SOY REVOLUTION IN THE PHILIPPINES

ORGANIC SOY, NOT GENETICALLY MODIFIED AND CHEMICALLY GROWN AND PROCESSED SOY

2008-09-05T20:10:00.000-07:00

ORGANIC SOY, NOT GENETICALLY MODIFIED AND CHEMICALLY GROWN AND PROCESSED SOY
In short, ancient Nature's soy, not U.S. soy

From: Franky Corne
To: Cocoy777
Hi Cocoy,
I think it is a good article that you wrote on soy. I found another article on Internet and you can find it at the end of this.
Actually, the greatest danger of soy I think is firstly the fact that about 90% of the soy (at least in the US) is Genetically Modified and secondly the overconsumption due to commercial advertising. However, apparently soy germs (non-GM of course) are ok.
Franky

Read the whole article below and take note of its conclusion, to wit:
In conclusion, Soy is a very highly processed food. The dangers of soy far outweigh any claims of benefits. The only safe way to eat soy is to consume slow fermented soy such as miso, soy sauce, tempeh, and natto.

SOY - Health or Hype?
So, you think you're eating healthy by buying soy products...
...You’ve replaced milk with soy, and you look for protein bars and various other products containing soy. After all, it is supposed to be high in protein, lower your cholesterol, fight osteoporosis, reduce your risk of cancer, and be heart healthy. How can you go wrong? Truth is, soy may not be the all round good food it’s cracked up to be. In fact, it may be down right unhealthy.
New studies show that soy may increase the risk of breast cancer in women, affect brain function in men and cause developmental abnormalities in infants.
The soy marketing campaign has truly been phenomenal. Soy was once considered unfit to eat – even in Asia. Soybeans were planted as a rotation crop, not to be eaten, but to add nutrients back into the soil (specifically nitrogen). Soy was not used for food until the discovery of fermentation techniques. The first soy foods were natto, miso, tempeh, and soy sauce. The Chinese did not eat unfermented soybeans due to the large quantities of natural toxins called “antinutrients” they contained.
These antinutrients include potent enzyme inhibitors that block trypsin and other beneficial enzymes needed to digest protein. Soybeans also contain haemagglutinin, a clot promoting substance that causes red blood cells to clump together. These clustered blood cells cannot properly absorb oxygen for distribution to the body’s tissues, and are unable to help in maintaining good cardiac health. So, instead of being supposedly "heart healthy", soy has the opposite effect.

Haemagglutinin and trypsin inhibitors are both “growth depressant” substances. Farmers are well aware of this because animals on soy feed must be given lysine supplements to achieve normal growth. Fermenting soybeans does de-activate both haemagglutinin and trypsin inhibitors, while cooking and precipitation (a soaking/washing process used in the manufacture of soy products) do not.

Soybeans are high in phytic acid. Phytic acid is present in the bran or hull of all seeds. It can block the uptake of essential minerals like calcium, magnesium, copper, iron and especially zinc in the intestinal tract. Phytic acid is reduced or removed in most other beans by long slow cooking. But, this is not the case with soybeans. Only a long fermentation process will significantly reduce the phytate levels in soybeans.
Soy processors have worked hard to get the toxins (antinutrients) out of the finished product, particularly soy protein isolate (SPI). SPI is the key ingredient in most soy foods which imitate meat and dairy products.
Soy Protein Isolate:
SPI is not something you can whip up in your kitchen. This processing takes place in industrial factories where soybeans are first mixed with an alkaline solution to remove fiber, then precipitated and separated using an acid wash and, finally, neutralized in an alkaline solution.
The acid washing portion of the above process is done in aluminum tanks and can leach high levels of aluminum into the final product. As a result, soy-based baby formula has over 1000% more aluminum than conventional milk based formulas. Finally, the resulting curds are spray-dried at high temperatures to produce high protein powder. Nitrates, potent carcinogens, are formed during spray-drying and a toxin called “lysinoalanine” is formed during the alkaline processing.
Food manufacturers then use the Soy Protein Isolate to produce another product, textured vegetable protein, by mean of high pressure extrusion processing. This high temperature processing removes much of the trypsin inhibitor content, but not all. Ironically, high temperature processing denatures the other useful proteins in soy, rendering them largely ineffective for use by the body.
Numerous artificial flavorings, particularly MSG, are added to soy protein isolate and textured vegetable protein products to mask the strong beany taste and create the flavor of meat and milk.

Soy does not have GRAS status (Generally Regarded As Safe)
The amount of toxins formed during soy processing (nitrites and lysinoalanine) was considered too great a threat to the public to allow GRAS (generally regarded as safe) status. Soy protein was given the OK to be used as a binder in cardboard boxes though. Researchers determined that the amounts of the toxins that would migrate from the box into the food ingredients would be too small to constitute a cancer risk. Soy protein has NEVER been given GRAS status (Generally Regarded As Safe).
Soy and breast cancer; does it cause it or protect against it?
Thousands of women consume soy with the belief that it protects them from breast cancer. In 1996 researchers found the women consuming soy protein isolate had an increased incidence of epithelial hyperplasia, a condition that presages malignancies. Studies now conclude soy is not beneficial in the prevention of breast cancer, and may actually increase breast cancer risk in some women.
Soy: and thyroid:
25 grams of soy protein isolate, (about a cup of soy milk) the minimum amount claimed to have cholesterol lowering effects, contains from 50 to 70 mg of isoflavones. A study showed that it took only 45 mg of isoflavones in pre-menopausal women to exert significant biological effects, including a reduction in hormones needed for adequate thyroid function. These effects lingered for 3 months after soy consumption was discontinued.

Scientists have known for many years that soy is goitrogenic (thyroid suppressant). The prevalence of thyroid dysfunction is now reaching such alarming rates that this connection should not be disregarded.
Isoflavones contained in soy have been isolated as the culprit. Isoflavones are estrogen like compounds plentiful in the soybean (phytoestrogens). The discovery that the isoflavones found in soy were damaging to the thyroid rocked the soy industry that has promoted these phytoestrogens as beneficial.
It was found that in normal women, consuming sufficient iodine, it only took 30g of roasted soybeans daily, containing about 38mg.of isoflavones, to depress thyroid function. Sensitive individuals were found to be affected by even less soy.
Soy: The estrogenic equivalent of The Pill
In 1992, the Swiss health service estimated that 100 grams of soy protein provided the estrogenic equivalent of The Pill. Speaking of The Pill…if a person was giving an infant 5 birth controls pills per day, they would probably be charged with child endangerment. Sadly, if an infant is given a diet consisting solely of soy formula it is being given the equivalent of 5 birth control pills per day due to the isoflavones. Soy was introduced into the infant formula in the early 1960’s.

Soy and Diabetes:
Research done at Cornell University Medical College and the Long Island Community Hospital found that children who develop Type 1 diabetes are twice as likely to have been fed soy formula as those fed other formulas.
Soy; infant and child development
The effects of soy products on the hormonal development of infants is a potential nightmare. In the first few months of a normal male infant’s development, they undergo a “testosterone surge”. During this period the infant is programmed to express male characteristics in his sexual organs, masculine physical traits, and form patterns in the brain of male behavior. Physicians are noticing a large number of boys whose physical maturation is delayed or does not begin at all. This includes sexual organs not developing. Learning disabilities in male children have reached epidemic proportions. Soy cannot be ignored as a possible cause for these developments.
An alarming number of girls are entering puberty at an early age. A recent study shows that one percent of all girls now show signs of puberty, such as pubic hair or breast development before the age of three. By the age of eight, 14.7 percent of white girls and 48.3 percent of African American girls are showing signs of puberty. Soy has also been implicated in early menarche.
Other problems related to soy fed children of both sexes include extreme emotional behavior, asthma, immune system problems, pituitary insufficiency, thyroid disorders and irritable bowel syndrome. There is a movement in Canada and New Zealand to ban the sale of soy infant formula.
Over 90% of all soy is GM (genetically modified)
This means that a pesticide and or herbicide was injected into the seed so that pesticides and herbicides can be sprayed on the crop to kill bugs and weeds but will not kill the soybean plants. There are studies being done that indicate that the pesticides and herbicides in GM foods are becoming activated in the digestive process and causing various illness. Soybeans also have one of the highest percentages of contamination by pesticides of any foods we eat.
In conclusion, Soy is a very highly processed food. The dangers of soy far outweigh any claims of benefits. The only safe way to eat soy is to consume slow fermented soy such as miso, soy sauce, tempeh, and natto.

Pro-soy vs Anti-soy

2008-09-04T23:24:00.000-07:00

Pro-soy vs Anti-soy
by: Arnulfo Yu Laniba, Agape Foundation (Agasoft)

The long life & healthy bodies of soy eaters in Asia are proofs hard to dispute.
Now, we've got scientific news that soy or its products are causing a list of health problems among Americans who consume them in huge quantity to do some catch up or to drown the negative effects of eating non-healthy foods which their palate, stomach and genitals demand or patronize.
Let's put things on perspective.
Dr Daniels is telling the truth in the sense that she based her anti-soy reports on what has happened to those who are taking US soy products. So, i do not doubt her sincerity.
But let's put things on perspective, namely: FOR CENTURIES AND I THINK MUCH OF IT IS STILL NOW, THE SOY IN ASIA IS ORGANIC. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE SOY IN AMERICA IS GROWN BY CHEMICALS (FERTILIZERS, PESTICIDES), BRED BY CHEMICALS (GMO SOY SEEDS), PROCESSED BY CHEMICALS!
DOESN'T THAT LEAD YOU TO SUSPECT THAT THE ANGEL soy HAS TURNED DEvil?
"So What’s Wrong With Soy?
"Unlike in Asia where people eat small amounts of whole soybean products, western food processors separate the soybean into two golden commodities--protein and oil. There's nothing safe or natural about this,” Dr. Daniel says.
“Today's high-tech processing methods not only fail to remove the anti-nutrients and toxins that are naturally present in soybeans but leave toxic and carcinogenic residues created by the high temperatures, high pressure, alkali and acid baths and petroleum solvents," she continues.
To make matters worse, Americans are consuming soy in unprecedented amounts. Among the many health problems linked to a high-soy diet are:
• Thyroid problems, including weight gain, lethargy, malaise, fatigue, hair loss, and loss of libido
• Premature puberty and other developmental problems in babies, children and adolescents
• Cancer
• Brain damage
• Reproductive disorders
• Soy allergies
Most soy, perhaps about 80 percent or more, is also genetically modified, which adds its own batch of health concerns.”
So does Dr. Mercola wrote in his comments to Dr. Daniels report on soy.

COCOY777’S PRESENT POSITION ON THE SOY CONTROVERSY

2008-09-04T23:14:00.001-07:00

COCOY777’S PRESENT POSITION ON THE SOY CONTROVERSY

MY OWN ANALYSIS OF THE TWO SIDES IN THIS SOY CONTROVERSY IS LEADING ME TO THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSION: CHEMICALS, GENETIC ENGINEERING (PLAYING GOD, ALTERING WHAT GOD HAS CREATED AND SO WISELY ARRANGED AT SUB-ATOMIC LEVELS) AND MODERATION AS WELL AS DR EARL MINDELL'S "YOU SHALL NOT LIVE BY SOY ALONE" ARE FACTORS THAT AFFECT THE GOODNESS OR THE HARMFULNESS OF SOY.
OK, WAIT A MINUTE. THERE'S STILL ONE FACTOR: ALSO THE PROFIT MOTIVE THAT DOWNTREADS THE LAW "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR (E.G. CUSTOMERS) AS YOUR SELF."
TIME IS COMING WE RAISE OUR HANDS IN TOTAL SURRENDER AND TELL GOD: OK, YOUR WAY ALONE IS GOOD, WISE, SAFE AND LOVING.
THAT WILL INCLUDE THE MISGUIDED CHEMISTS!

CHELATORS -- OUT?

ONE LINE OF ATTACK VERSUS SOY IS ITS PHYTIC ACID WHICH IS COMMON IN SEEDS (GRAINS, NUTS, LEGUMES) AND IS A CHELATOR, THAT IS, BINDS METALS AND MINERALS AND FORCES THEM OUT OF THE BODY. THEIR FEAR IS CALCIUM DEFICIENCY, IRON DEFICIENCY, ETC.
GRANTED.
BUT LATELY I HAVE COME ACROSS TO AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENTS (IN BOOKS, ETC.) THAT NOWADAYS TOXIC CHEMICALS TO THE TUNE OF THOUSANDS, MILLIONS OR MYRIADS ARE ENTERING OUR BODY THROUGH ALL ENTRY POINTS: SKIN PORES, NOSE, EYES, MOUTH, GENITALS, ETC. I WAS EVEN SHOCKED TO READ THAT EACH OF OUR CELLS - READ: EACH OF OUR BODY CELLS - IS BEING BOMBARDED OR HIT BY CHEMICALS INCLUDING FREE RADICALS MANY TIMES EACH DAY!!! WAIT A MINUTE I FORGET THE FIGURE, BUT I AM CLOSE TO BE SURE IT IS MORE THAN A HUNDRED TIMES!
A DAY!

SO WE NEED EXPELLERS (CHELATORS) MORE THAN EVER. WE NEED PHYTIC ACID MORE THAN EVER. NATURAL CHELATORS, NOT CHEMICAL CHELATORS. EVERYTHING CHEMICAL NOWADAYS IS SUSPECT ESP IF YOU NOTE THAT THE 7 TRUMPETS (ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGES) AND 7 LAST PLAGUES IN THE BOOK OF REVELATION (NEW TESTAMENT) ARE ALL OR ALMOST ALL CAUSED BY CHEMICALS!!!! CHECK IT OUT.

SOY MILK – HARMFUL TO BABIES?

SOY MILK HAS POSED SOME BAD EFFECTS ON INFANTS BECAUSE INFANTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE FED WITH THEIR MAMA'S BREASTMILK, NOT WITH SOY MILK, STILL LESS WITH COW'S MILK, ETC. IS IT NOT COMMON SENSE AND GOD'S SENSE?

CONTINUES THE PRO-SOY VS ANTI-SOY CONTROVERSY

2008-09-04T23:01:00.000-07:00

Why Soy Is NOT the Health Food You Think it Is

Soy is no health food. In fact, it’s bad for your body, your thyroid, and your child’s development, as Kaayla T. Daniel, PHD, CCN, explains in this exclusive video interview.

Dr. Daniel earned her PhD in Nutritional Sciences and Anti-Aging Therapies from the Union Institute and University in Cincinnati, was board certified as a clinical nutritionist (CCN) by the International and American Association of Clinical Nutritionists in Dallas and is a member of the Board of Directors of the Weston A. Price Foundation.

As a clinical nutritionist, she specializes in digestive disorders, women’s reproductive health issues, infertility, and recovery from vegetarian and soy-based diets.

Dr. Daniel is the author of The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food (New Trends, March 2005), which has been endorsed by leading health professionals, including Kilmer McCully, MD, Doris J. Rapp, MD, Jonathan V. Wright, MD,Russell Blaylock, MD, Larrian Gillespie, MD, Joseph Mercola, DO, Debra Lynn Dadd and others.

Larry Dossey, MD, called it “science writing at its best” and William Campbell Douglass, II, MD called it “the most important nutritional book of the decade.”

Dr. Daniel has been extensively quoted in major newspapers and magazines, including the San Francisco Chronicle, Washington Post, Toronto Globe & Mail, Glamour, Oxygen, Utne Reader, Alternative Medicine, and other publications and has appeared as a guest on NPR's People's Pharmacy, the Discovery Channel's Medical Hotseat and ABC's View from the Bay.

A popular speaker at conferences, she appeared most recently at BoulderFest 2008. She has also appeared as an expert witness before the California Public Safety Committee and the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences. In 2005 she won the Weston A. Price Foundation's Integrity in Science Award.

In February 2008, Dr. Daniel joined Sally Fallon, president of the Weston A. Price Foundation, and leading scientists Mary G. Enig, PhD, Kilmer S. McCully, MD and Galen D. Knight, PhD, in presenting a 65-page petition to the FDA asking the agency to retract the currently allowed soy-prevents-heart disease health claim.

Dr. Mercola's Comments:
If you carefully review the thousands of studies published on soy you will reach the following conclusion:

Any possible benefits of consuming soy are FAR outweighed by the well-proven risks.

Yet, many Americans still believe that processed soy products like soy milk, soy cheese, soy burgers and soy ice cream are healthy. And many others eat soy whether they like it or not -- in the form of soybean oil that’s added to virtually every processed food.

In fact, Dr. Joseph Hibbeln at the National Institutes of Health told CNN.com he estimates that soybeans, usually in the form of oil, account for 10 percent of the average person’s total calories in the United States!

Not surprisingly, ever since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved a health claim for soy foods in 1999 that said diets low in saturated fat and cholesterol that include 25 grams of soy protein a day may reduce the risk of heart disease. soy sales have skyrocketed.

From 1992 to 2006, soy food sales have increased from $300 million to $3.9 billion, according to the Soyfoods Association of North America.

This is a concerning increase because processed soy is not something that most anyone should be eating.

As Dr. Daniel said, “I started looking into the research, found thousands of studies, many which seriously questioned the safety of soy, not even that it’s not a health food but that it’s not even safe.”

So What’s Wrong With Soy?

"Unlike in Asia where people eat small amounts of whole soybean products, western food processors separate the soybean into two golden commodities--protein and oil. There's nothing safe or natural about this,” Dr. Daniel says.

“Today's high-tech processing methods not only fail to remove the anti-nutrients and toxins that are naturally present in soybeans but leave toxic and carcinogenic residues created by the high temperatures, high pressure, alkali and acid baths and petroleum solvents," she continues.

To make matters worse, Americans are consuming soy in unprecedented amounts. Among the many health problems linked to a high-soy diet are:
• Thyroid problems, including weight gain, lethargy, malaise, fatigue, hair loss, and loss of libido
• Premature puberty and other developmental problems in babies, children and adolescents
• Cancer
• Brain damage
• Reproductive disorders
• Soy allergies

Most soy, perhaps about 80 percent or more, is also genetically modified, which adds its own batch of health concerns.

If Soy is so Bad, How Can it be so Widely Promoted as Healthy?

This is due to marketing spin at its finest. Dr. Daniel explains:
“One of the most effective things they [the soy industry] did was, some years ago, they recognized that they had a whole lot of soy that they wanted to sell, but they didn’t have a market for it because most people perceived soy products as something that was a communist food or fascist food. Or soy was perceived as a hippie food …

So either way soy did not have a good image and they got to thinking, “Well how can we make soy into an upscale food that people will want to buy and want to pay well for?” And what they did was absolutely brilliant. They came up with the idea of turning it into a health food. And that way rich people and upscale people would start to popularize it and the image would improve and then middle class and lower class people would want to eat it as well.

And that’s exactly what happened. And they began funding studies and publicizing studies and they hold huge symposia where they announced all the latest findings on soy and health -- and then they publicize all those and so it goes.”

Never mind the fact that studies reviewed by Dr. Daniel and colleagues have found that soy does not reliably lower cholesterol, and in fact raises homocysteine levels in many people, which has been found to increase your risk of heart disease, stroke, and birth defects. Meanwhile, according to Dr. Daniel, soy can increase your risk of heart disease.

As a result, she and other experts have sent a 65-page petition to the FDA asking them to retract the “soy prevents heart disease” health claim, and let’s hope they do the right thing and comply.

Babies and Children Should Not Eat Soy

Soy is bad enough for adults, but children and babies who are still developing are particularly vulnerable to soy’s hormone-mimicking effects. This means avoiding soy infant formula like the plague, and also not eating soy products if you are pregnant, is a health necessity.

Not only does soy infant formula have profoundly adverse hormonal effects, but it also has over 1,000 percent more aluminum than conventional milk-based formulas. Many soy foods also have toxic levels of manganese. Soy formula has up to 80 times higher manganese than is found in human breast milk.

In terms of the hormonal dangers, a Lancet study showed that the daily exposure to estrogen-imitating chemicals for infants who consume soy formulas was 6-11 times higher than adults consuming soy foods.

And the blood concentration of these hormones was 13,000 to 22,000 times higher than estrogen in the blood. An infant exclusively fed soy formula receives the estrogenic equivalent (based on body weight) of up to five birth control pills per day.

If you are a new parent, breastfeeding is the best choice to feed your baby, but if you can’t breastfeed you can make this healthy infant formula at home using raw milk.

Which Soy Foods Should be Avoided … and How do You Avoid Them?

Because soy is so pervasive in the U.S. food supply, avoiding it is not an easy task.

“The best -- and maybe the only -- way to completely avoid soy in the food supply is to buy whole foods and prepare them ourselves,” Dr. Daniel says. “For those who prefer to buy readymade and packaged products, I offer a free Special Report, "Where the Soys Are," on my Web site. It lists the many "aliases" that soy might be hiding under in ingredient lists -- words like "boullion," "natural flavor" and "textured plant protein."

As always, sticking to unprocessed, whole foods is best, but if you do purchase a packaged food, those that contain soy should be clearly marked as a result of the Food Allergen and Labeling and Consumer Protection Act (which requires that products that contain any of the top eight allergens, including soy, clearly state it on the label).

There is one final caveat that I’d like to mention, and that concerns the few types of soy that are healthy; all of them are fermented. After a long fermentation process, the phytic acid and antinutrient levels of the soybeans are reduced, and their beneficial properties -- such as the creation of natural probiotics -- become available to your digestive system.

It also greatly reduces the levels of dangerous isoflavones, which are similar to estrogen in their chemical structure, and can interfere with the action of your own estrogen production.

So if you want to eat soy and not ruin your health … and in fact gain health benefits, the following are all healthy options:
1. Natto, fermented soybeans with a sticky texture and strong, cheese-like flavor. It's loaded with nattokinase, a very powerful blood thinner. Natto is actually a food I eat regularly, as it is the highest source of vitamin K2 on the planet and has a very powerful beneficial bacteria, bacillus subtilis. It can usually be found in any Asian grocery store.
2. Tempeh, a fermented soybean cake with a firm texture and nutty, mushroom-like flavor.
3. Miso, a fermented soybean paste with a salty, buttery texture (commonly used in miso soup).
4. Soy sauce: traditionally, soy sauce is made by fermenting soybeans, salt and enzymes, however be wary because many varieties on the market are made artificially using a chemical process.

Related Articles:
Weston A. Price Foundation to FDA: Soy is No Health Food

Soy No Help to Women With Heart Disease Prevention

The Truth About Soy

Community Comments ( 55 )

Please or to continue.

FunRun [ Joined on 07/08 ] [ Posted on August 22, 2008 ] 16 Points

View FunRun's Profile

Receive updates from FunRun by News Feed

Novice User
Stop and think for a moment.

Who are the leanest, healthiest people in the world? Look around you. Is it your burger-chomping, tofu avoiding friends and family members? Trust your intuition. It tells you what is true despite what others tell to believe.

Look at the Asians who eat much of their protein from tofu... (and please, do not try to tell me that they don't. In October I returned from a one-year bicycle trip through China, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, and Singapore... they eat a lot of tofu! Not miso. Not Tempeh. Tofu.) ...and they are neither obese, depressed, fatigued, nor moody as this interview suggests they should be.

In fact, Asian women are exactly the opposite. Not obese but lean. Not depressed but joyful. Not fatigued but energetic. Not moody but serene. They are the opposite of everything that the interview above says they should be.

How can this be?

Could the answer be other factors? Could it be that soy infant formula is not bad because of the soy but because it is replacing the food nature designed for infants, mother's milk?

Could it be that obese women produce more estrogen as a result of their high fat diet and their large amount of belly fat, both estrogen promoters? Is it possible that they enter a cycle where their increasing fat feeds their increasing estrogen feeding increased fat....?

Could it be that young girls mature earlier because we have far more abundant food than before? Could their excess fat be feeding their estrogen?

Where are all the Chinese with goiters? And the Thais with thyroid problems, where are they hiding? Why do Asians not show these symptoms?

Trust your intuition.

A plant based diet may help... You might consider reading The China Study by T. Colin Campbell.
[ Reply ]

_No_Name_ [ Joined on 04/08 ] [ Posted on August 22, 2008] -10 Points

View _No_Name_'s Profile

Receive updates from _No_Name_ by News Feed

Apprentice User

I'm not sure what you mean by "Asians". There are white, brown, and Oriental people who are from Asia.

FunRun [ Joined on 07/08 ] [ Posted on August 22, 2008] 9 Points

View FunRun's Profile

Receive updates from FunRun by News Feed

Novice User

No Name, I list specific countries and a specific diet... Asians from those countries who eat tofu.

Also, it is interesting that I have received several thumbs down but no one has refuted what I had to say.

ADM and Monsanto are evil. That does not make all tofu and soy food evil. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

ramsim [ Joined on 09/08 ] [ Posted on September 4, 2008] 1 Points

View ramsim's Profile

Receive updates from ramsim by News Feed

Novice User

FunRun-
I whole-heartedly agree. I just returned from a 2-week trip in Vietnam and Thailand. Much tofu is consumed there and everyone looks very lean and healthy. I did not see one obese person (native to the country that is) during our time there. I was overwhelmed by a sense of happiness and kindness from the people in these countries. Serene - yes. My overall impression is that the health is good in these countries. So I agree it is confusing to read that Asian's don't eat tofu and that tofu consumption causes all these problems.
My opinion is eat everything in moderation. I am vegan and eat a mix of soy (tofu and tempeh), beans, hemp protein and nuts to get my protein. My opinion is that it is much healthier to stick to a plant-based diet than a meat and dairy-based diet. So if you have to eat some tofu in making that transition, its not going to kill you.
Oh and China Study...great book!

calitrainer [ Joined on 09/08 ] [ Posted on September 4, 2008]

View calitrainer's Profile

Receive updates from calitrainer by News Feed

Novice User

ramsim - All things in moderation... and you're a vegan? That makes little sense to me. You clearly do not eat ALL things, moderation or not.

shashin101 [ Joined on 09/08 ] [ Posted on September 4, 2008] 4 Points

View shashin101's Profile

Receive updates from shashin101 by News Feed

Novice User

I've lived in Japan for 5 years and am married to a traditional, more or less, Japanese woman. Japanese eat heartily--meat, tofu, lots of veggies and tons of white rice. What they don't do so much is snack--potato chips, candy. Japanese, however, have begun to adopt "Western" eating habits of McDonald's, snacking, eating processed foods, etc. and they're showing it--more and more becoming obese. Some are thin, I think, because of body type, my wife included. They're just thin, eat like a horse, and don't gain weight, low blood pressure, etc. The longest-living people for over a decade, the Okinawans, eat lots of home-grown veggies, don't eat 'til they're full, get daily exercise, the basics. There is a high rate of diabetes, however, in Japan (white rice?).

Islander [ Joined on 03/07 ] [ Posted on September 5, 2008]

View Islander's Profile

Receive updates from Islander by News Feed

Moderator User

NoName, better stick to criticizing big government. FunRun was specific about the Asians she observed. Further, the words "Orient" and "Oriental" are no longer in use (except perhaps for carpets); they are Eurocentric in that they delineate an area that is east only to a "Westerner." "Asia" and "Asian" are more accurate and free of cultural bias.

Gmax [ Joined on 06/06 ] [ Posted on September 5, 2008]

View Gmax's Profile

Receive updates from Gmax by News Feed

This user is BELOW novice level and all their comments need to be reviewed with great caution.

Some pop nutrition experts claim today one thing and tomorrow another. Trust your intuition - I could not agree more. Same people who argue against soy make you even believe that eggs are so good for you. Do the test yourself: If you want to find out about any foods and what it does to you, do the following: eat it excessively. I do that. Eating 8 to 10 raw eggs a day, I got heart problems within a week. Eating 1-2 kg tofu a day, I have no negative impact and good digestion - in contrary to what is claimed here! Now imagine you eat 2 kg of meat a day! This might kill you within a week. By the way, after the experiment with 10 eggs a day, I ate 3 pounds of tofu and my heart went back to normal immediately - within hours! The FDA has a reason not to take Soy from the Heart Healthy List!
I always read this nonsense here: Asians eat little soy! Okinawans are the eldest living people on the planet and they eat lots of tofu each day, more then any other population in Asia. How come they get over 100 years old when tofu is that bad!
Trust your instincts and make your own tests, like I do.
Read the "Okinawa Program", a 25 year study on the eldest living population on earth and then you will know that Tofu is on top of their daily list. Some centenarians even claim when interviewed, that the reason for their old age must be a high daily tofu consumption. Genetics? No. That's why this study lasted for 25 years, to prove that when young Okinawans went to the US to work or study, they became the same health problems as anybody else in USA - as soon as they adopted US eating habits. Consider one thing: if everyone would substitute meat with tofu, that would be a big disaster for an entire industry. There are some legitimate concerns about soy foods for infants but most of the other things I read here is pure nonsense.
Eat chocolate excessively and you get fat. Any doubt? Try it. One kg of chocolate a day and look what happens. And with soy and Tofu you get lean.

cocoy777 [ Joined on 08/08 ] [ Posted on September 5, 2008]

View cocoy777's Profile

Receive updates from cocoy777 by News Feed

Novice User

Pro-soy vs Anti-soy
The long life & healthy bodies of soy eaters in Asia are proofs hard to dispute (refute).
Now, we've got scientific news that soy or its products are causing a list of health problems among Americans who consume them in huge quantity to do some catch up or to drown the negative effects of eating non-healthy foods which their palate, stomach and genitals demand or patronize.
Let's put things on perspective.
Dr Daniels is telling the truth in the sense that she based her anti-soy reports on what has happened to those who are taking US soy products. So, i do not doubt her sincerity.
But let's put things on perspective, namely: FOR CENTURIES AND I THINK MUCH OF IT IS STILL NOW, THE SOY IN ASIA IS ORGANIC. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE SOY IN AMERICA IS GROWN BY CHEMICALS (FERTILIZERS, PESTICIDES), BRED BY CHEMICALS (GMO SOY SEEDS), PROCESSED BY CHEMICALS!
DOESN'T THAT LEAD YOU TO SUSPECT THAT THE ANGEL soy HAS TURNED DEvil?
"So What’s Wrong With Soy?
"Unlike in Asia where people eat small amounts of whole soybean products, western food processors separate the soybean into two golden commodities--protein and oil. There's nothing safe or natural about this,” Dr. Daniel says.
“Today's high-tech processing methods not only fail to remove the anti-nutrients and toxins that are naturally present in soybeans but leave toxic and carcinogenic residues created by the high temperatures, high pressure, alkali and acid baths and petroleum solvents," she continues.
To make matters worse, Americans are consuming soy in unprecedented amounts. Among the many health problems linked to a high-soy diet are:
• Thyroid problems, including weight gain, lethargy, malaise, fatigue, hair loss, and loss of libido
• Premature puberty and other developmental problems in babies, children and adolescents
• Cancer
• Brain damage
• Reproductive disorders
• Soy allergies
Most soy, perhaps about 80 percent or more, is also genetically modified, which adds its own batch of health conce

HealthCoachSandraG [ Joined on 03/08 ] [ Posted on August 21, 2008 ] 15 Points

View HealthCoachSandraG's Profile

Receive updates from HealthCoachSandraG by News Feed

Apprentice User
This country is obsessed with soy! Every time I see someone eating soy milk (or anything made with soy) they're not enjoying it, but eating it because they've been convinced that it's better for them. So sad!! The people that suffer the most are the ones that were actually trying to do the right thing. Kinda like the marjarine disaster!

We over-produce soy and Monsanto has thier hands in ..due to their lovely gm seeds. Since soy has been genetically modified, people have been suddenly allerigic to soy when they previously were not showing any immediate response. How can gm food be the same??

Soy should only be eaten when fully fermented (tempeh, miso), and organic, and should not be over used. In China & Japan they did not touch soy,until it was discovered that fermenting released the phytic acid (cooking and boiling does not), making the soy nutrients available. Even then, they do not eat much.
[ Reply ]

BeeGirl [ Joined on 04/08 ] [ Posted on August 21, 2008] 1 Points

View BeeGirl's Profile

Receive updates from BeeGirl by News Feed

Apprentice User

Has anyone besides me noticed the increasing bisexuality of young women in their teens and twenties? Could this have to do with soy being so pervasive and its effects on testosterone levels in men? Or is it just the latest trend in experimentation or attention-getting? I find it rather strange.

stoic [ Joined on 03/07 ] [ Posted on August 21, 2008] 6 Points

View stoic's Profile

Receive updates from stoic by News Feed

Apprentice User

BeeGirl...don't know about that particular linkage...but the environment is absolutely loaded with oestrogenic compounds...girls today (& for a long time now) do not resemble the girls I went to school with, in terms of physical maturity...& in the competition for receptor sites, testosterone is virtually 'surrounded', which I think goes a long way in explaining the long-term decline in typical testosterone levels in men.....

BeeGirl [ Joined on 04/08 ] [ Posted on August 21, 2008] 2 Points

View BeeGirl's Profile

Receive updates from BeeGirl by News Feed

Apprentice User

Funny thing stoic, I always thought that the 60's generation grew up during the last of the 'good' times, (except for the air raid siren drills, but maybe that was just a west coast thing) yet when I mentioned this to my mother (born in '42), she told me she thought the same thing about herself, and had always felt sorry for my brother and me.
I think we might have finally passed that point for real.

All Under Heaven [ Joined on 02/08 ] [ Posted on August 21, 2008] 2 Points

View All Under Heaven's Profile

Receive updates from All Under Heaven by News Feed

Apprentice User

I think the 50s were the best of times, when life was simple. You know, laid back, rock and roll, muscle cars, countryside, the old fashioned diners. Where people actually talked to and trusted each other, and would sit on their porches to watch the sunset into the summer night. That time was the real American dream (besides the Cold War and nuclear raid drills-like hiding under your desk would save you from a nuclear bomb-and you know people actually built their own fallout shelters right in their own backyards underground)

The 90s when I grew up wasn't so bad. Then the commemoration of the new millennium, things went downhill fast after that.

_No_Name_ [ Joined on 04/08 ] [ Posted on August 21, 2008] 7 Points

View _No_Name_'s Profile

Receive updates from _No_Name_ by News Feed

Apprentice User

The best times were before 1913 (with the exception of the years 1860-1865 during the Second American Revolution) when Americans were regarded as rugged individuals. Low crime, people were prosperous, good food, taxes were almost unheard of. Of course modern government propaganda camps perpetrate the myth that those were the dark ages for America.

BeeGirl [ Joined on 04/08 ] [ Posted on August 21, 2008] 3 Points

View BeeGirl's Profile

Receive updates from BeeGirl by News Feed

Apprentice User

All Under Heaven - what do you suppose we drove in the 70's? Sixties muscle cars, that's what - it's all I could afford on my part-time $2.10 an hour (or maybe it was $1.90, I can't remember) job. I bought my cherry '67 Chevelle for $800 from the original owner. Those were the days!
Even now, if you get out of the city, life takes on a slower pace again. No one here locks their house, or cars, or even rolls up their windows. A handshake still seals a deal. Most people are friendly and wave at you on the road. I can go 250 miles in any direction and if I break down, I probably won't have to wait an hour before someone I know comes along,and even if they don't, someone else will. There's not much else to do around here, but socializing and porch sitting. Lots of musicians.
Thanks for reminding me that there's still a lot to appreciate.

PepperR23 [ Joined on 06/06 ] [ Posted on August 22, 2008] 4 Points

View PepperR23's Profile

Receive updates from PepperR23 by News Feed

Savvy User

I totally agree with your comments. I have lost more than 60lbs since trying to go soy-free and going all organic, as much as possible. If I eat anything with soy in it, I develop gas pains and bloating. It takes tremendous effort here in the USA to find food withour soy in it.

sdalfes [ Joined on 06/06 ] [ Posted on August 21, 2008 ] 9 Points

View sdalfes's Profile

Receive updates from sdalfes by News Feed

Savvy User
I too am devastated that I gave both my children soy formula and soy milk as infants. At the time I thought I was doing the right thing and giving them a healthy alternative to milk. Now that I know better, I feel terrible in that I may have caused them irrepairable damage. Does any one have knowledge or any advice on anything I can do to help them overcome any damage ? They are age 4 and 5.
[ Reply ]

_No_Name_ [ Joined on 04/08 ] [ Posted on August 21, 2008] 1 Points

View _No_Name_'s Profile

Receive updates from _No_Name_ by News Feed

Apprentice User

You have already done the most important thing by not giving it to them anymore.

samurai [ Joined on 04/07 ] [ Posted on August 22, 2008] 3 Points

View samurai's Profile

Receive updates from samurai by News Feed

Savvy User

I rarely meet women that made no mistakes with their pregnancies.
I gave up drinking all forms of alcohol when I was pregnant and breastfeeding, and yet, I enjoyed cappuccinos on a daily basis. My rational was; "well, it's not like I'm drinking tequila!"

paulabob [ Joined on 10/07 ] [ Posted on August 24, 2008] 1 Points

View paulabob's Profile

Receive updates from paulabob by News Feed

Novice User

You just go forward and continue to feed them healthily. It's the same thing we do for ourselves...I mean, I grew up on formula and was fed solids starting at day 5.

All we have is this moment!

rdalchemy [ Joined on 01/08 ] [ Posted on September 4, 2008]

View rdalchemy's Profile

Receive updates from rdalchemy by News Feed

This user is BELOW novice level and all their comments need to be reviewed with great caution.

yeah, start by getting a grip on reality. you act like they don't have a chance at normal life. reading too much mercola can cause irrepairable damage.

lookingforproof [ Joined on 09/08 ] [ Posted on September 4, 2008]

View lookingforproof's Profile

Receive updates from lookingforproof by News Feed

Novice User

I wouldn't worry too much. I gave both my 15 year old daughter and 13 year old son soy formula. They still use soy milk in their cereal every day. (Don't like the taste of cow's milk.) They both went/are going through puberty just fine.

samurai [ Joined on 04/07 ] [ Posted on August 20, 2008 ] 7 Points

View samurai's Profile

Receive updates from samurai by News Feed

Savvy User
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
I hate soy!
[ Reply ]

ruso9 [ Joined on 09/08 ] [ Posted on September 4, 2008 ] 5 Points

View ruso9's Profile

Receive updates from ruso9 by News Feed

Novice User
In 1974, the year the Federal Election Campaign Act passed, dairy interests gave only $100,000 for congressional races; in 1976, they gave $1.4 million. The dairy lobby overwhelmingly prefers incumbents, who are aided by reforms that have made it tougher for challengers to raise money. A December 1997 Money magazine analysis showed that dairy interests gave $2 million during the 1995-96 election cycle, getting $1.3 billion in price supports for their investment.
According to "The U.S. Dairy Industry" by Stillman, Blayney, Miler & Crawford, in 1974 the average milk cow produced 9,751 pounds of milk, by 1993 this had gone up to 15,554 pounds of milk per cow (per year).
Perhaps this increase has been achieved by the increasing use of hormones in the dairy industry?
According to CDC/NCHS, Health, United States, 2006 the steady increase in the percentage of overweight americans started around about 1976 - any connection perhaps?
If his book is as coherent as his letter to the editor of Mothering Magazine then it could be worth a look at
"The Food Revolution".... by John Robbins
A bit suprised by this article on Doctor Mercola's excellent site
[ Reply ]

gracefulwriter [ Joined on 09/08 ] [ Posted on September 4, 2008] 1 Points

View gracefulwriter's Profile

Receive updates from gracefulwriter by News Feed

This user is BELOW novice level and all their comments need to be reviewed with great caution.

I have to agree that I am surprised by this article appearing on Dr. Mercola's site. There is far more overwhelming evidence regarding the damage done by meat and dairy to both children and adults, than there is about soy related health risks.

higher health [ Joined on 10/07 ] [ Posted on August 22, 2008 ] 4 Points

View higher health's Profile

Receive updates from higher health by News Feed

Novice User
Soy was introduced during the buildup for World War 1. They formed a company to continue pushing it named after the scientist who helped work it into the rations - Fearn Soya. It wasn't promoted as a health food until the 40's when Fearn was bought by the Richard family. Yes, the same family of NOW Foods fame. They helped saturate the health food market, and sold the company in the late 80's. I can't say they knew the dangers throughout, but it sure seems that way now.
[ Reply ]

AdeoDifference [ Joined on 04/08 ] [ Posted on September 4, 2008 ] 3 Points

View AdeoDifference's Profile

Receive updates from AdeoDifference by News Feed

Novice User
Not ALL soy is bad. Dr.Daniel explains why MOST of it is in the above article. I've pasted the snippet below my comments*.
There are, in fact, a small number of companies that produce high-quality soy-based products that have unmistakable, noticeable health benefits and have and continue to enhance the lives innumerable individuals world-wide. The differences in their processing include the following (in no particular order):
-Their processing is NOT of the "faster, cheaper, more" approach that causes the positive things about soy to be eliminated and any negative properties to be enhanced. Instead, the beneficial elements of the soy are left intact and the impurities are removed. Quality control far exceeds FDA standards and the product is tested multiple times by independent labs throughout the manufacturing process.
-The product is merely soy-based, NOT all about the soy. BALANCE is key in outputting ANY nutritional product that is going to be well-assimilated and efficiently utilized by the body.
-The product is derived from certified Non-GMO sources. Yes, there are a few left on the planet.
-"By their fruit ye shall know them..." Users of the final product experience IMPROVEMENT in thyroid problems, libido issues, cancers, reproductive problems, and with at least one of the companies, soy allergies are actually eliminated or at least improved as long as the product is used consistently.
Science can be used for wonderful good or horrific bad. I agree that in the vast majority of cases, technology has caused soy to be something we should avoid at all costs, but it is ignorant to assume that in every case a particular naturally occurring substance has been completely ruined.
*Why MOST Soy Today IS UNhealthy:The section begins "Unlike in Asia where people eat small amounts of whole soybean products ..." It is under the heading "So What's So Wrong with Soy?" I didn't paste the whole section here due to limited space so please refer back to the article
[ Reply ]

Nils [ Joined on 04/07 ] [ Posted on September 4, 2008 ] 3 Points

View Nils's Profile

Receive updates from Nils by News Feed

Apprentice User
A big problem with soy is that people who've switched to it often have an emotional stake in continuing to use it. They feel righteous (and self-righteous) because they're eating soy rather than an animal product. "Natural" foods (i.e., processed foods in health food stores) often have a huge amount of soy, which creates a strong economic pressure on the natural foods industry to downplay the dangers of soy consumption.
In my own case, I switched to soy a couple of decades ago... I drank two or three quarts of soy milk a day, made smoothies from it, used it on my breakfast cereal, ate cereal made of soy protein, added tofu to at least one meal a day, ate tofu hot dogs, ate tofu burgers, mixed it in with scrambled eggs and with smoothies .... I lived that way for several years, because I thought soy was a "healthy" alternative to dairy.
I found, during this period, that, "unaccountably," my allergies and food sensitivities got worse, I got cranky, I had low energy, I had intense emotional ups and downs (mostly downs), and I seemed to be always fighting off colds and flus. (When I'd get colds, they'd drag on forever). I stopped jogging because I no longer had the energy for it. The more soy I ate, the sicker I got, though I didn't connect the two at the time. I also felt mentally dull, and thought I must be "getting old."
When I stopped eating soy products, or cut way down (thanks, I think, to articles I had read on Dr. Mercola's web page), I experienced an immediate improvement in my health, energy levels, emotions and mental clarity. I feel better and "younger" now than I did in my soy eating years.... more energy, sharp and clear mentally, and life is usually fun. Removing soy from my diet wasn't the only change I made...I added more omega 3s, take a lot of fish oil and other supplements... but I think that removing soy was a large factor in the improvement. I experienced.
[ Reply ]

GrnSmoothy [ Joined on 09/08 ] [ Posted on September 4, 2008 ] 3 Points

View GrnSmoothy's Profile

Receive updates from GrnSmoothy by News Feed

Novice User
I'm not surprised that our processing methods ruin any benefits soy has, like everything else we process. So what is the alternative? Cows' milk? The corporate dairy machine pumps cows full of hormones to increase milk production. No only do those hormones get passed into the milk, but cows get chronic udder infections so small amounts of blood and puss get into the milk. Pasteurization breaks the hydrogen bonds in helpful enzymes, destroying their function. Furthermore the amino acid methionine, common in animal proteins, contains more sulfur than vegetable proteins, which in a complex chemical reactions, lowers the bloods pH because a weak sulfuric acid is formed. Ultimately out bodies use calcium in the buffering process to equilibrate our pH back between 7.35 and 7.45. This calcium is of course stored in our bones. So in the long run, cows' milk REDUCES the amount of calcium in our bones. See the bottom of this message for my reference.
I've found that homemade almond milk is the best alternative! Here's how:
1. Soak raw almonds in clean water overnight to activate the enzymes, otherwise almonds and other nuts contain enzyme inhibitors (enzymes are the catalyst for all chemical reactions in our bodies)
2. Blend the almonds with a few medjool dates and vanilla for some flavor in a Vita-mix or a food processor until it's liquified.
3. Drain the mix through cheese cloth. You'll be left over with pulp. Squeeze out any remaining liquid and save the nutritious pulp to make dehydrated almond bread.
Almond milk made in this way contains all the calcium you need, without the sulfur-rich amino acid methionine. In fact studies are showing that the best sources of calcium are from almonds, wild salmon, tofu (unprocessed), and lots and lots of greens like kale and spinach (raw of course).
Hope this helps!
Title: A High Ratio of Dietary Animal to Vegetable Protein Increases the Rate of Bone Loss and the Risk of Fracture in Postmenopausal Women
Author(s): Sellmeyer DE
[ Reply ]

Nils [ Joined on 04/07 ] [ Posted on September 4, 2008]

View Nils's Profile

Receive updates from Nils by News Feed

Apprentice User

Hi Joergesen, you may want to try eliminating the boiled soybeans from your diet for a few weeks, and seeing if you notice an improvement. (In my own case, my allergies, mood and mental clarity improved once I cut out the soy) (However, be aware that some other beans also have isoflavones and high estrogen... garbanzo beans cause some of the same problems as soy beans). You say you "occasionally" eat boiled soybean; but even a small amount of soy can be damageing. A recent study showed that consuming as little as one serving of Tofu a week, triggered Alzheimers.

DizzyIzzy1 [ Joined on 06/07 ] [ Posted on August 21, 2008 ] 3 Points

View DizzyIzzy1's Profile

Receive updates from DizzyIzzy1 by News Feed

Savvy User
Thank you! This is so timely for me, I have a friend who's having a little girl in a few weeks and I'm trying so hard to convince her away from soy formula. She plans on breastfeeding for 6 months and then switching to formula, but if she can't for whatever reason feed then formula it'll be. She's starting to see sense but has a midwife telling her soy is the best thing for it, blablabla... ugh. I'll pass this on to her asap. I don't want to see the girls growing breasts by age 3!
[ Reply ]

wiggler [ Joined on 09/08 ] [ Posted on September 4, 2008 ] 2 Points

View wiggler's Profile

Receive updates from wiggler by News Feed

Novice User
Very interesting article.
Yes, soy has been a part of the Asian diet for years. Yes, Asians tend to be a rather healthy bunch. And I don't think that this correlation is a direct result of eating soy.
Take a good look at the Asian diet and the forms in which they eat soy....They eat it as a compliment to their diet, not as a main component of it. Yes, they eat a lot of tempeh and tofu but they're not having a glass of soy milk to wash down their soy energy bar which they eat a few hours after downing their soyburger after which they have soy ice cream for dessert. The tofu they ARE eating is only a small part of a diet that consists of lots of rice, fish and meat, and veggies. They exercise and eat REAL food. Maybe THAT's the healthy lifestyle habit we can learn from Asia....not add more soy.
It's like pouring ketchup on everything because lycopene is good for you......
[ Reply ]

shashin101 [ Joined on 09/08 ] [ Posted on September 4, 2008 ] 2 Points

View shashin101's Profile

Receive updates from shashin101 by News Feed

Novice User
You know, there's so much to consider when it comes to diet. I think staying as natural as possible is the best, mixed with daily exercise because we are attached to a physical body (engine) and exercise keeps the fluids moving (lymph?). I recently lost 30 pounds, dropped my cholesterol from near 300 to 170 with all the good levels at or below recommended numbers. Blood pressure dropped also to a healthy level. What did I do? I exercised almost every day (1 hr. treadmill), cut my calories, ate only fish, veggies and steel cut oatmeal with raisins and cinnamon and local honey. Avoided as much as possible sugar, carbs (other than veggies and fruit) and didn't eat past 7 pm. Very difficult at times but I was on course for a early demise before. Now, I'm back on track. Sorry for the long post. Not selling anything here.
[ Reply ]

jrgossett12 [ Joined on 04/07 ] [ Posted on September 4, 2008 ] 2 Points

View jrgossett12's Profile

Receive updates from jrgossett12 by News Feed

Novice User
FunRun, I agree with you. I have questioned Gary Null, leading natural health activist, regarding his findings about soy. He wrote me back stating that that he has at least 5,000 documents supporting the health benefits of soy and that all this propaganda coming out about the negative aspects of soy is merely smear campaign. Gary offers most of his information for FREE unlike Mercola and others. One should never have to pay to find out truth! Go to www.garynull.com and listen to his free radio show daily. Gary has scientists, doctors, leading authorities on health who must be able to back up what they tout. I believe that Americans, in general, know little about moderation thus problems occur from even the healthiest of foods over time when they are over consumed. Moderation is always key. I definitely believe a plant-based diet is the healthiest. Have you ever seen a weak elephant, rhino, hippo, gorilla? These animals do not eat meat and for those of you who believe in Jesus.....He didn't eat meat either!
[ Reply ]

muen [ Joined on 07/08 ] [ Posted on September 4, 2008 ] 2 Points

View muen's Profile

Receive updates from muen by News Feed

Novice User
Hmmmm..this is the first time an article from your site gave me the propaganda hebejeebees! first , I think a lot of us us soy products as a substitute for conventional milk and other dairy product that are not so healthy to be nice. Additionally as a meat substitute ....why??? because methodes of corporate meat production are very suspect....hence soy
also fermented soy has proven health benefits, phyto estrogens have been used with current chemotherapy treatments to successfully treat breast cancer...(Haelin, waignright)
yes i have a hard time with the gmo soy
times have changed...do your homework before you put it in your body..
Dr Daniel sounds like a fraud
[ Reply ]

AdeoDifference [ Joined on 04/08 ] [ Posted on September 4, 2008] -1 Points

View AdeoDifference's Profile

Receive updates from AdeoDifference by News Feed

Novice User

I don't believe that Dr. Daniel is a fraud, but I do believe that she is depriving persons of the whole truth with her failure to point out that not all whole soy or soy-based products have been corrupted and that not all soy is going to be unhelpful in improving a person's quality of life.

annkees1 [ Joined on 06/06 ] [ Posted on September 4, 2008 ] 2 Points

View annkees1's Profile

Receive updates from annkees1 by News Feed

Novice User
I have been hypothyroid for over 15 years due to autoimmune problems....the only time i had to increase my meds was when I started drinking soy milk, eating tofu and soy burgers in the late 90's. it only took several months of soy to effect my thyroid. I made the connection, did some more research and immediately quit eating soy. I've never had to increase my meds since then, however, the damage that was done did not reverse. I've often thought i would like to become a vegetarian, however, all of the vegetarian diets i have seen include tons of soy so that it out.
[ Reply ]

gracefulwriter [ Joined on 09/08 ] [ Posted on September 4, 2008] -2 Points

View gracefulwriter's Profile

Receive updates from gracefulwriter by News Feed

This user is BELOW novice level and all their comments need to be reviewed with great caution.

annkees1, a vegan diet does not have to include 'tons of soy'. I invite you to do more research regarding a soy free vegan diet before giving up on this healthy lifestyle. Meat and dairy will do far more harm to your health in the long run.

Labtech, S [ Joined on 06/07 ] [ Posted on September 4, 2008 ] 2 Points

View Labtech, S 's Profile

Receive updates from Labtech, S by News Feed

Novice User
Glad this topic has been raised. Soy has been touted as a natural estrogen-like food source but natural does not equate with safety. We know that some natural growing mushrooms will wreak havoc with your liver if ingested, and some very effective insecticides originate in nature, in dandelions. I am NOT suggesting that soy is in the same catagory, but am suggesting that any food touted as having effects similar to hormones, should be suspect of causing hormonal upsets as described here.
When farmers are alternating crops, soy is often grown. I have often wondered if a surplus of soy beans created a "market" for research of the health benefits of soy.
As Dr. Mercola's guest shared how some women have eaten much and found it seemed to have caused certain health problems, I thought about my own short-lived illusion with the benefits of soy. I never went crazy with it but a few years ago I DID start drinking soymilk and eating a few other soy sources, which was new to me. This was followed, within a month, by one of the worst gynecological problems I've ever had. I will not say that the soy caused the problem because I cannot be certain of that. I did suspect it had something to do with it, and stopped eating soy for that reason. And yes, the problem cleared itself..
I then visited my local health food store to ask those-in-the-know about my problem (that followed the recent introduction of soy into my diet). The answer I received confirmed (in my own mind) an aspect of my suspicions. I was told that some (emphasis on some) physicians believe that because of its estrogen-like properties, soy should be avoided by women who have been diagnosed with breast cancer (though that was not my issue). Sorry about all the parentheses..
[ Reply ]

AdeoDifference [ Joined on 04/08 ] [ Posted on September 4, 2008] 1 Points

View AdeoDifference's Profile

Receive updates from AdeoDifference by News Feed

Novice User

I love your statement that "natural does not equate with safety." People should consider this whenever being sold on ANY product. Also, NOT everything that doesn't qualify as "all-natural" is UNhealthy.

cocoy777 [ Joined on 08/08 ] [ Posted on September 5, 2008 ]

View cocoy777's Profile

Receive updates from cocoy777 by News Feed

Novice User
MY OWN ANALYSIS OF THE TWO SIDES IN THIS SOY CONTROVERSY IS LEADING ME TO THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSION: CHEMICALS, GENETIC ENGINEERING (PLAYING GOD, ALTERING WHAT GOD HAS CREATED AND SO WISELY ARRANGED AT SUB-ATOMIC LEVELS) AND MODERATION AS WELL AS DR EARL MINDELL'S "YOU SHALL NOT LIVE BY SOY ALONE" ARE FACTORS THAT AFFECT THE GOODNESS OR THE HARMFULNESS OF SOY.
OK, WAIT A MINUTE. THERE'S STILL ONE FACTOR: ALSO THE PROFIT MOTIVE THAT DOWNTREADS THE LAW "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR (E.G. CUSTOMERS) AS YOUR SELF."
TIME IS COMING WE RAISE OUR HANDS IN TOTAL SURRENDER AND TELL GOD: OK, YOUR WAY ALONE IS GOOD, WISE, SAFE AND LOVING.
THAT WILL INCLUDE THE MISGUIDED CHEMISTS!
[ Reply ]

cocoy777 [ Joined on 08/08 ] [ Posted on September 5, 2008 ]

View cocoy777's Profile

Receive updates from cocoy777 by News Feed

Novice User
ONE LINE OF ATTACK VERSUS SOY IS ITS PHYTIC ACID WHICH IS COMMON IN SEEDS (GRAINS, NUTS, LEGUMES) AND IS A CHELATOR, THAT IS, BINDS METALS AND MINERALS AND FORCES THEM OUT OF THE BODY. THEIR FEAR IS CALCIUM DEFICIENCY, IRON DEFICIENCY, ETC.
GRANTED.
BUT LATELY I HAVE COME ACROSS TO AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENTS (IN BOOKS, ETC.) THAT NOWADAYS TOXIC CHEMICALS TO THE TUNE OF THOUSANDS, MILLIONS OR MYRIADS ARE ENTERING OUR BODY THROUGH ALL ENTRY POINTS: SKIN PORES, NOSE, EYES, MOUTH, GENITALS, ETC. I WAS EVEN SHOCKED TO READ THAT EACH OF OUR CELLS - READ: EACH OF OUR BODY CELLS - IS BEING BOMBARDED OR HIT BY CHEMICALS INCLUDING FREE RADICALS MANY TIMES EACH DAY!!! WAIT A MINUTE I FORGET THE FIGURE, BUT I AM CLOSE TO BE SURE IT IS MORE THAN A HUNDRED TIMES!
A DAY!
SO WE NEED EXPELLERS (CHELATORS) MORE THAN EVER. WE NEED PHYTIC ACID MORE THAN EVER. NATURAL CHELATORS, NOT CHEMICAL CHELATORS. EVERYTHING CHEMICAL NOWADAYS IS SUSPECT ESP IF YOU NOTE THAT THE 7 TRUMPETS (ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGES) AND 7 LAST PLAGUES IN THE BOOK OF REVELATION (NEW TESTAMENT) ARE ALL OR ALMOST ALL CAUSED BY CHEMICALS!!!! CHECK IT OUT.
[ Reply ]

cocoy777 [ Joined on 08/08 ] [ Posted on September 5, 2008 ]

View cocoy777's Profile

Receive updates from cocoy777 by News Feed

Novice User
SOY MILK HAS POSED SOME BAD EFFECTS ON INFANTS BECAUSE INFANTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE FED WITH THEIR MAMA'S BREASTMILK, NOT WITH SOY MILK, STILL LESS WITH COW'S MILK, ETC. IS IT NOT COMMON SENSE AND GOD'S SENSE?
[ Reply ]

nanamegan [ Joined on 02/08 ] [ Posted on September 5, 2008 ]

View nanamegan's Profile

Receive updates from nanamegan by News Feed

Novice User
Thank you for bring out the risks of soy products! I am in remission from cancer and do my best to eat natural and stay healthy.
[ Reply ]

Pilts [ Joined on 01/07 ] [ Posted on September 5, 2008 ]

View Pilts's Profile

Receive updates from Pilts by News Feed

Novice User
I find the article confusing and also hard to believe at best. For the past 2 years I've avoided eating animal products and switched to tofu and other soy based products instead and have noticed nothing but benefits. I used to suffer from insomnia, fatigue, mood swings and lethargy but since changing my diet, I lost 15kgs, sleep soundly, have boundless energy and elevated mood. My inspriation to avoid animal products was generated by a trip to Indochina where I can honestly tell you, I did not see one single person that was overweight in 4 countries in 4 weeks! Whilst I do enjoy reading Dr Mercola's articles, I found this one to be offputting and frightening and from my experience, unfounded.
[ Reply ]

DeeSW [ Joined on 09/08 ] [ Posted on September 5, 2008 ]

View DeeSW's Profile

Receive updates from DeeSW by News Feed

Novice User
The information echo's my experience entirely : Switched to Soy milk in Jan 2008 as a 'good thing to do for menopause'. By April 2008, I believed I had hypo-thyroidism - all the classic symptoms. INSTINCT rather than any medical or other information or intervention made me stop the Soy milk - and continue with an otherwise 'normal' well balanced diet with lots of fruit & veges. (I've had pregancy like cravings for e.g. paw paw, and broccoli). Energy level improvements were perceptable within the first week of dumping the Soy milk - but it took 3 months to shake off the sluggishness - and shedding the Girth-gain still in progress.
I've also lived / worked in Taiwan, China, Thailand and travelled extensively in Asia for the past 10 years - and ate alot of their tofu with no ill effects. BUT I KNOW switching to Soy Milk at home in South Africa made me very ill - and glad to have seen this video to confim my self-diagnosis.
[ Reply ]

highvibe [ Joined on 09/08 ] [ Posted on September 5, 2008 ]

View highvibe's Profile

Receive updates from highvibe by News Feed

This user is BELOW novice level and all their comments need to be reviewed with great caution.
Wiggler, I agree with you. I think that food in excess without balance of other nutritional foods can be unhealthy. My own rule is if over 30% of my diet contains one kind of food it is too much with the exception of fresh organic vegetables. Maybe this is one reason why I have not had any problems from eating soy. I very rarely (maybe twice a month) eat the textured vegetable protein soy products or processed soy foods, and drink as much rice milk as soy milk, neither everyday. The soy that I eat is organic non GMO. The tofu is the same brand that I have been buying since the 1970's, it is processed with quality care the old fashioned way from a company that only makes tofu and in order to keep the tofu fresh the water it is packaged in has to be drained everyday and replaced with fresh water. It only lasts for about a week.
Something to remember is that soy and many other food ingredients are hidden in things that we do not expect to find them in. Unless one eats only organic fresh non-processed foods and/or becomes an avid label reader and learns what all of the ingredients that can't be pronounced are we are getting more of a certain food, additive, preservative or if one is a vegetarian/vegan animal product than we realize.
[ Reply ]

highvibe [ Joined on 09/08 ] [ Posted on September 4, 2008 ]

View highvibe's Profile

Receive updates from highvibe by News Feed

This user is BELOW novice level and all their comments need to be reviewed with great caution.
I want to add there are other products that have the same estrogen like effect as soy, chic peas and lavender being 2 of them how come we are not bombarded with information about how bad these products are. On another note, the national meat and dairy associations spend millions of dollars a year to campaign for their products and publish propaganda. I think it is important to know what organizations are financing the research for their own and independent research studies and publishing the results on soy. For example, the National Dairy Council funded it's own research project on milk and osteoporosis, women who were susceptible to osteoporosis drank 3 extra glasses of low fat milk everyday for a year. The results of the project showed that an excess of protein in the body directly contributes to osteoporosis. This is because too much protein causes the blood pH to become too acid and the body withdraws calcium from the bones (calcium is an alkaline mineral) to balance out the blood pH, causing a negative calcium balance. Yet these results were intentionally kept from the public so the National Dairy Council could continue to advertise and profit from the sale of milk. The purchase of soy products could be a loss of profit for the meat and dairy industries. Just an added note, fruits and vegetables contain various amounts of protein, they also yield an alkaline ash therefore calcium does not need to be taken from the bones for the blood to maintain a neutral pH.
[ Reply ]

spysgrandson [ Joined on 09/08 ] [ Posted on September 4, 2008 ]

View spysgrandson's Profile

Receive updates from spysgrandson by News Feed

Novice User
Fun Run--good post. Before we become plagued with guilt about all the harm we have done our children or personally begin avoiding soy, we might want to research the topic more ourselves. The brief film we have been allowed to watch and the information presented is limited and does not provide substantiation that the claims made are unequivocally accurate.
I have a progressive incurable disease and frequent a website with 3000 plus members--we constantly discuss diet and its relationship to wellness (my masters thesis 23 teays ago was on the relationship between nutrition and behavior). The contentious or controversial discussions at the website to which I refer inevitably lead to one or two conclusions:
all things in moderation and or something requires further investigaton or research before definite conclusions can be reached. Google stuff to death!
Also, I read most of what I get from Dr. Mercola and these "sound byte" type headlines, although interesting and sometimes valid, generally tell only a small part of the story and are often related to some attempt to further a commercial enterprise.
Again--google stuff to death before making assumptions that lead to dramatic changes in behavior.
Be well.
[ Reply ]

joergensen [ Joined on 02/07 ] [ Posted on September 4, 2008 ]

View joergensen's Profile

Receive updates from joergensen by News Feed

Novice User
For years now I've occationally boiled some soy-beans to eat in salads or with a bit of olive oil.
In England, during WWII people were in a large degree dependant on soy-beans for protein.
Is just boiled soy-beans all that damaging?
[ Reply ]

rdalchemy [ Joined on 01/08 ] [ Posted on September 4, 2008] 1 Points

View rdalchemy's Profile

Receive updates from rdalchemy by News Feed

This user is BELOW novice level and all their comments need to be reviewed with great caution.

I'm sure it's the main reason they aren't a superpower anymore.

highvibe [ Joined on 09/08 ] [ Posted on September 4, 2008 ] -1 Points

View highvibe's Profile

Receive updates from highvibe by News Feed

This user is BELOW novice level and all their comments need to be reviewed with great caution.
Funrun and ramsim I agree with you. Ruso9 mentions John Robbins book I have read all of his books, well worth the read he gives a different perspective. I have been vegetarian for 35 years starting at age 18 for the last 5 years I've been vegan. After becoming vegan I discovered that I have an allergy to dairy. Even as a child I never liked milk and rarely ate it, dairy has always given me GI discomfort. I started using soy in my diet at 18 and I still use soy along with organic vegetables, fruits, legumes, nuts and grains in balance. I rarely eat the processed soy substitute meat products, I do eat organic tofu, tempeh, miso and occasionally organic vegan cheese (by the way I enjoy the taste of soy). I am healthy and never had a serious health problem or illness. My cholesterol is low, my thyroid is fine, my heart is good, my bone density is great and I have enough physical energy to spare, I have not even caught a cold in 4 years. Maybe it's not the soy itself that is bad but the way it is processed as Dr. M. discussed, the additives that are put in the soy products and if it is not organic it is grown with pesticides and probably is GM. As for soy oil many oils when heated cause health problems. Dr. Daniels in the video stated that often there are other causes for a health problem as well as the soy. I understand this to mean that eating soy may be a contributor to the cause of a problem but is not the only cause, so if someone does not have another cause or a problem to begin with maybe eating soy would not be a health problem. I think to say that soy is bad for us is an understatement, I think the reasons should be explained in more detail than I have seen on this site. Is soy bad because of the way the soy is processed and what is added to it? does the way it is cooked contribute? what about real organic soy? What if a person made their own soy milk using organic soy? Everyone has to do what they feel is best, I would never give up soy for meat and dairy.
[ Reply ]

Fanny (FIL) [ Joined on 06/06 ] [ Posted on September 4, 2008 ] -4 Points

View Fanny (FIL)'s Profile

Receive updates from Fanny (FIL) by News Feed

This user is BELOW novice level and all their comments need to be reviewed with great caution.
Hopeful
How do you know that Jesus did NOT eat meat? Were you there? Or are you just saying something that someone told you? when someone tells me what Jesus did or did not do, that leads me to wonder where that person got their information from. I don't know too many people living that knows just exactly what Jesus really did or what he ate. There is more information coming out all the time, from different discoveries that tell different stories then what the powers to be wanted the common people to know about his life and the times, and what really went on. So please do not attempt to tell me what Jesus did or did not do, because you really don't know. You may think you do, but you don't really. Only what someone else told you. That is all any of us have at this point, but more and more information is coming out. We have been kept in the dark for so long, it is hard to see the truth when we finally may see it. The same is happening with diet. what we thought may be good for us at one time, we find out that it is not, the next time. Life is a process and it keeps going on . We can only do what we think is best at the time, until something else better may come along. Don't close yourself off and think that one has all the answeres now. You may grow from your coming experiences and your understanding may have grown also.
[ Reply ]

Fanny (FIL) [ Joined on 06/06 ] [ Posted on September 4, 2008 ] -5 Points

View Fanny (FIL)'s Profile

Receive updates from Fanny (FIL) by News Feed

This user is BELOW novice level and all their comments need to be reviewed with great caution.
After reading most of the comment by the different writers, I am wonder if perhaps tofu in Asia is made different then the tofu in this country? Also, according to some doctors, the same diet is NOT good for everyone. What works for some may NOT be the best for otheres, as everyone's makeup is different.
I tried an all plant diet several years ago, and ate a lot of tofu for my protein. It seemed that I was always tired and got sick more then then I used to and that the illness hung on longer. I stopped eating an all plant food diet and started eating chicken and fish again. I also stopped eating tofu so much, just once in a while. I found my energy coming back and I was much healther and fun to be around.
From my own experience, I have decided for self, that not all individuals can eat the same diet with the same results.
If one found the people in Asia eating a lot of tofu and they were healthy, maybe that was because that kind of diet was what was best for their genetic makeup, that has developed over the centuries. Different foods for different people in differnent areas of the world. The different climats of the world could make for different needs in food and what is available for the people that occupy that area. Their bodies get used to that food after a long time of eating it. Besides, didn't Dr. M say that the same food does not fit everyone. The different blood types requrie different types of food, or something like that? JMO.
[ Reply ]

Four Great Values of Soybeans

2008-08-29T00:26:00.000-07:00

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

Nothing beats mama’s breastmilk! What about the traditional use of soy in infant feeding?

2008-08-29T00:13:00.000-07:00

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.

GOD’S OLD LAW ON MODERATION IS STILL THE RULE -- Just How Much Soy Do Asians Eat?

2008-08-29T00:12:00.000-07:00

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

THEY MADE SOY BAD BY CONVERTING IT INTO TRANSFAT!

2008-08-28T23:25:00.000-07:00

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

SOY IS EMPTY BUT ONLY POPULARIZED FOR GAIN?

2008-08-28T23:24:00.000-07:00

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.

MORE ANTI-SOY - Soy May Cause Cancer and Brain Damage

2008-08-28T23:14:00.000-07:00

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.
***************************************

YES, GENETIC ENGINEERING MAKES SOY & OTHER SEEDS EVIL!

2008-08-28T23:07:00.001-07:00

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

******************

DOES NOT SOY BECOME BAD BECAUSE OF GENETIC ENGINEERING?

2008-08-28T23:00:00.001-07:00

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.

So, the harm comes from unfermented soy!

2008-08-28T22:42:00.001-07:00

So, the harm comes from unfermented soy!

“So, fermented soy is of benefit and unfermented soy is not. It is not only soy that needs to be fermented but whole-grains as well. In fact, grains (apart from millet, buckwheat and couscous) and legumes are best consumed after soaking them for 48-72 hours prior to cooking, which allows fermentation to take place. The soaking of grains and beans is also advocated in the principles of macrobiotics, which is very popular amongst vegetarians.”

The truth about Unfermented Soy
and its harmful effects
With vegetarianism gaining increasing popularity from the 1970's, reaching its peak in the 1990’s, soy has emerged as a ‘near perfect’ food, with supporters claiming it can provide an ideal source of protein, lower cholesterol, protect against cancer and heart disease, reduce menopausal symptoms, and prevent osteoporosis – among many other things. It seems like a good thing – or is it really?
How did such a ‘healthy food’ emerge from a product that in 1913 was listed in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) handbook not as a food but as an industrial product?

The reason there’s so much soy in America is because the soy industry started to plant soy to extract the oil from it and soy oil became a very large industry. There was a lot of soy oil and with it came a lot of soy protein residue as a left over by-product, and since they couldn’t feed it to the animals, except in small amounts, they had to find another big market which, of course, was human consumption.
This excess soy production and its protein residue was the motivation for the multi-million dollars spent on advertising and intense lobbying of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which resulted in about 74% of U.S. consumers believing that soy products are healthy. Australia has traditionally prided itself as being a dairy consuming nation, due to the fact that we have such abundant supply of cattle. However, lactose intolerance is becoming a health concern recognized by the medical profession; accordingly, soy is becoming very popular as an alternative to dairy, following in the footsteps of US consumers in believing that all soy-based products have health benefits. In reality, the research that has concluded that all soy products are healthy is far from accurate, and very much skewed by economic motives.
Let’s examine why soy products are far from healthy:
For greater clarity, soy products are classified into two main groups: fermented and unfermented. There are also another two sub-groups: organic and Genetically Modified (GM). The GM soy is to be avoided at all costs, as the hazards of GM are some of the worst innovations of modern day bio-technology. Not only are all GM products unhealthy to humans and animals but also to the normal plants that grow in the surrounding area, due to the natural process of winds causing cross-pollination, resulting in mutated species of what were once natural variations of plants.
The unfermented soy category is a most problematic one. It includes soy products, such as tofu, bean curd, all soy milks, soy infant formulae, soy protein powders and soy meat alternatives, such as soy sausages/veggie burgers, made from hydrolyzed soy powder.
So what is wrong with unfermented soy products?
Soy belongs to the family of legumes. Other members of the legume family include beans – such as adzuki, red kidney, navy, barlotti, etc., as well as chickpeas. Peanuts are included as well, as they are technically not a nut but a legume. All legumes and whole-grains – such as, rice, barley, oats, wheat and rye – contain amounts of phytic acid. Being a legume, soy contains a high amount of phytic acid. So, what’s wrong with phytic acid? A number of things – yet, in some cases, phytic acid can also be beneficial.
Phytic acid’s structure gives it the ability to bind minerals, proteins and starch, and results in lower absorption of these substances. Hence, phytic acid, in large amounts, can block the uptake of essential minerals, like calcium, magnesium, copper, iron, and especially zinc in the intestinal tract. Soy also inhibits the uptake of one of the most important minerals needed for growth and metabolism, iodine, which is used by the thyroid gland in the production of thyroid hormones.
However, for non-vegetarian men, phytic acid may prove to be quite helpful, due to its binding/chelating ability with minerals.
Since a large percentage of non-vegetarian adult males have excess iron, phytic acid would be helpful to them by binding the excess iron. But we need to bear in mind phytic acid will simultaneously bind other minerals, such as calcium, magnesium and zinc. In the case of children and menstruating women, the phytic acid in soy can be a serious negative, as women and children need iron. In women, iron is needed to replace the loss during their menses and in children iron is required for growth and development.
Apart from the phytic acid-related phenomena, there are additional factors that make soy an unhealthy choice.
Soy:

* contributes to thyroid disorder, especially in women
* promotes kidney stones
* weakens the immune system
* contributes to food allergies and digestive intolerance

Perhaps the most disturbing of soy’s ill effects on health has to do with its phyto-estrogens, which can mimic the effects of the female hormone, estrogen. These phyto-estrogens have been found to have adverse effects on various human tissues, and drinking only two glasses of soy milk daily for one month has enough of the chemical to alter a woman’s menstrual cycle.

Soy is particularly problematic for infants and it would be very wise to avoid giving them soy-derived products, since it has been estimated that infants who are exclusively fed soy formula receive the equivalent of five birth control pills worth of estrogen every day. Check out to find some alarming research and statistics on what can go wrong when infants and children are regularly fed soy formula.

In order to derive some benefit from soy, consuming only fermented soy products – such as organic miso (mugi barley and genmai miso are the best), organic tempeh, soy sauce or tamari and natto – is the way to do it. This is because the phytic acid, which is inherent in soy beans, has been neutralized in the process of fermentation. Consuming fermented soy is very beneficial in recolonizing the friendly bacteria in the large intestine, which neutralizes the ‘unfriendly’ bacteria and allows for greater general assimilation of foods and nutrients.

So, fermented soy is of benefit and unfermented soy is not. It is not only soy that needs to be fermented but whole-grains as well. In fact, grains (apart from millet, buckwheat and couscous) and legumes are best consumed after soaking them for 48-72 hours prior to cooking, which allows fermentation to take place. The soaking of grains and beans is also advocated in the principles of macrobiotics, which is very popular amongst vegetarians.
Yet many vegetarian restaurants do not have time or forget to incorporate this very important process in their vegetarian cooking and thus people who regularly eat out at vegetarian restaurants might develop severe mineral deficiencies due to the large consumption of phytic acid in their diet.

Another common fallacy is that soy foods couldn't possibly have a downside because Asian cultures eat large quantities of soy every day and consequently remain free of most western diseases. In reality, the people of China, Japan and other Asian countries eat very little soy. The soy industry's own figures show that soy consumption in China, Indonesia, Korea, Japan and Taiwan ranges from 10 to 90 g per day. That is grams of soy food, not grams of soy protein alone. Compare this with a cup of tofu (250 g) or soy milk (240 g). Many Americans and Australians today would be consuming a cup of tofu and a couple of glasses of soy milk every day. They might also add veggie burgers to this, thinking they are getting their much needed protein intake. Infants on soy formula are probably the most disadvantaged, as that is their main source of nutrition and they ingest large amounts of soy relative to their body weight. Often the side effects are not noticed but, as they are growing up, runny noses, frequent colds, irritability, severe sugar cravings and food intolerance develop.

The summary below outlines the adverse effects of unfermented soy products:

* Trypsin inhibitors in soy interfere with protein digestion and may cause pancreatic disorders. In test animals soy containing trypsin inhibitors caused stunted growth.

* Soy phyto-estrogens disrupt endocrine function and have the potential to cause infertility and to promote breast cancer in adult women.

* Soy phyto-estrogens are potent anti-thyroid agents that cause hypothyroidism and may cause thyroid cancer. In infants, consumption of soy formula has been linked to autoimmune thyroid disease.

* Vitamin B12 analogs in soy are not absorbed and actually increase the body's requirement for B12.

* Soy foods increase the body's requirement for vitamin D.

* Fragile proteins are denatured during high temperature processing to make soy protein isolate and textured vegetable protein.

* Free glutamic acid or MSG, a potent neurotoxin, is formed during soy food processing and additional amounts are added to many soy foods.

* Soy foods contain high levels of aluminum which is toxic to the nervous system and the kidneys.
In contrast, consuming organic fermented soy products is quite beneficial. Consuming even small amounts of unfermented soy on a regular basis could cause some adverse effects in our body. Next time you consider drinking soy milk, perhaps instead consider oat milk, coconut milk or goat’s milk. Some people who are allergic to dairy can tolerate goat milk and goat cheese products in small quantities. Replacing soy and regular milk with these alternatives allow us to enjoy our beverages and cereals without harming our health.

Information supplied by: Franky Corne

Pro-soy vs Anti-soy

2008-08-28T20:03:00.000-07:00

ANTI-S0Y
Does this unfavorable information regarding soy beans 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.

WOMEN AND SOYA LOAF -- Just for Women: Rx for Menopause and Osteoporosis

2008-08-10T04:31:00.001-07:00

WOMEN AND SOYA LOAF

Just for Women: Rx for Menopause and Osteoporosis

________________________________________
When you talk about menopause in the United States, the first thing that comes to mind are hot flashes, the quintessential symptom of the “change of life.”

Interestingly, there is no word in Japanese to describe a hot flash. In fact, many studies show that most Japanese women never experience a hot flash, and, in fact, complain of far fewer unpleasant symptoms of menopause than do Western women.

A recent study by Canadian researchers of Japanese women and menopause reported that “the hot flush or flash, seen in the West as the sine qua non of the menopausal woman, was mentioned by only 12 of the 105 women and no one talked about night sweats.” In another study, researchers compared the menopausal experiences of Japanese, Canadian, and U.S. women. The Japanese women had far fewer complaints than did the Western women.

• Nearly 35% of U.S. women and 31% of Canadian women reported having hot flashes, versus only 12.4% of the Japanese women.
• More than 38.1 percent of the American women complained of a lack of energy; only 6% of the Japanese women had the same complaint.
• More than 35% of the U.S. women complained of depression, only 10.3% of the Japanese women said they felt depressed.
• In fact, researchers reported that few Japanese women were on any medication (hormone replacement therapy) for menopause. However, Japanese women did use more herbs and herbal teas.

“Japanese women may actually have fewer menopausal symptoms because of their diet,” says Dr. Herman Adlercreutz, a major researcher in the field of phytoestrogens, “Japanese women eat high amounts of soy foods, and soy foods contain isoflavones. All isoflavonoids are weak estrogens and such high amounts could have (positive) biological effects especially in postmenopausal women with low estrogen levels. [Presence of] high levels of isoflavonoid phyto-estrogens [in large amount] may partly explain why hot flashes and other menopausal symptoms are so infrequent in Japanese women.”

Soy may also help relieve another discomfort associated with menopause: thinning of the vaginal walls. After estrogen levels drop, the lining of the vagina begins to thin, which can result in painful intercourse and a potential for developing infections. Soy may prevent this from happening. A recent study described in the British Medical Journal attempted to see whether eating food rich in phytoestrogens could prevent thinning of the vaginal wall. Postmenopausal women were given three different foods – soy flour, linseed oil, and red clover sprouts – daily for two weeks each. During the soy period, there was a greater increase in the number of cells in the vaginal epithelium than during the other food periods. The research concluded that “patterns of food intake may modulate the severity of the menopause as it is an estrogen deficiency state” (BMJ, 301, October 20, 1990).

Soy for Strong Bones

Research suggests that soy foods may be a useful tool in maintaining strong bones. This is good news, especially for people at risk of developing osteoporosis, a disease characterized by a thinning or wearing down of bone tissue, which leaves the bones vulnerable to factures and breaks. Osteoporosis is a virtual epidemic among elderly, especially older women. In fact, about 15 million Americans – 75% of them women – have osteoporosis. As the population ages, the number is expected to soar.

Osteoporosis is a disease of aging. In young people, bone is constantly being produced by the body. The creation of new bone is a complex process involving the interaction of minerals such as calcium and potassium, and hormones such as estrogen in women and testosterone in men, and vitamin D.

However, at around age forty or so, women especially begin to use up more bone than they can produce. So do men; however, men have more bone mass to begin with, and typically do not lose as much as do women. In fact, on average, postmenopausal women lose about 5% of their bone mass annually, the process being accelerated by a drop in their estrogen levels…

Not all women are at equal risk of developing osteoporosis. Caucasian and Asian women – especially those who are thin-boned and petite – run a much greater risk of osteoporosis than women of African descent.

Although few people consider osteoporosis to be as serious as a disease as heart disease or cancer, in reality it is a leading killer of women. Typically, an older woman falls and injures her hip, a common site of injury. About 15% of all women with hip injuries die shortly after being injured. Within a year, nearly a third will die owing to complications such as a blood clot. Hip injuries are also a major reason why older women wind up in nursing homes.

Paradoxically, even though Asian women are small boned, they have far fewer hip injuries than do Caucasian women. In fact, Japanese women have roughly half the hip injuries of U.S. women, and women in Hong Kong and Singapore fare even better. What’s even more mysterious is the fact that Asian women consume far less dietary calcium than do U.S. women.

Exercise may be one of the reasons why Asian women are spared hip injuries. For example, in traditional Japanese homes people sit on the floor. Having to get up and down dozens of times a day may help a woman develop strong muscles and bones in the hip region. However, diet may also play a small role in helping reduce the rate of hip fractures.

Even though Asian women eat less bone-building calcium, their bodies may better utilize the calcium that they do eat. For one thing, Asian women eat less protein than Western women. Several studies have shown that ¬protein in general, and animal protein in particular, increases urinary excretion of calcium, which means that the body has less calcium to draw upon if it needs it. Although the amount of calcium excreted is very small, over a lifetime it could have a significant effect on available calcium, and that could make a difference in terms of bone mass.

In addition, studies have shown that consumption of soy protein results in far less urinary calcium excretion than does animal protein. In one study conducted at the University of Texas, researchers found that people who ate soy protein lost 50% less calcium through their urine than if they ate animal protein. Since most Asian women eat more soy products than U.S. women, they could be retaining more calcium even though they consume less.

Other studies suggest that the isoflavones in soy may help retain bone mass…

“It looks promising that genistein may have some preventive effect on bone loss”, said Dr. John Anderson of the University of North Carolina, “Our studies suggest that Japanese women may have a lifetime of protection of retaining a bit of more bone at all sites because of dietary soy factor.”

Soy may indeed prove to be a “bone-sparing” food. Given the results of these early studies, it makes sense to include soy food as part of an anti-osteoporosis diet.

However, it should be used along with other bone builders including the following:

1. Calcium. Sources: low-fat yogurt, tofu made with calcium sulfate, canned salmon with bones, almonds, fortified cereals, leafy vegetables;
2. Vitamin D. Without the sunshine vitamin, calcium cannot be absorbed by the body.
3. Phytoestrogens from soy beans.
4. Exercise.
5. Boron. This mineral found in grapes and dried fruit, helps raise the levels of blood estrogens in postmenopausal women, which may help retain calcium.

Avoid these bone breakers:

1. Caffeine increases calcium excretion. Watch the coffee and the caffeinated colas!
2. Smoking increases your risk of developing osteoporosis.
3. Excess alcohol interferes with mineral absorption.
4. Phosphates, found in many soft drinks, can deplete calcium levels.

- Source: Soy Miracle, Dr. Earl Mindell, R. Ph., Ph. D.
- Professor of Nutrition Pacific Western University, Los Angeles, California
________________________________________
Start by taking a taste of
VidaBee’s
Honey Soya Loaf
Size: Usual size of large sliced bread or
loaf bread
Price: P 30.00

Main ingredient: Freshly ground soy flour
Other ingredients:
 Whole grain (wheat/rice) flour –
best for its fiber & vitamins esp. A, B, C & E
 Natural sugar: honey and kinugay/muscovado
No chemically processed sugar which is difficult for our insulin hormones to burn into energy, and which becomes fat deposits in our cells, thus, contributes to obesity-heart disease, diabetes and cancer.
 Unsaturated liquid plant oil, such as soy oil, corn oil, VCO, etc. – safe from CVDs and obesity
No saturated fats such as (a) animal fat, (b) transfat (liquid plant oil hardened through the chemical process of hydrogenation), and (c) synthetic [chemical] fats.

Made-To-Order or Reservations, available at: Cuarteros Nutri-Bread and Cakes
Contact:
Vida – 0910-6447-828 - Jagna (CNC)
Marigen– 0917-9253-453 – Tagbilaran(GSO)
Sheila - 0919-2226-978 – Loon (MBO)

SOYBEANS -- SECRET OF NO SICKNESS, GOOD HEALTH AND LONG LIFE

2008-08-10T04:28:00.000-07:00

SOYBEANS -- SECRET OF NO SICKNESS, GOOD HEALTH AND LONG LIFE

Japanese ‘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;

Chinese ‘Soy Protein Diet’ vs. American ‘Meat Protein Diet’:

1. The Chinese are said to be “singularly free from several of our most deadly disease such as CVDs, cancers and diabetes” ;
2. Chinese men have one-tenth (1/10th) the rate of heart disease as American men;
3. 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 soy 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) and only 45 plant protein; In some estimates, animal protein consumption by Americans is placed at 2/3 of the total protein consumption!

Conclusion:
The American diet is “high-fat” because of the protein largely obtained from animal meat. The Japanese and Chinese diet is “low-fat” because they obtain their need of protein from plants especially soybeans.

The Chinese diet of 95% soy protein and only 5% animal protein makes the Chinese almost vegetarian. The soybean is the most important legume and source of protein in the Chinese diet. For centuries, the soybean, a legume native of China, has served practically the sole source of protein for the Chinese people, while Americans receive the bulk of their protein from meat, milk, eggs and cheese.

“China gives a wonderful illustration [read: example] of the effects on the human race of a vegetarian diet over a long period of time. In fact, the state of nutritional equilibrium which has been attained in eastern Asia on a vegetarian diet is unique and could no doubt serve as [a model or inspiration].”
- Dr. A.K. Smith, U.S. Department of Agriculture

A vegetarian diet containing soybeans is in many ways more healthy than a meat diet when you consider the fact that presently, the Chinese are said to be singularly free from several of our most deadly diseases such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes.

Both soy protein and animal protein are classified as complete proteins, containing all the essential amino acids. But soy protein is better because (1) it contains half the calories of beef (230 calories versus 470), hence you can eat more quantity of soy products without the danger of accumulating too many calories which, being not burned into energy by sedentary people, are stored as fats, making people obese; obesity or stored fats are feeds to the triumvirate diseases of CVDs, cancer and diabetes; and because 2) soy beans contain none of the saturated fats and cholesterol that animal protein contains; hence, soy protein help lower cholesterol and saturated fats levels and reduce the risk of heart disease.”

“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 (fat) 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: Shift to plant protein. Replace your animal protein (found in meat fats) with soy protein.

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. God’s Health Menu

From God’s Word, especially in the Old Testament, we come to know that His menu for mankind consists of (1) seeds (e.g., grains, legumes, nuts, etc.); (2) fruits with seeds in them – Genesis 1:29; (3) the clean meat enumerated in Leviticus 11; and (4) diligent work for six days a week to keep us healthy by keeping on burning, as exercise does, the calories or energy contained in the food we ate or else these unused calories would deposit as fats (obesity) and would cause CVDs as well as serve as feeds of cancers and diabetes. Secondly, sweating in work or exercise helps eliminate the dirts and poisons from our body, thus, keeping our body free from diseases.

With this formula and short guideline, plus the 10 Commandments, we could already build a strong foundation for our health and long life.

So, our approach is preventive, before sickness can occur. And examples of preventive, pro-active approach are: 1) obedience to God’s laws; and suiting our article, 2) diet.

So we say:

“Eat right before the doctor comes in and gives you an expensive hospital bill!
Don’t wait for treatment time, start at eating time!”

“Junk foods and empty calories may seem to be cheap and affordable at buying time, but at disease-reaping time, they are found to be so expensive and costly, especially when health is lost and life is the cost!”
“Diet is proactive and preventive.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Medicine to cure, including herbal, is quite reactive…and oftentimes too late.”

“Diet before tablet.”

“Diet, not Rx!”

2. Shift to plant protein especially soy beans. This is what you can do for yourself.

For information about the supply and processing of soybeans into soymilk, tofu, taho, miso, etc., contact:
Email address: cocoy777@yahoo.com

3. Replace your “empty calories” bread with SOYA LOAF BREAD and other Nutri-Bread. This is what we can do for you.

“Made-To-Order” or “Reservations” available at: Cuarteros Nutri-Bread and Cakes
Contact:

Vida – 0910-6447-828 - Jagna (CNC)
Marigen – 0917-9253-453 – Tagbilaran (GSO)
Sheila - 0919-2226-978 – Loon (MBO)

Wisdom’s Rule of the Thumb: Eat right before the doctor comes in and gives you an expensive hospital bill! Don’t wait for treatment time, start at eating time!

Junk foods and empty calories may seem to be cheap and affordable at buying time, but at disease-reaping time, they are found to be so expensive and costly, especially when health is lost and life is the cost!

As the Bible says, “Do not trust your tongue. Your tongue is a DANGER ZONE!” (Apostle James).

The tongue is blind, has no eyes. Therefore, if the blind is let to lead the other blind, both will fall into the ditch. Let the eyes see and let the head lead. Never completely trust your tongue.

We have a head that can receive revelation (guide) from God as to what is good and what is evil, what is safe and what is not. “Ask [guidance] and it shall be given, seek [guidance] and you shall find it, knock and it shall be opened.”

I hope this article will help you.

Godspeed!

How valuable Soy Beans are in this endtime?

2008-08-10T04:05:00.001-07:00

How valuable Soy Beans are in this endtime?

Agape Foundation (Agasoft)
August, 2008

“Eat right before the doctor comes in and gives you an expensive hospital bill!
Don’t wait for treatment time, start at eating time!”

“Junk foods and empty calories may seem to be cheap and affordable at buying time, but at disease-reaping time, they are found to be so expensive and costly, especially when health is lost and life is the final cost!”

“Diet is proactive and preventive.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Medicine to cure, including herbal, is quite reactive… and oftentimes too late. ”

Diet, not Rx!
Preface

Diet, not Rx!

“Eat right before you get sick and the doctor comes in to give you an expensive hospital bill!
Don’t wait for treatment time, start at eating time! Diet before tablet.”

Jesus Christ is called the “wisdom of God”, even as God the Father is the Love. Jesus came to be a “light” unto this blinded dark world, lest we shall be lost forever. Father is to the heart, Son is to the Mind.

As Mind or Wisdom of God, one of the particular things Jesus told us about was to be wise as a serpent without losing the loving-kindness, meekness, and innocence of the dove.

He urged His followers to beware because the children of the world, such as the worldly profit-minded businessmen and their scientists and chemists, are shrewder than the children of the light – that in the last days (now!) they will make things so difficult, slippery and fill the world with temptations that “even the Elect would be deceived if it were possible”.

The sad fact is that a large number of the so-called Christians or followers of Jesus Christ have fallen into the subtle trap the wily serpent had laid along the way with his cohorts.

One is in the area of food or health.

Satan succeeded in particular in making Christians complacent and negligent in this area, instead of being vigilant as in any other areas. Satan was able to persuade us Christians to never mind the food we eat because “the kingdom of God is not about eating and drinking” which is a phrase extracted from the apostle Paul’s epistle.

So, we focus our sight on the development of the spirit, leaving Satan and his cohorts to destroy our body which is the temple of God’s Holy Spirit.

Is this correct? Is it God’s will for us to neglect our body’s health in order to focus our efforts to the salvation of our soul? Are we to swing to the other extreme? Do we have to allow the food manufacturers or doctors or the Big Pharmaceuticals to destroy our body or health in order to be saved? Or is it not another wrong extreme?

Getting the whole perspective of the Holy Bible, it is not God’s will to destroy the body because it is the temple of His Holy Spirit. As a matter of fact, Paul seemed to indicate that to harm or destroy the human body is a greater sin because it is a sin against self.

Let us quote him.

“Know you not that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you from God? Thus, you are no longer of your own, but God’s, being bought with a price? Therefore, use your body as well as your spirit to glorify God.”

“Know you not that you are the temple of God, and that the spirit of God dwells in you? If any man defiles (or harms) the temple of God, him shall God destroy. For the temple of God (that is, our body) is holy, which temple you are.”

Which of these verses show us that it is God’s will to expose our body to any type of harm? To the contrary, we are to take care of our body more than ever in order to sanctify or exclusively use it in His service and for His glory. We are no longer ours.

While Paul in all cases discuss about misusing our body in harlotry or sexual immorality, the application extends farther and includes all other kinds of harm.
Jesus laid the premise, namely: That we are to love ourselves as well as our neighbors. “Love your neighbor as you love yourselves,” He commanded.

Nowhere in the Bible or Holy Scriptures can we find that we are to harm or destroy our body or self in order to attain spiritual salvation. The statement of Jesus about plucking one’s eye or cutting one’s hand that caused one to sin adding “it is better to enter God’s kingdom with one eye or maimed than for the whole body to be cast into hell” is a metaphor of the need to avoid the situations where you, in your weakness, will be tempted again to sin.

I am in favor of putting secondary importance to the health and well-being of our physical body in order to give priority No. 1 to the health, healing and salvation of our soul and spirit. And I think that is the right approach and the right balance. But to neglect our body such as to allow others to harm and destroy it with their subtly delicious but harmful food and drinks, that I consider as the other extreme which is as wrong as the first extreme of making our physical well-being the No. 1 priority, neglecting our soul-spirit.

The apostle John made it clear: it is right to seek the prosperity of both body and spirit. “Beloved, I wish above all things that you may prosper and be in health, even as your soul prospers,” John wrote in 1 John 1:2.

He talks about three things here: a) economic prosperity, b) bodily physical health and c) soul’s salvation and development.

So, the right mind frame is to seek the health of body and soul. Other than that is not of God. To seek the health of the soul while neglecting or harming the body is not in accordance to God who had purchased our body to become the temple of His Holy Spirit.

Yes, there are times when our body may be destroyed such as by martyrdom, but it is not our own doing, but the enemy’s who persecute us. Let it be far from us to intentionally destroy or harm the temple of God’s Holy Spirit. Under normal circumstances, as much as possible, we must take good care of our health so we can serve God actively and productively.

When Jesus said “Greater love has no one than to lay down one’s life for his beloved friends,” it could mean either dying for love (abrupt martyrdom) or living for love (e.g., gradual laying down of one’s life through a life of service and sacrifices). But it does not mean harming unnecessarily our body.

***

Does Romans 14:17 call Christians to hate themselves and harm their health?

Romans 14:17 states: “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.”

Does it mean we are now to neglect our health, now that we are Christians and supposedly have our soul’s salvation assured by Christ’s sacrifice? Is Christianity equated to bad health, sickness, diseases, physical death?

Does Romans 14:17 mean that now that we are Christians, we are no longer to take care of our health?

Taking the answer from God’s main law “You shall love God above all and your neighbor as yourself,” the answer is “No.” NO, we are still to remain loving ourselves, e.g., taking good care of our health. Jesus said we are to proceed loving others, as we love ourselves. Jesus never said, Stop loving yourselves and start loving others. He said, Love your neighbor as you continue to love yourself.

Our own health and well-being (love of self) is still a goal in Christianity, although love for God and love for neighbor are the higher goals. In a sense, love of self becomes the means to the higher ends of loving God and loving neighbor. The new Christian perspective is: Take good care of your self so you can love or serve God and neighbor.

That is new. That is different to the old pagan mindset which makes love of self the only value and the ultimate goal, excluding God and neighbor.

In Christ’s mind frame, love of self, love of God and love of neighbor are all valuable and precious, only the degrees are different, where love of self should be lower than love for God and is equal to love of neighbor.

In this case, love of self becomes the lesser goal and in a sense also the means. It is a means to attain the higher goal of loving God and neighbor. Our being healthy in particular or our love of self in general is, under the new Christian mentality, a means to serve and love God and neighbor.

Our motivation to take care of ourselves now takes new and broader dimension. If in the past we only take care of ourselves because we want all praises, all glories and all happiness to be ours, now it is different, or rather, more mature: we now take care of ourselves because, aside from self, there is a Father (God) and there are fellowmen (brothers) whom we love and whom we intend to serve.

We no longer live for ourselves only or primarily but for God and others. It is far better – far better than the old selfish myopic perspective of selfish love.

A positive twist

Strange as it may seem, the initiative of a convert-to-Christ to change his focus from self to others, does not and will not actually reduce personal well-being, but rather, increase it because health and happiness comes from God and fellowmen! The more you love them, the greater that health and happiness will you receive.

The old pagan approach of making self the exclusive beneficiary (selfish self-love) was actually a state of self-deception. It was a state of self-deception because over-loving (read: indulging) yourself with wine, women, food (gluttony) would lead you to diseases caused by drunkenness, sexual immoralities, and gluttony.

Let’s take the case of food. Rich people do not share to the poor. They indulge in rich food – filled with delicious cholesterol (fats) and sweets. What happened as results of this gluttony and selfishness? They got sick with cardio-vascular diseases, cancers and diabetes. They died of heart attack, stroke or gangrene or cancers.

The pagan line of thinking was “love yourself alone or above others” which take us to the state of forgetting God and taking advantage of others – for the sake of the self.

Now, has this precept, rule and philosophy of life led to real benefit of the self? Or did not it lead to God’s withdrawing His blessings and protection from us, exposing us to all kinds of dangers and harms? And did it not lead the fellow men to seek also our harm and destruction, avenging our own deeds that harming them?

So, selfish self-love that does away with God and neighbor is not a real love of self. It is self-deception. It is subtle self-destruction. You destroy your own self by cutting off your life-line with God, the source of life, and by provoking the powers of your fellowmen to work against you!

To follow Christ’s precept to love God above all and your neighbor as yourself is a positive twist towards true benefit of self. It is the path to true love of self. For if you truly love your self, then, why do you displease God and provoke your neighbors, both in possession of powers that can either benefit or harm your self?

The true path to genuine security and benefits for the self – the right kind of self-love – rests in the law of Christ, “You shall love God above all and your neighbor as yourself.” Only when and if you are able to love God above all will you find absolute protection, guaranteed security, and genuine salvation, as well as countless of benefits including freedom, happiness, abundant life, you name it.

So, we have to cast all our fears and plunge without hesitation to “loving God above all and our neighbor as ourselves”! Let us not remain cold, still less, lukewarm, swinging to and fro or tossed to and fro by the winds of doubt, lest God will spew us out!

Now that we had put our hands on the plow, let us not look back! For he who looks back is not fit for God’s kingdom!

Like Peter, let us walk on the water in faith. But unlike Peter, let us not allow the waves of doubts to cause our faith to waver, lest we sink! Like Peter, let us hone our faith to become firm and solid like a rock!

Misinterpretation of Romans 14:17 led to Revelation 16:2

Romans 14:17 states: “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.”

Putting the wrong meaning into this verse has led to the first plague in Revelation 16:2!

That is how dangerous is wrong interpretation!

Instead of giving proper care of our health so we can run the Christian race more effectively, we neglected our own physical well-being in the following specific ways, causing us to run like a sick man:

1) We allowed the scientists-chemists to formulate artificial counterfeit fertilizers that at first additional size and quantity to the organically naturally fertilized plants and fruits that our forefathers cultivated under God’s natural ecosystems. We did not know that those sudden expansion of the size of our corn and yield of our rice was a hoax made by those chemicals they call fertilizers. Now, our naïve ancestors way back in the 1960, were persuaded and so they adopted the commercial artificial counterfeit fertilizers. Nothing was suspect; nothing was indicative that these chemical fertilizers would destroy God’s Nature and Ecosystem, kill His earthworms and micro-organisms, those natural decomposers who are the makers of organic, natural fertilizers, keeping the soil fertile. And so our grandfathers adopted the chemical fertilizers and pesticides beginning 1960. Nothing did they know that some 20 years, then some 30 years, then some 48 years later (2008), it would be clear that these chemical fertilizers would have largely destroyed our Ecosystem, killed our micro-organisms (makers of organic natural fertilizers), so that farmers can no longer grow plants and obtain yields unless they use these chemical fertilizers; the soil has died. Now by-products of these artificial fertilizers, such as nitrates and nitrites, have crawled over the ovaries and breasts of our women (actually via the food chain), form the deadly carcinogen nitrosamines by combining with amino acids, causing them breasts cancers and cervix (womb) cancers! And because it is the breasts and womb that these fertilizer-originating carcinogens are attacking, our children who first are nurtured inside those wombs and later on fed by those breasts, will suffer the most from those cancers! They would be born with various deformities, and will become victims themselves of cancers. What world will it be populated by cancer victims?
2) We allowed the grain millers to remove the all-important multi-nutritious bran and germ off God’s rice, wheat, corn, etc., leaving the polished, white refined grains with only 2 nutrients, instead of the original 30 or so nutrients (vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals, etc.) that the whole grain still possessed before being mill-refined. Thus, our staple food is the first to have become “mal-nourished” or “un-nourished” and “non-nutritious”. Already at this point, we lost our first defense against diseases that would be caused by chemical substances, germs and viruses.
3) Because we misunderstood Romans 14:17’s “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink,” we forget that God was health-conscious already in the Old Testament about which Jesus said: “I have come not to destroy the Law in the Old Testament but to fortify, magnify and fulfill them” (Matthew 5). In Leviticus 3 & 7 for example, God clearly prohibits the eating of blood and fats. Now, our independent medical and scientific studies and investigations have led us to find that cholesterol is a component of what we call animal fat. Cholesterol or more correctly, the cholesterol that we eat from animals together with the fat and meat, has been singled out as the one which gets stuck in the arteries of our hearts and other locations of our blood vessels. This caused heart attack if this cholesterol completely clogged our heart, stroke if it completely blocks the blood going to the brain, and gangrene if it happens to the feet. Because there was no microscope in Moses time and the people did not yet know the chemical-biological composition of the human body, or of the circulatory system in particular, God used other reason why He prohibited the eating of fat: “Fat is for the burning sacrifice to serve as incense, giving sweet aroma.” Now, after thousands of years of independent scientific and medical investigations, we found a second reason why God Jehovah repeatedly told the Israelites and all: “Do not eat fat of any animal.” And what is that reason? Independently discovered, the reason is: ANIMAL FAT, cholesterol in particular, causes heart attack, stroke and gangrene, among others! In short, ANIMAL FAT KILLS! You can use it for any other useful purposes, but never eat it, God told Moses and the Israelites.

Now, the big businessmen have made great profits using the “sweet aroma” of animal fat which we love and eat despite God’s warning. Cholesterol in particular and fat in general taste delicious and fragrant to the smell. Both nose and tongue are served well by cholesterol. And that is the areas shrewd businessmen exploited or used to make big sales of products laced or filled with animal fat.

In what ways, for example, does animal fat make food more delicious, aside from being eaten directly with the meat? The most common uses of animal fat is as shortening, that is, as lard, margarine and butter. Besides that lard, margarine and butter adds flavor and aroma, they also serve as shortening, meaning: they make your biscuits, cookies, or lumpia crispier and flakier.

One Sabbath keeper who observes the laws on good meat in Leviticus 11, has wondered why she still got the first plague of Revelation 16 (e.g., obesity) when she did not eat pork, or any animal fat.

The answer lies in the fact that the businessmen of this world are shrewder than the children of light, e.g., they had changed the color and appearance of the animal fat and called it with other names, such as: lard, margarine, shortening. Go and look at almost all biscuits and junk packed foods in any stores, and you can read in the list of ingredients the name “shortening”.

So, in this area of fat, we have been deceived. Jesus floated the statement, “For false saviors of the people will arise and shall do great things, such as marvelous scientific wonders, to deceive many, and if possible, even the very elect.”

Have the elect been deceived? You might asked. In the area of fat and cholesterol, almost all of the elect have been deceived. And so, they suffer the first plague of cancers (the grievous sore of Revelation 16:2) which are fed by sugars and fats. It leads us to say that obesity caused by fats-cholesterol lays the foundation for cancers to grow and thrive. Fats including cholesterol as well as sugar (the chemical and chemically processed sugars) are feeds of cancers cells.

Have the elect been trapped without their knowledge? Yes! That is why God calls them to “come out of her (evil system) My people, lest you will share in her sins and plagues” (Revelation 18:4). This statement proves that many of us are already sucked to join into the evil harmful system. It says that even though we are the elect, we will share the plague that is supposed to fall only upon those who worshipped the beast and observed the evil 666-economic and political systems (Revelation 16:2). But if we join them, then, we will also suffer the consequences, such as the plague of cancer, gangrene (diabetes) and other disease that consumes the flesh.

4) In modern terms, oxidants or free radicals caused cancers or other form of oxidation. To the man on the street, that is difficult to understand. What is oxidation which happens in cancer, gangrene, TB and other diseases of consumption? Oxidation, from the term itself, is the act of oxygen burning or melting a matter, such as flesh. In short, this type of oxygen called oxidants or free radicals caused the flesh to decay or turn from solid to liquid and gas (invisible, the solid flesh disappears!). And this process of oxidation (decay) happens with great pain (burning like a fire) and foul odor (rancidity). This disease is described in Deuteronomy 28 as “disease of [flesh] consumption” – the flesh is consumed or eaten up by small invisible crab-like germs aptly called canker (see the picture of a crab in your zodiac sign of cancer!). In one angle, they appear as deranged oxygen molecules called oxidants or free radicals wreaking havoc like a mad man running amuck, massacring, stabbing healthy cells with a “knife” but later, crab-like germs eat up the flesh. I imagine the great pain as coming from the ‘cute’ sharp bites of these tiny crabs as they cut every little vein or capillary in our cells or flesh. How painful must it be! Whatever the real picture is in this microscopic world, it is suffice to quote James that men and women with so much gold and silver which can buy many “food rich with fats, sugars and chemicals or carcinogens” – all of which are contributors to cancers. Read how James makes the link between riches and cancer and pain like burning fire: “Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you and shall eat your flesh as it were fire.” Those who are suffering cancers will testify the same burning fire pain. If it is already painful to prick your skin with a tiny needle, how much more painful must it be if it is a tiny crab to bite and cut your tiny veins (capillaries)? And millions of them doing that at the same time! So, the pain you feel by intentionally but mildly pricking your skin with a needle is multiplied a million times! That is why the most powerful pain reliever should be administered on cancer patient, lest they will not be able to endure the pain.

The following verse continues to glow everyday and its meaning and relevance seems to come clearer and clearer.

“If any man worships the beast [human government: particularly the US government system] and his image [e.g., false messiahs such as science or scientists and chemists who led in processed foods] and receives his mark [that is, 666 = 600fold love for self + 60fold love for neighbor and only 6fold love for God, which underscore the economic system of capitalism] in his forehead [mind, as a philosophy or practice] or in his hand [work, actions, methods of business], the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God [e.g., the 7 last plagues in Revelation 16, especially the first plague in verse 2: cancers, diabetes, cardio-vascular diseases, etc.]…and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb [not just in the beyond but already here on earth by the plague of cancers et. al.] And the smoke of their torment [suffering] ascends [note the present tense] up forever and ever [or for the long time of suffering] and they have no rest day and night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receives the mark of his name [666]” (Revelation 14:9-11).

This verse seems to refer to cancers as penalty – read: consequence – of worshipping the human government, its messiahs [who propose scientific-chemical solutions to food crisis and ‘over-population’, etc.] and for adopting their 666-system of politics (democracy) and economy (selfish capitalism).

“And except those days should be shortened, there would no flesh be saved; but for the sake of the elect, those days shall be shortened” Jesus declared in Matthew 24:22.

The Lord has to hasten His return to shorten those difficult days. For even His elect, yes, many of them have been deceived – read: outsmarted by the shrewder children of the world, so that He calls them: “Come out of her My people, lest you partake of her sins and share in her plagues” – the seven last plagues of Revelation 16 – so-called God’s wrath, but which are actually evil consequences for their sins, misdeeds, abuses.

5) Chemicals. Definitions of chemical: 1) any element or compounds or substance or mineral that did not go through God-designed natural toxin-purification process using the sunlight called the photosynthesis inside the leaf of the plant; 2) any element or compound or substance or mineral that was taken from the dark earth and took instead the artificial ineffective ‘cleansing’ process called chemical-synthesis, as opposed to photosynthesis, in their counterfeit plant, the chemical plant; 3) finally, any nutrient resulting from photosynthesis but were extracted using chemical from the fruit or leaf where it was and is made into capsule, tablet, etc; hence, chemically processed – read: chemically corrupted. To prove the dangerousness of the third type of chemical, righteous scientists have found that friendly vitamins A, C & E which are anti-oxidants in their natural state, turn into evil pro-oxidants after they are extracted from their community and isolated, packed into capsule or tablet as vitamin supplements!

At first, these chemicals served as additives only, such as artificial flavorings, artificial colorings, preservatives, texture enhancers, fragrance enhancers, therefore in smaller amounts. These were added to the natural food harvested from the farm. So, in canned or packed foods or cooked foods, they are only in trace amounts, which nevertheless, are already dangerous over the long run, say, 20 to 40 years in a person’s life. But what is recently more dreadful is the success of those evil chemists to do away with natural carrots, natural lettuce, natural spices, natural banana, natural pineapple, etc, you name it, and their total replacement with carrots, lettuce, etc. made from 100% chemicals!! In this case, chemicals are in large dosages!!!

Expect the worst from this latest development!

Chemicals are dangerous because they contain anti-life, anti-health powers or properties, which we call toxins or poisons. They destroy our cells, our tissues, our body. They cause our cells to mutate and become cancerous. They cause our flesh and body organs to decay.

God help us. We have to come out of Babylon’s evil system.

Lord Jesus, please have mercy on us!

For even we, the elect, have been deceived – read: outsmarted by the enemy. His chemicals are white or colorful, fragrant and delicious. We did not see its poison.

Eating and drinking can endanger our share in God’s kingdom

Paul’s statement “the kingdom of God is meat and drink” should not be understood – read: misunderstood – as to mean “eating and drinking can not endanger our place in God’s kingdom”. No, Jesus said that even innocent and useful acts like drinking and eating can endanger our salvation if we are not careful.

Read Matthew 24:38. All people except 8, were drowned in Noah’s flood because of what? Because they were pre-occupied with “eating, drinking, marrying (sex) and giving up1 marriages (divorce in order to enjoy sex with new other ones)”! See, as innocent an act as eating can deviate us from the path leading to God’s kingdom. And let us beware because the Lord has likened this end-time generation to that of Noah’s! It means to say that most of us, too, will miss salvation because of pre-occupation with eating, drinking, sex, and other kinds of merriments.

Along with sexual immoralities such as adultery, fornication, homosexuality, prostitution, harlotry, etc., NO LONGER EATING GOD’S PURE NATURAL PLANT FOOD, namely: the seeds (grains, legumes, nuts, etc.) AND FRUITS WITH SEEDS IN THEM (Genesis 1:29) IN THEIR NATURAL FORM IS SINNING AGAINST HIS OWN BODY (1 Corinthians 6:18). He violates the law “you shall love your neighbor as you love yourself”!

True, it is sin not to love God above all.

And true, it is sin not to love one’s neighbor as one’s own self.

But also true, not to love one self is also a grievous sin!

And loving one’s self means loving his whole person – body, soul and spirit.

In this matter, one’s own health and the protection of his physical life is everyone’s duty. A duty of love. Much as God commanded “Thou shall not kill” regarding the fellowmen, He also said the same towards self. He also commanded “Thou shall not kill yourself”!

Therefore, in the light of what the apostle John wished, let it also be our effort and striving that we “prosper and be in health even as our soul prospers”!

In this light, our effort to attain health and long life is within God’s holy perfect order based on His love. Economic prosperity, health and long life – all love of self as the means to love and serve the Father above all and our neighbor as ourselves.

So right attitude and right practices based in God’s Ten Commandments, Statutes and other laws – these are acts of obedience, proactive approach, preventing the evil consequences and invoking the positive fruits to happen, invoking blessings, avoiding curses.

And right diet for the health and strength of our body is one of those right practices.

God’s Menu

From God’s Word, especially in the Old Testament, we come to know that His menu for mankind consists of (1) seeds (e.g., grains, legumes, nuts, etc.); (2) fruits with seeds in them – Genesis 1:29; and (3) the clean meat enumerated in Leviticus 11.

With this short guideline, we could already build a strong foundation for our health and long life.

So, our approach is preventive, before sickness can occur.

“Eat right before the doctor comes in and gives you an expensive hospital bill!
Don’t wait for treatment time, start at eating time!”

“Junk foods and empty calories may seem to be cheap and affordable at buying time, but at disease-reaping time, they are found to be so expensive and costly, especially when health is lost and life is the cost!”
“Diet is proactive and preventive.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Medicine to cure, including herbal, is quite reactive…and oftentimes too late.”

Diet before tablet.

Diet, not Rx!

****

What does Romans 14:17 mean?

Romans 14:17 states: “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.”

What does this verse mean?

Reading the whole chapter of Romans 14 along with 1 Corinthians 8, we can see the context, namely: That it was not about health that Paul was talking about but rather it was about CONSCIENCE especially that of a brother who was weaker in faith.

“Food” merely happened to be one of the objects or examples or subjects of discussion and illustration that caused the weak conscience of a brother to get offended. The other object used by Paul was the Sabbath or holy day of rest. He said that some believe that the Sabbath is the only holy day of the week, while others consider all days equally holy. Here Paul said that if you are in the position of being the mature Christian, that is, your knowledge and understanding about the subject is deeper or more correct, you should be careful not to offend in any way the conscience of your weaker brother. It is us mature ones who should adjust for the sake of our weaker brother’s conscience.

Also, Paul said elsewhere that the different viewpoints and thus belief on something or anything should not be allowed to cause division among Christians or in the Church. Love should unite everyone, despite the still differing understanding, opinion on many topics and subjects. For there will come a time when everyone will come to complete understanding; but before that day comes, differences in understanding, opinion and views should be tolerated for the sake of unity and for the sake of the conscience of the weaker brothers.

Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 in general and Romans 14:17 in particular do not talk about health in any way. Paul was talking about CONSCIENCE and not using anything, be it food offered to idols, vegetarian menu or meat menu, or Sabbath, to offend someone else’s conscience. That is it our duty as Christians not to do something nor eat something that might cause the conscience of our weaker brother to stumble, that is, commit a sin or weaken in his faith in God or cause doubts to bother him. So important is CONSCIENCE that Paul said, “If my eating of meat causes the conscience of my brother to get offended, that is, if by my eating of meat offered to idols, for example, my brother mistakenly believe that I worship idols whom I know don’t exist but whom he thinks exist thus he thinks and accuses me that I serve idols, or my brother was himself led back to idolatry, then, in my whole life I will never again eat meat!” (1 Corinthians 8:13).

Taking Romans 14:17 out of context, misguided people misapplied it to health issues to mean specifically that “Christians should concentrate on the spiritual things and never mind the physical things, such as the health of the body.”

Here, the shrewd children of the world (e.g., chemists, food processors, businessmen, etc.) found an opening (opportunity out of the Christians’ ignorance or complacency) to do business with delicious chemicals to pose as “food” or “food additives” but are actually dangerous to our health, if not immediately but surely in the long run! The people of the world are shrewder than the children of light, Jesus once said. They have outsmarted us with regards to chemicals, fats and cholesterol used as shortening (lard and margarine), sugars and anything and everything that destroys our health, poisons our minds and renders us disabled or ineffective in our work and service to God!

It is wrong to say that because as Christians we focus on our soul’s salvation, we may or should neglect our health.

Nay, that is wrong – wrong because according to God, if the soul’s salvation is the end or goal, then, the body’s health is the means or one of the means. The physical body is a tool – read: one of the main tools – of salvation. Just as we need Christ’s blood to save us, we also need or most of all need the physical body to complete the process of salvation. The body and its health is important because it is a means to a spiritual end (salvation and perfection).

In Paul’s words, the physical body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. The physical being used as the means of the spiritual. Now, if there is no body, where shall the Holy Spirit take abode? Or if the body is sick, how can the Spirit effectively work in such a case where its tool of implementation and action, that is the body, is weak and sickly?

Therefore, as correct Christians, we should take care of our health as a means to our spiritual goal of salvation and of loving God above all and our neighbor as ourselves.

It is wrong to say that now that we are saved by Christ and the focus is spiritual, we can now forget about anything that affects, either in a negative or positive way, the health of our body.

This is not the right perspective of Christ and Christians. The right perspective is this: WE SHOULD THE MORE TAKE GOOD CARE OF THE BODY OR BE NOW MORE CONCERNED OF OUR HEALTH BUT NO LONGER FOR ITS OWN SAKE BUT FOR THE SAKE OF GOD WHO WILL USE OUR BODY TO DO HIS WORKS AND FOR THE SAKE OF OUR FELLOWMEN WHO NEED OUR SERVICES!

That is the new perspective which refutes the two wrong extremes: 1) pagan “Eat and drink for tomorrow we will die and there is no tomorrow after death”; and 2) false Christian’s “Focus fully on salvation of your soul and never mind the health or welfare of your body.”

In closing this point, may I quote again the statement of the apostle John that puts the matter straight: That it is God’s will that both our body and soul prosper: “Beloved, I wish above all that you will (economically) prosper and be in health (of your physical body) as your soul prospers (grows and develops)” (1 John 3:2).

Therefore, physical health and soul’s well-being are according to God’s will. The first is the means to the second. Romans 14:17 does not say we can neglect our health. In that verse as well as in the whole chapters of Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8, Paul was discussing not about health or well-being of our body, but about conscience and our duty never to allow anything, food or day etc., to cause the conscience of a weak brother to get offended. Furthermore, Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 say that we must not allow petty things or different views of petty things like food, day, circumcision, etc., to cause division in the church of God. Love and unity are the more important things as well as peace, joy, righteousness and the protection of everyone’s conscience.

So the next time you are in conversation about food, nutrition and health issues and some professing Christian quotes Romans 14:17 saying “the kingdom of God is not meat and drink”, tell him straight that: he is misapplying it, and that that verse is about conscience, and not about health, therefore, it should not be used in health and food and nutrition topics.

It is time now that we change our wrong perspective. Or else, the wicked and shrewd sons of this world will continue destroying our body, the temple of the Father’s Holy Spirit! And we become their co-destroyers of our own bodies!

Oh, how many of the elect are deceived!

Four Great Values of Soybeans

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