Committee on Toxicity in Foods and the Environment |
 |
 |
 |
| March 23 2003 |
|
It is a massive achievement that a Committee of a major European government has examined soy products and isoflavone supplements in the face of heated denials of soy processing interests that either there are no estrogens in soy products ("our processing removes the toxins" has been a favorite war cry) or that they are beneficial ("why complain, they are good for you" has been another). It is also a tribute to a small group of scientifically justified agitators on three continents. They are the Weston A. Price Foundation in Washington, DC, the Food Commission in England, and Soyonlineservice in New Zealand. The Draft Report of the COT Working Group on Phytoestrogens in the diet is now available on the website of the UK Food Standards Agency (www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/Consultations/ukwideconsults/cotphytohealth). As the greatest phytoestrogen risks by far to consumers are the estrogenic toxins genistein and daidzein present in all modern soy products and food ingredients, the Report focuses almost exclusively on soy and isoflavone supplements. A major finding is a very satisfactory outcome for those of us who have been horrified at the advertising of isoflavones as having benefits in menopause—the COT has found no proof of any benefits at all. Here are COT's exact words from key points of their Chapter on Hormonal Effects: "The weight of evidence does not strongly support the view that supplementation of the diet with soy or isoflavones alleviates menopausal symptoms." And although the COT does not mention the special risks of having mid-life women consume large amounts of hormone-bending chemicals, it can be deduced from the general conclusion in section 18.2. This finding could have significant international ramifications because, if countries individually enforce the International Code of Advertising Practice, such dangerous puffery will stop. That Code of Practice requires that "advertisements not contain any statement or visual presentation which directly or by implication, omission, ambiguity, or exaggerated claim, is likely to mislead the consumer." So if you live in a country where you can appeal to an Advertising Complaints Board, be sure to complain whenever you see ads making claims that phytoestrogens are an aid to menopausal difficulties. If there were truth in advertising, then ads for phytoestrogens would say: "This stuff does not do what we say it does, and may be dangerous to your thyroid." As for claims that these products improve hormonal balance, prevent prostate cancers, prevent heart disease, stop osteoporosis and improve brain function, the COT found no proof of any of this either. Unfortunately, COT erred in stating there is no evidence of hormonal effects in men. These British experts seem to have overlooked the considerable body of research that soy phytoestrogens stop production of testosterone! (See www.soyonlineservice.co.nz, Male Health.) It will be no surprise to readers of Wise Traditions that COT presents ample evidence that phytoestrogens can cause infertility, endometriosis, sexual dysfunction and masculinization of females, as well as feminization of males, in a variety of animal and bird species. These were their conclusions from their literature review in Chapter 9, "Phytoestrogens & Fertility and Development." Similarly, Chapter 10, "Phytoestrogens and the Thyroid" reviews sixty years of literature and research and finds that soy and isoflavones harm the thyroid gland, especially in women and children. In Chapter 11 the COT examines "Phytoestrogens and the Central Nervous System." As we have been warning for years, the COT concluded that isoflavones affect the central nervous system, and particularly the connection between the brain and the reproductive organs. In scientific terms, "they disrupt the pituitary-gonadal axis." COT specifically addresses infants as being the highest-risk and most vulnerable subgroup of the human population to disruption of the endocrine system's functions Here is what they say ". . . soy-based infant formula should only be given to infants for clinical reasons, and that doctors and other health care workers are made aware of the potential interreactions between phytoestrogens in these formulas and thyroid function." Most Wise Traditions readers will realize that, if the thyroid goes out of whack, the effects can flow through the whole body system that regulates body heat and digestion of food. Thyroid problems can cause constipation, hair loss, infertility, and reduced brain function and learning ability. The COT is forthright in its findings, but rather than make bold conclusions, it sinks into jargon. Thus in Chapter 18, "Conclusions," Section 18.2, we read the following: "Phytoestrogens are biologically active when administered to animals and humans and have been known to elicit their effects via a number of mechanisms:
In spite of the alarming conclusions enumerated in the body of its report, the COT makes no recommendations about removing soy products from the marketplace. Readers will have to consider for themselves, and make their own judgements, whether a food that has numerous reported adverse effects is safe or should be sold to unsuspecting consumers. Sidebar Listing of Studies Showing Adverse Effects of SoyAs part of our ongoing efforts to keep the public up-to-date on the problems with modern soy foods, we have compiled two lists of studies showing adverse effects of soy: one lists studies showing the toxicity of soy isoflavones (estrogen-like compounds in soy) and the other lists studies showing problems with consumption of soy foods in general. We looked only at studies published in scientific journals—the total was over 150! Very often, the conclusions posted in the abstracts of these studies glossed over negative findings, or even presented these findings as beneficial. Most interesting to us was the large number of recent studies showing carcinogenic and mutagenic effects of soy isoflavones. (We have been accused of citing only older studies and ignoring more recent "positive" findings.) These two lists were submitted to the COT in the UK, and the USDA in the US. This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly magazine of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Winter 2002. About the Author Dear Dr. Daniel: I live in a city which has a high level of ozone and particulates, but I lived here for many years without making my asthma worse. Then I started drinking soy milk with the intention of improving my health. I was so into soy milk that I even purchased a soy milk machine. I didn't make the connection until reading your article in Nexus. Quitting soy milk has greatly helped. I am pursuing a nearly vegan diet to lose weight, with occasional side trips for a small steak and ice cream. I'd like to do the Weston Price diet but I'd get fat on it. I know what I'm doing is not scientifically great, but it could be worse. Thank you for your work.- -MH
Dear MH, Glad you made the connection between soy milk and asthma. I have heard similar stories from many people. It's important to stay as soyfree as possible. That includes not using soyfree inhalers -- Flovent and other some other brands include soy in their propellants -- and not breathing soyfree air. Beware of bulk bin aisles of health food stores -- where there may be soybean dust -- and highways -- where you may be exposed to the exhaust of motorcycles or cars using biodiesel fuel. You may be interested to know that epidemiologists consider soybean dust to be an “epidemic asthma agent.” From 1981-1987, soy dust from grain silo unloading in the harbor of Barcelona, Spain, caused 26 epidemics of asthma, seriously jeopardizing 687 people and leading to 1,155 hospitalizations. No further epidemics occurred after filters were installed, but a minor outbreak in 1994 established the need for diligent monitoring of preventive measures. Soy asthma epidemics have also occurred in New Orleans harbor and elsewhere. People who work in bakeries and other places using soy flour or other soy ingredients are prone to developing what's called “occupational asthma.” I am happy that your health has improved just from removing soy milk from your diet. However, I would strongly recommend that you reconsider your mostly vegan diet as it will not support the healing of asthma.The best weight loss plan is found in the book Eat Fat/Lose Fat by Dr. Mary Enig and Sally Fallon. It recommends coconut oil, butter and other good fats to nourish the thyroid and support the immune system – weak points for anyone suffering from allergies or asthma. Contrary to popular belief, we need saturated fats. Indeed the lungs cannot work properly without them. The reason is that lung surfactant --a fluid that enables the lungs to work properly -- needs to be 100 percent saturated. When people consume polyunsaturated fats -- as would be true with a vegan diet-- the lungs do not work as effectively. Research has linked the consumption of trans fats and excess polyunsaturated oils to the rising incidence of asthma in children. Children who consume a lot of butter have much lower rates of asthma and also lower rates of allergies. Your body has been craving steak and ice cream because of its need for good saturated fat. Help your body by procuring the highest quality grassfed meat and fullfat raw dairy products, preferably raw. If you are going to eat ice cream, make sure it's a high-end product and choose the flavors with the highest fat and lowest sugar content. Vegans will improve their chances if they at least use coconut oil.
Dear Dr. Daniel, The deaths of Peter Jennings and Dana Reeve put the fear of lung cancer into me. Mrs. Reeve had never even smoked and now we're hearing about many other cases of lung cancer in people like her. This week's New Yorker even has a story about hospice care and the tragic last days of a 34 year old woman who died of lung cancer, not long after giving birth to a baby. What is causing all these tragedies?Do you have any reason to think that soy could be responsible? --ST Dear ST: As you might guess, the soy industry claims that soy protects against lung cancer. The evidence for that is dubious at best. Right now I've got little evidence that soy causes it. It's also important to say that soy rarely is the sole cause of health problems, most of which are affected by a multitude of dietary and environmental risk factors. That said, it's certainly possible that increased vegetable oil consumption, including soy oil, in the American diet could be responsible. As I discussed in my answer to the question above, healthy lungs and immune systems depend on saturated fats.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email this
Hits: 3458 Comments (0)
 Write comment -
|
| Last Updated on Friday, June 05 2009 19:55 |
The British government has a standing expert Committee on Toxicity in Foods and the Environment. It is rather endearingly called COT! It has turned out to be an appropriate acronym, because in May, 2002 the Committee turned its attention to investigating the risks of aberrant sexual development and infertility caused by the soybean estrogens present in soy baby formulas. The report was released in October, 2002.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
