting isoflavones, genistein and diadzen. Protein Technology International received their material in 1994.
In 1991, Japanese researchers reported that consumption of as little as 30 grams or two tablespoons of soybeans per day for only one month resulted in a significant increase in thyroid-stimulating hormone.49 Diffuse goiter and hypothyroidism appeared in some of the subjects and many complained of constipation, fatigue and lethargy, even though their intake of iodine was adequate.
In 1997, researchers from the FDA's National Center for Toxicological Research made the embarrassing discovery that the goitrogenic components of soy were the very same isoflavones.50
Twenty-five grams of soy protein isolate, the minimum amount PTI claimed to have cholesterol-lowering effects, contains from 50 to 70 mg of isoflavones. It took only 45 mg of isoflavones in premenopausal women to exert significant biological effects, including a reduction in hormones needed for adequate thyroid function. These effects lingered for three months after soy consumption was discontinued.51
One hundred grams of soy protein - the maximum suggested cholesterol-lowering dose, and the amount recommended by Protein Technologies International - can contain almost 600 mg of isoflavones,52 an amount that is undeniably toxic. In 1992, the Swiss health service estimated that 100 grams of soy protein provided the estrogenic equivalent of the Pill.53
In vitro studies suggest that isoflavones inhibit synthesis of estradiol and other steroid hormones.54 Reproductive problems, infertility, thyroid disease and liver disease due to dietary intake of isoflavones have been observed for several species of animals including mice, cheetah, quail, pigs, rats, sturgeon and sheep.55
It is the isoflavones in soy that are said to have a favorable effect on postmenopausal symptoms, including hot flushes, and protection from osteoporosis. Quantification of discomfort from hot flushes is extremely subjective, and most studies show that control subjects report reduction in discomfort in amounts equal to subjects given soy.56 The claim that soy prevents osteoporosis is extraordinary, given that soy foods block calcium and cause vitamin D deficiencies.
If Asians indeed have lower rates of osteoporosis than Westerners, it is because their diet provides plenty of vitamin D from shrimp, lard and seafood, and plenty of calcium from bone broths. The reason that Westerners have such high rates of osteoporosis is because they have substituted soy oil for butter, which is a traditional source of vitamin D and other fat-soluble activators needed for calcium absorption.
Birth Control Pills For Babies
But it was the isoflavones in infant formula that gave the Jameses the most cause for concern. In 1998, investigators reported that the daily exposure of infants to isoflavones in soy infant formula is 6 to11 times higher on a body-weight basis than the dose that has hormonal effects in adults consuming soy foods. Circulating concentrations of isoflavones in infants fed soy-based formula were 13,000 to 22,000 times higher than plasma estradiol concentrations in infants on cow's milk formula.57
Approximately 25 per cent of bottle-fed children in the US receive soy-based formula - a much higher percentage than in other parts of the Western world. Fitzpatrick estimated that an infant exclusively fed soy formula receives the estrogenic equivalent (based on body weight) of at least five birth control pills per day.58 By contrast, almost no phytoestrogens have been detected in dairy-based infant formula or in human milk, even when the mother consumes soy products.
Scientists have known for years that soy-based formula can cause thyroid problems in babies. But what are the effects of soy products on the hormonal development of the infant, both male and female?
Male infants undergo a "testosterone surge" during the first few months of life, when testosterone levels may be as high as those of an adult male. During this period, the infant is programmed to express male characteristics after puberty, not only in the development of his sexual organs and other masculine physical traits, but also in setting patterns in the brain characteristic of male behavior.
In monkeys, deficiency of male hormones impairs the development of spatial perception (which, in humans, is normally more acute in men than in women), of learning ability and of visual discrimination tasks (such as would be required for reading).59 It goes without saying that future patterns of sexual orientation may also be influenced by the early hormonal environment.
Male children exposed during gestation to diethylstilbestrol (DES), a synthetic estrogen that has effects on animals similar to those of phytoestrogens from soy, had testes smaller than normal on manturation.60
Learning disabilities, especially in male children, have reached epidemic proportions. Soy infant feeding - which began in earnest in the early 1970s - cannot be ignored as a probable cause for these tragic developments.
As for girls, an alarming number are entering puberty much earlier than normal, according to a recent study reported in the journal Pediatrics.61 Investigators found that one per cent of all girls now show signs of puberty, such as breast development or pubic hair, before the age of three; by age eight, 14.7 per cent of white girls and almost 50 per cent of African-American girls have one or both of these characteristics.
New data indicate that environmental estrogens such as PCBs and DDE (a breakdown product of DDT) may cause early sexual development in girls.62 In the 1986 Puerto Rico Premature Thelarche study, the most significant dietary association with premature sexual development was not chicken - as reported in the press - but soy infant formula.63
The consequences of this truncated childhood are tragic. Young girls with mature bodies must cope with feelings and urges that most children are not well-equipped to handle. And early maturation in girls is frequently a harbinger for problems with the reproductive system later in life, including failure to menstruate, infertility and breast cancer.
Parents who have contacted the Jameses recount other problems associated with children of both sexes who were fed soy-based formula, including extreme emotional behavior, asthma, immune system problems, pituitary insufficiency, thyroid disorders and irritable bowel syndrome - the same endocrine and digestive havoc that afflicted the Jameses' parrots.
Dissension In The Ranks
Organizers of the Third International Soy Symposium would be hard-pressed to call the conference an unqualified success. On the second day of the symposium, the London-based Food Commission and the Weston A. Price Foundation of Washington, DC, held a joint press conference, in the same hotel as the symposium, to present concerns about soy infant formula.
Industry representatives sat stony-faced through the recitation of potential dangers and a plea from concerned scientists and parents to pull soy-based infant formula from the market. Under pressure from the Jameses, the New Zealand Government had issued a health warning about soy infant formula in 1998; it was time for the American government to do the same.
On the last day of the symposium, presentations on new findings related to toxicity sent a well-oxygenated chill through the giddy helium hype. Dr Lon White reported on a study of Japanese Americans living in Hawaii, that showed a significant statistical relationship between two or more servings of tofu a week and "accelerated brain aging".64
Those participants who consumed tofu in mid-life had lower cognitive function in late life and a greater incidence of Alzheimer's disease and dementia. "What's more," said Dr White, "those who ate a lot of tofu, by the time they were 75 or 80 looked five years older".65 White and his colleagues blamed the negative effects on isoflavones - a finding that supports an earlier study in which postmenopausal women with higher levels of circulating estrogen experienced greater cognitive decline.66
Scientists Daniel Sheehan and Daniel Doerge, from the National Center for Toxicological Research, ruined PTI's day by presenting findings from rat feeding studies, indicating that genistein in soy foods causes irreversible damage to enzymes that synthesise thyroid hormones.67
"The association between soybean consumption and goiter in animals and humans has a long history," wrote Dr Doerge. "Current evidence for the beneficial effects of soy requires a full understanding of potential adverse effects as well."
Dr Claude Hughes reported that rats born to mothers that were fed genistein had decreased birth weights compared to controls, and onset of puberty occurred earlier in male offspring.68 His research suggested that the effects observed in rats "...will be at least somewhat predictive of what occurs in humans.
There is no reason to assume that there will be gross malformations of fetuses but there may be subtle changes, such as neurobehavioral attributes, immune function and sex hormone levels." The results, he said, "could be nothing or could be something of great concern...if mom is eating something that can act like sex hormones, it is logical to wonder if that could change the baby's development".69
A study of babies born to vegetarian mothers, published in January 2000, indicated just what those changes in baby's development might be. Mothers who ate a vegetarian diet during pregnancy had a fivefold greater risk of delivering a boy with hypospadias, a birth defect of the penis.70 The authors of the study suggested that the cause was greater exposure to phytoestrogens in soy foods popular with vegetarians.
Problems with female offspring of vegetarian mothers are more likely to show up later in life. While soy's estrogenic effect is less than that of diethylstilbestrol (DES), the dose is likely to be higher because it's consumed as a food, not taken as a drug. Daughters of women who took DES during pregnancy suffered from infertility and cancer when they reached their twenties.
PAGE 3
Newest Research On Why You Should Avoid Soy
Page 3 of 3 (Page 1, Page 2)
Question Marks Over GRAS Status
Lurking in the background of industry hype for soy is the nagging question of whether it's even legal to add soy protein isolate to food. All food additives not in common use prior to 1958, including casein protein from milk, must have GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) status. In 1972, the Nixon administration directed a re-examination of substances believed to be GRAS, in the light of any scientific information then available.
This re-examination included casein protein that became codified as GRAS in 1978. In 1974, the FDA obtained a literature review of soy protein because, as soy protein had not been used in food until 1959 and was not even in common use in the early 1970s, it was not eligible to have its GRAS status grandfathered under the provisions of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.71
The scientific literature up to 1974 recognized many antinutrients in factory-made soy protein, including trypsin inhibitors, phytic acid and genistein. But the FDA literature review dismissed discussion of adverse impacts, with the statement that it was important for "adequate processing" to remove them.
Genistein could be removed with an alcohol wash, but it was an expensive procedure that processors avoided. Later studies determined that trypsin inhibitor content could be removed only with long periods of heat and pressure, but the FDA has imposed no requirements for manufacturers to do so.
The FDA was more concerned with toxins formed during processing, specifically nitrites and lysinoalanine.72 Even at low levels of consumption - averaging one-third of a gram per day at the time - the presence of these carcinogens was considered too great a threat to public health to allow GRAS status.
Soy protein did have approval for use as a binder in cardboard boxes, and this approval was allowed to continue, as researchers considered that migration of nitrites from the box into the food contents would be too small to constitute a cancer risk. FDA officials called for safety specifications and monitoring procedures before granting of GRAS status for food.
These were never performed. To this day, use of soy protein is codified as GRAS only for this limited industrial use as a cardboard binder. This means that soy protein must be subject to premarket approval procedures each time manufacturers intend to use it as a food or add it to a food.
Soy protein was introduced into infant formula in the early 1960s. It was a new product with no history of any use at all. As soy protein did not have GRAS status, premarket approval was required. This was not and still has not been granted. The key ingredient of soy infant formula is not recognized as safe.
The Next Asbestos?
"Against the backdrop of widespread praise...there is growing suspicion that soy - despite its undisputed benefits - may pose some health hazards," writes Marian Burros, a leading food writer for the New York Times. More than any other writer, Ms Burros's endorsement of a low-fat, largely vegetarian diet has herded Americans into supermarket aisles featuring soy foods.
Yet her January 26, 2000 article, "Doubts Cloud Rosy News on Soy", contains the following alarming statement: "Not one of the 18 scientists interviewed for this column was willing to say that taking isoflavones was risk free." Ms Burros did not enumerate the risks, nor did she mention that the recommended 25 daily grams of soy protein contain enough isoflavones to cause problems in sensitive individuals, but it was evident that the industry had recognized the need to cover itself.
Because the industry is extremely exposed...contingency lawyers will soon discover that the number of potential plaintiffs can be counted in the millions and the pockets are very, very deep. Juries will hear something like the following: "The industry has known for years that soy contains many toxins.
At first they told the public that the toxins were removed by processing. When it became apparent that processing could not get rid of them, they claimed that these substances were beneficial. Your government granted a health claim to a substance that is poisonous, and the industry lied to the public to sell more soy."
The "industry" includes merchants, manufacturers, scientists, publicists, bureaucrats, former bond financiers, food writers, vitamin companies and retail stores. Farmers will probably escape because they were duped like the rest of us. But they need to find something else to grow before the soy bubble bursts and the market collapses: grass-fed livestock, designer vegetables...or hemp to make paper for thousands and thousands of legal briefs.
Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 7, Number 3 (April-May 2000)
________________________________________
About the Authors:
Sally Fallon is the author of Nourishing Traditions: The Cookbook that Challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats (1999, 2nd edition, New Trends Publishing, tel +1 877 707 1776 or +1 219 268 2601) and President of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Washington, DC (www.WestonAPrice.org)
Mary G. Enig, Ph.D., a nutritionist widely known for her research on the nutritional aspects of fats and oils, is a consultant, clinician, and the Director of the Nutritional Sciences Division of Enig Associates, Inc., Silver Spring, Maryland.
She received her PhD in Nutritional Sciences from the University of Maryland, College Park in 1984, taught a graduate course in nutrient-drug interactions for the University's Graduate Program in Nutritional Sciences, and held a Faculty Research Associateship from 1984 through 1991 with the Lipids Research Group in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry.
Dr. Enig is a Fellow of the American College of Nutrition, and a member of the American Institute of Nutrition. Her many years of experience as a "bench chemist" in the analysis of food fats and oils, provides a foundation for her active roles in food labeling and composition issues at the federal and state levels.
Dr. Enig is a Consulting Editor to the "Journal of the American College of Nutrition" and formerly served as a Contributing Editor to "Clinical Nutrition." She has published 14 scientific papers on the subject of food fats and oils, several chapters on nutrition for books, and presented over 35 scientific papers on food and nutrition topics.
She is the President of the Maryland Nutritionists Association, past President of the Coalition of Nutritionists of Maryland and was appointed by the Governor in 1986 to the Maryland State Advisory Council on Nutrition and served as the Chairman of the Health Subcommittee until the Council was disbanded in 1988.
________________________________________
COMMENT:
Sally Fallon and Dr. Enig are to be highly commended for this much needed soy update. Together they have compiled the most definitive document to date on why one should avoid soy. This is a MAJOR work and I am hoping to promote it for the national media attention that it deserves.
Another article on How Much Soy Asians Actually Eat
ENDNOTES:
1. Program for the Third International Symposium on the Role of Soy in Preventing and Treating Chronic Disease, Sunday, October 31, through Wednesday, November 3, 1999, Omni Shoreham Hotel, Washington, DC.
2. Houghton, Dean, "Healthful Harvest", The Furrow, January 2000, pp. 10-13.
3. Coleman, Richard J., "Vegetable Protein - A Delayed Birth?" Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society 52:238A, April 1975.
4. See www/unitedsoybean.org.
5. These are listed in www.soyonlineservice.co.nz.
6. Wall Street Journal, October 27, 1995.
7. Smith, James F., "Healthier tortillas could lead to healthier Mexico", Denver Post, August 22, 1999, p. 26A.
8. "Bakery says new loaf can help reduce hot flushes", Reuters, September 15, 1997.
9. "Beefing Up Burgers with Soy Products at School", Nutrition Week, Community Nutrition Institute, Washington, DC, June 5, 1998, p. 2.
10. Urquhart, John, "A Health Food Hits Big Time", Wall Street Journal, August 3, 1999, p. B1
11. "Soyabean Milk Plant in Kenya", Africa News Service, September 1998.
12. Simoons, Frederick J., Food in China: A Cultural and Historical Inquiry, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1991, p. 64.
13. Katz, Solomon H., "Food and Biocultural Evolution: A Model for the Investigation of Modern Nutritional Problems", Nutritional Anthropology, Alan R. Liss Inc., 1987, p. 50.
14. Rackis, Joseph J. et al., "The USDA trypsin inhibitor study. I. Background, objectives and procedural details", Qualification of Plant Foods in Human Nutrition, vol. 35, 1985.
15. Van Rensburg et al., "Nutritional status of African populations predisposed to esophageal cancer", Nutrition and Cancer, vol. 4, 1983, pp. 206-216; Moser, P.B. et al., "Copper, iron, zinc and selenium dietary intake and status of Nepalese lactating women and their breastfed infants", American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 47:729-734, April 1988; Harland, B.F. et al., "Nutritional status and phytate: zinc and phytate X calcium: zinc dietary molar ratios of lacto-ovovegetarian Trappist monks: 10 years later", Journal of the American Dietetic Association 88:1562-1566, December 1988.
16. El Tiney, A.H., "Proximate Composition and Mineral and Phytate Contents of Legumes Grown in Sudan", Journal of Food Composition and Analysis (1989) 2:6778.
17. Ologhobo, A.D. et al., "Distribution of phosphorus and phytate in some Nigerian varieties of legumes and some effects of processing", Journal of Food Science 49(1):199-201, January/February 1984.
18. Sandstrom, B. et al., "Effect of protein level and protein source on zinc absorption in humans", Journal of Nutrition 119(1):48-53, January 1989; Tait, Susan et al., "The availability of minerals in food, with particular reference to iron", Journal of Research in Society and Health 103(2):74-77, April 1983.
19. Phytate reduction of zinc absorption has been demonstrated in numerous studies. These results are summarised in Leviton, Richard, Tofu, Tempeh, Miso and Other Soyfoods: The 'Food of the Future' - How to Enjoy Its Spectacular Health Benefits, Keats Publishing, Inc., New Canaan, CT, USA, 1982, p. 1415.
20. Mellanby, Edward, "Experimental rickets: The effect of cereals and their interaction with other factors of diet and environment in producing rickets", Journal of the Medical Research Council 93:265, March 1925; Wills, M.R. et al., "Phytic Acid and Nutritional Rickets in Immigrants", The Lancet, April 8,1972, pp. 771-773.
21. Rackis et al., ibid.
22. Rackis et al., ibid., p. 232.
23. Wallace, G.M., "Studies on the Processing and Properties of Soymilk", Journal of Science and Food Agriculture 22:526-535, October 1971.
24. Rackis, et al., ibid., p. 22; "Evaluation of the Health Aspects of Soy Protein Isolates as Food Ingredients", prepared for FDA by Life Sciences Research Office, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (9650 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20014), USA, Contract No. FDA 223-75-2004, 1979.
25. See www/truthinlabeling.org.
26. Rackis, Joseph, J., "Biological and Physiological Factors in Soybeans", Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society 51:161A-170A, January 1974.
27. Rackis, Joseph J. et al., "The USDA trypsin inhibitor study", ibid.
28. Torum, Benjamin, "Nutritional Quality of Soybean Protein Isolates: Studies in Children of Preschool Age", in Soy Protein and Human Nutrition, Harold L Wilcke et al. (eds), Academic Press, New York, 1979.
29. Zreik, Marwin, CCN, "The Great Soy Protein Awakening", Total Health 32(1), February 2000.
30. IEH Assessment on Phytoestrogens in the Human Diet, Final Report to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, UK, November 1997, p. 11.
31. Food Labeling: Health Claims: Soy Protein and Coronary Heart Disease, Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR, Part 101 (Docket No. 98P-0683).
32. Sheegan, Daniel M. and Daniel R Doerge, Letter to Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), February 18, 1999.
33. Anderson, James W. et al., "Meta-analysis of the Effects of Soy Protein Intake on Serum Lipids", New England Journal of Medicine (1995) 333:(5):276-282.
34. Guy, Camille, "Doctors warned against magic, quackery", New Zealand Herald, September 9, 1995, section 8, p. 5.
35. Sander, Kate and Hilary Wilson, "FDA approves new health claim for soy, but litte fallout expected for dairy", Cheese Market News, October 22, 1999, p. 24.
36. Enig, Mary G. and Sally Fallon, "The Oiling of America", NEXUS Magazine, December 1998-January 1999 and February-March 1999; also available at www.WestonAPrice.org.
37. Natural Medicine News (L & H Vitamins, 32-33 47th Avenue, Long Island City, NY 11101), USA, January/February 2000, p. 8.
38. Harras, Angela (ed.), Cancer Rates and Risks, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, 1996, 4th edition.
39. Searle, Charles E. (ed.), Chemical Carcinogens, ACS Monograph 173, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 1976.
40. Nagata, C. et al., Journal of Nutrition (1998) 128:209-213.
41. Campbell, Colin T. et al., The Cornell Project in China.
42. Chang, K.C. (ed.), Food in Chinese Culture: Anthropological and Historical Perspectives, New Haven, 1977.
43. Messina, Mark J. et al., "Soy Intake and Cancer Risk: A Review of the In Vitro and In Vivo Data", Nutrition and Cancer (1994) 21(2):113-131.
44. Rackis et al, "The USDA trypsin inhibitor study", ibid.
45. Petrakis, N.L. et al., "Stimulatory influence of soy protein isolate on breast secretion in pre- and post-menopausal women", Cancer Epid. Bio. Prev. (1996) 5:785-794.
46. Dees, C. et al., "Dietary estrogens stimulate human breast cells to enter the cell cycle", Environmental Health Perspectives (1997) 105(Suppl. 3):633-636.
47. Woodhams, D.J., "Phytoestrogens and parrots: The anatomy of an investigation", Proceedings of the Nutrition Society of New Zealand (1995) 20:22-30.
48. Matrone, G. et al., "Effect of Genistin on Growth and Development of the Male Mouse", Journal of Nutrition (1956) 235-240.
49. Ishizuki, Y. et al., "The effects on the thyroid gland of soybeans administered experimentally in healthy subjects", Nippon Naibunpi Gakkai Zasshi (1991) 767:622-629.
50. Divi, R.L. et al., "Anti-thyroid isoflavones from the soybean", Biochemical Pharmacology (1997) 54:1087-1096.
51. Cassidy, A. et al., "Biological Effects of a Diet of Soy Protein Rich in Isoflavones on the Menstrual Cycle of Premenopausal Women", American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1994) 60:333-340.
52. Murphy, P.A., "Phytoestrogen Content of Processed Soybean Foods", Food Technology, January 1982, pp. 60-64.
53. Bulletin de L'Office Fédéral de la Santé Publique, no. 28, July 20, 1992.
54. Keung, W.M., "Dietary oestrogenic isoflavones are potent inhibitors of B-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase of P. testosteronii", Biochemical and Biophysical Research Committee (1995) 215:1137-1144; Makela, S.I. et al., "Estrogen-specific 12 B-hydroxysteroid oxidoreductase type 1 (E.C. 1.1.1.62) as a possible target for the action of phytoestrogens", PSEBM (1995) 208:51-59.
55. Setchell, K.D.R. et al., "Dietary oestrogens - a probable cause of infertility and liver disease in captive cheetahs", Gastroenterology (1987) 93:225-233; Leopald, A.S., "Phytoestrogens: Adverse effects on reproduction in California Quail," Science (1976) 191:98-100; Drane, H.M. et al., "Oestrogenic activity of soya-bean products", Food, Cosmetics and Technology (1980) 18:425-427; Kimura, S. et al., "Development of malignant goiter by defatted soybean with iodine-free diet in rats", Gann. (1976) 67:763-765; Pelissero, C. et al., "Oestrogenic effect of dietary soybean meal on vitellogenesis in cultured Siberian Sturgeon Acipenser baeri", Gen. Comp. End. (1991) 83:447-457; Braden et al., "The oestrogenic activity and metabolism of certain isoflavones in sheep", Australian J. Agricultural Research (1967) 18:335-348.
56. Ginsburg, Jean and Giordana M. Prelevic, "Is there a proven place for phytoestrogens in the menopause?", Climacteric (1999) 2:75-78.
57. Setchell, K.D. et al., "Isoflavone content of infant formulas and the metabolic fate of these early phytoestrogens in early life", American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, December 1998 Supplement, 1453S-1461S.
58. Irvine, C. et al., "The Potential Adverse Effects of Soybean Phytoestrogens in Infant Feeding", New Zealand Medical Journal May 24, 1995, p. 318.
59. Hagger, C. and J. Bachevalier, "Visual habit formation in 3-month-old monkeys (Macaca mulatta): reversal of sex difference following neonatal manipulations of androgen", Behavior and Brain Research (1991) 45:57-63.
60. Ross, R.K. et al., "Effect of in-utero exposure to diethylstilbestrol on age at onset of puberty and on post-pubertal hormone levels in boys", Canadian Medical Association Journal 128(10):1197-8, May 15, 1983.
61. Herman-Giddens, Marcia E. et al., "Secondary Sexual Characteristics and Menses in Young Girls Seen in Office Practice: A Study from the Pediatric Research in Office Settings Network", Pediatrics 99(4):505-512, April 1997.
62. Rachel's Environment & Health Weekly 263, "The Wingspread Statement", Part 1, December 11, 1991; Colborn, Theo, Dianne Dumanoski and John Peterson Myers, Our Stolen Future, Little, Brown & Company, London, 1996.
63. Freni-Titulaer, L.W., "Premature Thelarch in Puerto Rico: A search for environmental factors", American Journal of Diseases of Children 140(12):1263-1267, December 1986.
64. White, Lon, "Association of High Midlife Tofu Consumption with Accelerated Brain Aging", Plenary Session #8: Cognitive Function, The Third International Soy Symposium, November 1999, Program, p. 26.
65. Altonn, Helen, "Too much tofu induces 'brain aging', study shows", Honolulu Star-Bulletin, November 19, 1999.
66. Journal of the American Geriatric Society (1998) 46:816-21.
67. Doerge, Daniel R., "Inactivation of Thyroid Peroxidase by Genistein and Daidzein in Vitro and in Vivo; Mechanism for Anti-Thyroid Activity of Soy", presented at the November 1999 Soy Symposium in Washington, DC, National Center for Toxicological Research, Jefferson, AR 72029, USA.
68. Hughes, Claude, Center for Women's Health and Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA.
69. Soy Intake May Affect Fetus", Reuters News Service, November 5, 1999.
70. "Vegetarian diet in pregnancy linked to birth defect", BJU International 85:107-113, January 2000.
71. FDA ref 72/104, Report FDABF GRAS - 258.
72. "Evaluation of the Health Aspects of Soy Protein Isolates as Food Ingredients", prepared for FDA by Life Sciences Research Office, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) (9650 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20014, USA), Contract No, FDA 223-75-2004, 1979.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)