Assault on Soy, 2000 Edition:What's Behind the Latest Scare Tactics
BACKGROUND:
Over the last twelve months, a number of reports
have come out which aim to shed doubt on the nutritional
benefits of soy and criticize the U.S. Food & Drug Administration's
new rules
allowing nutritional claims by soyfoods manufacturers. Many of these
arguments are dealt with in exhausting detail in The
Lumen Book, which I authored in 1986. One chapter alone
("The Empire Strikes Back") tackles anti-nutritional claims quite specifically
and debunks them in spades.
New wrinkles, however, are being added to
these unsubstantiated criticisms, the latest and most
outrageous suggesting that tofu (a competing product to those made by
Lumen Foods, but one we support, nonetheless) causes brain atrophy.
Many people are being confused by the conflicting reports -- not only
by the recent 20/20 news report, ("The Dark
Side of Soy", 6/09/00), but repercussions from a report by the
Pacific Health Research Institute (see
"Too much
tofu induces 'brain aging' study shows"). Together these reports
have provided the greatest gris for the mill for those who have an agenda against soy.
Among the latter "study's" conclusions: that tofu accelerates brain weight
loss in aging users, that the more soy you use the more it impacts your
mental abilities, that soy acts like a drug, not a food. "(Soyfoods) are not nutrients. They are drugs..."
Dr. L. White
The purpose of this
article (and its related links) is to provide confused readers
with the indisputable facts that puts these latest claims to
rest and allow the public to put such reports in context when
compared to the large body of scientific evidence that
contradicts White's findings. Fifteen Years of
Responses to Historical
Anti-Soy Arguments
See our FAQ section for coverage on: baby formula | cancer & heart disease, phytate, oxylate, methionine, protease inhibitor, and thyroid functioning. Click on "Responses to Anti-Soy Arguments."
After recently reviewing a few of the studies on the adverse effects of soy, Alan R. Gaby, M.D., a nutrition professor at Bastyr University in Kenmore, Wash., stated:
"I certainly think caution is reasonable. Soy is probably
beneficial in moderate amounts, possibly harmful in larger amounts."
(Editor: How many foods are there which are harmful when taken in large quantities - to the exclusion of a varied, balanced diet?)
(Editor: How many foods are there which are harmful when taken in large quantities - to the exclusion of a varied, balanced diet?)
by Greg CatonFounder - SOYBEAN.COM
lthough
soybeans, as a distinct staple of human diet, have been with us
for over 4,000 years, and their status as a "miracle food" is
an accolade going back to ancient Chinese emperors, not modern
American marketers, you'd think that soy was some new promotional
gimmick. (Although ancient Chinese scholars referred to whole
soybeans as one of the "five sacred grains," it was only introduced
in any notable quantity to North America in the early 20th century.)
When I wrote
The Lumen Book
in 1986, I had to take on soybean's "criticisms de jour" and confront what
were then the primary arguments against soy consumption -- that it was
high in antinutritional phytates and oxylic acid, that its protease
inhibitor was health-threatening, that it was too low in methionine,
that it was Vitamin B12 deficient, that when substituting meat products
it would lead users to protein deficiency, etc., etc., etc.
Suffice to say, these arguments
were based on small grains of truth that were blown up beyond real world
recognition to make startling conclusions that later turned out to be
not only false, but irrelevant. (Example: the vegetable kingdom, including
soybeans, are FULL of compounds that
act as mild sequestering agents and can inhibit some nutritional uptake,
but in real-world terms they do not prevent people from
getting plentiful nutrition, because their action is too weak. Despite ample
scientific studies to show that these criticisms are
not truthful, some publications
keep publishing them.)
Part of the problem stems from the fact that
specific groups, including
The Weston A. Price Foundation,
Soy Online
Service in New Zealand, not to mention groups who tie virtual ALL soy to
the current GMO controversy, generate much of the media
around these reports. Some literally attack ALL soy as a product for human
nutrition. The most vitriolic reporting comes from countries which import,
rather than export, soy products -- turning soy into a trade defense issue.
This is evident to see when reporting is so sloppy that
some
publications paint soy as poisonous, only to inadvertently include a link
from their own institutions, educational or governmental,
clearly
refuting large chunks of their argument.
The worst part of this kind of
reporting, however, is that it confuses the non-technical public.
This article is being written because I have been confronted by several
individuals in the past weeks who tell me that they question whether
or not they should eat soy products. Never mind that soybeans are found
in a vast array of consumer products. Never mind that infants have been
consuming soy-based formulas for over 60 years with none of the problems
arising to which these criticisms allude. Never mind that American
farmers now plant over 75 million acres of soybeans, for both human and
animal consumption, and that in less than 100 years, soybeans have gone
from obscurity to become the leading North American crop. Never mind that the U.S.
FDA reviewed many hundreds of studies prior to coming out with their
findings on nutritional value of claims.
(Click to see book cover enlargement).
Recent books by dozens of noted clinicians and health professionals on the benefits of
soy have contributed to a more coordinated campaign against soy in recent months
by its competitors... and researchers seeking to obtain grants that might
show contradictory findings.
|
In the links below we provide a number of
documents (in Microsoft Word format) that address these recent anti-soy reports.
As always, feel free to email us with comments on any
of the enclosed content. 
Soy & Cognitive Function
(MS-Word format) - This SANA (Soyfoods Association of North America) document
directly addresses Dr. Lon White's study and the ways it contradicts the body
of research already conducted on dietary soy and cognitive function. (It should
be noted that Dr. White has backpedaled on a number of the conclusions being
drawn by media, but few are reporting this. As an example, Dr. White recently
noted: "It might be that this is totally wrong and that tofu has zip to do with it."
(Los Angeles Times, 3/23/2000)
Research on Tofu & Cognitive Function
(MS-Word format) - This article was published in the April (2000) issue of
Journal of the American College of Nutrition. This two page document
summarizes Dr. White's findings and then provides comments noting its deficiencies.
Knowing the Benefits of Soy
(MS-Word format) - This SANA document
discusses the extent to which massive epidemiological evidence discounts the
sweeping
conclusions of
Dr. Lon White at the University of Hawaii. Also discussed are the lower
rates of Alzheimer's disease and cancer that consistently appear in populations
with high soy product consumption.
(Note: the "Meat consumption vs. cancer incidence" chart from The Lumen Book (originally appearing in Scientific American) brings
something else to mind: you can see that the countries with high animal protein
consumption vs. vegetable protein (i.e. U.S., New Zealand, Canada) have high
cancer rates. Conversely, those with low animal protein consumption, that is,
those that rely on vegetable sources of protein, like Japan, which has one of
the highest soybean intakes per capita of any countries, have low cancer rates.)
Baby Formula:
Comments about the potential dangers of using soy-based baby formulas in face
of scientific research to date, as well as clinical observations from sixty years of
use by the public. The American Academy of Pediatrics supports the use of
soy formulas when children cannot or do not want to consume breast milk or
cow's milk-based formula. The Food & Drug Administration highly regulates
infant formulas. USDA researchers are finding that infants consuming soy-based formula
may even be protected against chronic diseases. Call the International Formula Council, 404-252-3663, for more specifics on research regarding soy-based infant formulas.
Humans Are Not Cheetahs.
Those of us who have been working in the soy business for over 20 years are
familiar with the now infamous
condemnation of
soy as a suitable food for cheetahs. As I duly noted in
The Lumen Book, carnivorous animals, just as the
cheetah, have an entirely different GI tract and digestive physiology than
humans do. Many human foods are not suitable for animals. It is the observation
of every pet owner that their dog or cat will not eat citrus fruits (a dietary
fact rooted in the fact that human bodies do not product their own ascorbic acid).
And yet extensive
misleading
extrapolations of this fact continue to proliferate.