|
by Sally Fallon and Mary
G. Enig, PhD
 Reply
to Mr. Bill Sardi, published in
The Townsend Letter, April 2001
In his Guest Editorial of October 2000, Mr. Bill Sardi
expresses surprise that the "greatest criticism of soy has come from natural
health advocates." Yet most of the soy-based products on the market today
can hardly be called "natural" foods. They are produced in factories at
high temperatures and pressures and with the help of a variety of chemicals.
The soybeans themselves are grown on huge corporate farms, most of which
use toxic pesticides and herbicides. And a large percentage of soy foods
come from genetically engineered plants. The fact that these products
can be labeled "natural" only demonstrates the power and duplicity of
soy interests in America.
Dr. Zava is one of many honest scientists who have read
the literature and discovered that soy contains "allergens, mineral blockers,
enzyme inhibitors, hormone modifiers and iodine blockers that interfere
with normal thyroid function." Mr. Sardi says these characterizations
are unfair and inaccurate.
Like Dr. Zava, we do not repeat "claims" that soy contains
antinutrients and toxins; we quote the scientific literature. Propaganda
is "the systemic propagation of a given doctrine or of allegations reflecting
its views and interests; material disseminated by the advocates of a doctrine."
The promotion of soy as a miracle food has been both systematic and reflective
of the doctrine of the food industry—that imitation foods are good for
us and traditional foods are unhealthy. The soy campaign is, in fact,
a case study in the use of use of propaganda to promote commercial interests.
Mr. Sardi misquotes us frequently. We stated that soy
was not considered fit to eat in Asia a few centuries ago (not a few decades
ago); we did not "acknowledge that Asians consume 30 times more soy than
North Americans." We pointed out studies showing that soy consumption
in Asia is actually much lower than claimed—averaging 10 grams per person,
less than two teaspoons. He does not seem to understand our argument that
if soy is given as the reason Asians have lower rates of breast, prostate
and colon cancer (simply because Asians supposedly eat large amounts of
soy), then the same logic requires us to blame high rates of cancers of
the esophagus, stomach, thyroid, pancreas and liver in Asian countries
on consumption of soy. The truth is that we don't know exactly why Asian
countries have certain types of cancers and western countries have other
types. Eastern types of cancers have been attributed to many factors,
of which soy consumption is one, but to claim that soy consumption is
associated with lower rates of certain types of cancers while neglecting
to mention that soy is also associated with higher rates of certain types
of cancer is typical of industry dishonesty.
Sardi acknowledges that Asians have higher rates of pancreatic
cancers in one paragraph, but states that populations that consume high
levels of soy exhibit decreased rates of pancreatic cancer in another.
We are confused.
Messina did indeed omit the Rackis study in his "exhaustive"
survey. In fact, Messina did not include any animal studies on pancreatic
effects. The Rackis study showed not only enlargement of the pancreas
but also precancerous changes. And why the double standard? Why is it
appropriate to use rats prone to develop breast cancer in experiments
with soy, but not rats prone to demonstrate disturbances in the pancreas?
It is standard scientific practice to use rats bred to react in specific
ways in order to study effects over short periods of time. Normal rat
chow did not cause pancreatic changes in sensitive rats—only rat chow
based on soy.
Birds don't eat soy, says Sardi. They know better. The
Jameses should have known that soy is not appropriate for birds (something
that would come as a surprise to the chicken industry.) The Jameses trusted
the literature that came with the product, which stated that soy was an
excellent food for birds. They also trusted the claims made for soy infant
formula, that soy was "better than breast milk." They should have known
that soy was not an appropriate food for humans, particularly for babies
and so should Mr. Sardi and all the others out there who continue to provide
glib assurances that soy formula is a good substitute for milk-based formula.
The James learned a terrible lesson the hard way—that we should not trust
claims for commercial food products, especially when these claims are
too good to be true. In the absence of animal instinct, it's important
to be skeptical.
"Scientists cannot infer that animal data applies to
humans," says Sardi. But they do it all the time, especially when the
data show protective effects. Only when the studies are negative do scientists
get reprimanded for using them. Onward with the double standard.
It is axiomatic that when a chemical carcinogen is definitely
active in one or more animal models, it can be stated with certitude that
certain individuals of Homo sapiens would be at risk. Soy proponents
don't want the public to know that phytoestrogens can induce tumors in
several different species of animals. The younger the animal, the more
susceptible it is to the action of plant-based estrogens, as it frequently
is to other carcinogens.
Sardi objects to some of our references. One of them—Natural
Health News published by L & H Vitamin Company— was given as an example
of promotional advertising, which in this case claimed that soy could
prevent cancer.
He complains of a missing citation, number 58, but there
is no missing citation. It is published on the website and was published
in the Townsend Letter.
Another criticism is that the average published date
of our references is 13 years old. We were not aware that averaging publication
dates was a valid method for assessing studies and reports. Nevertheless,
one of the aims of our article was to show that studies indicating soy
toxicity date back as far as fifty to sixty years, especially studies
showing adverse affects on the thyroid gland. (Goitrogenic components
have been confirmed very recently by Divi and Doerges.) Much good scientific
work was done in past decades and it is work that can be depended upon
because it took place before the soy industry began funding university
research.
We hope that citation of the following recent studies
will make our "average published date" more acceptable:
- A study from Cornell University, published in the Journal
of the American College of Nutrition, 1986, which found that children
who develop diabetes mellitus were twice as likely to have been fed
soy.
- A November 1994 warning published in Pediatrics
in which the Nutrition Committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics
advised against the use of soy formulas due to the diabetes risk. These
warnings have been neglected ever since it was reported that the AAP
accepted a multi-dollar donation from the Infant Formula Council for
their new headquarters building outside Chicago.
- A 1994 article by Lonnerdal published in Acta Paediatr
summarizing the reduced bioavailability of trace minerals due to high
phytic acid content in soy infant formula; and high levels of manganese
in soy formula compared to cows milk formula and breast milk. Excessive
intake of manganese is linked to problems with the central nervous system.
- A 1996 report published in the German magazine Klin
Padiatr describing the development of hypocalcemic tetany in an
infant fed soy formula.
- Two 1997 studies published in Nutrition and Cancer.
One found that phytoestrogens at levels close to probable levels in
humans stimulate cellular changes leading to breast cancer; the other
found that dietary soy suppressed enzymes protective of breast cancer
in mice.
- A 1998 study published in the American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition further confirming that soy-protein supplementation
stimulates cell proliferation in human breast tissue.
- A 1998 study published in Cancer Research which
found that dietary genistein enhances the growth of mammary gland tumors
in mice.
- A 1998 study by Nagata and others published in the
Journal of Nutrition which gives daily consumption of tofu in
Japan's Gifu prefecture as less than 1 gram per day.
- A 1998 study published in Toxicology and Industrial
Health indicating the phytoestrogens are potential endocrine disrupters
in males.
- A March 12, 1999 Daily Express article with
the headline "Soy Allergy/Adverse Effect Rates Skyrocket - Monsanto's
Roundup-Ready Soy Blamed"
- A 1999 study at the Clinical Research Center at MIT,
published in the Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Pacific
Coast Reproductive Society which found that estrogens in soy had
no effect on menopausal symptoms such as hot flashes and night sweats.
- May 1999 and June 2000 studies published in Brain
Research indicating that phytoestrogens have adverse affects on
brain chemistry.
- An April 2000 study published in Proceedings of
the National Academy of Science which found that flavonoids, especially
genistein, can cross the placenta and induce cell changes that lead
to infant leukemia.
- An article published in Nutrition and Cancer 2000
which found lower testosterone levels and higher estrogen levels in
Japanese men who consumed higher levels of soy foods.
- Publication in the British Journal of Urology,
January 2000, of the study showing a five-time greater risk of delivering
a boy with hypospadias, a birth defect of the penis, in mothers who
ate a vegetarian diet during pregnancy. The researchers attributed high
rates of the birth defect to phytoestrogens in soy products.
- An April 2000 study published in Carcinogenesis
found that soy feeding stimulated the growth of rat thyroid with iodine
deficiency, partly through a pituitary-dependent pathway.
- A June 2000 article in American Journal of Cardiology
which found that soy had no impact on lipid levels in healthy postmenopausal
women
- Evidence that disturbing results were omitted from
a 1994 study presented to the FDA during the approval process for Roundup
Ready Soybeans. Researchers found that raw Roundup Ready meal contained
27 percent more trypsin inhibitor and toasted Roundup Ready meal contained
18 percent more trypsin inhibitor compared to non-genetically manipulated
controls.
The most serious concerns regarding soy foods involve the
use of soy infant formula. Sardi cites a 1998 Nutrition Reviews article
by K. O. Klein of duPont Hospital for Children as proof that soy infant
formulas do no harm. Yet in the article Klein notes that effects of isoflavones
on various animal species include hormonal changes, increased uterine weight
and infertility. "It is clear from the literature," says Klein, "that different
species and different tissues are affected by isoflavones in markedly different
ways. It is difficult to know which tissue, if any, are affected in infants,
and the variation among species makes extrapolation to infants inappropriate."
This is scientific double talk. Scientists may be reluctant to extrapolate
but parents would certainly err on the side of caution if they knew that
"isoflavones affect different tissues in markedly different ways."
Klein says that medical literature provides "no evidence of endocrine
effects. . and no changes in timing of puberty." But she makes no mention
of the Puerto Rican study which found that consumption of soy formula
correlated strongly with early maturation in girls. Why would Dr. Klein
leave out any reference to the Puerto Rican study in her review? Is it
because DuPont, owner of Protein Technologies International, is the leading
manufacturer of soy protein isolate?
Or is it because her review was sponsored by the Infant Formula Council?
Or because Nutrition Reviews, which published her whitewash, is funded
by industry giants, including Pillsbury, Hershey Foods, Kellogg, Roche,
General Mills, Kraft, Campbell Soup, Monsanto, Coca-Cola, Cargill, Heinz,
Nabisco, Proctor and Gamble and Pepsi-Cola?
Soy can be implicated as a probable cause in the current epidemic of
learning disabilities because it has similar effects in monkeys. Sardi
is correct in stating the 1997 Journal of Pediatrics article makes
no mention of soy. Neither does Time Magazine in their recent article
on early puberty in girls. The Time article speculates that exogenous
estrogens might be the cause. Is it not appropriate to speculate that
estrogens in soy formula, which are not "reduced significantly by their
first pass through the liver" as Sardi claims but end up in the blood
of infants in huge amounts, might also be a cause? Perhaps it is the hormones
in meat and milk, say the writers of the article. But hormonal levels
in these products are minuscule compared to levels in soy formula. And
in the Puerto Rican study, consumption of milk was negatively correlated
with early maturation, which means that it might be protective.
We do not claim that Asians have lower rates of osteoporosis—it is the
soy supporters who make that claim. But if in fact they do have lower
rates of bone loss, it is much more likely due to factors in the diet
that are consumed in large amounts and that provide vitamin D and calcium,
such as bone broth, shrimp and lard.
We are aware of new research indicating that consumption of vitamin
D is optimal at 4000 IU per day, not the RDA of 400 IU. This research
is an excellent confirmation of the work of Weston Price who found that
the diets of healthy primitives peoples had at least ten times more vitamin
D than that of the average American of his day. (Sunlight will not provide
adequate vitamin D unless a large portion of the skin is exposed during
the summer months or in tropical latitudes.) The textbooks do indeed need
to be rewritten to stress consumption of vitamin-D-rich animal foods and
to minimize consumption of foods that increase our requirements for vitamin
D—like soy.
Shrimp sauces and shrimp pastes used in Asia and Africa are made from
dried shrimp, hence very concentrated. They are eaten daily, often at
every meal and could be expected to provide vitamin D in amounts greatly
exceeding vitamin D intake levels in the US.
The vitamin D content of butter varies with the feed of the animals.
Butter from cows on green growing grass is likely to provide far more
vitamin D than butter from cows in confinement. We advocate consumption
of butter from pasture-fed animals (and eggs, lard and other animal foods
for the same reason.) We need to eat more butterfat from pasture-fed animals,
more lard from pigs raised outdoors, more eggs from pastured-poultry,
and more shrimp and other seafood rich in vitamin D. And we need to recognize
the demonization of butter and similar healthy foods for what it is—a
ploy, bolstered by the phony cholesterol theory, that has convinced Americans
to substitute imitation foods for the nourishing foods of their ancestors.
Phytic acid in soy has been consistently described in the literature
as an antinutrient—until recently when suddenly we heard that an over-the-counter
phytic acid compound was an antioxidant. Besides, says Sardi, we need
phytic acid in our food to prevent us from overmineralizing. Just how
a substance full of mineral-blocking phytic acid is going to help us prevent
osteoporosis is one of those annoying inconsistencies that pervade the
pro-soy literature.
Soy is a known goitrogen, says Sardi and adults who are on thyroid hormone
replacement would "be wise to review their consumption of soy with their
physician." Millions of Americans suffer from low thyroid but where are
the warning labels on the soy product packages? Where are the warning
labels on the little booklets sold in the supermarket, targeting older
women with promises that "Super Soy!" will protect them against bone loss,
heart disease, cancer, menopause (!) and heart disease. "Soy is one of
nature's miracles," say the booklets, "and it's good for you!" The hype
is everywhere and it targets all age groups—infants, teenagers, young
adults, women worried about getting old and men worried about prostate
cancer. Meanwhile, Synthroid is America's number-one selling drug.
Mr. Sardi is welcome to trust the FDA if he wants to but we do not.
FDA reviewers dismissed the concerns of many well qualified scientists
without discussion. Soy consumption may lower cholesterol under certain
circumstances but the FDA ignored the vast body of evidence refuting any
claims that cholesterol lowering can prevent heart disease. The FDA has
routinely hired food industry lawyers to write its policy; and routinely
sends its scientist to work for the industry it was set up to regulate.
In fact, the FDA is a paradigm of the axiom that any agency established
to regulate a segment of the economy will be subverted to support that
segment. It is not in the consumers best interests to trust the FDA, any
more than it is in the consumer's best interests to trust the miracle
claims for soy.
Yes indeed, soy is being overpromoted. When Mr. Sardi is not misquoting
us, he almost makes our case. And yes, the conflicting claims about soy
are very confusing, especially confusing when the soy proponents speak
out of both sides of the mouth. Dr. Holt admits privately that he would
not feed soy formula to his grandchildren but advocates soy foods for
children in his book. Dr. Messina promotes a vegetarian diet based on
soy to prevent cancer in his book The Simple Soybean and Your Health,
but recently stated on the Deborah Ray Show that soy does not protect
against breast cancer in adult women. And Earl Mindell, who actively markets
a soy protein product, stated at the January, 1996 National Health Federation
convention that soy should only be eaten in fermented form.
For those who are confused, we suggest the principles of traditional
diets as a touchstone. In Asia, soy was traditionally consumed as a fermented
condiment in small amounts and not as a replacement of animal foods like
seafood, pork, chicken, beef, eggs and duck. These diets provided excellent
support for the thyroid gland in the form of fish, shellfish, seaweed
and unrefined salt. Soy was not used for infant feeding in Asia. Buffalo
milk, cows milk or mares milk were given to babies whose mothers were
unable to nurse and a wet nurse was unavailable.
Products based on isolated soy protein are completely new to the human
diet. Advances in food technology make it possible to eat soybean-based
foods in quantities far greater than was ever consumed in traditional
societies and various groups are promoting soy foods as the major source
of protein in a vegetarian or vegan diet.
If soy does not contain toxins, as Sardi states, then why has the industry
invested so much time, effort and money to get the toxins out of soy?
No, soy is not hemlock. Soy is more insidious than hemlock because it
effects are often not immediately apparent. Children often exhibit normal
growth patterns on soy formula, with the damage manifesting years later.
"Overuse can be troublesome," he says. Our sentiments
exactly.
Sally Fallon is the author of
Nourishing Traditions: The Cookbook that Challenges Politically Correct
Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats, Second Edition 1999 (New Trends Publishing
877-707-1776 or 219-268-2601; www.newtrendspublishing.com)
and President of the Weston A Price Foundation, Washington, DC, www.WestonAPrice.org
.
Mary G. Enig, PhD is the author
of Know Your Fats: The Complete Primer for Understanding the Nutrition
of Fats, Oils and Cholesterol 2000 (www.BethesdaPress.com),
President of the Maryland Nutritionists Association and Vice President
of the Weston A Price Foundation, Washington, DC.
|
