Cristina Fernandez, the President of Argentina, had her thyroid removed on January 4 only to find out the gland wasn’t cancerous after all.   Although her supporters whooped with joy, at this news, doctors can’t put it back, and Fernandez will be on thyroid meds for life. ¹ Were her doctors incompetent or did they act appropriately?   As that debate rages on over the internet, the Fernandez case has also led to widespread discussion of why thyroid cancer incidence, especially among women, has dramatically increased over the last 30 years.

AN EPIDEMIC OF THYROID CANCER

According to the National Cancer Institute, incidences of thyroid cancer have nearly doubled since the early 1970s.   Thyroid cancer now affects about 11 people per 100,000 in the United States.    In 2011,  56,460 new cases were diagnosed.  In January 2008, there were 458,403 Americans alive who had a history of thyroid cancer, of which 100,952 were men and 357,451 women.  In 2011, 56,460 new cases of thyroid cancer were diagnosed and 1,740 people died. ^2-3

Doctors do not know why the numbers of thyroid cancer cases are increasing though some blame increased overweight and obesity, radiation exposure, and diets low in fruits and vegetables.

RADIATION

Certainly exposure to radiation is a known risk factor for thyroid cancer.⁴ In 2009 epidemiologist Joseph Mangano, PhD, took data on thyroid cancer incidence from the Centers for Disease Control for the years 2001 to 2005, compared it the proximity of nuclear power stations, and found that the counties with the highest thyroid cancer incidence were located close together in eastern Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and southern New York.  He concluded, “Exposure to radioactive iodine emissions from 16 nuclear power reactors within a 90 mile radius in this area   .  . .     are likely a cause of rising incidence rates.”⁵ Pennsylvania has the highest rate of thyroid cancer in the U.S.

In 2010 the Associated Press revealed that 75 percent of U.S. nuclear power plants leak radioactive materials into our air and water.⁶ And many of the 104 commercial nuclear power plants and 34 nuclear research stations now operating in the U.S. sit in seismically active locations, including at least four near the “high risk” San Francisco Bay Area and three within the area SFBA itself.⁷ As might be expected, there is a high incidence of thyroid cancer in the San Francisco Bay Area.⁸

FRACKING

Radiation in ground water linked to fracking has also been linked to increasing rates.   Fracking has also led to a 2,400 percent increase in earthquakes compared to the number of quakes that occurred in the years before fracking started in the US. ^9,10 Geologist Tracy Bank, speaking at the American Geological Society meeting in Denver last November, reported that fracking releases rock-bound uranium, posing a further radiation risk to our groundwater. ¹¹

HORMONE HAVOC

Hormonal factors may also play a significant role, according to the National Cancer Institute.   Although NCI arrived at this conclusion due to the preponderance of thyroid cancer cases in women under age 45,  human estrogens should be regarded as just one piece of the hormonal picture.   Xenoestrogens –  estrogenic substances found in the diet and the environment — also play a role.   Commonly found in plastics, pesticides, cosmetics, personal care products, our water supply, factory-farmed meats and soy foods, xenoestrogens can be significant “endocrine disruptors” and interfere with the functioning of many systems in the body.¹²

While it’s human nature to try to single out one factor to blame, the causes of thyroid cancer most likely are many and synergistic.  Exposure to radiation,  mercury, fluoride, ^13,14 plastics, pesticides, dioxins, solvents, low iodine intake,¹⁵ and estrogens and estrogen mimickers found in commercial meats and produce, plastic and hormone replacement therapies have all been implicated.   And so has soy.

SOY

Soy is widely marketed as a “health food” although soybeans naturally contain the phytoestrogens (plant estrogens) known as isoflavones.  While not true hormones, isoflavones closely resemble estradiol (E2),¹⁶ the most potent form of the three forms of estrogen found in the human body¹⁷ and the form of estrogen that has been implicated in thyroid cancer.^18-20 Soy isoflavones cause significant endocrine disruption both directly and indirectly:  directly by binding with estrogen receptors, and indirectly by interfering with the body’s production of estrogen, testosterone and other hormones.    The effects are felt throughout the body, especially the thyroid reproductive system, and are well documented in chapters 26 to 30 of The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food.²¹

The key isoflavones found in soy, genistein and daidzein, are potent inhibitors of thyroid peroxidase (TPO), an enzyme involved in the synthesis of  the thyroid hormones,T3 and T4.   In vitro experiments carried out at the National Center for Toxicological Research in Jefferson, Arkansas, Rao L. Divi, PhD, and Daniel R. Doerge, PhD showed soy isoflavones will inhibit the thyroid peroxidase and interfere with a critical stage in thyroid hormone production — the iodinization of the amino acid tyrosine.    Although many people assume sufficient iodine will solve this problem, this interference occurs whether or not sufficient or extra iodine is present.   As a result, the body produces useless mono-, di- and tri-iodoisoflavones and not mono, di and tri and quarto forms of thyroid hormone.  In the human body, this interference can cause a drop in thyroid hormone levels, an increase in thyroid stimulating hormone and stress on the thyroid gland.  To put it bluntly, this is a prescription for thyroid trouble. ^{22, 23}

Drs. Divi and Doerge, top scientists with the National Center for Toxicological Research, pulled no punches in their conclusion:  “The possible association between long-term inhibition of thyroid hormone synthesis (goiter) and induction of thyroid follicular cell hyperplasia and neoplasia underscores the significance of these findings.” ^24,25 Follicular cell hyperplasia is a precursor to thyroid tumors and neoplasia is an abnormal proliferation of cells and characteristic of cancer.

We also know soy products pose a special risk to hypothyroid patients treated with Synthroid and other thyroid drugs.   According to Mike Fitzpatrick, PhD, boosting the thyroid with drugs like Synthroid, then depressing it with thyroid inhibitors like soy foods or isoflavone supplements, can put extreme stress on the thyroid.   In fact, this is the classic way that researchers induce thyroid tumor in laboratory animals.   The fact that soy is “natural” does not make it safe or weak. The phytoestrogens in a serving of soy food can provide up to three times the goitrogenic potency of the pharmaceutical thyroid-inhibiting drugs methimazole and 6-propylthiouracil.²⁶

Over the past 70 years, numerous studies have linked soy to thyroid disorders, especially hypothyroidism and the autoimmune thyroid disease Hashimoto’s thyroiditis.  These studies are cited and discussed in detail in Chapter 27 of The Whole Soy Story. ²⁷ Less evidence links soy to thyroid cancer, though so many studies proving stress on the thyroid would suggest clear and present danger.   Soy proponents and industry spokespeople, however, prefer to assert soy is protective, and the study cited most most frequently is the Bay Area Thyroid Cancer Study.²⁸

THE BAY AREA THYROID CANCER STUDY

The Bay Area Thyroid Cancer Study is described in three articles published by Pamela Horn-Ross, PhD, and colleagues, in the journal, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention (CEBP), in 2001 and 2002.^29-31

In the 2002 CEBP study, Horn-Ross, Hoggatt and Lee attempted to determine how soy phytoestrogen intake relates to thyroid cancer once other factors such as age, race and other known risk factors were taken into account.   In the results section they reported “ In general, a reduction in thyroid cancer risk of 35 percent to 55 percent was associated with increased consumption of non-fermented traditional and nontraditional soy-based foods and sprouts.” ³²

An astonishing 35 to 55 percent reduction in risk with clear cause and effect certainly seems to support the idea of consuming soy — including  modern industrial soy products — for thyroid cancer prevention.  But what seems to be too good to be true is often the case.   A long, hard look at the study — and not just the headlines publicized by the soy industry — reveals serious flaws in design, methods and analysis, including:

• This paper describes an observational, case-control, matched study.  As J.M. Utts and R. Heckard write in their textbook, Mind on Statistics, “The most  common  mistake made in reporting research studies is to imply that a cause and effect relationship can be concluded from an observational study.   With an observational study, it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to separate the effects of confounding variables from the  effects of the main explanatory variables of interest.” ³³

• The study was not a randomized, controlled trial, which is the gold standard for testing an intervention.   Cases were not randomized to treatment groups but drawn from a cancer registry, which was a sample of convenience.   As Utts and Heckard put it, “If the sample does not represent a larger population for the question of interest, and randomization to treatments was not used, no inferences can be drawn.” ³⁴

• The data was analyzed using unconditional logistic regression.   When the sample comes from matched pairs — as was the case in this study — conditional logistic regression is the appropriate test, not unconditional – logistic regression.    As summed up in the Oxford Journal, “A simple rule of thumb is to use conditional logistic regression if matching has been done, and unconditional if no matching has been done.  A second rule of thumb is, when in doubt always used conditional because it always gives unbiased results.” ³⁵

• Because the study used unconditional logistic regression, the researchers did not include the matching information in the analysis. ³⁶ This is most interesting in the light of research from the University Graduate School of Public Health in Kyoto, Japan, which examined 507 studies from 1991-2000 that used case control matched data sets. ³⁷ Of these studies, conditional logistic regression was used in 90.5 percent, and unconditional logistic regression in only 9.5 percent of them  Yet Horn Ross and colleagues chose to use used the unconditional method.

• Unconditional logistic regression analysis seriously overestimates the odds ratio when there are matching data — as was the case with Horn Ross and colleagues –  and great caution should be taken in interpreting  the results. ³⁸ In Statistical Methods in Cancer Research, a classic text in disease epidemiology, Breslow and Day state: “The unconditional analysis of matched pair data results in an estimate of the odds ratio which is the square of the correct, conditional one: a relative risk of 2 will tend to be  estimated as 4 by this approach” (italic emphasis from Breslow and Day). ³⁹

• The spotlighted phytoestrogens yet included a large number of potentially interrelated variables that could interact with one another.   In a quality study, the researchers should have addressed the possibility of collinearity and taken care to rule it out.  Collinearity is a bias in statistical procedure due to the correlation of multiple independent variables that influence a single dependent variable.    Collinearity can lead to unstable and untrustworthy results. ⁴⁰

• All the subjects came from the San Francisco Bay Area and many were of Asian ethnicity.  Environmental, climatic and ethnic aspects were not taken into account in the analysis. External validity is a  always key question.   Can these results be applied or generalized to other people?   Given that people from other areas of the United States live under varying conditions and are of many different ethnicities, the results of the study — if valid  — would apply only to the group from which they originated.

• Reliance on a Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ) to determine dietary intake during the year before the diagnosis of thyroid cancer, or for the year prior to the interview for the controls, is suspect.   FFQs require people to remember what they ate, when they ate it,  and how much. 41 Over-estimation is common, particularly for foods eaten less often or for foods perceived as ‘healthy,’ such as fruit, vegetables — and soy.   In her article, Dr. Horn-Ross does not disclose how her FFQ was tested or evaluated prior to use in the San Francisco Bay Area Thyroid Study.   She also admits “phytoestrogen consumption was not a hypothesis of this study when this FFQ was developed.” ⁴²

• In Table 1, Selected characteristics of women participating in the multiethnic San Francisco Bay Area Thyroid Study, we see how the cases and controls are similar on many variables such as age and number of pregnancies, but we do not know how many subjects were actually included or whether the Table represent all subjects or just a cherry-picked sample.

• In Table 2, Consumption of selected phytoestrogen-rich foods and thyroid cancer risk among women participating in the Bay Area Thyroid Cancer Study, the researchers make the dramatic pronouncement of reduced risk of 35 to 55 percent.    However, this Table reports odds ratios but no actual risk data.     Relative Risk, the basis for determinations such as “reduced risk,” cannot be calculated in a case-control study. Odds ratios can be used to represent relative risk if the disease is relatively rare, as is the case with thyroid cancer, but they are usually “bigger in each case” and “around 10 percent larger than Relative Risk.” ^43,44

• In Table 3, Phytoestrogen consumption and thyroid cancer risk among women participating in the Bay Area Thyroid Cancer Study, the researchers report an “increased consumption of four of the seven specific phytoestrogenic compounds as well as three summary measures were associated with a reduced risk of thyroid cancer  . . .” Just how much reduced risk is never established or explained.

• The odds ratios  in Table 2 and Table 3, show that many are near or around 1.00 which means that there are no (null) effects.  Many rows –  subgroups –  have too few cases and controls to show statistical value.   For the other rows with subgroups, we have no indication of significance (p value).   P value is given only for “trend across quintiles.”

In conclusion, this paper should not be accepted as a serious study of thyroid cancer risk related to phytoestrogen intake.    The researchers failed to provide details concerning the number of models, the parameters included in each of the models, construction of composite variables (Table 3), and trend tests used to produce the statistical results (p values) in Tables 2 and 3.    We don’t even know the statistical software used to fit the models.  The article’s clearest and most powerful statement: “ . . .  a reduction in thyroid cancer risk of 35 percent to 55 percent was associated with increased consumption of non-fermented traditional and nontraditional soy-based foods and sprouts” –  comes without explanation out of the blue.

*  *  *  *  *

Sylvia Onusic, PhD, is a nutritionist and writer/journalist who spoke at Wise Traditions 2010 on “Traditional Foodways of Slovenia.” An active and valuable contributor to the blog on www.hartkeisonline.com, she wrote “Milk-o-Matic” the website’s most visited story in 2009. Dr. Onusic holds a B.S in home economics, foods and nutrition education, an M.S. in the field of Healthy Administration and Policy, a PhD in Public Health Education and completed dietetic studies at Penn State University.  Dr. Onusic was a Fulbrighter to the Republic of Slovenia in the field of Public Health and completed her research while working at the National Institute of Public Health of Slovenia. She visits Europe often and will lead a tour to Slovenia in 2012.

1. CBS News. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501715_162-57354512/docs-argentine-leaders-thyroid-wasnt-cancerous/
2. American Cancer Society: http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/cid/documents/webcontent/003144-pdf.pdf
3. National Cancer Institute, SEER-Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results. Stat Facts Sheet.  http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/thyro.html
4. USA Today. http://yourlife.usatoday.com/health/story/2012-01-15/Doctors-try-to-explain-increase-in-thyroid-cancers/52584788/1
5. http://www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/091116Thyroidcancer.pdf. Accessed January 11, 2012.
6. http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43475479/ns/today-today_news/t/radioactive-tritium-leaks-found-us-nuke-sites/#.TyQKuVw5Knm
7. Nuclear Reactors in Earthquake Zones in the US. http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/nuclear-reactors-in-earthquake-zones-in-the-us-map.html. Accessed January 24, 2011.
8. Horn-Ross, P et al.  Why Are Thyroid Cancer Rates So High in Southeast Asian Women Living in the United States? The Bay Area Thyroid Cancer Study. Cancer Epidem Biomar. 2003, 12, 144-150.
9. http://www.activistpost.com/2012/01/thyroid-cancer-fracking-and-nuclear.html. Accessed January 23, 2012.
10. Ananda, Rady. Food Freedom, Thyroid Cancer, Fracking and Nuclear Reactors. http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/thyroidcancer-fracking-nuclear-power. Accessed January 19, 2012.
11. http://www.buffalo.edu/news/11885. Accessed January 24, 2012
12. Golden RJ, Noller KL, Titus-Ernstoff L, et al. Environmental endocrine modulators and human health: an assessment of the biological evidence. Crit. Rev. Toxicol, 1998,28, 2, 109–227. doi:10.1080/10408449891344191. PMID 9557209.
13. Connett, Paul. Beck, James. Micklemp, HS. The Case Against Fluoride. (White River Junction, VT, Chelsea Green Publishing Company, 2010) 183-185.
14. National Research Council of the National Academies, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of  EPA’s Standards (Washington, DC, National Academies Press, 2006) 266, chapter 8, http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/nrc/NRC-2006.pdf.
15. Iodine Deficiency.  http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/122714-overview. Accessed January 23, 2012.
16. US Soyfoods Directory. http://www.soyfoods.com/nutrition/AbsorptionMetabolism.html. Accessed January 23, 2012.
17. Brownstein, D. Iodine. Why You Need It (West Bloomfield, MI, Medical Alternative Press, 2008). 73-79.
18. Yao R, Chiu CG, Strugnell SS,et al. Gender Differences in Thyroid Cancer. Expert Rev Endocrinol Metab, 2011, 6, 2, 215-243.
19. Manole D, Schildknecht B, Gosnell B, Adams E, et al. Estrogen Promotes Growth of Human Thyroid Tumor Cells by Different Molecular Mechanisms.  J Clin Endocr Metab, 2001, 86, 3, 1072-1077.
20. Kumari A, Klinge CM and Goldstein GM. Estradiol-induced proliferation of papillary and follicular thyroid cancer cells is mediated by estrogen receptors a and ß.  Int J of Oncology 2010, 36,1067-1080.
21. Daniel, K.T. The Whole Soy Story: the Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food. (Washington, DC, New Trends Publishing, 2005) .
22. Doerge DR. Inhibition of thyroid peroxidase by dietary flavonoids. Chem Res Toxicol,1996, 9, 16-23.
23. Divi RL, Chang HC, Doerge DR.  Anti-thyroid isoflavones from soybean. Biochem Pharmacol, 1997, 54, 1087-1096.
24. Doerge DR, Inhibition of thyroid peroxidase by dietary flavonoids. Chem Res Toxicol,1996, 9, 16-23.
25. Divi RL, Chang HC, Doerge DR.  Anti-thyroid isoflavones from soybean. Biochem Pharmacol, 1997, 54, 1087-1096.
26. Fitzpatrick Mike. Soy Formulas and the effects of isoflavones on the thyroid. NZ Med J. 2000, 1131-1103 24-26.
27. Daniel, KT, The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food (Washington, DC, New Trends, 2005).
28. Syd Baumel, at http://eatkind.net/wholesoystory.htm. Accessed January 22, 2012.
29. Sakoda LC and Horn-Ross PL. Reproductive and menstrual history and papillary thyroid cancer risk: the San Francisco Bay Area thyroid cancer study. Cancer Epidem Biomar, 2002, 11, 51-57.
30. Horn-Ross PL, Hoggatt  KJ and Lee MM. Phytoestrogens and thyroid cancer risk: the San Francisco Bay Area thyroid cancer study. Cancer Epidem Biomar, 2002, 11, 43-49.
31. Horn-Ross PL, Morris JS, Lee M, West DM, et al. Iodine and thyroid cancer risk among women in a multiethnic population: the Bay Area thyroid cancer study. Cancer Epidem Biomar, 2001,10,979-985.
32. Horn-Ross PL, Hoggatt KJ and Lee MM. Phytoestrogens and thyroid cancer risk: the San Francisco Bay Area thyroid cancer study. Cancer Epidem Biomar, 2002,11, 44.
33. Utts, J. M, Heckard, R. Mind on Statistics, 3rd edition. (Belmont, CA, Thomson-Brooks/Cole, 2007). 136.
34. Utts, J. M, Heckard, R. Statistical ideas and methods (Belmont, CA, Thomas Brooks/Cole, 2006) 669.
35. Journal of Tropical Pediatrics. Mother and Child Health: Research Methods. Research Methods II. Analysis of Case-control studies. Logistic Regression 11,www.oxfordjournals.org/tropej/online/ma_chap11.pdf 122
36. Agresti, Alan. Categorical Data Analysis. (New York, Wiley-Interscience, 2002) sections 6.7.1, 10.2.
37. Rahman, M et al. Conditional versus unconditional logistic regression in the medical literature. Letter to the Editor.  J Epidem. 56, 2003, 101–102. (Kyoto University Graduate School of Public Health, Kyoto, Japan).
38. Rahman, M et al. Conditional versus unconditional logistic regression in the medical literature. Letter to the Editor.  J Epidem. 56, 2003, 101–102. (Kyoto University Graduate School of Public Health, Kyoto, Japan).
39. Breslow, NE and Day, NE, Statistical Methods in Cancer Research. Volume 1- The analysis of Case-Control Studies (Switzerland, IARC, 1980) 249-251.
40. Analysis of case control studies.  Logistic Regression, 121-122.   www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/tropej/online/ma_chap11.pdf
41. Willett, Walter. Nutritional Epidemiology (Oxford University Press, New York, 1990) 69-126.
42. Horn-Ross PL, Hoggatt KJ and Lee MM. Phytoestrogens and thyroid cancer risk: the San Francisco Bay Area Thyroid Cancer Study. Cancer Epidem Biomar, 2002, 11, 48.
43. Motulsky, Harvey, .Intuitive Statistics (New York, Oxford University Press, 1995) 82-84.
44. Jewell, NP. Statistics for Epidemiology (CRC Press, New York, 2003) 31-34, 41.

Will the soy industry toast its success this holiday season with Soy Nogs?   Perhaps, but the atmosphere won’t be wildly celebratory.

Soy has been losing its luster in the marketplace since 2009.   Seems consumers are just nog so much into soy!    While the data for 2011 are not yet in, advance buzz has it that soy milk sales are declining while tofu and soy infant formula have managed only lackluster growth.   As for sales of isoflavones and other soy supplements, they’ve been plummeting, with a 26 percent drop in 2009, a 15 percent drop in 2010, and no signs of a turnaround anytime soon.    That’s particularly significant, given the overall robust growth of the U.S. supplement market.

What’s to blame?   People like you and me, according to the industry spokespeople quoted in the newsletters and reports issued from www.NutraIngredients.com and www.FoodNavigator-usa.com.

To wit:

• “Soy supplement sales have been declining for some time,” says Kerry Watson, manager at SPINS, an industry reporting and consulting service.  “I think in general consumers are confused about whether soy and good or bad for them.  There are concerns amongst consumers regarding the possible affects soy may have on hormones in the body.”

• “We include negative publicity and consumer confusion among the trends that have been contributing to flatter soyfoods/supplements sales in the past few years,”  says Sarah Day LeVesque, an analyst at Soyatech, a research and consultancy firm

• “Non-organic soy runs the risk of being genetically modified,” says Watson, “and consumers have no way to know whether a product does or doesn’t contain GMO unless they choose to state that information on the label.”

• David Browne, a senior analyst for Mintel, another market research firm also blames “negative publicity surrounding soy’s impact on hormones and the GMO factor. . .” and adds “We’re seeing some companies actively promote the fact that they don’t use soy.”

• All the negative publicity is “frustrating” says Laurent Leduc, vice president at Frutarom, a leading flavor and fragrance company.    However,  he thinks “the negative press on soy is down and we are now starting to see a positive trend with new studies on safety and bone health.”

Sounds to me like the decade-long campaign by the Weston A. Price Foundation is finally paying off.  Our warnings have helped consumers recognize marketing hype, question the value of  industry-sponsored  studies,  decide “better safe than sorry” in the face of confusing, contradictory messages, and perceive “soy free” as a possible asset.

We’ve been greatly helped in our “Soy Alert” campaign by Dr. Joseph Mercola, who has reached millions through his website  www.mercola.com, the world’s leading health and dietary website.  Numerous other websites and Facebook pages have also helped this message go viral.   Sales of The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food have remained steady after six years.

Clearly, the soy controversy’s not going away anytime soon.   Soy’s still in more than 60 percent of processed and packaged food products and in nearly 100 percent of  fast foods, but the tide seems to have finally turned.

Time to celebrate with a real egg nog!

Steve Jobs died October 5, and the animal rights organization PETA  stepped right up to honor him as a vegetarian who was deeply committed to animal welfare and the environment.  PETA, of course,  has yet to acknowledge the role that Jobs’s near vegan diet may have played in his death, and continues to maintain that their particular brand of “right eating” will virtually guarantee freedom from cancer and other major health problems.

When I blogged about this topic in October,  I promised I would follow up once I learned more about Jobs’s dietary habits from Walter Isaacson’s biography Steve Jobs (Simon & Schuster, 2011).   This column delivers on that promise.

The bullet points below include every reference to diet in the entire book, followed by page numbers.  My brief comments are found at the very end.

• Jobs came to appreciate organic fruits and vegetables as a teenager when a neighbor taught him how to be a good organic gardener and to compost. (14)

• Between his sophomore and junior hear of high school, he began smoking marijuana regularly and by his senior year was dabbling in LSD as well as exploring the mind bending effect of sleep deprivation. (18-19)

• Toward the end of his senior year in high school, he began his “lifelong experiments with compulsive diets, eating only fruits and vegetables so he was as lean and tight as a whippet.”  (31)

• He attended the love festivals at the local Hare Krishna temple, and went to the Zen center for free vegetarian meals. (35)

• During his freshman year at college he went to the Zen center for free vegetarian meals and was greatly influenced by the book Diet for a Small Planet by Frances Moore Lappe.   At that point, he swore off meat for good and began embracing extreme diets, which included purges, fasts or eating only one or two foods , such as carrots or apples for weeks on end.  (36)

• For awhile at college, Jobs lived on Roman Meal cereal.   He would buy a box, which would last a week, then flats of dates, almonds and a lot of carrots.   He made carrot juice with a Champion juicer, and at one point turned “a sunset-like orange hue.”  (36)

• His dietary habits became more obsessive when he read the Mucusless Diet Healing System by Arnold Ehret.     Jobs then favored eating nothing but fruits and starchless vegetables, which he said prevented the body from forming harmful mucus, and determined to regularly cleanse his body through prolonged fasts.   That meant the end of his consumption of Roman Meal cereal — or any bread, grains, or milk.     At one point, he spent an entire week eating only apples, and then began to try even purer fasts.  He started with two-day fasts and eventually stretched them out to a week or more, breaking them with large amounts of water and leafy vegetables.    “After a week, you start to feel fantastic,” he said.  “You get a ton of vitality from not having to digest all this food.  I was in great shape  I felt I could get up and walk to San Francisco anytime I wanted.”   (36)

• As a $5 an hour technician at Atari, he was known as “a hippie with b.o.” and “impossible to deal with.”   He clung to the belief that his fruit-heavy vegetarian diet would prevent not just mucus but also body odor.   As Isaacson writes “It was a flawed theory.” (43)

• “He was doing a lot of soul-searching about being adopted .  . .  (with) the primal scream and the mucusless diets, he was trying to cleanse himself and get deeper into his frustration about his birth.”  (51)

• He was a fan of the Whole Earth Catalog and particularly taken by the final issue, which came out in 1971 when he was still in high school.   On the back cover it said “Stay Hungry.  Stay Foolish.” (59)

• The name Apple Computers came to him when he was on one of his fruitarian diets.  “I had just come back from the apple farm.  It sounded fun, spirited and not intimidating.   Apple took the edge off the word ‘computer.’”  (63)

• His mother Clara Jobs didn’t mind losing most of her house to piles of computer parts and house guests, but she was frustrated by her son’s increasingly quirky diets.  She would roll her eyes at his latest eating obsessions.  She just wanted him to be healthy, and he would be making weird pronouncements like, “I’m a fruitarian and I will only eat leaves picked by virgins in the moonlight.”  (68)

• He was still convinced against all evidence that his vegan diet meant that he didn’t need to use a deodorant or take regular showers.   .  .  .   At meetings people had to look at his dirty feet. Sometimes to relieve stress, he would soak his feet in the toilet.  (82)

• A colleague who recommended he bathe more often was told that “in exchange” he  would have to read fruitarian diet books.  “Steve was adamant that he bathed once a week, and that was adequate as long as he was eating a fruitarian diet.” (82-83)

• In 1979 or so he “put aside drugs, eased away from being a strict vegan, and cut back the time he spent on Zen retreats.”   (91)

• He decreed that the sodas in the office refrigerator be replaced by Odwalla organic orange and carrot juices.”   (118)

• The kitchen was stocked daily with Odwalla juices (142)

• At the launch of the Lisa computer in 1983, he ate a special vegan meal at the Four Seasons restaurant.  (152)

• He had edged away from his strict vegan diet for the time being and ate vegetarian omelets. (155)

• In 1984 in Italy, Jobs demanded a vegan meal and became extremely angry when the waiter very elaborately proceeded to dish out a sauce filled with sour cream.  (185)

• The menu for his 30th birthday day celebration included goat cheese and salmon mousse. (189)

• He had a lot of mannerisms.  He bit his nails.   His hands were “slightly and inexplicably yellow” and in constant motion. (223)

• At a meal with Mitch Kapor,  the chairman of Lotus software, Jobs was horrified to see Kapor slathering butter on his bread,” and asked, “Have you ever heard of serum cholesterol?”   Kapor responded, “I’ll make you a deal. You stay away from commenting on my dietary habits, and I will stay away from the subject of your personality.”  (224)

• At a 1988 NeXT product launch, the lunch menu included  mineral water, croissants, cream cheese, bean sprouts. (233)

• Jobs was a vegetarian and so was Chrisann, the mother of his daughter Lisa.  Lisa was not vegetarian, but Jobs was fine with that.   “Eating chicken became her little indulgence as she shuttled between two parents who were vegetarians with a spiritual regard for natural foods.”  Jobs’s “dietary fixations came in fanatic waves,” and he was “fastidious”  about what he ate.  Lisa watched him “spit out a mouthful of soup one day after learning that it contained butter.” (259-260)

• “Even at a young age Lisa began to realize his diet obsessions reflected a life philosophy, one in which asceticism and minimalism could heighten subsequent sensations.  “He believed that great harvests came from arid sources, pleasure from restraint.  He knew the equations that most people didn’t know:  Things led to their opposites.”   (259-260)

• Once he took Lisa on a business trip to Tokyo and they stayed at the Okura Hotel.   At the elegant downstairs sushi bar, Jobs ordered large trays of unagi sushi, a dish he loved so much that he allowed the warm cooked eel to pass muster as vegetarian.    Lisa later wrote, “It was the first time, I’d felt with him, so relaxed and content, over those trays of meat; the excess, the permission and warmth after the cold salads, meant a once inaccessible space had opened.  He was less rigid with himself, even human under the great ceilings with the little chairs with the meat and me.”  (260-261)

• Jobs had hired a hip young couple who had once worked at Chez Panisse as housekeepers and vegetarian cooks (264)

• At his wedding to Laurene Powell, the cake was in the shape of Yosemite’s Half Dome.  It was strictly vegan and more than a few of the guest found it inedible.  (274)

• “Since his early teens, he had indulged his weird obsession with extremely restrictive diets and fasts.  Even after he married and had children, he retained his dubious eating habits.   He would spend weeks eating the same thing — carrot salad with lemon, or just apples — and then suddenly spurn that food and declare that he had stopped eating it.  He would go on fasts, just as he did as a teenager and he became sanctimonious as he lectured others at the table on the virtues of whatever eating regimen he was following.”  (477)

• Jobs’s wife ,Laurene Powell, had been a vegan when they first married, but after her husband’s first cancer operation, the partial Whipple procedure, she began to diversify the family meals with fish and other proteins.  Their son, Reed, who had been a vegetarian, became a “hearty omnivore.”  They knew it was important for Steve to get diverse sources of protein. (477)

• In early 2008, Jobs’s eating disorders got worse.   On some nights he would stare at the floor and ignore all of the dishes set out on the long kitchen table.  He lost 40 pounds during the spring of 2008.

• Dr James Eason “would even stop at the convenience store to get the energy drinks Jobs liked.” (485)

• He remained a finicky eater, which was more of a problem than ever.  He would eat only fruit smoothies and he would demand that seven or eight of them be lined up so he could find an option that might satisfy him.  He would touch the spoon to his mouth for a tiny taste and pronounce  ‘That’s no good.  That one’s no good either.’”   His doctor  lectured him: “You know this isn’t a matter of taste.  Stop thinking of this as food.  Start thinking of it as medicine.” (486)

• Early in 2010, Jobs went to dinner and ordered a mango smoothie and plain vegan pasta.  (505)

• At the launch of the  iPad2, Isaacson reported “For a change he was eating, though still with some pickiness.  He ordered fresh squeezed juice, which he sent back three times, declaring that each new offering was from a bottle, and a pasta primavera which he shoved away as inedible after one taste.   But then he ate half of my crab Louise salad and ordered a full one for himself followed by a bowl of ice cream.”  (527)

• Jobs’s eating problems were exacerbated over the years by his psychological attitude toward food.  When he was young, he learned that he could induce euphoria and ecstasy by fasting.   So even though he knew that he should eat — his doctors were begging him to consume high-quality protein — lingering in the back of his subconscious, he admitted was his instinct for fasting and for diets like Arnold Ehret’s fruit regimen that he had embraced as a teenager.  Powell kept telling him it was crazy. ‘I wanted him to force himself to eat,’ she said ‘and it was incredibly tense at home.’”  (548-549)

• Bryar Brown, their part-time cook would produce an array of healthy dishes, but Jobs would touch his tongue to one or two and then dismiss them all as inedible.  One evening he announced, “I could probably eat a little pumpkin pie,” and the even-tempered Brown created a beautiful pie from scratch in an hour.  Jobs ate only one bite, but Brown was thrilled.”  (549)

• During the final years of his life, Powell talked to eating disorder specialists and psychiatrists to try to get help, but her husband shunned them.   (549)

That’s it.    Not a lot to work with, but more than enough to show a longstanding pattern of eating disorders.

On the plus side, Jobs’s diet seems to  have been consistently organic and high quality.    He employed chefs who’d worked at Chef Panisse, and his wife Laurene Powell founded Terravera, a company that produces ready-to-eat organic meals for stores in northern California.    Jobs does not appear to have ever been a junk-food vegan who indulged in all-American junk foods such as soda, chocolate, cookies and crackers.

Soy is not mentioned at all in Isaacson’s biography.   Although the Apple culture was soy friendly with soy milk readily available in vending machines and at coffee stations, Jobs himself may well have rejected it.   Jobs had a longstanding fascination with the book The Mucusless Diet Healing System by Arnold Ehret (1866-1922), who claimed the human body is an “air-gas engine” that runs well only on fruits, starchless vegetables and edible green leaves.   Soy and other legumes, according to Ehret’s way of thinking, were to be disdained as mucus-producing forbidden foods.   Ehret not only condemned protein and fat as “unnatural” but said they could not be used by the body.   Inspired by such theories, Jobs appears to have eaten a diet low in both fat and protein for most of his life.  And what did he eat instead?  Carbs high in fructose.

Whether or not Jobs was in one of his fanatic fruitarian phases, he favored a lot of fruit and fruit juice.   These are not only high on the glycemic index, but loaded with fructose.   Fruits and fruit juices greatly stress the liver and pancreas, contribute to diabetes and many other blood sugar disorders, and have been linked to pancreatic cancer.   Jobs suffered from a type of pancreatic cancer known as islet cell carcinoma, which originates in the insulin-secreting beta cells.

Research published in the November 2007 issue of American Journal of Clinical Nutrition concluded there was “evidence for a greater pancreatic cancer risk with a high intake of fruit and juices but not with a high intake of sodas.”   More recently, in the August 2010 issue of Cancer Research, Dr. Anthony Healy of UCLA’s Jonsson Cancer Center proposed that aberrant fructose metabolism — and not just aberrant glucose metabolism — might be involved in the pathogenesis of pancreatic cancer.   Seems fructose provides the raw material cancer cells prefer to use to make the DNA they need to divide and proliferate.    Although the UCLA findings are preliminary and more research needs to be done, the Reuters headline “Cancer Cells Slurp Up Fructose” is fair warning to all of us addicted to fruit and fruit juices.

Clearly Jobs broke away  from strict veganism from time to time and indulged in a few eggs, salmon and unagi sushi.   The words of his daughter Lisa (quoted above) provide a moving testimony to how well Jobs’s body and mind responded to eating eel, a fish rich in protein and fat.   That said, vegans who would like to think Jobs became sick because he failed to be “perfect vegan” now have evidence to support that belief.

Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN, is The Naughty Nutritionist™ because of her ability to outrageously and humorously debunk nutritional myths. A popular guest on radio and television, she has appeared on The Dr Oz Show, ABC’s View from the Bay, NPR’s People’s Pharmacy and numerous other shows. Dr Daniel is the author of The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food, a popular speaker at Wise Traditions and other conferences,  Vice President  of the Weston A. Price Foundation and recipient of its 2005 Integrity in Science Award. Her website is www.naughtynutritionist.com and she can be reached at Kaayla@DrKaaylaDaniel.com.

Can soy be used as an aid to celibacy?    Is it true that Zen monks eat soy because naughty behavior goes down when tofu consumption goes up?  Do Japanese wives feed unfaithful husbands extra helpings of soy?    Could politicians with the “zipper problem” keep their naughty bits better under control if they consumed enough soy?

Anecdotally, the answer is, yes, and a fair amount of science backs it up.  To date, many studies show that soy’s estrogenic isoflavones interfere with the production and usage of testosterone in the body.   Some evidence points to soy as a feminizing influence that can lead to  gynecomastia (man breasts).   And there’s massive evidence of reproductive toxicity.

The latest news is a case study in the journal Nutrition. The subject is a 19-year-old heterosexual man who become vegan, began consuming a lot of soy,  and, soon after, experienced loss of libido and erectile dysfunction.   Prior to adopting veganism, he had an active sex life with no reported problems.

Lab assessment revealed low levels of free and total testosterone with increased levels of DHEA.   During the year prior to this workup, the young man’s diet had packed a whopping punch of soy isoflavones, averaging 360 mg per day, from soy milk, soy crisps, tofu, soy sauce, soy nuts and edamame.   This level of soy consumption is far above average, yet increasingly common these days as people quit meat and dairy products for soy substitutes.   Prior to becoming vegan, the man had been on a Standard American Diet (SAD).  After discontinuing his vegan diet and eliminating soy foods altogether, he noticed a gradual improvement in  sexual function over the course of a year and his lab tests revealed  gradual normalization of testosterone and DHEA levels.

The researchers conclude with the usual caveat “more studies are needed.”  Yes, indeed, and as soy consumption increases, doctors and other health practitioners will most likely report many such cases.   Let’s hope future studies focus on women as well as men, and include a study on the link between sex, soy and vulvodynia.   What to do now?   The science may not be entirely in, but the message is already clear:  “If you love and respect your naughty bits, Practice Safe Soy.”

To read the study:

Hypogonadism and erectile dysfunction associated with soy product consumption.Siepmann T, Roofeh J, Kiefer FW, Edelson DG.Nutrition. 2011 Jul-Aug;27(7-8):859-62. Epub 2011 Feb 25.

For more about soy and reproduction, including citations, read chapter 29 of  The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food. For information on how much soy is safe to eat, visit: www.naughtynutritionist.com/naughtynutritionist.com/Practice_Safe_Soy.html

Thanks to Sylvia Onusic for alerting me to this article.

Steve Jobs died this week, and PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is lifting a tall glass of carrot juice to his memory.   That’s what Jobs gave out to trick or treaters one Halloween, and PETA reminds us not only of that, but of some of the many  other positive steps Jobs took for health and the environment.   Jobs played a role in Disney’s 2006 decision not to renew its Happy Meal toy deal with McDonalds, for example, and more recently decided to “green up” Apple’s manufacturing operations in China and elsewhere.

Sadly PETA and other vegetarian groups have chosen to honor Jobs’s commitment to animal welfare and the environment without acknowledging the role that his vegan or near vegan diet may have played in his death.

I say “may have played” because none of us knows what caused the  pancreatic cancer that led to Steve Jobs’s  death.   Diet doubtless played a role, but lifestyle factors, environmental toxicity and genetic proclivities would have contributed as well.  Certainly, Jobs was exposed over the years to massive bombardment from WiFi and other electromagnetic fields (EMFs).   Medical treatments involving radiation, chemotherapy, a modified Whipple surgery, a liver transplant and immuno-suppressive drugs may also have contributed to his demise.

It’s human nature to look for something, or someone, to blame whenever someone dies too young, but the answers are rarely clear cut.   At best, blaming provides simplistic answers, and at worst can be a juvenile “I told you so.”   Not long after Jobs’s death on Wednesday, readers began asking me to comment on Jobs’s death and how his diet — and especially soy — might have contributed to it.  In fact, I never met Jobs and have no first hand knowledge of what he ate.

Based on media reports in Forbes and Fortune, however, Jobs seems to have favored organic foods and a plant-based diet.   A Google search turns up lots of claims that he was “vegan,” one reference to “fruitarian leanings” the possibility that he tried healing  through macrobiotics, a few people saying he was “pescatarian,” and a satire of his vegan ways on  www.MacComedy.com.   A posting this week on  www.scienceblog.com, by “Mike” says: “There might be some truth to Jobs being a vegan .  .  .   I was at Apple during the time Jobs came back to Apple in 1996/1997.  The company cafeteria within weeks of his returning dramatically expanded and improved its vegetarian and vegan menus.”   Finally, Jobs was often reported dining at The Greens restaurant in San Francisco with Dean Ornish, MD, bestselling author and promoter of extremely low-fat, plant-based dietary regimens.

None of the articles and websites I’ve seen talk about Jobs’s soy consumption, but Sean Glazier, a programmer from the Netherlands who often consulted in the Silicon Valley, contacted me Thursday.   Glazier reports that the Apple environment was extremely vegan friendly, with soy milk flowing freely at coffee stations, Silk soymilk for sale in vending machines, and soy meats served up in company cafeterias.  Jobs ordered catered meals for meetings and there were always soy options.   “During the 90’s especially, I am sure Steve ate plenty of soy products.”

With the timely release of Walter Isaacson’s authorized biography Steve Jobs on October 24, we may learn more about Jobs’s dietary and lifestyle preferences.

Presuming Jobs ate a fair amount of soy, the question is, how might it have affected his health?   Again, hard to say, given our  lack of information about dose and duration.  If we look to science, the studies on soy and cancer development are inconsistent and often contradictory.  Soy sometimes prevents cancer but also can cause, contribute to or accelerate the growth of cancer.   Soy isoflavones have been proven to be mutagenic, clastogenic and teratogenic, and are listed as “carcinogens” in many toxicology textbooks, including the American Chemical Society’s 1976 Chemical Carcinogens. In addition, modern industrial soy processing techniques used to make soy protein isolate, textured vegetable protein and other modern soy products create toxic and carcinogenic residues   Finally, soybeans naturally contain goitrogens, allergens, protease inhibitors and other antinutrients and toxins that damage the digestive, immune and neuroendocrine systems, putting consumers at increase risk for many health problems, including cancer.   These facts led the Solae Company in 2005 to withdraw a petition to the FDA, in which the company had requested  a soy/cancer health claim.  (To read WAPF’s request for denial, go to: http://www.westonaprice.org/2004-action-alerts/2004jul11). Yet the soy industry and vegan proponents persist in touting soy as a safe, proven and all-natural cancer answer.

In terms of pancreatic cancer, the protease inhibitors in soy protein interfere with protein digestion, put stress on the pancreas and cause hyperplasia and hypertrophy.   Animal studies indicate soy-heavy diets can cause pancreatic cancers that originate in the exocrine cells that produce digestive enzymes.  About 95 percent of pancreatic cancers are exocrine cancers, the type that felled actors Michael Landon and Patrick Swayze.   Steve Jobs, however, suffered from a much rarer, neuroendocrine form of pancreatic cancer.    Known as islet cell carcinoma, this type represents only about five percent of pancreatic cancers, and originates in the insulin-secreting beta cells.

Soy couldn’t possibly have helped Jobs, and may have contributed to his cancer’s development, but without additional information it would inappropriate to blame his cancer on soy.  But it is fair to say that years before diagnosis he would probably have suffered from subclinical malnutrition if, in fact, he’d been on a low-fat, plant-based diet that included a lot of soy.   Lab testing likely would have turned up deficiencies in vitamins A, D, K, B2, B6 and B12; the sulfur-containing amino acids, methionine, cysteine and taurine; DHA and EFA fatty acids; and calcium, zinc, carnitine and CoQ10.  Such deficiencies are commonly found in vegan and near-vegan clients.  They neither build the body nor allow detoxification, and so  set the stage for the development of cancer and other chronic illnesses.

Most alternative MDs and health practitioners find serious illness among vegans in their clinical practices, yet PETA and other vegan groups dismiss the idea that non-junk food vegan diets cause nutritional deficiencies and blame animal products alone for the ills of civilization.   PETA also wildly, nakedly and bloodily –many would say crudely and offensively — promotes the myth of healthy, sexy vegans.

Similar ideas — more soberly presented — come from the  Physicians Committee on Responsible Medicine,  whose “Cancer Project”promotes cancer prevention via a low-fat, high-soy vegan diet.   The fact that this perfect prescription didn’t work for Jobs, Linda McCartney or many other prominent vegetarians does not seem to stop these “responsible physicians” from continuing to make irresponsible health guarantees.

Could anything have saved Steve Jobs?   No way to know, but I think he would have had his best shot at recovery with Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez in New York City.   Dr. Gonzalez has an impressive track record of helping people recover from pancreatic and other cancers.  He prescribes specific diets and supplement programs based on extensive interviews and labwork.    To learn more about his programs, listen to this fascinating interview with Dr Joseph Mercola and Dr. Gonzalez:  http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/10/09/dr-nicholas-gonzalez-on-steve-jobs.aspx?e_cid=20111009_SNL_Art_1

Would Jobs  have been best served by a traditional diet that contained ample amounts of fat, cholesterol and even red meat?   Would a more modest amount of animal foods have better suited him?   Might he have been one of the few people who thrives on a carefully designed diet high in fruit and vegetables and low in animal foods?    Had he been a patient of Dr. Gonzalez, Jobs would have learned the code to a well-designed, high-functioning iJobs diet.   As it stands, the one thing we know for sure is Steve Jobs is dead.   Sadly, his diet did not save him.

*  *  *  *  *

Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN, is The Naughty Nutritionist^TM because of her ability to outrageously and humorously debunk nutritional myths. A popular guest on radio and television, she has appeared on The Dr Oz Show, ABC’s View from the Bay, NPR’s People’s Pharmacy and numerous other shows. . Dr Daniel is the author of The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food, a popular speaker at Wise Traditions and other conferences, Vice President of the Weston A. Price Foundation and recipient of its 2005 Integrity in Science Award.  To read more of her work, visit  www.naughtynutritionist.com.

Yet “everyone knows” plant-based diets prevent heart disease.  Indeed this myth  is repeated so often that massive numbers of educated, health-conscious individuals in first world countries are consciously adopting third world style diets in the hope of preventing disease, optimizing health and maximizing longevity.   But if the WHO statistics are correct, plant-based diets might not be protective at all.   And today’s fashionable experiment in veganism could end very badly indeed.

A study out August 26 in the journal Nutrition makes a strong case against plant-based diets for prevention of heart disease.  The title alone  –  “Vegetarianism produces subclinical malnutrition, hyperhomocysteinemia and atherogenesis” — sounds a significant warning.   The article establishes  why subjects who eat mostly vegetarian diets develop morbidity and mortality from cardiovascular disease unrelated to vitamin B status and Framingham criteria.

Co-author Kilmer S. McCully, MD, “Father of the Homocysteine Theory of Heart Disease,” is familiar to WAPF members as winner of the Linus Pauling Award, WAPF’s Integrity in Science Award, and author of numerous articles published in peer-reviewed journals as well as the popular books The Homocysteine Revolution and The Heart Revolution.   In 2009 Dr. McCully was one of the signers of the Weston A. Price Foundation’s petition to the FDA in which we asked the agency to retract its unwarranted 1999 soy/heart disease health claim.  (http://www.westonaprice.org/soy-alert/soy-heart-health-claim)

Dr. McCully teamed up with Yves Ingenbleek, MD, of the University Louis Pasteur in Strasbourg, France, which funded the research.   Dr. Ingenbleek is well known for his work on malnutrition, the essential role of sulfur to nitrogen, and sulfur deficiency as a cause of  hyperhomocysteinemia.

The study took place in Chad, and involved 24 rural male subjects age 18 to 30, and 15 urban male controls, age 18-29.   (Women in this region of Chad could not be studied because of their animistic beliefs and proscriptions against collecting their urine.)

The rural men were apparently healthy, physically active farmers with good lipid profiles.  Their staple foods included cassava, sweet potatoes, beans, millet and ground nuts.   Cassava leaves, cabbages and carrots provided good levels of carotenes, folates and pyridoxine (B6).  The diet is plant-based there because of a shortage of grazing lands and livestock, but subjects occasionally consume  some B12-containing foods, mostly poultry and eggs, though very little dairy or meat.   Their diet could be described as high carb, high fiber,  low in both protein and fat, and low in the sulfur containing amino acids.    In brief, the very diet recommended by many of today’s nutritional “experts” for overall good health and heart disease prevention.

The urban controls were likewise healthy and ate a similar diet, but with beef, smoked fish and canned or powdered milk regularly on the menus.  Their diet was thus higher in protein, fat and the sulfur-containing amino acids though roughly equivalent in calories.

Dr. McCully’s research over the past 40 years on the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis has shown the role of homocysteine in free radical damage and the protective effect of  vitamins B6, B12 and folate.   Indeed, many doctors today recommend taking this trio of B vitamins as an inexpensive heart disease “insurance policy.”

In Chad, both groups showed adequate levels of B6 and folate.  The B12 levels of the vegetarian group were lower, but the difference was only of “borderline significance.”   However, as the researchers point out, ”A previous study undertaken in the same Chadian area in a larger group of 60 rural participants did demonstrate a weak inverse correlation between B12 and homocysteine concentrations in the 20 subjects most severely protein depleted .  .  .  It is therefore likely that the hyperhomocysteinemia status of some of our rural subjects in the present survey might have resulted from combined B12 and protein deficiencies.   The correlation of B12 deficiency with hyperhomocysteinemia could well reach statistical significance if a larger groups of subjects were studied.”

Clearly it’s wise for people on plant-based diets to supplement their diets with B12, but protein malnutrition must also be addressed.   And the issue is not just getting enough protein to eat, but the right kind.   Quality, not just quantity.   The bottom line is we must eat  protein rich in bioavailable, sulfur-containing amino acids — and that means animal products.   (Vegans at this point will surely claim the issue is insufficient protein and trot out soy as the solution.   Soy is indeed a  complete plant based protein, but notoriously low in methionine.  It does contain decent levels of cysteine, but the cysteine is bound up in protease inhibitors, making it largely  bioavailable. (For more information, read  my book The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food, endorsed by Dr. McCully, as well as our petition to the FDA noted above.)

So what did  Drs. Ingenbleek and  McCully find among the study group of protein-deficient people?   Higher levels of homocysteine, of course.  Also significant alterations in body composition,  lean body mass, body mass index and plasma transthyretin levels.  In plain English, the near-vegetarian subjects were thinner, with poorer muscle tone and showed subclinical signs of protein malnutrition.   (So much for popular ideas of extreme thinness being healthy. )

The plant-based diet of the study group was low in all of the sulfur-containing amino acids.   As would be expected, labwork on these men showed lower plasma cysteine and glutathione levels compared to the controls.  Methionine levels, however,  tested comparably.   The explanation for this is  “adaptive response.”   In brief, mammals trying to function with insufficient sulfur-containing amino acids will do whatever’s necessary to survive.   Given the essential role of methionine in metabolic processes, that means deregulating the transsufuration pathway, increasing homocysteine levels, and methylating homocysteine to make methionine.

Ultimately, it all boils down to our need for sulfur.   As Stephanie Seneff, PhD, and many others have written in Wise Traditions and on this website, sulfur is vital for disease prevention and maintenance of good health.   In terms of heart disease, Drs. Ingenbleek and McCully have shown sulfur deficiency not only leads to high homocysteine levels, but is the likeliest reason some clinical trials using B6, B12 and folate interventions have proved ineffective for the prevention of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases.    Over the past few years, headlines from such studies have led to widespread dismissal of Dr. McCully’s  “Homocysteine Theory of Heart Disease” and renewed media focus on cholesterol, c-reactive protein and other possible culprits that can be treated by statins and other profitable drugs.   In contrast, Drs. McCully and Ingenbleek research suggests we can better prevent heart disease with three inexpensive B vitamins and traditional diets rich in the sulfur-containing amino acids found in animal foods.

In the blaze of publicity surrounding Forks Over Knives and other blasts of vegan propaganda, few people are likely to hear about this study.   That’s sad, for it provides an important missing piece in our knowledge of heart disease development, a strong argument against the plant-based fad, and a bright new chapter in what the New York Times has called “The Fall and Rise of Kilmer McCully.”

*  *  *  *  *

©copyright Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN, The Naughty Nutritionist™

www.naughtynutritionist.com

With thanks to Sylvia Onusic PhD who shared a full text copy of this article with me.

Ayn Rand’s 1,168 page novel, first published in 1957, rarely mentions food directly.   Indeed we might think her protagonist Dagny Taggart lives on coffee and cigarettes, except for a single incident in Part II when she eats the best “hamburger sandwich” she ever tasted at a little diner located on the summit of a long, hard climb out of Cheyenne, Wyoming.

That hamburger, of course, was not just a burger, but a product of simple ingredients and of an unusual skill.   It had been prepared with integrity, by a philosopher genius, no less, and was authentic and real with nothing ersatz, tricky or pretentious about it.   In short, an überburger that represented Ayn Rand’s and Dagny Taggart’s highest values.

The food Rand chose to represent the lowest values was soy.   In Part III the author introduces the flabby mystic Emma “Ma” Chambers, whose “progressive” dietary views led to the waste of millions of tax dollars on “Project Soybean.”   Ma had been appointed the nation’s food czar out of pity, not intelligence or ability.   With no objective evidence whatsoever, Ma felt soybeans would make “an excellent substitute for bread, meat, cereals and coffee” and that Americans not only needed to eat more like Asians but should be forced to do so for their own good.   Ma’s feeling that soybeans were of a higher “moral value” than wheat, led to government orders to pull trains out of the midwest, loss of the nation’s wheat crop,  economic collapse and widespread starvation.   As for the soybean crop, it too was lost thanks to the rotters’ incompetence,

Given Hollywood’s current worship of veganism,  I rather doubt “Project Soybean” will enliven Atlas Shrugged Part II or III, should those sequels ever be made.   As for vegetarianism, it was a symbol of silliness, failure and poverty back in Rand’s day.   To say that someone was a “vegetable” meant they were inactive and indeed nearly comatose.  Those Rand admired not only had “meaty” ideas but the motive power to act decisively, effectively, appropriately and imaginatively on them.

*  *  *  *  *

©copyright 2011 Kaayla T. Daniel

Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN, is The Naughty Nutritionist™ because of her ability to outrageously and humorously debunk nutritional myths. A popular guest on radio and television, she has appeared on The Dr Oz Show, ABC’s View from the Bay, NPR’s People’s Pharmacy and numerous other shows. Her own radio show, “Naughty Nutrition with Dr. Kaayla Daniel” debuted this spring on World of Women (WOW) Radio. Dr Daniel is the author of The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food, a popular speaker at Wise Traditions and other conferences, a Board Member of the Weston A. Price Foundation and recipient of its 2005 Integrity in Science Award. Her website is www.naughtynutritionist.com and she can be reached at Kaayla@DrKaaylaDaniel.com.

I personally am not about to take that pledge though EWG’s slogan “Reduce your impact, improve your health” sounds like a “win/win.”    EWG tells us, for example, that Americans who skip meat and cheese just one day a week — such as with a “Meatless Monday” –  can cut carbon emissions equal to taking 7.6 million cars off the road.   And it promises that reducing meat consumption will lower our risk of obesity, heart disease, stroke and cancer.

Sadly, EWG’s proposal will do very little for the environment.   Worse, it will encourage people to feel “feel good” about their growing green consciousness while distracting them from exploring and adopting genuine, sustainable solutions.  While it is certainly good that EWG recommends “greener” meat and not just “less meat” or even “no meat,” the catchy “Meatless Monday” slogan perpetuates the myth that meat is evil and that  plant-based diets are the key to personal and planetary health.

Here’s why I’m not taking the EWG pledge:

• The true threat to our environment is not animals — which have been covering the earth with manure and emissions for tens of thousands of years — but the globalization and industrialization of agriculture with its unconscionable, factory-farming practices, toxic use of pesticides, herbicides and commercial fertilizers, plundering of natural resources, draining of the water table, and bankrupting of small farmers and cottage industries.  EWG’s nod to “greener meat”  suggests they actually understand this, but the overriding message  is to stop eating meat of any type.   As for all that climate-warming gas,  animals emit far less when they eat natural, grass-based diets and not unnatural, hard-to-digest feeds manufactured from soybeans, corn and other grains.

• Plowing pastures and rangeland in order to plant crops is not sustainable and won’t do much to feed the hungry or save the environment.    Only about eleven percent of the land on planet earth can be farmed, a percentage that cannot be increased without deforestation, irrigation, chemical fertilizers, and other destructive ecological practices.  Old-fashioned organic mixed-use farms are the answer.   And animals are essential, not optional, for healthy farms.

• America’s top soil has been devastated by mono cropping, lawns and other unsustainable practices.   While mixing, rotating and composting plants is a start, land cannot be restored without the help of animals.  They are needed not only for their rich manure but for rotational grazing.   Animal waste is truly a horrific problem with factory farming but is valuable and collectible on small, mixed-use farms.  Overgrazing has certainly damaged much of America’s land, but the solution is sustainable grazing practices.   And that solution, properly handled, serves the land far better than leaving it alone for “conservation.”    As Joel Salatin has described so well in The Sheer Ecstasy of Being a Lunatic Farmer, Everything I Want to Do is Illegal and other books, diversity, interdependence and layering are the keys to honoring and restoring our land.  Salatin also argues cogently for putting our trust in local farmers and not in the official certification programs EWG recommends.   How many more exposes of pseudo organic does the Cornucopia Institute need to make before EWG comprehends that certification can — and often has been –  co-opted and corrupted.?  As Salatin explains so well, “transparency” between consumers and farmers is the answer.  That means thinking globally and acting locally by getting “up front and personal” with your food source.

• EWG blames animal foods for the diseases of modern civilization, including cancer and heart disease.  But the 20th century saw a decline in the consumption of meat, dairy and butter consumption, but a sharp increase in the consumption of sugar, corn syrup, white flour, liquid and partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, artificial flavorings, preservatives and other known health hazard of processed, packaged and fast foods.   Contrary to popular belief, science does not support the idea that saturated fat and cholesterol found in animal products contribute to obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer.   All health problems associated with animal products lie with factory farming and other commercial and non-sustainable farming and food processing practices.   As for plant-based diets,  vegan diets especially can lead to vitamin, mineral, fatty acid and amino acid deficiencies and imbalances, contributing to myriad health problems, including cancer and heart disease.

• EWG recommends low-fat dairy because “less fat will mean fewer cancer causing toxins in the body.”  That’s nonsense, of course, when we are talking about the health-giving fat found in the milk of cows and goats who spend their lives out in the sun on pasture.  This recommendation further fails to recognize that not all toxins are fat- soluble, many are water-soluble, and commercially grown fruits, vegetables, grains, beans and seeds are often loaded with toxins, including the dioxins that EWG erroneously states are found “entirely” in animal products.

• The idea that eating lowfat could be eco-conscious also defies common sense.   The lowfat gospel is a key reason why factory farms — including so-called organic factory farms — grow freakish hens with size DD breasts.  Big Agra’s goal with such chickens is to minimize the less-profitable dark meat and maximize the lowfat white meat preferred by “health conscious” consumers.   The lowfat message pleases Big Pfood immensely because it profits mightily when whole foods are divided into several different products — which is to say multiple profit centers.   All of these, of course, will require manufacturing, packaging and long distance hauling   As for the skim milk recommended by EWG, nature put fat in milk for a reason, and that reason wasnot to kill us.  When people drink skim milk, their bodies need and crave that missing cream, leading to compensatory bingeing on ice cream and other unhealthy treats high in both fat and sugar.   Lowfat thus leads to increased consumption, more packages, more products, higher profits,  ill health and environmental destruction.

• Yet another problem with EWG’s lowfat recommendation is it encourages people not to cook.  How so?   Because fat is what gives food flavor.    Cooks who choose lean cuts and prepare vegetables without butter or other tasty fats, often think they are lousy cooks.   Making lowfat foods tasty, after all, requires complicated spicings and other gourmet tricks.   This drives people to eat out often or to dine at home on lowfat packaged foods.   Out or in, the manufacturers have ramped up flavors with with MSG and other additives.

• EWG’s tips for eco-conscious consumers include reducing food waste by buying “right size portions.”    What’s wrong with that?   It buys into the idea that meat comes in little packages.   Boneless, skinless chicken breast, for example, instead of the entire chicken — white meat and dark, tough cuts and tender, organ meats like liver, and skins, bones, tendons and cartilage in old-fashioned broth.   EWG is right to point out the cost to the environment of food that goes bad and ends up in landfills, but recommends a “solution” that means more packaging, not less.  How about some emphasis on old-fashioned thrift?   Using leftovers, freezing and, most important of all, valuing and using the entire animal?

• EWG reports that buying vegetables locally helps the environment, but buying eggs, milk, fish, poultry and meat locally has only a minimal effect.  This is one of the primary reasons EWG recommends we cut back on all meat and adopt a more “veg centric” diet.   Such a bizarre finding could only be the case if the researchers evaluated the environmental impact of buying animal products from factory farms — including “Big Organic” operations — located close to home.  It furthermore fails to take into account the role animals play in restoring our soil and growing nutrient-dense vegetables and fruits.  Without animals nearby, farmers must use fossil fuel fertilizers and/or compost and manure transported from far away.   Not good for the environment!

• Finally, if  people give up or minimize meat, what will they eat instead?    EWG suggests grains, beans and tofu.   In other words, vegetarian foods that are most likely grown and transported from a distance.   Furthermore,  the mistaken goal of eating less meat  will drive many consumers to buy processed and packaged vegetarian entrees full of soy protein isolate, corn syrup, MSG and other excitotoxins, “natural” or artificial colorings and flavorings as well as other dubious and non-green ingredients.   Clearly not an option for wellness seekers or environmentalists.

What to do instead?   How about committing to one day a week  in which the menu includes nothing that comes in a package?   How about eating nothing with a label or a barcode?   How about 100 percent local, preferably from farmers who use only locally obtained feeds, fertilizers and workers?   In other words, boycott supermarkets and Join the ranks of the Non Barcode People.

Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN, is The Naughty Nutritionist^TM because of her ability to outrageously and humorously debunk nutritional myths. A popular guest on radio and television, she has appeared on The Dr Oz Show, ABC’s View from the Bay, NPR’s People’s Pharmacy and numerous other shows. Her own radio show, “Naughty Nutrition with Dr. Kaayla Daniel,” launched recently on World of Women (WOW) Radio. Dr Daniel is the author of The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food, a popular speaker at Wise Traditions and other conferences, a Board Member of the Weston A. Price Foundation and recipient of its 2005 Integrity in Science Award. Her website is www.naughtynutritionist.com and she can be reached at Kaayla@DrKaaylaDaniel.com.

This blog first appeared at www.westonaprice.org.

The industry blames three factors:

• Competition from almond, rice, coconut, hemp and other non dairy milks
• “Premium pricing” for many soy products
• “Widely distributed information about the impact of soy on health.”

That last makes me proud.   Seems the decade-long campaign by the Weston A. Price Foundation is finally paying off.   We’ve also been greatly helped in the past year by Dr. Joseph Mercola, who has reached millions through his website  www.mercola.com, the world’s leading health and dietary website.   Numerous other websites too have helped the message go viral.    The soy controversy even aired on The Dr Oz Show on October 5 in a segment that featured Dr Oz, Dr Mark Hyman and me.

Despite growing concerns about modern. industrial soy processing techniques,  meat analogue sales saw a four percent growth in 2010 compared to 2009.   The largest growth was in the soy-protein energy bar category with a whopping 18 percent increase in just the one year of 2010.   According to Joe Jordan, Content Director of Soyatech, “Marketers of soy-based foods have been finding success in developing delicious meat alternative products with sophisticated flavor profiles.  In addition, 14 energy bar brands appeared among the top 50 soyfoods brands in 2010, indicating that this broad market affords many opportunities for creative food manufacturers to reach their key target markets.”

What are the “current market drivers”?   Soyatech thinks it’s fueled by three things:  the consumer focus on convenience; widespread interest in meat-free foods; and new USDA food guidelines that “affect consumer understanding of — and interest in — the added value of foods made from the nutritious soybean.”

In short, the good news is that soy sales are slumping, and the bad news is they are not plummeting.   And it’s very good news of course that soy infant formula sales may have finally peaked.  Meanwhile, we at the WAPF will continue to do our best to alert people to the risks of  “convenience” foods that sooner or later create inconvenient health problems, and the malnutrition and health risks associated with vegan diets and soy-based and other meat substitutes.

c copyright 2011 Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN
Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN, is The Naughty Nutritionist™ because of her ability to outrageously and humorously debunk nutritional myths. A popular guest on radio and television, she has appeared on The Dr Oz Show, ABC’s View from the Bay, NPR’s People’s Pharmacy and numerous other shows. Her own radio show, “Naughty Nutrition with Dr. Kaayla Daniel” debuted this spring on World of Women (WOW) Radio. Dr Daniel is the author of The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food, a popular speaker at Wise Traditions and other conferences, a Board Member of the Weston A. Price Foundation and recipient of its 2005 Integrity in Science Award. Her website is www.naughtynutritionist.com and she can be reached at Kaayla@DrKaaylaDaniel.com.

Dear Mary, The only soy products that are truly healthy for your family to eat are old-fashioned fermented products miso, natto and tempeh.   A little tofu once in awhile would also not be a problem.   Modern industrially processed products — including soy milk, soy nuts  as well as veggie burgers, energy bars or other products using soy protein isolate and similar modern soy ingredients definitely pose risks.  Vegans are a high risk group because so many consume excess amounts of soy and use it as both meat and dairy replacement.

I recommend your family closely read  The Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Keith, not only for its discussion of soy but of the deficiencies of vegan diets in general.    My book The Whole Soy Story discusses the specific risks of soy in great depth.   Thank you for already ordering it.    Good luck to you and your family.

Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN, is The Naughty Nutritionist™ because of her ability to outrageously and humorously debunk nutritional myths. A popular guest on radio and television, she has appeared on The Dr Oz Show, ABC’s View from the Bay, NPR’s People’s Pharmacy and numerous other shows. Her own radio show, “Naughty Nutrition with Dr. Kaayla Daniel” debuted this spring on World of Women (WOW) Radio. Dr Daniel is the author of The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food, a popular speaker at Wise Traditions and other conferences, a Board Member of the Weston A. Price Foundation and recipient of its 2005 Integrity in Science Award. Her website is www.naughtynutritionist.com and she can be reached at Kaayla@DrKaaylaDaniel.com.

Dear Cathy,   Many people have been led astray nutritionwise because of the growing fashionability of vegan diets and increasing numbers of vegan nutritionists.    You might be interested in reading some articles about the multiple ways T. Colin Campbell misued science and statistics in  The China Study. You can start with  Chris Masterjohn’s  blog  on the westonaprice.org website.   In addition, do check out Denise Minger’s work.  If you google “China Study” and “Denise Minger” the articles and discussion pages should come right up.   To sum it up, Masterjohn and Minger do a convincing job of discrediting Campbell.

Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN, is The Naughty Nutritionist™ because of her ability to outrageously and humorously debunk nutritional myths. A popular guest on radio and television, she has appeared on The Dr Oz Show, ABC’s View from the Bay, NPR’s People’s Pharmacy and numerous other shows. Her own radio show, “Naughty Nutrition with Dr. Kaayla Daniel” debuted this spring on World of Women (WOW) Radio. Dr Daniel is the author of The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food, a popular speaker at Wise Traditions and other conferences, a Board Member of the Weston A. Price Foundation and recipient of its 2005 Integrity in Science Award. Her website is www.naughtynutritionist.com and she can be reached at Kaayla@DrKaaylaDaniel.com.

Vegans too ought to be happy.  There’s still dread animal flesh and “white blood” in the picture, but the USDA has kowtowed to vegan mythology, buying into their belief that vegan diets, if carefully planned, can be healthful.   USDA even gives vegans their very own appendix, including specific dietary recommendations, including “fortified foods for some nutrients,” especially calcium and B12.  What might those fortified foods be?   Soy milk, energy bars, fake steaks, burgers and other processed, packaged foods tricked out as health foods.

Overall, there’s something for everyone who eats packaged, processed and fast foods, even chocoholics.  The USDA actually considers fat-free chocolate milk to be a “nutrient dense food,”  their phrase, not mine, and even though I am a Naughty Nutritionist™,  I am not making any of this up.

So what might adopting soy milk, fake meats and vegetable oils mean to the health of the American public?  Let’s look here at two of the USDA’s choices:  fortified soy beveages, and soy proteins.   For information about the inadvisability of vegetable oils, read “The Skinny on Fats,” “The Oiling of America” and other articles on this website.

SOY BEVERAGE
Soy beverage–popularly known as soy milk–is a lactose-free dairy substitute that marketers would have us believe has been drunk by healthy Asians since time immemorial.  In fact,  the earliest historical reference is 1866 and  the Chinese did not traditionally value soy milk until vegetarian Seventh Day Adventists missionaries from America  popularized it starting in the 1920s.

The soy milks sold in supermarkets and health food stores and recommended by the USDA are not exactly traditional soy products.   In the good old days,  soy milk-making  began with a long  soak. The softened beans were then ground on a stone grinder, using massive amounts of water. The mush then went into a cloth bag, was placed under a heavy rock, and pressed and squeezed until most of the liquid ran out. The soy paste was then boiled in fresh water. Large amounts of filthy scum that rose to the surface were carefully removed.

The modern method is faster, cheaper — and retains the scum. It speeds up the presoaking phase with the use of an alkaline solution, skips the squeezing and skimming steps, uses common fluoridated and chlorinated tap water, and cooks the soy paste in a pressure cooker. The speed comes at a cost: the high pH of the soaking solution followed by pressure cooking destroys key nutrients, including vitamins and the sulfur-containing amino acids and leaves toxic residues.

Taste, not nutrition, is what most concerns the soy industry, and  the USDA as well if it plans to get Americans of all ages to swig  two to three cups daily.   The taste problem is the enzyme lipoxygenase, which oxidizes the polyunsaturated fatty acids in soy, causing the “beaniness” and rancidity.  The industry’s attempted solutions have included high heat, pressure cooking and replacement of the traditional presoaking with a fast blanch in an alkaline solution of sodium bicarbonate (baking soda). Major manufacturers have even “offed” the off flavors using a deodorizing process similar to that in oil refining, which involves passing cooked soy milk through a vacuum pan at extremely high temperatures in the presence of a strong vacuum.

To cover up any “beaniness” that remains, processors trot out sweeteners and flavorings.  Almost all commercially sold soy milks contain barley malt, brown rice syrup, raw cane crystals or some other form of sugar.  The higher the sugar, the higher the acceptability among consumers.    Accordingly, most 8 ounce glasses of soy milk contain anywhere from four to sixteen grams (slightly less than 1 teaspoon to slightly more than 1 tablespoon).   Flavors such as “plain” or “original” are almost always sweetened, although perceived by many consumers as unsweetened.   Perhaps the USDA folks who came up with the guidelines thought so as well.  Otherwise its recommendation of soy milk would not jive with its recommendation for consumers to cut back on sugar.

Eliminating the aftertaste in soy milk poses yet another challenge for food manufacturers.  The undesirable sour, bitter and astringent characteristics come from oxidized phospholipids (rancid lecithin), oxidized fatty acids (rancid soy oil), the antinutrients called saponins and the plant estrogens known as isoflavones. The last are so bitter and astringent that they produce dry mouth.  This has put the soy industry into a bit of a quandary. The only way it can make its soy milk please consumers is to remove some of the very toxins that it has assiduously promoted as cancer preventing and cholesterol lowering.

Note the USDA caveat that the soy milk be “fortified soy milk.”   The reason is soy milk made with soybeans and water has such a poor nutritional profile that  it must be  fortified with calcium, vitamin D and other vitamins and minerals to compete with cow’s milk.  Even in health-food store foods, these added supplements are cheap, mass-produced products. The soy milk industry puts vegetarian vitamin D2 in soymilk, even though the dairy industry quietly stopped adding this form of the vitamin years ago. Although any form of vitamin D helps people meet their RDAs (Recommended Daily Allowances), D2 has been linked to hyperactivity, coronary heart disease and allergic reactions.  The USDA has singled out Vitamin D in these dietary guidelines as a special nutrient to keep in mind.  Too bad it’s not specific enough about type.

In keeping with USDA  approved lowfat diets, consumers may opt for the low fat — or “lite”– soymilks made with soy protein isolate (SPI), not the full-fat soybean. To improve both color and texture of these “healthier soy milks,” manufacturers work with a whole palette of additives, including colorants, flavorizers and texturizers.

Soy-milk derived products such as soy puddings, ice creams, yogurts, cottage cheese whipped “creams” and cheese substitutes also meet USDA guideline, but are even poorer choices, given ingredients such as carageenen, corn oil, high fructose corn syrup, partially hydrogenated fats and soy protein hydrolyzates.

Should we really be eating and drinking processed foods with ingredient lists like this?   Soy milk has a reputation for being a simple, old fashioned food.  It is not.   Even Peter Golbitz of Soyatech has admitted this.  “Soymilk is one of those unique food products that doesn’t exist naturally in nature, such as a fruit, vegetable or cow’s milk — it is, and always has been, a processed food. Since there are many options available to processors today in regards to process type, variety of soybean, type of sugar and an array of flavoring and masking additives, product formulators need real guidelines to follow to create winning products.”   Too bad that the USDA is more interested in pushing “product formulations” than Mother Nature’s real foods.

MEAT ANALOGUES AND OTHER SOY PROTEIN PRODUCTS
The USDA supports all-American ingenuity.  That’s the only positive reason I can think of for its recommendation of  the ersatz meat products known in the food industry as “analogues.”    Soy analogue products marketed over the years have had colorful names such as Soysage, Not Dogs, Fakin’ Bakin, Sham Ham, Soyloin, Veat, Wham, Tuno, Bolono and  Foney Baloney.   Although named after — and often made to look like — the familiar meat products they are meant to replace, taste testers tend to evaluate them as poor imitations at best.  But thanks to food technology specialists and their lavish use of sugar and other sweeteners, salt, artificial flavorings, colorings, preservatives and MSG,  more and more consumers are willing to tolerate these products, some solely because of their belief in alleged health benefits.

Manufactured using high heat and pressure, chemical solvents, acids and alkalis, extruders and other harsh tools, these USDA-approved meat substitutes are very likely to contain toxic or carcnogenic residues.   This is also true of highly processed porducts using fractions of milk, eggs, meat, grains, oils or vegetables.  The difference is that processed soy foods are billed as “health  foods” whereas other processed foods are widely acknowledged to be what they are — junk foods that do not support health.   The soy industry typically puts a positive spin on their products by claiming all the health benefits found in soy while insisting that levels of toxins are too low to pose any hazard to the consumer.

But risk is always a product of dose and duration of exposure.   Vegans who favor soy protein, wheat gluten and other heavily processed plant protein products as their primary sources of protein are regularly exposed to relatively high levels of toxins.    The usual suspects are nitrosamines, lysinoalanines, heterocyclic amines, excitotoxins, chlorpropanols, furanones, hexane and other solvents.

Let’s look now at how soy protein isolate and textured soy protein — two of the most common ingredients found in soy meat analogues –  are manufactured.

SOY PROTEIN ISOLATE (SPI) is mixed with nearly every food product sold in today’s stores — energy bars, body builder  powders, breakfast shakes, burgers and hot dogs.   SPI is a highly refined product, heavily processed to remove “off flavors,” “beany“ tastes, and flatulence producers and to improve digestibility.  Vitamin, mineral and protein quality, however, are sacrificed.  Indeed soy isolates increase the requirements for vitamins E, K, D and B12.  Among the minerals, phosphorous is poorly utilized, and calcium, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, copper, iron and especially zinc deficiencies appear routinely in animals — including human animals — fed SPI as the primary source of protein in their diets.  Soy protein isolates are also more deficient in sulfur-containing amino acids than other soy protein products.  What’s increased during the production of SPI are levels of toxins and carcinogens such as nitrosamines and lysinoalanines.

The manufacture of SPI has always been a complicated, high-tech procedure.  There’s nothing natural about it.  It takes place in chemical factories, not kitchens.  Although the manufacturing process varies, and some companies hold patents on key elements of the process, the basic procedure begins with defatted soybean meal, which is mixed with a caustic alkaline solution to remove the fiber, then washed in an acid solution to precipitate out the protein.  The protein curds are then dipped into yet another alkaline solution and spray dried at extremely high temperatures.

SPI is often spun into protein fibers using technology borrowed from the textile industry.  The only difference is that taste-enhancing and fiber-binding elements are incorporated into the fibers during processing.    The process involves preparing a protein solution with a soy protein content of 10 to 50 percent at a very alkaline pH that is above 10.  The solution is aged at about 121 degrees F until it becomes as viscous as honey at which point it is called ”spinning dope.”  The dope is next forced through the holes of an extrusion device, coagulated with an acid bath, stretched long and thin, bound with edible binders such as starch, dextrins, gums, albumen and cellulose, and coated with fat flavor, color and other substances.  The idea is to attain the fibrous “bite” of animal muscle meats.

For chunkier, less well-defined fibers, processor tend to prefer the Textured Soy Protein (TSP) process. Textured Soy Protein or Textured Vegetable Protein is sold as granules, particles and chunks and used by fast food companies and food processors as a meat substitute or extender for chili, spaghetti sauce, tacos, sloppy joes and other strongly spiced recipes.  It’s been big in the USDA school lunch programs since 1971.

Here’s how it’s made:  First force defatted soy flour through a machine with a spiral tapered screw called an extruder  under conditions of such extreme heat and pressure that the very structure of the soy protein is changed.   What comes out is a dried out, fibrous, and textured alien protein product that can survive just about anything that a food processor might later do to it.   Then add red or brown colors and flavorings  before texturization, drying and packaging.

Soy protein extrusion differs little from extrusion technology used to produce starch-based packing materials, fiber-based industrial products or plastic toy parts, bowls and plates.   The difference is that extruded foods such as TSP are designed to be reconstituted with water, at which point they resemble ground beef or stew meat.   Processing always leaves s toxic residues and TSP furthermore requires using natural and artificial flavors and MSG if it’s going to taste anything like ham, chicken or beef.

In conclusion, the USDA sure has an interesting idea of what constitutes healthy proteins.    Bringing soy front and center in the new food guidelines will feed the profits required by Big Pfood.   Big Pharm is surely happy as well as this latest USDA food fix isn’t going to solve any of our great American health crises soon.

* * * *  *

Complete references for the information on soy products contained in this blog can be found in my book The Whole Soy Story:The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food (New Trends, 2005), particularly chapters 6-9, 11 and 14,

Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN, is The Naughty Nutritionist™ because of her ability to outrageously and humorously debunk nutritional myths. A popular guest on radio and television, she has appeared on The Dr Oz Show, ABC’s View from the Bay, NPR’s People’s Pharmacy and numerous other shows. Her own radio show, “Naughty Nutrition with Dr. Kaayla Daniel” debuted this spring on World of Women (WOW) Radio. Dr Daniel is the author of The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food, a popular speaker at Wise Traditions and other conferences, a Board Member of the Weston A. Price Foundation and recipient of its 2005 Integrity in Science Award. Her website is www.naughtynutritionist.com and she can be reached at Kaayla@DrKaaylaDaniel.com.

Whole Foods Market, of course, perceives soy foods and soy milk — particularly modern packaged and processed soy products — as a major profit center.   Soy also fits nicely within CEO John Mackey’s vegan agenda and his promotion of soy as the ticket to personal and planetary health.  Sadly, soy to the world will not bring joy to the world this holiday season or any other.

The word “soy,” however, fits Whole Foods Market very well.  As discussed in my last blog, “Talking Tofurky,” your Naughty Nutritionist™ learned something most curious last month.  Seems“soy” is urban slang for something false, of poor value or just not what it seems.   That pretty much sums up a whole lot of the phoney baloney, pseudo-organic products Whole Foods sells.   Indeed a whole lot of what this chain preaches is out of integrity with what it practices.

Greenwashing

Heard of whitewashing?  The variant found at Whole Foods is known as “greenwashing.”  The chain put green leaves on its logo,  prominently displays environmentally correct “core values,” and gives mouth service to sustainability yet engages in numerous practices that are environmentally unfriendly.

Bagging It, for example. Whole Foods encourages us to bring our own bags to save the environment and gives bag credits to local charities.   Eco consumers feel good about this, but what about all those highly processed and overly packaged foods toted home in them?   Soy good to know that not one of those pricey crackers or cookies will crack or crumble.   As for those sturdy packages, they’ll survive for years in the landfills.

Soy Local or Soy Loco

Whole Foods talks the good talk about supporting  local farmers.  It’s one of its conspicuously displayed “core values.”   But walk down the aisles and most everything comes from somewhere else.    Where were all those little soybeans milked to produce soymilk?   Where did they catch those tofurkies?   Where did those fruits and vegetables grow?   California, Mexico, Chili, India?   Not soy often in our own backyard.

How do local farmers feel about Whole Foods Market?   Many mutter “soy loco”  (“I am crazy”) under their breath whenever they give in and sell to Whole Foods.   Farmers who expect a fair wage for their hard work rarely sell there given the chain’s aim to buy dirt cheap and sell sky high.

Soy Green

More acres of the Rain Forest are destroyed for soybean crops than for beef cattle yet soy is touted as green for the environment.   Most of the Midwest has been destroyed by the monocropping of three vegan staples — corn, wheat and soy.

Soy Generous

“Soy to the World” means planeloads of soy products given to survivors of famines and natural disasters.   Seems benevolent, but there’s more to this than good PR.Disaster relief builds global business by making the world’s people dependent upon imported soy and other industrially grown, processed and packaged products.  Such “charitable” practices undermine local farmers and cottage industries and wipe out indigenous crops.

Soy Egalitarian

Equal opportunity poor health.   Yuppie vegans at one end of the spectrum pay premium prices for health-destroying soy foods.   Poor people eat donated soy from relief packages.  The results for both are malnutrition, digestive distress, thyroid disorders, reproductive problems, ADD/ADHD, allergies, even heart disease and cancer.   Soy to the world.

Meanwhile, John Mackey, the CEO of Whole Foods, likes to be seen as just a regular Joe.  He earns only fourteen times the salary of his average ”team member,” after all. While other corporate executives doubtless take home far bigger paychecks, Mackey’s “talking tofurky” here.  If he were an executive who “talks turkey,” he would admit to also earning millions  in stock options.    He might also be sensitive to the fact that his store is widely mocked as “Whole Paycheck Market” because its extreme markups make it soy overpriced for the average consumer.

Soy Organic

Whole Foods sells only organic soybeans, right?   That’s what they say, but it took months — and an embarrassing expose by  the Cornucopia Institute  –before just some of the Silk products made with commercial soybeans was removed from the shelves.   Similarly, Whole Foods has sold a whole lot of veggie burgers, energy bars and other “organic” products made with soy protein isolate and other ingredients processed using hexane solvents.  Cornucopia also exposed that, but you read it first in The Whole Soy Story.

Elsewhere in the store, pseudo organic reigns.   Consider factory-farmed “organic” Horizon brand milk and butter.  As for produce, the artful displays conflate organic and commercial.    And if the internet postings of disgruntled Whole Foods “team members” can be trusted, much — if not all —  of it is cleaned with non-organic cleaners.   Seems the  organic cleaners come out, when the inspectors come in.

Shoppers who aren’t careful may go home with commercial produce just like that found at the supermarket down the block but at a substantially higher price    Whole Foods Market carefully crafts the illusion it sells organic, but far more of what it sells is “natural”– whatever that means —  or even commercial.

Soyled Health Claims

Is soy the “miracle bean” that can cure everything from cancer to ingrown toe nails? Whole Foods would certainly like us to think so.    Similarly, consumers who buy baked and deli goods at Whole Foods are almost always con-oiled, though canola is increasingly replaced by soy oil, which if anything is even worse.

Hemp, chocolate, agave anyone?   Health claims for any of these are very “soy” — i.e. not what they seem.  Agave, for instance,  is tricked out high fructose corn syrup. Chocolate-covered soy nuts are surely the  “tofurky” of snacks.   Most sanctimonious of all is Whole Foods’  promotion of  vegan goods with a green smiley face and the words “I’m vegan!”

Stepford Foods

All the onions are exactly the same size.  Big,  round and heavy! All the apples, too.

Never saw anything like that in my own garden or orchard.   Yet Whole Foods gives us row after perfectly presented row of produce.   Bland but pretty-faced, immaculately clean, blemish free, perfectly made up and not one strand of hair out of place, these are the Stepford Wives of the fruit and vegetable kingdom.   Guess Whole Foods thinks Stepford goods provide a stress-free shopping experience.  No need to choose.  Perfect for the shopper in Calvin Klone jeans.

Soy Latte

The Urban Dictionary defines “soy latte” as something overpriced and pretentious, especially something that tastes good initially but leaves a bad taste in one’s mouth. Seems to me that sums up Whole Foods Market awfully well.

Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN, is The Naughty Nutritionist™ because of her ability to outrageously and humorously debunk nutritional myths. A popular guest on radio and television, she has appeared on The Dr Oz Show, ABC’s View from the Bay, NPR’s People’s Pharmacy and numerous other shows. Her own radio show, “Naughty Nutrition with Dr. Kaayla Daniel” debuted this spring on World of Women (WOW) Radio. Dr Daniel is the author of The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food, a popular speaker at Wise Traditions and other conferences, a Board Member of the Weston A. Price Foundation and recipient of its 2005 Integrity in Science Award. Her website is www.naughtynutritionist.com and she can be reached at Kaayla@DrKaaylaDaniel.com.

This is all Dr. Simeons says, and all I know about hcG for sex organ development. I have no experience whatsoever working with this therapy. I would very much like to hear from physicians, other health care practitioners and parents currently involved in using Bioidentical Hormone, hcG or other natural, herbal or pharmaceutical therapies to help estrogenized boys with breasts and underdeveloped gonads become healthy and normal men. Ideas and thoughts about this are also welcome, either as comments here below or to me by my direct email kaayla@drkaayladaniel.com. Thank you.

Edamame is the Japanese word for sweet, green vegetable soybeans.  They are harvested at the point when the beans are well developed but still soft and green.  Boiled or steamed in the pod for up to 20 minutes, they are salted, removed from the pod and served chilled.  In Japanese restaurants, I’ve seen them offered as an appetizer, green vegetable or an ingredient in salads.  Americans, however, have found a whole new way to eat edamame –  snacking on big bags of it in front of TV.   This practice has taken off to such an extent that Whole Foods, Costco and other food emporia now dedicate whole freezer cases to edamame.    It’s rare to find fresh edamame in such stores.   Most is sold frozen either with or without the pods.  Historically, edamame was unpopular because of the time-consuming challenge of hulling it.   Dr. John Harvey Kellogg was frustrated for years because he wanted to can edamame but found it uneconomical.  That changed for him in 1935 when  Henry Ford’s Edison Institute came up with a reliable mechanical process.    Kellogg would be amazed today to find so many snackers who find the shelling to be part of the attraction.

Do you say “The edamame is delicious?”    Or do you you say “The edamame are delicious?”  —   Stickler

Dear Stickler,   Would I call edamame delicious?   Probably not.  I mean it’s okay as a lima bean substitute .  . .  , but please bring back the old fordhooks.    But I digress.   You really want to know if the word edamame  is singular or plural, don’t you?    As I understand it, its meaning can be either singular or plural in Japanese, but is typically used as a collective.    So what  I’d say is “Edamame is on the menu but so is ikura (salmon roe).  Given the choice between cholesterol and chlorophyll, The Naughty Nutritionist™ will  opt for cholesterol every time.”

I thought edamame was like so good for you!  Really, seriously,  it’s not?  I mean it’s a natural bean still in its shell, how can it not be  good for you?   — Ariel

Dear Ariel,  A little once in awhile, as in the small quantities served as an appetizer in many Japanese restaurants is fine for most people.   No worries unless you are allergic.   The problem today is , a lot of people are noshing on edamame like its popcorn.   And doing so night after night.   Bottom line is the quantities of antinutrients and toxins in the edamame collective  add up quickly.   Edamame can thus put you at risk for digestive distress, thyroid disorders, immune system breakdown, reproductive problems, etc.     I’d also suggest it is “really, seriously” naive to think  “natural” is always “safe” and “good for you.”    Raw or undercooked “natural beans in their shells” are notorious producers of gas and other digestive distress.   And if that doesn’t convince you that there are some hazards to beans, you might want to  Google “favism.”

Please elaborate on edamame. I like to give it to my children.  I’m confused because I thought it was a good and healthy raw health food –  Edda Mama

Dear Edda Mama,   You don’t want to eat edamame raw.  Ever.   It must be cooked.   Even then, it will retain some antinutrients, toxins and phytoestrogens.   These will add up, putting you and your children at risk, if not sooner, later.   Risk is not certainty, but for  the reasons noted above, please don’t  let your children overindulge.

I have got a bag of frozen green soya beans in my freezer and wanted to have these in a salad. Your website is making me believe this may not be a good idea.  Would it be best to sprout them first? I have a seed sprouter in my cupboard and could do this quite easily.  What is the effect of sprouting soya beans on their toxins and so on? —   Ingrid.

Dear Ingrid,   If you put a few edamame beans on your salad once in awhile I would not worry about it, unless, of course, you are allergic to soy.   No reason to throw out the bag but also no reason to buy more.   I would not recommend sprouting soybeans as it concentrates the toxins.   Long-term fermentation neutralizes them, but short-term sprouting concentrates them.

How can edamame be a problem.  It’s simple, natural and been eaten in Asia for at least 5,000 years. –  Peter

Dear Peter,   Edamame is a definitely a low-tech soy product.   Common sense would suggest it’s been around for a long time.  But historian William Shurtleff of the Soyfoods Center in Lafayette, CA, knows of no early references to green vegetable soybeans in China.    An herbal guide from 1406 (Ming Dynasty) indicates the whole pods of young soybeans could be eaten or ground for use with flour, but it recommended such uses only during times of famine.     A Materia Medica from 1620  recommends edamame, but only for the medicinal purpose of killing “bad or evil chi.”  By 1929, however,  edamame was definitely on some menus.  William Morse of the USDA reported on a field trip to China that “as early as May, small bundles of plants with full grown pods were seen on the market.  At  the present time the market is virtually flooded with bundles of plants with full grown pods, the seeds of which are also full grown.  The pods are boiled in salt water and the beans eaten from the pods.”   As for your dateline,  many people talk about soy being eaten by Asians for 5,000 or even 10,000 years or “since time immemorial.”   Anthropology and history texts do not support this idea.   The oldest soyfoods,  miso and tofu  date back only about 2,500 years.   Contrary to popular belief,, soy was not eaten as a food 5,000 years ago, but it was highly regarded for its role in crop rotation.

Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN, is The Naughty Nutritionist™ because of her ability to outrageously and humorously debunk nutritional myths. A popular guest on radio and television, she has appeared on The Dr Oz Show, ABC’s View from the Bay, NPR’s People’s Pharmacy and numerous other shows. Her own radio show, “Naughty Nutrition with Dr. Kaayla Daniel” debuted this spring on World of Women (WOW) Radio. Dr Daniel is the author of The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food, a popular speaker at Wise Traditions and other conferences, a Board Member of the Weston A. Price Foundation and recipient of its 2005 Integrity in Science Award. Her website is www.naughtynutritionist.com and she can be reached at Kaayla@DrKaaylaDaniel.com.

http://www.naughtynutritionist.com/naughtynutritionist.com/MEDIA_KIT.html

Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN, is The Naughty Nutritionist™ because of her ability to outrageously and humorously debunk nutritional myths. A popular guest on radio and television, she has appeared on The Dr Oz Show, ABC’s View from the Bay, NPR’s People’s Pharmacy and numerous other shows. Her own radio show, “Naughty Nutrition with Dr. Kaayla Daniel” debuted this spring on World of Women (WOW) Radio. Dr Daniel is the author of The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food, a popular speaker at Wise Traditions and other conferences, a Board Member of the Weston A. Price Foundation and recipient of its 2005 Integrity in Science Award. Her website is www.naughtynutritionist.com and she can be reached at Kaayla@DrKaaylaDaniel.com.

In Hyman’s words, he wishes there were “more convincing science to report” regarding the soy controversy but he has taken “all the available evidence together” to see “what shakes out.” Hyman has long recommended soy as part of what he calls a “whole foods diet” and is disturbed by fear mongering from anti-soy people.  Who these “anti-soy” people are exactly, he doesn’t say.

The most prominent group warning about the dangers of modern soy consumption would be the Weston A. Price Foundation. The late Valerie and Richard James of Soy Online Service in New Zealand were also extremely active in warning about excessive consumption of modern processed soy products and the use of soy infant formula for babies. Our concerns revolve around the myth of soy as a “health food” and how the heavy marketing of soy has led people to over consume soy foods and soy milk and to feed their infants soy formula, putting themselves and their children at risk. To say we are “anti soy,” however, would not be entirely accurate as we support the modest consumption of old-fashioned, fermented soy products such as miso, natto and tempeh. They are nutritious and delicious foods in the context of a varied omnivorous diet. I would prefer to say we are pro real foods, whole foods and slow foods, prepared in traditional ways, which modern soy foods most assuredly are not.

NUGGET OF WISDOM
There are indeed some sage and sane observations in Hyman’s article. He advises, for instance, that eating tofu would be wiser than chicken nuggets. Presumably he is referring to fast-food nuggets from factory-farmed chickens (fed soy-based feed) with their meat then “extended” with soy protein isolate and other additives and fried in soy oil. Wise to get the plain tofu, for sure.

Hyman also advises eating old-fashioned fermented whole soybean products. Wise again to avoid industrially processed soy protein isolate, soy protein concentrate, textured vegetable protein and hydrolyzed vegetable protein, and other industrially processed products, all of which contain MSG, hexane and other toxic and carcinogenic residues. All of us so-called “anti soy” people would agree with that, except the increasing numbers of people who are allergic to soy.  They have a reason to be 100 percent “anti soy.” And they are angry “anti soy” people because they find it hard to find anything that’s safe to eat. Their problem is they are trying to find soyfree, packaged, processed and fast foods, which can be well-nigh impossible to find. Soy ingredients right now are in more than 60 percent of processed and packaged foods and nearly 100 percent of fast foods. The most allergic of these people cannot even tolerate meat, poultry, fish, dairy and/or eggs from animals fed soy feed. Sadly, most of the organic and free range products sold come from animals fed in this unnatural way.

For those who are not allergic, the old-fashioned fermented soy products miso, natto and tempeh are fine, but Hyman reveals his ignorance of processing methods when he claims that tofu and soymilk are fermented. Although they are sometimes fermented in Asia — to remove the “poisons” according to one person interviewed in a National Geographic film — none,,if any, of the tofu products widely available in stores are fermented. Even so, a little regular tofu once in awhile — not everyday, and certainly not a whole slab at a time — is not a problem for most individuals. As for soy milk, few if any brands are fermented. Of the brands for sale in stores, most have been loaded up with sugar to make them palatable and with supplements to improve their inadequate nutritional profile. Too bad those supplements include cheap, hard-to-absorb forms of calcium, vegetarian Vitamin D2 (instead of the far superior D3) and beta carotene (in lieu of true Vitamin A).

Hyman is smart, too, to advise against genetically modified soybeans. Their risks to personal and planetary health are high, and described vividly and accurately by Jeffrey Smith in his own s article (www.newswithviews.com/Smith/jeffrey8.htm).

EVERYTHING IN “MODERATION”

Sadly, Hyman dismisses the idea that excessive soy consumption is a problem. In his words: “First, you should be aware that the amount of soy used in many of these studies was much higher than what we normally consume — the average dose of soy was equivalent to one pound of tofu or three soy protein shakes a day. That’s a lot of soy! Most people just don’t eat like that. So when you read negative things about soy, remember that many of those claims are based on poorly designed studies that don’t apply to real-world consumption.”

Sounds reasonable, but given the current popularity of plant-based diets and the myth of soy as a “health food,” the truth is many people do eat a pound of tofu in a single setting. Add in a daily soy protein shake made with soy milk, a veggie burger washed down with a glass of soymilk and/or soy energy bar snacks and the quantities add up quickly. Vegans who use soy as both meat and dairy replacements are clearly high risk. But so are omnivores who drink soy milk several times a day or snack on soy protein bars and/or nosh on edamame likes its popcorn. Given the increasing numbers of people who react poorly to ultrapasteurized supermarket and health food store dairy products, a whole lot of people drink soy milk several times a day. That’s excessive consumption, and it matches the levels in numerous studies showing the dangers of soy.

Hyman mocks the anti soy contingent with the words, “You could apply that thinking to other studies, too — like those that show that broccoli contains natural pesticides or that celery is high in toxins. Sure, those foods might cause you some problems — but not in the amounts that most of us eat. The same is true for soy.” Well, yes. There are risks to plant foods! I discuss some of them in my article in the Spring issue Plants Bite Back:The Surprising, All-Natural Anti-Nutrients and Toxins in Plant Foods!” About time someone noted this in the popular press. Not having the “fight or flight” mechanism, plants fight for their lives with phytochemical warfare. The evolutionary reason is so predators will weaken, possibly die, but most importantly, lose their ability to reproduce.

Until plant-based diets became fashionable, most people didn’t eat massive amounts of vegetables. Even now, few people eat, broccoli three times a day every day. And a good thing too, as there are risks to excess consumption of cruciferous vegetables. The supplement industry, however, is doing its best to “improve” on real life consumption patterns by formulating broccoli pills that will concentrate the compounds found naturally in the real vegetables. I predict that such supplements will lead sooner or later to serious health problems. In the meantime, some real life people eat soy for breakfast, lunch, dinner and snacks. One weight lifter and fitness buff I know took in a gallon of soy milk everyday for a year or so. He is now coping with neurological problems, stuttering and other speech defects.

SOY AND BREAST CANCER

“Don’t worry about soy’s effect on breast cancer,” advises Hyman, implying there is consensus in the scientific community. No such consensus exists. Indeed numerous studies link soy to breast cell proliferation, a well-known marker of breast cancer risk. Accordingly, the Israeli Health Ministry, French Food Agency and German Institute as well as Cornell University’s Center for Breast Cancer and Environmental Risk Factors have all warned women who’ve been diagnosed with — or have a family history of breast cancer — to exercise caution when it comes to soy.

If it were true that “real life” people rarely eat too much soy, we could probably relax. But “moderation” means different things to different people, and Hyman recommends both good soy foods like miso and tempeh that are rarely over consumed and bad ones like soy milk that are very easy to overindulge. Furthermore, Hyman’s assurances that soy isoflavones have beneficial hormonal effects, rarely contribute to endocrine disruption, do not endanger the thyroid and will reduce breast cancer risk will lead some women to purposely increase their consumption of any and all soy products.

Will all those women be at risk? Probably not. A few studies do suggest soy isoflavones could benefit women by reducing their breast cancer risk. But not all women and not at all stages in the life cycle. Accordingly we need reliable lab tests that will show which women might benefit from soy isoflavones, and which would be harmed. Those women who could possibly benefit from soy isoflavones could then take them like pharmaceutical drugs with appropriate dosing, monitoring and follow up. In other words,we need to treat soy isoflavones like a drug. The soy industry’s marketing of soy — of any type eaten in virtually any quantity — as the ticket to an easy menopause and breast cancer prevention is irresponsible.

Hyman’s recommendation that women who want to avoid breast cancer avoid saturated fat is yet another example of how he’s either not done his homework or is pandering to politically correct ideas of nutrition. At least he’s got it right about the dangers of trans fats. They are definitely linked to breast cancer and should be assiduously avoided.

SOY AND THE THYROID

What about the risks of soy to the thyroid? Are the anti soy critics making a “mountain out of molehill?”  Are the effects “not significant or relevant unless you are deficient in iodine (which you can easily get from eating fish, seaweed or sea vegetables, or iodized salt). Hyman reaches that conclusion from just one study, a study that does not exonerate soy by the way. In fact, more than 70 years of studies — including a human study from the respected Ishizuki Clinic in Japan — link modest to moderate soy consumption to thyroid disorders. Iodine deficiency is certainly part of the problem, but iodine repletion neither consistently nor reliably solves the problem. As for Hyman’s idea that iodine deficiency is not a problem, the National Center for Health Statistics reports epidemic iodine deficiency, with intakes plummeting by more than 50 percent between surveys taken between 1970-1974 and 1988-1994, and continuing to decrease in the years since.

SOY INFANT FORMULA

As for babies, Hyman jumps on the “breast is best” bandwagon. He would prefer “no one feeds dairy or soy formula to their babies, but if you have to, try not to worry about it” and “don’t beat yourself up about it.” To reassure readers, Hyman cites a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in August 2001. Let’s take a look a good look at that study.

A team of researchers led by Brian L. Strom, MD, studied the use of soy formula and its long-term impact on reproductive heath, and announced only one adverse finding: longer, more painful menstrual periods among the women who’d been fed soy formula in infancy. The male researchers dismissed this effect — one that has been painful and debilitating for many women — as unimportant and concluded that the overall results were “reassuring.”

In fact, the data in the body of the report was far from reassuring. Mary G. Enig, PhD, President of the Maryland Nutritionists Association; Naomi Baumslag, MD, Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at Georgetown University and President of the Women’s International Public Health Network; Lynn R. Goldman, MD, MPH, Environmental Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins University; Retha Newbold, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and other experts who analyzed the findings noted numerous flaws in both the design and reporting of this study, including:

• Failure to include mention of statistically significant, higher incidence of allergies and asthma in the study’s abstract — the only part read by most busy health professionals and media reporters
• Glossing over or omitting from the main body of the report gynecological problems such as higher rates of cervical cancer, polycystic ovarian syndrome, blocked fallopian tubes, pelvic inflammatory disease, hormonal disorders and multiple births
• Manipulation of statistics by not evaluating still births or failure to achieve pregnancy (higher in the soy-fed women) but evaluating miscarriages (slightly higher in the dairy-formula-fed group)
• Excluding thyroid function as a subject for study (although thyroid damage from soy formula has been the principal concern of critics for decades). Nonetheless, thyroid damage, can be surmised by the fact that the soy-fed females grew up to report higher rates of sedentary activity and use of weight-loss medicines
• Conducting the entire study by telephone interviews, asking subjective — in some cases highly personal and emotionally painful — questions and performing no medical examinations, laboratory tests or other objective testing. Breast development, for example, was gauged by asking participants at which age they first bought their bras.
• Providing no information on the ages at which formula feeding ended; the dose length or the quantity of the soy isoflavones (all of which are basic requirements of valid toxicology studies)
• Using the criteria (trade school, college and post college) as a measure of intelligence, thus rating a graduate of a beauty school at the same level as someone who received a doctorate degree
• Following up infants who were given soy formula as infants for just 16 weeks (though serious damage can occur for at least the first nine months in boys and the first six months in girls) and failing to obtain any information about whether the subjects in the study took soy formula after the initial 16-week study period or ate soy foods during childhood
• Using a study group of 282 soy-fed persons that was too small for most of the negative findings to become “statistically significant”

I personally heard scientists at the Fifth and Sixth Symposia on the Role of Soy in Preventing and Treating Chronic Disease held in San Diego and Chicago stand up and speak out about the dismal quality of this “reassuring” study. So who funded it? The National Institutes of Health with the International Formula Council (a trade group that represents formula manufacturers). Even more reassuringly, it was carried out under the auspices of the Fomon Infant Nutrition Unit at the University of Iowa, a group which receives support from the major formula manufacturers, including Abbott, Nestle and Mead Johnson.

Hyman also feels comfortable touting the safety of soy infant formula because of a report issued in December 2009 by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR). Its 14-member committee concluded that the health risks of soy infant formula are “minimal” and insufficient human or animal data exist to prove the likelihood of harm to the baby’s developmental or reproductive health.

Before reaching this conclusion, the committee looked at 700 studies. Sounds like a lot, but the committee failed to examine at least as many others, many of which linked soy formula to severe thyroid and gastrointestinal effects especially when fed during the first few months after birth, a key developmental phase for infants. The panel also arbitrarily decided that reproductive damage had to occur during infancy although it is rare for symptoms to show up before puberty. During public proceedings, the 14 members — many of whose work and careers depend on funding from industry or government sources — were pressured by soy industry representatives who made it clear that a vote indicating “some concern” would damage soy’s “healthy” image and jeopardize industry profits.

THOSE LONG LIVED OKINAWANS
So which people are thriving on lots of soy? According to Hyman, it’s the Okinawans, the world’s longest-lived people, who “for more than five millennia have eaten whole, organic and fermented soy foods like miso, tempeh, tofu, soy milk, and edamame (young soybeans in the pod).” Interesting indeed that the Okinawans have been eating these foods for “five millenia,” when miso and tofu only entered the food supply about three thousand years ago. Tempeh came in to the food supply in Indonesia sometime between 1000 and 1595 AD. As for soy milk, the first historical reference is 1866, and it was first popularized in Asia in the 20th century by Seventh Day Adventist missionaries from America.

Where might Hyman’s careful research on the “healthy Okinawans come from?” Probably from the Bradley and D. Craig Wilcox and their bestselling popular books The Okinawa Program and The Okinawa Diet Plan. That seems to be where vegetarian John Robbins obtained the information he includes in his article about the same topic. Among other major blunders, the Willcox brothers claim that Okinawans who have reached the 100 year mark in good health did so because of ample quantitities of soy foods and canola oil in their diets. Yes, canola oil — the Canadian oil (Can-ola) that didn’t even exist on the planet until a few decades ago! The Willcoxes also show confusion from page to page about just how much soy is eaten. In fact, the amounts vary widely from place to place in Asia, but nowhere is the average very high and everywhere it’s treated as a condiment in the diet and not as a staple food. While it’s certainly true that Okinawans regularly eat some soy, the evidence indicates they also enjoy a lot of pork in their diet. And the primarily monounsaturated fat those centenarians ate over the course of their long lives was not canola oil but good old-fashioned lard. Yes, lard is a primarily monounsaturated fat.

REVIEWING THE RESEARCH

Hyman claims he has “reviewed reams of research” yet lists only three references at the conclusion of his article, the first of which is an review article by soy industry lobbyist Mark Messina, PhD. Hyman winds up by saying he’s “eager to see the studies on soy and health.” The bottom line is thousands of studies have been carried out over the past eighty years, many of which suggest risks and none prove safety.

Clearly it would be wise to advance the precautionary principle of “better safe than sorry.” That has led the Israeli Health Ministry, French Food Agency, and German Institute of Risk Assessment to issue warnings to parents and pediatricians. Warnings have also come from respected independent scientists, including Dan Sheehan, the retired senior toxicologist at FDA’s Laboratory of Toxicological Research in Jefferson, Arkansas, Retha Newbold of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in Triangle Park, NC, Irvin E. Liener, PhD, professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota and the world’s leading expert on on antinutrients such as protease inhibitors, phytates, lectins, saponins, etc., Lon R. White MD, a neuro-epidemiologist with the Pacific Health Institute in Honolulu; and Mary G. Enig, PhD, the courageous scientist who first exposed the dangers of trans fats in the late 1970s. Alternative doctors with impressive records of reversing cancer such as the late Max Gerson MD, Nicholas Gonzalez MD and others have also put soy on their “do not eat” lists. Neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock MD, has strongly warned against soy’s adverse effects on the brain and nervous system. None of these groups or individuals have been militantly “anti soy.” All have looked long and hard at the research, and have soberly and responsibly concluded that caution is warranted and soy can put infants, children and adults at risk.

Time for Dr. Hyman to do some real homework and not just express his “eagerness” to know more.

Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN, is The Naughty Nutritionist™ because of her ability to outrageously and humorously debunk nutritional myths. A popular guest on radio and television, she has appeared on The Dr Oz Show, ABC’s View from the Bay, NPR’s People’s Pharmacy and numerous other shows. Her own radio show, “Naughty Nutrition with Dr. Kaayla Daniel” debuted this spring on World of Women (WOW) Radio. Dr Daniel is the author of The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food, a popular speaker at Wise Traditions and other conferences, a Board Member of the Weston A. Price Foundation and recipient of its 2005 Integrity in Science Award. Her website is www.naughtynutritionist.com and she can be reached at Kaayla@DrKaaylaDaniel.com.

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.

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 grass fed meat and full fat 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 WF:   We have massive evidence linking soy to behavioral disorders, especially ADD/ADHD, as discussed in Chapter 21 of The Whole Soy Story. This could be caused by manganese toxicity, the phytoestrogens in soy or both.    However, your son seems to be reacting to  soy exposure rather than experiencing an ongoing problem due to manganese or phytoestrogen interference with brain function.    I suspect he is  allergic to soy and should eliminate it from his diet completely as discussed in my article “Soy Recovery Part I.”    My second article “Soy Recovery: The Toxic Metal Component” may also help your son.   Both are available on this website.    Soy is now one of the top 8 allergens, and is increasing so much that many experts believe it will soon move into the top four.   I discuss soy allergies in Chapters 24 and 25 ofThe Whole Soy Story, and have answered many questions about coping with soy allergies on my website www.soyfreesolutions.com.    A Nourishing Traditions diet may prove very helpful.    Good luck.

Dear Wendy:  The soy industry heavily promotes the myth that soy is safe and all-natural HRT and the ticket to a healthy and easy menopause. The truth is the studies on soy and menopause are inconsistent and contradictory at best. Soy might alleviate hot flashes in some women, but there are well proven risks to the thyroid. Red clover contains coumestans, another type of phytoestrogen. In terms of a comfortable passage through menopause, I’d recommend a Nourishing Traditions type diet perhaps with some heavy metal detoxification, adrenal support, thyroid nourishment, liver cleansing and other work as indicated by laboratory assessment and work with an alternative MD or other health care practitioner. Good luck.

Dear Jon:   I can’t really evaluate your situation since I am not familiar with your diet, lifestyle, health history or lab reports.  That said, phosphatidyl choline glycerylphosphorylcholine  and phosphatidyl serine are widely recommended by alternative medical doctors and other health practitioners as anti-aging supplements that can promote and preserve brain function and mental acuity. They are also widely included in nutritional protocols designed for people suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and for those recovering from damage from stroke.

However, they might not work as well as you might hope.  The fact that PC, GPC and PS products almost always derive from soy oil is problematic on a number of levels.  First of all, most of the scientific studies proving the efficacy of phosphatidyl serine come from bovine sources, which also contain DHA as part of the structure.  Because of the Mad Cow scare, bovine-derived PS isn’t likely to show up in the marketplace soon.

The biggest problem with a vegan version of PS  is that plant oils never contain ready-made DHA. Indeed, the entire fatty acid structure of soy-derived PS is different from that of bovine-derived PS. The latter is rich in stearic and oleic acids, while soy PS is rich in linoleic and palmitic acids. Complicating matters further,  Dr. Mary Enig, PhD, MACN, has pointed out that the PS naturally formed in the human body consists of 37.5 percent stearic acid and 24.2 percent arachidonic acid.  Despite these differences, soy-derived PS has proved helpful to many people.

A fish oil or egg-derived PS, which would naturally contain DHA, would probably perform better in the body and brain than any plant- sourced product.   I have heard of at least one company — Enzymotec USA — that hopes to bring such a PS to the market soon.   Although a sunflower oil-derived PS would also fail to match the superior fatty acid structure of animal sourced PS, it would offer the advantage of being soy free and thus suitable for the growing numbers of people who are allergic to soy.

Dear Fred:    I  think you might be referring to the work of Dr. Lon White, a neuro-epidemiologist with the Pacific Health Institute in Honolulu.   Dr White and colleagues showed that men and women who ate tofu at least twice per week experienced accelerated brain aging, diminished cognitive ability and were more than twice as likely to be clinically diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease.  MRI scans showed enlarged ventricles while autopsies revealed atrophied brains with lower weights. Subjectively, the researchers couldn’t help but notice that by age 75 to 80, the tofu eaters looked about five years older than those who had abstained.

The soy industry claims “the tofu effect” is just a fluke, but the statistical probability of the results being true varied from 95 to 99 percent, depending upon the particular brain aging endpoint. The investigators also searched for – but failed to find – confounding factors such as age, education, obesity or other food and drinks.   The study has earned high marks from researchers not on the soy industry’s payroll, including Dan Sheehan, PhD and Daniel Doerge, PhD at the FDA’s National Laboratory for Toxicological research in Jefferson, Arkansas.who stated, “Given the great difficulty in discerning the relationship between exposures and long latency adverse effects in the human population and the potential mechanistic explanation for the epidemiological findings, this is an important study. It is one of the more robust, well-designed prospective epidemiological studies generally available.”

White has hypothesized that the isoflavones in tofu and other soy foods caused the adverse effects in the brain. In fact, numerous animal studies show that soy isoflavones interfere with an enzyme called tyrosine kinase in the hippocampus, a brain region involved with learning and memory. Elevated levels of phytoestrogens in the brain also cause decreases in brain calcium-binding protein (needed for protection against neuro-degenerative diseases) and in brain-derived neurotrophic factor (essential to the survival and genesis of brain cells). Finally the soy isoflavone genistein reduces DNA synthesis in the brain, reducing the birth of new brain cells and promoting apoptosis and cell death.  For references, go to The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food, pages 307-308.

It is important to state clearly here that soy oil contains low or no isoflavone content, and that a lecithin, derived from soy oil would be highly unlikely to contain isoflavones.   The above studies linking soy to cognitive decline are irrelevant in terms of health risks from lecithin .  But given the fact that soy has been linked to cognitive decline, dementia, brain atrophy and neurodegenerative disease, it would not be wise to start swigging soy milk or feasting on tofu.

Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN, is The Naughty Nutritionist™ because of her ability to outrageously and humorously debunk nutritional myths. A popular guest on radio and television, she has appeared on The Dr Oz Show, ABC’s View from the Bay, NPR’s People’s Pharmacy and numerous other shows. Her own radio show, “Naughty Nutrition with Dr. Kaayla Daniel” debuted this spring on World of Women (WOW) Radio. Dr Daniel is the author of The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food, a popular speaker at Wise Traditions and other conferences, a Board Member of the Weston A. Price Foundation and recipient of its 2005 Integrity in Science Award. Her website is www.naughtynutritionist.com and she can be reached at Kaayla@DrKaaylaDaniel.com.

Dear Sandy:  It’s certainly possible.   Try a soy-free chocolate and find out.    But don’t think you need to eat chocolate. A lot of health claims are being made for it, but I think they are greatly exaggerated.   Likewise, it’s supposed to the classic “naughty” food, but this Naughty Nutritionist™ hasn’t found firm evidence, so to speak!

Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN, is The Naughty Nutritionist™ because of her ability to outrageously and humorously debunk nutritional myths. A popular guest on radio and television, she has appeared on The Dr Oz Show, ABC’s View from the Bay, NPR’s People’s Pharmacy and numerous other shows. Her own radio show, “Naughty Nutrition with Dr. Kaayla Daniel” debuted this spring on World of Women (WOW) Radio. Dr Daniel is the author of The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food, a popular speaker at Wise Traditions and other conferences, a Board Member of the Weston A. Price Foundation and recipient of its 2005 Integrity in Science Award. Her website is www.naughtynutritionist.com and she can be reached at Kaayla@DrKaaylaDaniel.com.

Dear Doris,  Are you allergic to soy?    If so, I’d take the precaution of finding a soy-free vitamin.  But if you are avoiding it because you  are  at risk for — or already suffer from — thyroid, reproductive  problems,  breast cancer or other health reasons, I’d put my energy into avoiding soy protein or soy oil.   As for lecithin, it’s difficult to avoid if you like processed and packaged foods.  Lecithin, as you’ve already found out,  is also present in many supplements.  For most people the occasional product with lecithin won’t be a problem, but please focus on eating real foods.

Although The Soy Connection, an industry newsletter, has stated that highly refined oils and lecithin “are safe for the soy-allergic consumer,” many allergic persons who put their trust in such reassurances have ended up in the hospital.   If soy lecithin were 100 percent free of soy protein, it would not provoke allergic symptoms.    However, the variable manufacturing conditions, quality controls and processing methods used by the vegetable oil industry make the presence of at least trace amounts of soy protein possible – and even likely – in soy oil or soy lecithin.  Likewise,  highly susceptible people cannot use supplements containing soy-derived Vitamin E, phosphatidyl choline (PC) , glycerylphosphorylcholine (GPC)  or phosphatidyl serine (PS) safely.

Dear Jessie:   Lecithin is an emulsifying substance found in the cells of all living organisms.     It was discovered in 1806 by Maurice Gobley, a French scientist who named it lekithos after the Greek word for egg yolk   Lecithin can be found in many foods including cabbage, cauliflower, garbanzo beans, soy beans, split peas, organic meat, seeds and nuts, but the best source by far is eggs.  Until it was recovered from the waste products of soybean processing in the 1930s, egg yolk was the primary source of commercial lecithin.   Today most lecithin supplements derive from soybeans, though a sunflower lecithin is also available.

Lecithin products are  widely marketed to promote cardiovascular health, reverse liver damage, improve brain function and memory.   Your naturopathic doctor might be right about your diet not providing enough lecithin to protect your cells.  That would certainly be true if you’ve been afraid to eat eggs and have stuck to a “healthy” lowfat, low-cholesterol diet.  The solution though is not the supplements he or she has suggested, but a Weston A Price Foundation type  diet rich in eggs, especially the egg yolks.

Market analyst Kathie Brownlie reveals in the online newsletterNutraIngredients “the market is driven by crises – and it did not exist a decade ago.”  Another factor in this new and booming market is  the  widely perceived “healthy” image of vegan ingredients.    According to Chris Olivant of the UK’s Vegetarian Society,  the numbers of vegetarians have steadily increased over the past decade, but “tend to peak in the immediate aftermath of a animal health scare, then drop back down to prior levels afterwards.”

“If you have a complete portfolio of vegetarian ingredients, you will be prepared for any animal health-scare that breaks,” says Lukas Christian, global product manager for beta-carotene at DSM Nutritional Products.   NutraIngredients reports that DSM is launching a new synthetic beta carotene to compete against animal-derived beta carotenes.   Other companies too, including BASF and Biodar have come out with vegetarian beta-carotenes.   If you naively thought beta carotene supplements would come from carrots and other vegetables, welcome to the brave new world of supplements .   Why grow carrots, after all, when you can produce beta carotene with microorganisms? And why bother with the care and feeding of wee beasties when you can manufacture a synthetic beta carotene that can be billed as vegetarian?

Given all the vegan scare stories and the filthy reality of factory-farming operations,   it’s

hardly news that people in record numbers are avoiding meat, milk and eggs, but is it wise to go vegan for safety reasons?    Not if we patronize local farmers who raise healthy, happy, free-range and pastured animals and make it a priority to run clean operations.  And also not if  it’s diseases from listeria, e coli and salmonella that we are trying to avoid.   Most cases come from contaminated commercial vegetables, strawberries, spinach, alfalfa sprouts, peppers etc, and not animal foods at all.   As for soy, there are surprising  risks of contamination.  Packaged soy products seem aseptic, safe and sanitary, but recalls have been legion over the years, suggesting that the squeaky clean packaging might only seal in the disease.

LARGEST RECALL IN FDA HISTORY

Consider what may prove to be the largest recall in FDA history.   It occurred in March 2010 and involved salmonella-contaminated hydrolyzed vegetable protein (HVP) produced by Basic Food Flavors Inc of Las Vegas, Nevada.   Salmonella was found on the company’s processing equipment.   HVP is used to enhance flavors of thousands of food products, extend shelf life, and otherwise increase  the food industry’s bottom line.   HVP is an ingredient in just about every processed food available in stores.   As a paste or powder, it is added to soups, sauces, chilis, stews, hot dogs, gravies, snack foods, dips and dressings.  The name hydrolyzed vegetable protein most often refers to “hydrolyzed corn protein” or “hydrolyzed soy protein” and may sometimes be labeled as such.   If  mixed with spices, it is routinely identified only as “natural smoke flavor” or “natural flavors.” This labeling practice  protects proprietary recipes of manufacturers, but  has long been a nightmare for people who are allergic to soy or corn, or who react to MSG, which is an inevitable and unavoidable byproduct of the hydrolyzing process.  Products containing this additive may even state “No MSG” on the label, though this is clearly an untruth.

This particular recall has proved embarrassing to the FDA.  Congressional investigators chided the agency for failing to oversee the production of  HVP and other additives and food ingredients that are widely perceived as safe.   In addition to HVP, these  include partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, salt, spices, artificial flavors, emulsifiers, binders, vitamins, minerals,  preservatives and other ingredients, most of which are  intended to enhance  taste, texture, nutritional content or shelf life.   In a prepared statement, FDA spokeswoman Rita Chappelle conceded that the FDA “agrees broadly” that its oversight of such ingredients “could be strengthened.”   Given the misplaced time and effort FDA has put into harassing small farmers, it’s not surprising that it  has been asleep on its real job.

Health-conscious consumers might think that this is not their issue because the companies in the news are the big names like McCormick, Pringles, National Pretzel, Herbox (boullion), Quaker, Safeway and CVS snack products.  Best Food Flavors alone has recalled nearly 800 products.  This would suggest the problem lies with the processed, packaged, fast and junk foods on the Standard American Diet (SAD).  Sadly, the truth is that many of the brands billed as “healthy” and sold in health food stores and upscale markets use the very same additives.   Follow Your Heart brand vegetarian products, for example, recalled its barbecue, kung pao, savory, peanut and curry-flavored tofus as well as  its “heart smart” veggie burgers, burritos and “chicken” pasta because of possible salmonella contamination “from one of our suppliers.”

The possibility of salmonella poisoning also drove recalls of those old hippie staples soy grits and flour.  The recalled items came  from Thumb Oilseed Producers’ Cooperative of Ubly, Michigan, sold under the brand names Soy Beginnings and Nexsoy.

NOT HVP ALONE

Other contamination problems have also beset soy-food  manufacturers.  Lifesoy Inc., a San Diego-based manufacturer of ready-to-eat soy products, was forced to stop manufacturing and distributing its sweetened and unsweetened soy milk, fried tofu, fresh tofu, soybean pudding, and other products because it did not hold and store foods under refrigerated conditions cold enough to prevent the growth of microorganisms.  Interesting enough when the FDA first discovered Lifesoy’s unsanitary practices in 2007 it did not harass the company (as it does small farmers and cottage industries) but actively tried to help it comply with Good Manufacturing Practices and stay in business.   The company’s failure to do so led to its shut down.

The LifeSoy case indicates why most tofu products coming out of large manufacturing facilities are pasteurized today.  In the good old days, there were also cases of contamination, of course, with most occurring at Asian groceries or old-fashioned small health food stores where fresh blocks of tofu were displayed in water in produce sections.   The tofu was  non refrigerated and open to airborne contamination as well as bugs from customers reaching into the water with tongs.

Think  soy milk is safe?   Bonsoy soy drink was whisked out of markets in Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Ireland, Singapore and Hong Kong this last spring because of dangerously high iodine levels derived from kombu, a seaweed ingredient.  That manufacturing error sank at least 38 people’s thyroids.   Ironically, the kombu was put in there to begin with because of soy’s adverse effects on the thyroid, a risk highest among  consumers who are iodine deficient. Recently a reformulated version was approved for sale by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ).  Meanwhile other products containing seaweed are being investigated.

FORMULA FOR DISASTER

One of the most frequently recalled products is infant formula.   Between 1982 and 1994 there were 22 significant recalls of infant formula in the United States due to health and safety problems.  Seven of these recalls were classified by the FDA as “Class I” or potentially life threatening.   And things haven’t improved much since then.   Recent recalls were made by Nestle (Carnation), Abbott, Mead Johnson, Wyeth, and Nutricia, among other companies, and for for widely sold products under the brand names of Alsoy, GoodStart, Isomil, Nutramigen, Nursoy,  and Soylac.    Both dairy and soy formulas have been recalled for everything from contamination by Salmonella or  Klebsiella Pneumoniae to bits of glass.  Yes, glass, as in the shards found in more than 102,000 Mead-Johnson jars.

Manufacturing errors are an especially big problem with soy formula. Failure to add supplemental  B1, B12 Vitamin K,  chloride and other needed supplements has led to deaths and hospitalizations of babies.    When such omissions happen with dairy formula, the deficiency is less likely to be a life-threatening matter.  Cow’s milk, after all, contains what a mammal needs to grow.  Although obviously not at the ideal levels for a human baby as opposed to a calf, vital components don’t go missing.     In 2003 three babies in Israeli on soy formula died from an extreme deficiency of vitamin  B1,  and another eight babies were hospitalized, of which four suffered permanent brain damage.    The formula manufacturers had left out B1 on the false assumption that soybeans contain plenty of B1.

Hard to believe?  Want to check out future recalls?  Get industry news from a free online subscription to NutraIngredients and by visiting the FDA’s  own website.   Then put your energy into buying both animal and plant foods directly from small, local farmers you know, visit  and trust.

Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN, is The Naughty Nutritionist™ because of her ability to outrageously and humorously debunk nutritional myths. A popular guest on radio and television, she has appeared on The Dr Oz Show, ABC’s View from the Bay, NPR’s People’s Pharmacy and numerous other shows. Her own radio show, “Naughty Nutrition with Dr. Kaayla Daniel” debuted this spring on World of Women (WOW) Radio. Dr Daniel is the author of The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food, a popular speaker at Wise Traditions and other conferences, a Board Member of the Weston A. Price Foundation and recipient of its 2005 Integrity in Science Award. Her website is www.naughtynutritionist.com and she can be reached at Kaayla@DrKaaylaDaniel.com.

A few years ago I started hearing about the negatives associated with soy products and switched to almond milk and drastically reduced our consumption of soy products. The one soy product I have been consistently using and loving for years is a powder for a smoothie called _______. I have attached the label and would appreciate your taking a look at the ingredients. It also says on the front label ‘Identity Preserved Soy 24 mg of isoflavones per serving). I don’t know what that means but hope it’s good. I have been a rep for this company for years and have benefited greatly by using their products. This drink makes me feel so good and satisfied every day, and I am really upset at the thought of it not being healthy for me. I have shown it to so many dieticians and nutritionists and have always gotten such positive feedback so I hope you will look and tell me if you think it is bad for me.

I will also tell you that I have a low thyroid and have been taking 90 mg of Armour Thyroid for the last 40 years. It has helped but not as much as when I add these juice and juice plus soy products.

I do want to be healthy and help others improve their health, so I am open to your honest opinion.

Also, and very important, are plant milks (i.e. almond, hemp, oat, etc). I’ve tried finding if there is any negative information out plant milks but aside from rice milk, I haven’t found any negative. Are they healthy? Thank you, thank you for your help. To your best health, NP

Dear NP: Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I can’t drink to this product!  I have serious concerns about this juice drink for anyone, but especially for someone with thyroid problems. My first concern is with 24 mg of isoflavones per serving. A Japanese study at the Ishizuki Clinic found that just 35 mg of isoflavones per day caused thyroid suppression in healthy individuals in just three months. If you drink just one serving per day, you will come in under that, but that too would be a high level in susceptible individuals. It is also highly likely that you are getting soy isoflavones or other phytoestrogens in other products as well. This will definitely be the case if you follow the manufacturer’s suggestion of taking the product mixed with one cup of soy milk. Isoflavone content varies from glass to glass to glass of soy milk, depending upon the brand, the year, the growing conditions of the crop and other factors, but the likelihood is high that a glass of soy milk contains about 45 mg.

Boosting the thyroid (with Armour) while also depressing it (with soy isoflavones) has a strong “push me, pull me” effect that puts stress on the thyroid. Environmental scientist Mike Fitzpatrick PhD points out this is the classic way that researchers induce thyroid tumors in laboratory animals. The fact that soy is “natural” does not make it safe or weak. A single serving of a drink such as this has several times the goitrogenic potency of the pharmacetuical thyroid-inhibiting drugs methimazole and 6-propylthiouracel. Knowledgeable physicians now recommend taking thyroid medications separately from drinking soy milk or other products.  Christiane Northrup, MD, author of Women’s Bodies/ Women’s Wisdom and other books, and a longtime proponent of soy consumption, makes this recommendation.

I must also object to an unwarranted – and probably illegal – health claim on the label of the product you are taking. It says that one scoop of the product “contains 24 mg of isoflavones, regarded as essential to today’s women’s health issues.” Essential? One scoop puts a woman’s thyroid at risk, as stated above. One scoop stirred into soy milk and drunk by a woman of reproductive age could alter her menstrual cycles and hormone patterns in ways indicative of infertility. One scoop every day would also be risky for a woman who has been diagnosed with – or has a family history of – breast cancer. So many studies have linked soy breast cell proliferation, (a well known marker of breast cancer risk) that warnings have been issued by the Israeli Health Ministry, French Food Agency, German Institute of Risk Assessment and Cornell University’s Center for Breast Cancer and Environmental Risk Factors. As for this product helping a woman sail through menopause, the evidence on soy and menopause is inconsistent and contradictory, according to a review by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Please visit the website www.soyonlineservice.co.nz, where you will find numerous letters from people whose thyroid problems have developed or been worsened by eating or drinking soy products. This website also includes many abstracts of studies involving soy and the thyroid.  More than 70 years of studies, after all, link soy to thyroid dysfunction.    I’d also recommend that you read my book The Whole Soy Story, particularly chapters 26 on soy isoflavones, chapter 27 on soy and the thyroid, chapter 29 on soy and the reproductive system and chapter 30 on soy and cancer.

In addition to the isoflavone danger, I have other concerns with this product’s fructose content. Though not as bad as High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS), the evidence is mounting that it is addictive and more harmful than sugar. For more information, search this website and also www.mercola.com.

Reviewing the label, I must also point out that much of the high vitamin content comes from added supplements and not from the powdered vegetables and fruits. That’s to be expected given that true Vitamin A and D3 do not occur in any plant foods. This means your “healthy” green drink is actually a rather incomplete multi in a overpriced package loaded up with fructose and soy isoflavones. I do not know why you feel better taking it. With any such product, risk is not certainty. Perhaps you are getting a sugar hit. Maybe you are so protein deficient that your body responds positively even to inferior soy protein. Another possible explanation is the soy isoflavones stimulate the thyroid, giving you more energy for the time being. Sadly, this daily “whipping” is likely to lead to thyroid exhaustion and slowdown over the long term. You may also just need the vitamins and minerals because of overall deficiencies in your diet.

Since you are mainly vegetarian, I would recommend you go to the Home page of this website and take our “vegetarian tour.” If you intend to remain vegetarian, I would suggest eating lots of free-range eggs and a raw dairy products to get much needed fats, fat-soluble vitamins, cholesterol and high-quality protein. For more info on safety and availability of raw dairy, visitwww.realmilk.com. If you cannot tolerate any form of dairy, I recommend a coconut tonic drink as described in the book Eat Fat/Lose Fat by Dr. Mary Enig and Sally Fallon.

I cannot recommend rice, almond, oat or hemp milks. These highly processed products are often sold as “equivalents” of dairy milks but only because they are propped up with cheap, poor quality and hard-to-absorb calcium,  Vitamin D2 and other vitamins and minerals. They also tend to contain poor quality vegetable oils, either intrinsic to the beverage as soy oil or hemp oil, or added such as canola oil.  Better to supplement with high-quality supplements than to drink these beverages for the supplements they contain. Many also contain high levels of sugar in order to be palatable.

Dear DG. I have received numerous letters such as yours since The Whole Soy Story was published in 2005. Many of these letters are from MLM companies like yours, including ____, _____, ____ and _____. This reply also applies to the assorted shakes powders sold in supermarkets, health food stores, health clubs and so forth. When people contact any of these companies about the dangers of soy, the responses are virtually interchangeable except for the company name. Supposedly their products are processed differently from the competition, using a unique and “secret” process that makes soybeans both safe and healthy. .

Certainly organic soybeans are safer than GMO soybeans, as there are serious dangers to all GMO foods, soy, corn or whatever. GMO soy contains higher and more resistant levels of protease inhibitors, among other toxins. Whole soybeans are also better than soy protein insomuch as this will minimize some harmful processing methods, particularly the use of hexane to split the bean. It is also possible that some of the other processing methods might be gentler. For example, the process might involve alkaline baths with a lower pH than is used by some commercial companies. Gentler processing methods could conceivably result in lower levels of the toxins lysinalanines and nitrosamines.

That said, I find it highly unlikely that your product – or the similarly hyped products — have removed the dangerous estrogenic isoflavones. Unless the companies use alcohol extraction, the isoflavones will not be removed. In fact these companies don’t want to remove the isoflavones because they all boast about their “health effects” and claim that their unique product somehow has all the benefits and none of the dangers of isoflavones. Saponins, which can bind with cholesterol and damage cell membranes will also be present in any soybean product that has not been alcohol extracted. Not surprisingly, these are marketed as healthy “all natural” cholesterol lowerers, bile acid reducers and cancer preventers and curers.

In all probability, your product also contains a full complement of protease inhibitors (which interfere with protein digestion), phytates (which inhibit mineral absorption), lectins (which can cause blood cell clumping), and oxalates (linked to a multitude of health problems, including kidney stones and vulvodynia). As far as I know, no modern process yet invented can remove all of these things. What’s needed to eliminate or deactivate many of them is old-fashioned fermentation, the traditional method used to make miso, natto and tempeh. Such foods eaten in a richly varied diet are healthy and nutritious. But these are NOT the soy ingredients put in your shake powder.

Please write your company and ask them to send reports from independent laboratories proving that these antinutrients and toxins have been largely eliminated. This is what will convince me, not claims that their “special, secret, patented and unique process” does this work. Over the past ten years, I have reviewed numerous soybean processing manuals and seen many patent applications. I have yet to see any evidence that this can be done. Rather many years of USDA studies show it cannot.   I discuss these processing issues thoroughly in The Whole Soy Story, particularly in Chapters 4-12.  Given the fact that manufacturers cannot get rid of them,  isoflavones, protease inhibitors, phytates, saponins and other antinutrients and toxins have been elevated from devils into angels and are being marketed as health promoting.  They are not. In conclusion, I cannot recommend this or similar products based on their “claims.” Show me the evidence.

Dear Frank, Sorry, can’t guide you.  Although in the past, scientists experimented on dogs, rats, college students and other animals, looks like they are now recruiting the fungus amongus. That’s the word anyway from Singapore, where Dejian Huang and colleagues developed a method of reducing the gas-creating oligosaccharides raffinose and stachyose in soybeans while raising the levels of the supposedly “healthy antioxidants known as isoflavones” (J Agri Food Chem, Nov 12, 2008).  They accomplished this by fermenting black soybeans into soy yogurt in the presence of a fungus that produced enzymes capable of degrading the undesirable oligosaccharide sugars.    Although Science Daily and others suggested that this novel new method would help “soybeans drop off the list of musical fruits,” consider this: It’s a worthy goal to stop gas warfare, but soy isoflavones represent chemical warfare. Soybean plants use isoflavones to sicken predators and affect their ability to live long, strong and propagate. Increased consumption of soy yogurt would not be beneficial to the human race.

Dear Anil,   The TootTrapper– or something like it — is now available under other names. Products containing the gas-trapping charcoal filter include chair cushions, pads, briefs, panties,  thongs and special products for ‘ostomy patients.  Although the product launched with great fanfare on  Regis and Kathie Lee and other shows,  the inventors felt the TootTrapper name and accompanying publicity demeaned its importance.    While it’s fun to joke about these products, the truth is they greatly improve the life of people with serious digestive disorders. Indeed, the importance of this invention to some patients was detailed in the respected journals Gut andTreatment Options in Gastroenterology.   Interesting name you have.  I’d say your letter was sent as a frat house joke, but I once knew an Indian medical student by that name at the University of Rochester .

Dear Veronica, Yes, the charcoal seating device is a real product.   Best of course, to just stay off the soy rather than on the cushion! Though gas is the butt of much schoolyard humor, the reality is it’s a symptom of serious digestive distress when experienced as an ongoing rather than occasional problem. I would also caution against consuming modern soy products because of known risks to the thyroid, reproductive and immune systems.

The soy industry apparently agrees, because on March 17, it held a special Soyfoods Lunch on Capitol Hill for some 200 members of Congress, government officials and industry representatives.  Billed as a way to showcase the “health benefits of soy,” the Eighth Annual Congressional Soyfoods Lunch may have had the side benefit of controlling Capitol Hill lust. Soy, after all, in Asia is eaten heavily in Zen monasteries to help monks maintain their vows of celibacy. It’s also featured heavily on the menu in Japanese homes where the husband has been unfaithful. Seems that wives know that soy can kill the desire, the ability, . . . or both.

As for US politicians, too bad Bill Clinton didn’t eat it. Not because it would have prevented his heart disease problems – even the American Heart Association (AHA) has backed off from its pro soy position – but because it might have downed his infamous libido.  Accordingly, let’s  urge Bill Clinton to admit the truth to the American public.  The words I’d put in his mouth are,   “If that woman and I had eaten soy, I’d have saved a lot of embarrassment to my presidency.”

Sadly, the American Soy Association(ASA) has a stereotypical  pro soy message for the public. “ASA’s Congressional Soyfoods Lunch is a unique occasion for the U.S. soybean industry to provide Members of Congress and other government officials with the chance to taste the ever-expanding selection of soyfoods available today,” said ASA president Rob Joslin.   Those taste treats included all sorts of fake steaks – er mis-steaks – and other soybean ingredients dressed up, brightened, flavored and textured into approximations of Thai Beef Salad, Mediterranean Chicken and Vegetable Pasta, Sautéed Broccoli in Garlic Sauce,and other pseudo pfoods.

The point of it all was for attendees to hear ASA spin doctors tout the “health benefits of soy” and learn how they could help acquaint the American public with said benefits.  Sadly, the truth is another soy story, with soy linked to malnutrition, digestive distress, thyroid disorders, immune system breakdown, ADD/ADHD, even heart disease and cancer, especially breast cancer. Soy also causes or contributes to reproductive problems in both men and women, including infertility, loss of libido and other problems.   The Israeli Health Ministry, French Food Agency and German Institute of Risk Assessment have all issued warnings about soy. Here in the U.S., the marketing of soy is business as usual, moving full speed ahead all year long and especially during April.  Too bad the mis-information isn’t just an April Fool’s Day joke.

Dear Anne:  First of all, don’t blame yourself as you had no way of knowing that your ND was badly misinformed.  I detail the reproductive risks of soy formula in Chapter 28 and 29 of my book The Whole Soy Story. However, risk is not certainty, so let’s hope your son’s development will move forward normally even if he’s on a slower timetable than the other boys.   That said, I would strongly recommend that you begin working right away with an alternative MD or other health practitioner who understands the dangers of soy, does laboratory assessment  and recommends a Nourishing Traditionstype diet.  Such a diet will not only  help your son but your entire family enjoy optimum health.   The more you can improve your son’s overall health, the more likely his body will find the strength and inner wisdom to develop properly.  For more information on soy recovery, please read two articles  on the Weston A. Price Foundation’s website:  ”Soy Recovery Part I” and “Soy Recovery: The Toxic Metal Component.”   Good luck.

Dear Robert, Thanks so much for sharing. I hope your reference to eating “minimally processed soy” means fermented products like miso paste, natto and tempeh. Raw or undercooked soybeans are extremely high in antinutrients and toxins. Re wheat products, make sure they’ve been properly soaked and prepared , and even then keep them to a minimum. Not good to become a “bread-atarian.”   Finally, don’t forget the bone broth, coconut oil, cultured vegetables and other WAPF dietary staples. They are the keys to gut healing and health.

• Breeding Discontent : Herbalists, midwives and witches have long known that certain plants and herbs have a contraceptive effect, but only one commonly appears in the food supply — soy.
• Where the Soys Are : People who are allergic to soy must exclude all soy from their diets. This can be a challenge. Soy lurks in nearly everything these days even in products where we would not reasonably expect it.

Please click ‘read more below’ to access the download links.

Thank you.

• Breeding Discontent : Download here!
• Where the Soys Are : Download here!

Dear Kaayla,
I’ve read your warnings about soy formula and wonder how the formulas on the market differ from soy formulas used for centuries in Japan and China.
SP

Dear SP,

Soy formula was never used traditionally in Asia. Babies that couldn’t be breast fed by their birth moms were either given to a wet nurse or fed a homemade dairy formula. Soy formula was first developed in China in the late 1920s and 1930s. I found that late date hard to believe until I got a hold of some 1936 and 1938 articles from the Chinese Medical Journal. Historian William Shurtleff of the Soy Center in Lafayette, CA, tells us that first person to manufacture soy formula in China was an American, a Seventh Day Adventist missionary named Dr. Harry W. Miller.

Dear Kaayla,
I love Christiane Northrup’s books and she says wonderful things about a product named Revival. I checked their website and learned that the problems you attribute to soy are irrelevant with Revival because of the care with which they manufacture the product. Can you comment?
DF

Dear DF,

It may be true that Revival’s manufacturing process involves lower and less caustic alkaline levels than other commercial processing methods. If so, this would result in lower levels of a toxin known as lysinoalanine. That’s to the good. However, Revival boasts that it contains 160 mg isoflavones per serving. That is more than four times that the amount that caused thyroid damage in a clinical trial using healthy Japanese men and women. It is almost four times the amount that has disturbed the menstrual cycles of healthy women. I could go on about the dangers of isoflavones — and do in The Whole Soy Story. I hear more complaints about Revival than any other product on the market. Dr. Northrup herself admits to having been recently diagnosed with hypothyroidism. Why take the risk?

Dear Kaayla,
I’ve heard all the stories about soy causing hypothyroidism. I had been diagnosed with hypothyroidism already when I started taking a soy shake every day. Now I feel lots more pep and energy. So either I am an exception or you are wrong.
KG

Dear KG,

Occasionally, people who start taking soy shakes will experience increased energy and metabolism. This is caused by stimulation to the thyroid and is usually temporary, after which the thyroid wears down and the person goes into long-term hypothyroidism. Talk to your doctor, give him or her the chapter from The Whole Soy Story on soy and the thyroid. You might want to reconsider the soy.

Dear Kaayla,
I’ve been drinking a soy protein shake every morning for breakfast. I have not increased the number of calories in my diet yet seem to be gaining weight. The only change in my diet is the soy yet I’m being told that soy helps you lose weight. What do you think?
JR

Dear JR,

Traditionally, the Chinese only ate only products made from whole soy beans. When the bean was split into oil and protein, the oil was used to fuel kerosene-type lamps and the soy protein was used as a fertilizer. It was only used for animal feed when the goal was to “fatten” the animals. Some brands of soy protein contain high levels of isoflavones. It only took 35 mg of isoflavones a day in a clinical trial to cause hypothyroidism in healthy Japanese men and women. Hypothyroidism means low thyroid function. This is likely to result in a loss of energy and weight gain, as well as other possible symptoms such as hair loss, depression, etc.

Dear Kaayla,
I attend lots of vegetarian potlucks. I went to your class “The Whole Soy Story” and believe your warnings against too much soy. I buy very few soy products myself but still like to spend time with my vegetarian friends. Can you tell me again, how much soy is safe for me to eat?
JK

Dear JK,

If you are healthy, go ahead and enjoy the occasional vegetarian potluck. If possible, stick to old-fashioned soy products (miso, tempeh, natto, shoyu, tamari) and eat them at the levels traditionally consumed in Asia. The Japanese eat the most but still average just a few tablespoons. On a weekly basis, a few cups of miso soup, a small serving of tempeh or natto and the modest use of shoyu or tamari in cooking should not be a problem. A little tofu (such as three little cubes you’d typically find in your miso soup at a Japanese restaurant would also be okay. I wouldn’t even worry about the occasional ingestion of Tofurky, Veat, Boca burger or other of the highly processed, high tech modern American soy foods. The important thing is don’t “pig out”. When you join your friends, be a vege-tarian not a soya-tarian.  You might also want to read my earlier article “Practice Safe Soy,” which is posted on this website.

Dear Kaayla,
I take great care to buy only organic as I’m sure all the problems with soy are because of GM soy. I think you should make this clear to your readers. Not all soys are alike.
DF

Dear DF,

True, organic soy will ensure fewer pesticide residues than GM (genetically modified) soy. I highly recommend buying organic products whenever possible. That said, soy is a problem whether it is organic or not. All modern soy products carry a load of antinutrients and toxins including protease inhibitors, phytates, saponins, isoflavones and other components that have been proven to cause digestive distress, immune system breakdown, thyroid dysfunction, reproductive problems, etc, etc.

Dear Kaayla,
I’ll be leaving soon to get the little girl I’m adopting from China. I was told to put her on soy formula, but now I’m afraid to. Help!
GH

Dear GH,

Congratulations! I adopted my children too, a son from Korea and a daughter from Vietnam. I fed my children homemade formulas using the recipes in Nourishing Traditions by Sally Fallon. You can order it on Amazon or from www.newtrendspublishing.com. Yes, it takes extra time but I’ve never seen a child who didn’t thrive on one of these recipes. This wonderful book also offers tips on how to easily improve some of the commercially available dairy formulas. Good luck!

Dear Kaayla,
I am lactose intolerant and cannot eat any dairy products. If I can’t use soy milk what am I supposed to put on my cereal?
FB

Dear FB,

You might want to rethink the cereal. Cold cereals – even health food versions – are not very healthy. They are hard to digest and high in carbs. Dr. Mercola has some excellent breakfast suggestions in his book The No Grain Diet (in most bookstores) and his new book Dr Mercola’s Total Health available on his website www.mercola.com.

Dear Kaayla,
I love my soy milk. Whenever I need a lift, I drink a glass. Thanks to soy milk, I’ve gotten off Diet Coke.
SO

Dear SO,

Glad to hear you are off the diet sodas. Check the ingredient list on your soy milk and you’ll almost certainly find a lot of sugar. It might be named cane sugar, barley malt, rice sugar, fructose, corn syrup. Whatever, it’s sugar. The most likely reason that you feel better after drinking your soy milk is that you are getting a sugar hit.

The second possibility is that the soy estrogens are stimulating your thyroid. For some people this results in a mildly hyperactive thyroid with short-term energy gain. The down side is that over the long run your thyroid may go down, sinking into hypothyroidism. That means loss of energy, cognitive decline, brain fog. In my opinion the long-term risks of soy do not justify any short term benefit.

Dear Kaayla,
People in Asia have been eating soy for 10,000 years. So how could there possibly be a problem?
GT

Dear GT,

This is a myth perpetuated by the soy industry. Soy has been a food in China for a little more than 2000 years. Farmers grew soybean plants only as “green manure” — as a cover crop plowed under to enrich the soil. Soy was a fertilizer, not a food. The ancient Chinese originally developed the technique for making soybean paste (best known by the Japanese term miso) to preserve protein-rich animal foods. This process was first applied to soybeans and grains in the second century BC at the earliest and appeared in Japan around 500 AD. Legend holds that tofu was invented in China in 164 BC and came to Japan in the eighth century AD. Natto entered the food supply around 1000AD and tempeh no earlier than the 1600s.

The idea is women will reject meat in favor of this specially scented tofu, thus saving the lives of millions of animals that would otherwise be killed for meat.   Ingrid Newkirk, president of PETA told the Washington Post last week  that the towel was the gift of a PETA supporter who thought the organization could raise money by auctioning it off.  Instead Newkirk came up with the idea of using food science technology to duplicate Clooney’s perspiration into a novel new ingredient that can be added to tofu product.   As she put it, ‘What would make tofu more attractive to people?’ .  .  . I can see people having parties to try CloFu.”
Will there be pheromones in that scent?  Nope, and the scent itself will be artificial just like the other artificial and “natural”  flavorings give taste and flavor to tofu.

Sounds PETAful to me.   And apparently to Clooney as well.  Speaking through his rep, he summed it up in one sentence:  “As a mammal, I’m offended.”

As for PETA, Clo-fu will be a tough act to swallow!

DATES: Submit written or electronic comments by February 19, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. 2007N-0464, by any of the following methods:

Electronic Submissions
Submit electronic comments in the following ways:

* Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
* Agency Web site: http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the agency Web site.

Written Submissions
Submit written submissions in the following ways:

* FAX: 301-827-6870.
* Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

To ensure more timely processing of comments, FDA is no longer accepting comments submitted to the agency by e-mail. FDA encourages you to continue to submit electronic comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal or the agency Web site, as described previously, in the ADDRESSES portion of this document under Electronic Submissions.

INSTRUCTIONS: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this notice. All comments received may be posted without change to http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm, including any personal information provided. For additional information on submitting comments, see the “How to Submit Comments” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

DOCKET: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Claudine Kavanaugh, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-830), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3835, 301-436-1450, FAX: 301-436-2636.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (NLEA) (Public Law 101-553) was designed to give consumers more scientifically valid information about foods they eat. Among other provisions, the NLEA directed FDA to issue regulations providing for the use of statements that describe the relationship between a substance and a disease (health claims) in the labeling of foods, including dietary supplements, after such statements have been reviewed and authorized by FDA. /1/ For these health claims, that is, statements about substance-disease relationships, FDA has defined the term “substance” by regulation as a specific food or food component ( SEC 101.14(a)(2) (21 CFR 101.14(a)(2))). An authorized health claim may be used on both conventional foods and dietary supplements, provided that the substance in the product and the product itself meet the appropriate standards in the authorizing regulation. Health claims are directed to the general population or designated subgroups (e.g., the elderly) and are intended to assist the consumer in maintaining healthful dietary practices.

FOOTNOTE 1 In 1997, Congress enacted the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act, which established an alternative authorization procedure for health claims based on authoritative statements of certain federal scientific bodies or the National Academy of Sciences. This notice does not address that alternative procedure. END FOOTNOTE

Under section 403(r)(4)(A)(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 343(r)(4)(A)(i)), any person may petition FDA to issue a health claim regulation. In evaluating the petition, FDA considers whether there is “significant scientific agreement” (SSA) based on the totality of publicly available scientific evidence concerning the relationship that is the subject of the claim. This standard derives from section 403(r)(3)(B)(i) of the act (21 U.S.C. 343(r)(3)(B)(i)), which provides that FDA shall authorize a health claim to be used on conventional foods if the agency “determines based on the totality of the publicly available scientific evidence (including evidence from well-designed studies conducted in a manner which is consistent with generally recognized scientific procedures and principles), that there is significant scientific agreement, among experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate such claims, that the claim is supported by such evidence.” This scientific standard was prescribed by statute for conventional food health claims; by regulation, FDA adopted the same standard for dietary supplements health claims (see SEC 101.14(c)).

In evaluating a petition for an authorized health claim, if FDA concludes that the evidence supporting the relationship that is the subject of the claim does not meet the SSA standard, the agency considers whether there is credible evidence to support a qualified health claim. FDA may issue a letter of enforcement discretion for a qualified health claim where the totality of scientific evidence supporting the relationship that is the subject of the claim is credible but does not meet the SSA standard. Qualified health claims contain qualifying language about the level of scientific evidence to ensure consumers receive accurate information about the claim.

The genesis of qualified health claims was the court of appeals decision in Pearson v. Shalala (Pearson). In that case, the plaintiffs challenged FDA’s decision not to authorize health claims for four specific substance-disease relationships in the labeling of dietary supplements. Although the district court ruled for FDA (14 F. Supp. 2d 10 (D.D.C. 1998)), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the lower court’s decision (164 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir.1999)). The appeals court held that the First Amendment does not permit FDA to reject health claims that the agency determines to be potentially misleading unless the agency also reasonably determines that a disclaimer would not eliminate the potential deception.

In the Federal Register of October 26, 1999 (64 FR 57700), the agency authorized a health claim for soy protein and risk of coronary heart disease (21 CFR 101.82). Since authorizing this health claim, numerous studies have evaluated the relationship between soy protein and coronary heart disease, and the findings of these studies are inconsistent. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) released a report in July 2005 outlining the effects of soy products on health outcomes including cardiovascular disease and concluded that soy products appear to exert a small benefit on low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol (Ref. 1). However, it is not clear whether soy protein (versus other types of soy products) was responsible for such a benefit. The AHRQ report included studies that evaluated substances in addition to soy protein (e.g., isoflavones). In addition, the AHRQ report used markers of cardiac function (e.g., triglycerides, endothelial function, oxidized LDL) that are not validated surrogate endpoints recognized by the agency for heart disease risk. The agency intends to evaluate the scientific evidence on soy protein and the risk of coronary heart disease to determine if the totality of the scientific evidence continues to meet the significant scientific agreement standard.

In the Federal Register of January 6, 1993 (58 FR 2787), FDA authorized a health claim on dietary lipids (fat) and cancer (21 CFR 101.73). In the years since authorizing this health claim, numerous studies have been published evaluating this substance-disease relationship. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academy of Sciences, an authoritative body, published a report that reviewed the evidence on dietary lipid consumption and cancer risk (Ref. 2). The IOM reported in its review of the literature that the association between diets high in fat and increased cancer risk has been weakened by recent epidemiological studies. The IOM report set an acceptable macronutrient distribution range (AMDR) for total fat, however, it was not set based on cancer as a disease outcome because of insufficient scientific evidence linking consumption of fat with cancer risk. One factor in determining the AMDR is the long-term intake level of a nutrient that can minimize the potential for chronic disease. The agency intends to reevaluate the scientific evidence on dietary lipids and cancer risk and determine if the totality of the evidence continues to meet the significant scientific agreement standard.

Section 10.25(b) (21 CFR 10.25(b)) states that the Commissioner of Food and Drugs may initiate a proceeding to issue, amend, or revoke a regulation or take or refrain from taking any other form of administrative action. FDA intends to evaluate whether the currently available scientific evidence concerning the substance-disease relationship for the authorized health claims, dietary lipids and cancer and soy protein and coronary heart disease, continues to support its previous decisions on these authorized health claims. If the agency decides to take action to amend or revoke one or both of these health claims, after completing its review of the current scientific evidence, the agency will publish its findings and solicit comments on them before the agency takes any action with respect to revising the particular health claim. Interested persons may submit scientific information about these two specific health claims in response to this notice.

In 2003, FDA issued two letters on the use of the agency’s enforcement discretion for qualified health claims on antioxidant vitamins (vitamins E and C) and risk of certain cancers (Ref. 3) and selenium and certain cancers and anticarcinogenic effects in the body (Ref. 4). In May 2006, AHRQ issued a report evaluating the use of multivitamin/mineral supplements and the risk of chronic disease (Ref. 5). The report did not identify any studies on the efficacy of vitamin C supplements and cancer risk. In addition, the report concluded that the overall strength of the evidence for vitamin E and selenium supplements on cancer risk is very low (vitamin E) and low (selenium). The agency intends to reevaluate the scientific evidence on these two qualified health claims and determine if the scientific evidence continues to support the qualified health claim, and if so, whether the qualified health claim language should be modified to reflect a stronger or weaker relationship.

If the agency decides a change may be needed with respect to one or both of these claims, the agency intends to publish its findings and solicit comments on them. Interested persons may submit scientific information about these two specific qualified health claims in response to this notice.

Reevaluating Cancer Health Claims by Cancer Site
In the final rule authorizing a health claim for dietary fat and cancer, FDA considered whether such a claim should specifically address the types of cancer affected by a diet that is low in total fat, or whether the claim should not be site-specific (58 FR 2787 at 2788 through 2789). FDA ultimately decided that the identification of specific sites of affected cancers would not be appropriate due, in part, to weaker data on the relationship between dietary fat and breast cancer and the possibility of a wider variety of affected sites for the dietary fat and cancer relationship. Therefore, FDA required that the terms “some types of cancer” or “some cancers” be used in specifying the disease for this health claim relationship (id.). The antioxidant and cancer and selenium and cancer qualified health claims also contain similar language, i.e., “certain forms of cancer,” to be used in specifying the disease. However, in other qualified health claims for a substance and cancer relationship (Refs. 6, 7, and 8), the agency considered separate qualified health claims for each type of cancer.

Cancer is a constellation of more than 100 different diseases, each characterized by the uncontrolled growth and spread of abnormal cells (Ref. 9). Cancer is categorized into different types of diseases based on the organ and tissue sites (Ref. 10). Cancers at different organ sites have different risk factors, treatment modalities, and mortality risk (Ref. 9). Both genetic and environmental (including diet) risk factors may affect the risk of different types of cancers. Risk factors may include a family history of a specific type of cancer, cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, overweight and obesity, exposure to ultraviolet or ionizing radiation, exposure to cancer-causing chemicals, and dietary factors. The etiology, risk factors, diagnosis, and treatment for each type of cancer are unique (Refs. 11 and 12). Because each form of cancer is a unique disease based on organ site, risk factors, treatment options, and mortality risk, FDA’s current approach is to evaluate each form of cancer individually in a health claim or qualified health claim petition to determine whether the scientific evidence supports the potential substance-disease relationship for any type of cancer, each of which constitutes a disease under SEC 101.14(a)(5).

The agency intends to consider, as part of its reevaluation of the scientific evidence for dietary fat, antioxidant, and selenium and their association with a reduced risk of cancer, claim language to reflect specific types of cancer rather than “certain forms of cancer” (or similar language).

II. How to Submit Comments

Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) written or electronic comments regarding this document. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any mailed comments, except that individual may submit one paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Please note that in January 2008, the FDA Web site is expected to transition to the Federal Dockets Management System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management system. After the transition date, electronic submissions will be accepted by FDA through the FDMS only. When the exact date of the transition to FDMS is known, FDA will publish a Federal Register notice announcing that date.

III. References

The following references have been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and may be seen by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. (FDA has verified the Web site addresses, but we are not responsible for subsequent changes to the Web sites after this document publishes in the Federal Register.)

1. Balk E, Chung M, Chew P, Ip S, Raman G, Kupelnick B, Tatsioni A, Sun Y, Wolk B, DeVine D, Lau J. Effects of Soy on Health Outcomes. Summary, Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 126. (Prepared by the Tufts-New England Medical Center Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-02-0022.) AHRQ Publication No. 05-E024-1. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. July 2005.

2. Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences. Dietary Referece Intakes for energy, carbohydrate, fiber, fat, fatty acids, cholesterol, protein and amino acids, Chapter 11 page 808. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. 2005.

3. Antioxidant vitamins and risk of certain cancers, April 1, 2003, http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/[tilde]dms/ds-ltr34.html.

4. Selenium and certain cancers, February 21, 2003, Docket No. 2002P-0457 (formerly Docket No. 02P-0457), http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/[tilde]dms/ds-ltr35.html.

5. Huang HY, Caballero B, Chang S, Alberg A, Semba R, Schneyer C, Wilson RF, Cheng TY, Prokopowicz G, Barnes II GJ, Vassy J, Bass EB. Multivitamin/Mineral Supplements and Prevention of Chronic Disease. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 139. (Prepared by The Johns Hopkins University Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-02-0018). AHRQ Publication No. 06-E012. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. May 2006.

6. Tomatoes and prostate, ovarian, gastric and pancreatic cancers, November 8, 2005, Docket No. 2004Q-0201, http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/[tilde]dms/qhclyco.html.

7. Green tea and prostate and breast cancer risk, June 30, 2005, Docket No. 2004Q-0083, http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/[tilde]dms/qhc-gtea.html.

8. Calcium and colon/rectal, breast and prostate cancers and recurrent polyps, October 12, 2005, Docket No. 2004Q-0097, http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/[tilde]dms/qhcca2.html.

9. American Cancer Society, Cancer Facts and Figures, 2004.

10. National Cancer Institute, Dictionary of Cancer Terms, http://www.cancer.gov/Templates/db_alpha.aspx?CdrID=45333.

11. Hord NG, Fenton JI. Context is everything: mining the normal and preneoplastic microenvironment for insights into the diet and cancer risk conundrum. Molecular Nutrition and Food Research, 2007, 51:100-106.

12. Milner JA. Diet and Cancer: Facts and Controversies. Nutrition and Cancer, 2006, 56:216-224.

Dated: December 6, 2007.

Barbara Schneeman,

Director, Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling, and Dietary Supplements, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.

[FR Doc. E7-24813 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S

Copyright © 2007 Federal Information & News Dispatch, Inc.

The committee heard evidence on 17 October 2007 from Valerie Ann James, the New Zealand Food Safety Authority and the Ministry of Health.

“Conclusion: We support the petitioner’s request for more accurate labels on soy-based infant formula, which highlight the potential long-term risks of feeding soy-based infant formula to infants. We accept that there is evidence that soy-based formulas have a high phytoestrogen content that may pose a risk to the long-term reproductive health of infants. We acknowledge that the current labels do advise consumers to consult a doctor or health care worker for advice. However, we believe it would be prudent to supplement this advice with more specific wording which points out that the high phytoestrogen content of soy-based infant formula may pose a risk to the long term reproductive health of infants.”…

Read the full report here

Isoflavones are phyto-estrogens that may have a hormone like (estrogen) effect on the body. Isoflavones are found predominantly in soya beans (Glycine hispida max) and Red Clover (Trifloium pratense). Daidzein, genistein and glycitein are the main isofavones found in soya. Red clover is a mix of many isoflavone compounds; formononetin and biochanin A are thought to be the main ones. Isoflavones may be ingested naturally from food or as an isolated, fortified form in food supplements.
One of the main groups who are targeted by isoflavone marketing is post menopausal women. It is often claimed that such supplements can ease the symptoms of the menopause, offering an alternative to hormone replacement therapy. Other claimed advantages of the supplements are heart, bone and breast health.

After reports of adverse events relating the taking of soya / red clover supplements, BfR carried out a health assessment. This included evaluating the scientific studies published to date. The reported adverse events included itching, eczema, nausea, dizziness, abdominal pain, skin rash and sweating. Conflicting reports and a lack of long term studies make isoflavones a difficult subject to evaluate. Indeed one study found that isoflavones stimulated breast cancer cells in mice, while another found that women with a high soy diet generally have lower rates of breast cancer.

BfR found that the assumed positive effects of isolated isoflavones on menopausal complaints have not been sufficiently substantiated. The reported adverse effects are not uniform and could be caused by an allergic reaction to soya protein, or perhaps be symptoms of the menopause. When administered at high doses in isolated or fortified form, isoflavones impair the functioning of the thyroid gland and can change mammary gland tissue.

The team conclude that it can not be ruled out that the estrogen like effects of isoflavones could promote the development of breast cancer. The necessary long term studies to prove the safety of isoflavone containing products are not available. Nor is it currently possible to reliably establish a dose which could be considered safe.

It is worth noting that postmenopausal women are at increased risk of breast cancer. The full report (23 pages) is available on the BfR web site.

RSSL’s Natural Products Laboratory can determine daidzein, genistein and other soya isoflavones by HPLC. For more information please contact Customer Services on Freefone 0800 243482 or e-mail enquiries@rssl.com

RSSL endeavours to check the veracity of news stories cited in this free e-mail bulletin by referring to the primary source, but cannot be held responsible for inaccuracies in the articles so published. RSSL provides links to other World Wide Web sites as a convenience to users, but cannot be held responsible for the content or availabilty of these sites. This document may be copied and distributed provided the source is cited as RSSL’s Food e-News and the information so distributed is not used for profit.

E mail: enquiries@rssl.com

Copyright © Reading Scientific Services Ltd

December 6, 2007 ­­

GERMAN CONSUMER WATCHDOG ORGANIZATION WARNS CITIZENS ABOUT THE DANGERS OF SOY INFANT FORMULA AND SOY ISOFLAVONE SUPPLEMENTS
Washington, DC: ­­ December 6, 2007 ­­ The Federal Institute for Risk Assessment in Berlin, Germany, warned parents and pediatricians last month that babies should not be given soy infant formula without clear, concrete medical reasons and then only under strict medical supervision.
This week they issued a second warning to adult consumers, saying that soy isoflavones offer no proven health benefits and may pose health risks.
“Soy is not a health food,” said Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN, author of The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food. “Soybeans contain plant estrogens known as isoflavones that can cause significant endocrine disruption.    Infants on soy formula are at high risk because isoflavones are estrogenic and can disrupt the development of the growing baby’s body and brain.    Adults self­medicating with soy foods and/or supplements are another high risk group.”
Dr. Daniel noted that “Many midlife women over consume soy because of the widespread marketing of soy as a safe and natural way to ease menopausal symptoms.    Sadly, soy is neither safe nor natural. There are risks for men and women of every age.    Hundreds of studies link soy to digestive distress, thyroid dysfunction, reproductive disorders, ADD/ADHD, allergies, and even increased breast cancer risk. “
Professor Dr. Andreas Hensel, President of the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), explains that the main concern for infants is that soybeans naturally contain high levels of estrogenic compounds known as isoflavones, which are similar in chemical structure to human estrogen and can act like hormones in the body.    Compared to breastfed or dairy formula­fed babies, babies on soy formula show very high concentrations of isoflavones in their blood.
“Soy formula fed babies are overly estrogenized babies,” explained Dr. Daniel.    “This can lead to tragic consequences such as premature puberty in girls and delayed or arrested puberty in boys.”
Soy infant formula has also contributed to the dramatic increase in soy allergies over the past few decades. “Soy allergies used to be rare, but soy is now widely regarded as one of the top eight allergens and some experts predict it will soon be in the top four,” Dr. Daniel says. “The soy infant formula industry has long marketed its products as a hypoallergenic alternative to dairy, but soy itself often triggers allergic reactions and also contributes to asthma, eczema and other disorders.”
According to the German Federal Institute of Risk Assessment, milk allergies are not an acceptable reason for pediatricians to recommend soy formula,    Dr. Hensel cited several possible medical reasons for giving soy formula to infants, including “cases of congenital, hereditary lactase deficiency and the
equally rare metabolic disease galactosaemia. Lactose intolerance ­ whether genetic or because of a temporary gastro­intestinal disorder ­ is not generally a reason to choose soy formula.”
Dr. Hensel also expressed concern that soy infant formula contains phytate, a natural plant component that can adversely affect the infant’s intake of minerals and trace elements.    Phytates have been linked to rickets and poor bone development in babies and children, and to osteoporosis in adults.
In the warning issued December 6, the Institute of Risk Assessment expressed concerns about the marketing of soy foods and isoflavone supplements to menopausal women and doubts about the “ claimed advantages of the supplements for heart, bone and breast health.”    The Institute found that “the assumed positive effects of isolated isoflavones on menopausal complaints have not been sufficiently substantiated and that numerous adverse effects have been noted. . .    When administered at high doses in isolated or fortified form, isoflavones impair the functioning of the thyroid gland and can change mammary gland tissue.”
Re breast cancer, the Institute concluded that “it can not be ruled out that the estrogen like effects of isoflavones could promote the development of breast cancer.    The necessary long term studies to prove the safety of isoflavone containing products are not available. Nor is it currently possible to reliably establish a dose which could be considered safe.”
“The Germans have clearly warned about the dangers of soy isoflavone supplements,” said Dr. Daniel. “But it’s also important to make clear that soy milk and many other soy foods contain high levels of isoflavones.    For example, a single glass of soy milk per day contains a higher level of isoflavones that caused thyroid damage in healthy Japanese men and women in just three months as shown in a study by thyroid specialists at the Ishizuki Clinic in Japan.”
The two warnings by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment’s follow advisories issued by the Israeli Health Ministry and the French Food Agency.
In 2005, the Israeli Health Ministry warned that babies should not receive soy formula, children to age 18 should not drink soy milk or eat soy foods more than once per day to a maximum of three times per week and adults should exercise caution because of adverse effects on fertility and increased breast cancer risk.
In 2006, the French Food Agency announced tough new regulations that will require manufacturers to improve the safety of soy infant formula and to put warning labels on packages of soy foods and soy milk. According to Mariette Gerber, MD, PhD, Professor at the Center of Cancer Research in Montpelier, the new regulations will require a drastic decrease in the isoflavone content allowed in soy formula “to get it as low as possible, to one part per million.”    Food labels must warn of “special risks” to children below three years of age, children treated for thyroid disease and women who’ve been diagnosed with or have a family history of breast cancer.
The United Kingdom’s Chief Medical Officer and the British Dietetic Association has also warned pediatricians and parents to use soy formula only as a last resort.    And the UK’s Committee on Toxicity has cited vegetarians who use regularly use soy foods as being at special risk for thyroid damage.
“The Israelis, French, British and now the Germans have looked at the evidence and have warned their citizens that soy formula poses a very real danger to babies and soy isoflavones to adults,” says Dr. Daniel. “I am impressed with how seriously the Germans have taken their mission as a consumer watchdog organization.    It’s time that our FDA and other US government agencies did likewise.”
Contact:
Kathleen M. Campbell Campbell Public Relations, LLC Publicity & Media Strategies The Complete Solution 1255 Lake Plaza Dr., Suite 244 Colorado Springs, CO 80906 877­540­6022 kcampbell@thecompletesolution.com
*****
Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN, is THE WHOLE NUTRITIONIST® .   She earned her PhD in Nutritional Sciences and Anti­ Aging Therapies from the Union Institute and University in Cincinnati, is 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 soy­based 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, Jonath­ an V. Wright, MD, Russell Blaylock, MD, Larrian Gillespie, MD, Joseph Mercola, OD, Debra Lynn Dadd and Larry Dos­ sey, MD, who called it “science writing at its best.”
Comfortable in front of radio, television and live audiences, Dr. Daniel has been “media trained” by Joel Roberts, formerly co­host of KABC, Los Angeles’ most highly rated talk radio program, who calls her a “class A entertainer” and a “naughty nutritionist” with the ability to outrageously and humorously debunk nutritional myths.”
Dr. Daniel has been extensively quoted in major newspapers and magazines, including the San Francisco Chronicle, Washington Post, Toronto Globe & Mail, Glamour, Utne Reader and Alternative Medicine, 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. Online her book has been featured prominently on http://www.mercola.com/, the world’s leading natural health and dietary website. She has also
appeared as an expert witness before the California Public Safety Committee and the National Institute for Environmental Health Science.
Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Press and Public Relations Office, Thielallee 88­92, 14195 Berlin, Fax: +49­30­8412­4970, E­ Mail: pressestelle@bfr.bund.de

Seems the researchers asked 1,524 adults how they like to treat themselves.  About 66 percent of the women saw chocolate as a “mood enhancer,” and the 18-24 year old women even knew industry buzz about chocolate “releasing mood enhancing endorphins.”

The most startling find was 52 percent of the women said they’d choose chocolate over sex.   As one of the women put it, “Chocolate provides guaranteed pleasure.”

Two things about this quote struck me right away:  First, McDonalds and other fast-food franchises have built their businesses on the guarantee of the exact same mediocre experience every time.   Secondly, seems to me a love affair with chocolate need not be an “either-or” proposition.  How about  “and-both.”   In other words, enjoy chocolate and sex together!   Whether or not chocolate arouses us with phenylethylamine and other potent “love chemicals,” it’s a time-honored gift in courtship rituals.

This headline-grabbing study from the Brits is the latest in a marketing push for chocolate that’s been going on all spring.   Anything after this will surely be anticlimactic!  To determine which studies are valid, which justify hope, which are mere hype — and why — would take a book the size of The Whole Soy Story. For now, let me simply share some naughty bytes, starting with two great headlines I found in my email box from Nutra-Ingredients-USA

• “Nestle builds science to support cocoa polyphenol claims”
• “Hershey builds on health portfolio.”

Notice here what Big Choc is “building” –  a “science base” that can help chocolate shed its image as a “bad snack” to emerge as a “health food” with “goodness benefits.”     Just like  the soy industry!   As senior vice president MIchele Buck of Hershey said, “This interest is driving explosive growth.”

To date, most of the health claims for chocolate center on cocoa’s antioxidant capacity.   Although the studies are inconsistent, some evidence does link cocoa’s polyphenols, flavanols and other antioxidants to a positive effect on circulatory system diseases, mental health, Type 2 diabetes, cancer, inflammatory diseases and weight loss.   In March, there was even the headline “Should cocoa flavanol be classed as a ‘vitamin’?   The chocolate industry, of course, has taken this hype straight to the bank.   And with few people warming that for bitter cocoa to taste good and become the chocolate we all love, sugar — sometimes a lot of sugar — goes into the mix.

Scientists not in the employ of Willy Wonka or other chocolate companies remain less convinced.   An article in the April issue of the American Chemical Society’s journal Chemical Research in Toxicology quoted scientists from Rutgers with a sober warning:

“Although consumption of dietary phytochemicals such as flavonoids has been suggested to have beneficial biological effects  including the prevention of cancer and heart disease, there is considerable evidence to suggest that such compounds are not without risk of adverse effects.   The risk of adverse effects is likely increased by the use of pharmacological doses in prevention/treatment and supplement situations . . . that may increase the bioavailability of test compounds.”

Besides the polyphenols found in chocolate, the Rutgers team was concerned about excessive consumption of green tea polyphenols and genistein from soy.  Having personally researched genistein in depth, this definitely resonated with me.   The takeaway: Always look long and hard at the marketing behind any health claims, however impressive they might first appear!

Now what about those British ladies?  Knowing the ins and outs of study design, data recording and conclusions,  I expect they didn’t really say what Cadbury said they said.  [ Sad if really true.]   One thing’s certain though:  when it comes to chocolate, the marketing is way ahead of the science.   In time, that will undoubtedly sort itself out though it may take someone — not me! –  writing The Whole Chocolate Story. In the meantime, The Naughty Nutritionist™ would like to know whether chocolate — presumably dark, unsweetened, traditionally processed cocoa nibs –  was the secret to Montezuma’s legendary reputation as a lover.

Now that we’re talking about chocolate and sex, here’s some Naughty Bits that have been circulating on the internet.  They just might explain what Cadbury’s researchers found:

• Good chocolate is easy to find
• You can make chocolate last as long as you want it to.
• You can bite the nuts as hard as you’d like.
• Chocolate satisfies whether it’s hard or soft.
• The word “commitment” doesn’t faze chocolate.
• You can have chocolate on your desk both during and after office hours.
• And best of all, with chocolate you never, ever need to fake it!

c copyright 2007 Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN

Press Release — November 19, 2007 — If a mother is unable to breastfeed her baby, she can fall back on infant formula from the drug store or supermarket. Products made from soybean protein and from cow’s milk are on sale. Soybeans contain high concentrations of isoflavones. They should, therefore, only be given to infants over longer periods in exceptional, justified cases. Isoflavones are similar to the female hormone oestrogen; however, they have a far weaker effect. Furthermore, soybeans may also contain higher amounts of the plant component, phytate. Professor Dr. Dr. Andreas Hensel, President of the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), comments, “Infant formula and follow-up formula made from soy protein should only be administered on medical grounds and then only under medical supervision.”

Soya formula is prevalent in substances which may have hormone-like effects, the so-called phyto-oestrogens. The two main ones are the isoflavones genistein and daidzein. They have a similar chemical structure to the female hormone oestrogen. Compared to breast milk and to infant formula made from cow’s milk, isoflavones contain relatively high levels of soy protein. Hence far higher isoflavone concentrations were found in the blood of infants given soy than infants given cow’s milk formula or breast milk. Besides isoflavones, soy formula may also contain phytate. The natural plant component can influence the intake of minerals and trace elements.

The impact of the elevated intake of isoflavones on infants has not yet been fully elucidated. In animal experiments there were signs that elevated isoflavone intake affects the development of reproductive organs, the immune system and the thyroid gland. However, the results of animal experiments cannot simply be transposed to humans. For precautionary reasons BfR backs the recommendation of the Nutrition Committee of the German Society for Paediatric and Youth Medicine until further data become available. According to this recommendation, infant formula made from soy is no substitute for cow’s milk products. Babies who are not or not exclusively breastfed should only be given this formula in exceptional, concrete cases on doctor’s advice. Soy formula for infants is not intended for administration to healthy infants.

Possible medical reasons for giving soy formula to infants are, for instance, rare cases of congenital, hereditary lactase deficiency and the equally rare metabolic disease galactosaemia. Lactase intolerance – whether genetic or because of a temporary gastro-intestinal disorder – is not generally a reason for turning to lactase-free infant soy formula. In the case of infants with a cow’s milk allergy, too, the Committee does not recommend soy formula at the start of treatment. Where appropriate, special protein hydrolysates can be used. Soy protein itself can trigger allergic reactions and does not prevent allergic disorders.

If parents reject cow’s milk-based infant formula on ethical or religious grounds, soy formula is one alternative – but only after seeking medical advice.

Please direct any questions about the Institute and its range of services and orders of publications to the Press and Public Relations Office:
Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Press and Public Relations Office, Thielallee 88-92, 14195 Berlin, Fax: +49-30-8412-4970, E-Mail: pressestelle@bfr.bund.de

“It’s a myth that soy prevents breast cancer,” says Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, author of The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food.  “Numerous studies show that soy can cause, contribute to or even accelerate the growth of cancer.”

In spite of the most recent research showing the association between soy products and breast cancer women are still being urged to purposefully increase their consumption of soy milk and soy foods in the mistaken belief that soy will prevent or even cure breast cancer.

Dr. Daniel explains, “The truth is that soy protein contains dangerous levels of plant estrogens.  Although not identical to human estrogens, these have been proven to increase breast cell proliferation, a widely accepted marker of breast cancer risk.”

“The soy industry consistently plays down the evidence that soy can promote breast cancer,” says Dr. Daniel.  “It is even using Breast Cancer Awareness Month as an excuse to push its products on unsuspecting women.”

Companies using Breast Cancer Awareness Month as part of their marketing efforts include Vitasoy, which has launched a breast health education initiative that includes giving away soy milk in bright pink containers – called “Pinkies” -  to women attending Breast Cancer Awareness Month activities such as the upcoming Komen Races for the Cure in Boston and Miami.

“The soy industry also heavily promotes the myth that Asians have lower rates of breast cancer because of soy consumption,” says Dr. Daniel.  “In fact, Asians eat soy in very small quantities, as a condiment in the diet and not as a staple food.  What’s more, they eat old-fashioned, whole soybean products such as miso, tempeh, natto and tofu, not the new heavily processed products marketed by the soy industry such as soy milk, veggie burgers and ‘energy bars.’”

Dr Daniel points to a Japanese study published this month in the journal, Cancer Causes and Control, in which researchers at Nagoya University showed that soy consumption offers no protection and has no effect on breast cancer risk.

“The researchers were curious as to whether Asians enjoy lower rates of breast cancer because of their soy consumption,” she says.  “Using data from the Japan Collaborative Cohort (JACC) they examined whether soy foods really have a protective effect.   They found that Asians on high soy diets did not have a lower incidence of breast cancer.  Clearly it’s time to credit other dietary and lifestyle factors for their lower rates of breast cancer.”

Leading scientists and government agencies share Dr. Daniel’s concern.  The Israeli Health Ministry has advised women to “exercise caution” when it comes to soy consumption because of increased breast cancer risk.

The French Food Agency will soon require warning labels on soy milk and other soy foods because of the risks to women who’ve been diagnosed with – or have a family history of – breast cancer.

In the U.S., Cornell University’s Center for Breast Cancer and Environmental Risk Factors has examined the evidence on soy and phytoestrogen-containing herbs such as black cohosh and warned women not to self medicate with soy foods or soy supplements.

“The risks are well established.  Soy is clearly not the answer for breast cancer prevention,” concludes Dr. Daniel.   “The evidence is mounting that soy may even be part of the problem.”

AVAILABILITY: Nationwide by arrangement and via telephone

CONTACT: Kathleen M. Campbell, Campbell Public Relations, LLC, 877-540-6022: kcampbell@thecompletesolution.com

About the author

Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN, is THE WHOLE NUTRITIONIST®. She earned her PhD in Nutritional Sciences and Anti-Aging Therapies from the Union Institute and University in Cincinnati, is 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, OD, Debra Lynn Dadd and Larry Dossey, MD, who called it “science writing at its best.”

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/022224.html#ixzz1GbKVAmRx

That’s the word from the British
Medical Journal, which recently published findings about the risks of sterol­containing
margarines and yogurts. Once regarded as the waste products of the wood pulping or
soybean industries, plant sterols are now proving profitable as cholesterol-­lowering

ingredients added to a variety of nutraceutical foods and drinks.
As reported in the BMJ, sterols can trigger adverse reactions in people taking statin
drugs. This occurs because both sterols and statins lower cholesterol, thus causing
potentially dangerous dosage problems. In addition, plant sterols can increase heart
disease risk by thickening the arteries. As I documented in The Whole Soy Story,
consumers should also be concerned about hormonal disruption as sterols are
estrogenic.
In Australia and New Zealand, sterol-­containing “functional foods” must carry warning
labels, advising against their use by pregnant women and children.
It will be interesting to see if concerns about other nutraceuticals surface in the future. I
am particularly concerned about “functional foods” for menopause such as
soy­”enhanced” cereals and breads. Proponents of “functional foods” and “functional
drinks” argue that they allow people to eat and drink more “healthfully” without radically
changing their diet. But as the BMJ noted, “at best they are likely to be technical fixes,
and at worst, another confounding factor that nutritional epidemiologists will have to
unravel for years to come.””    Source www.bmj.com

For  more details about the dangers of sterol-enriched margarines  read “Toxins on your Toast”  by Valerie James of Soy Online Service, NZ, posted at  www.westonaprice.org.

DATING GAMES FOR TOFU

The theme for this year’s L.A. Tofu Festival held last month was finding Tofu’s “perfect
match.” To this end, hundreds of ingredients went on “blind dates” with Tofu and soon
after gave birth to “an exciting assortment of specialty dishes.” Or so the publicists
would like us to believe.”

Among the winning propositions:

• “Can I get a scoop on you?” ­­ –  NiceCream

• “Do you find me a­peeling?” — ­­­ Bananafana

• “I bean waiting for you all my life.” — BeanyBaby

• “I’m ready to add substance to someone’s bland existence.” ­­ — SoyMeetsGirl

• “I’m looking for someone who needs some spice and substance in the frying pan.”  — Vegan 17

• “You can meet me at my place or we can soy each other wherever you like.” — TheSoyWonder

• “I’m adventurous and willing to experiment.” –ToFujii

• “Don’t forget to use a condiment.” –­­ SaucySoy

Interesting indeed given the fact that Tofu was welcome at Zen monasteries to help monks maintain their vows of celibacy.

©copyright 2007  Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN

Note to readers:    If you liked this column, you might also enjoy my piece  Soy Naughty: 69 Weird and  Wickedly Funny Facts about Soy, which includes  The Naughty Nutritionist’s ™ take on  Tofuzilla and other spongy characters  from earlier festivals.  Truth is stranger than fiction.  I did not make these up!

“I’ll admit, when I read that headline on Fox News a few days ago, I got a good chuckle
out of it, especially when I read the “why” behind this voluntary sexual exile — it’s
because vegans consider the bodies of meat ­eaters to be “a graveyard for animals.” Of
all the outlandish things I’ve heard in my 81 years, this one’s up there with the best of
the best. I don’t know if this New Zealand phenomenon has extended beyond the
island’s borders or not, but it’s widespread enough there to warrant an official name for
these weirdoes. They’re called vegansexuals.

One vegansexual said, “I believe we are what we consume, so I really struggle with
non­vegans when it comes to sexual contact.” Another said, “I would not want to be
intimate with someone whose body is literally made up from the bodies of animals who
have died for their sustenance.”

Oh brother. I think all that processed soybean junk food has gone to their heads — and
their sex organs, too. The research is in, and it’s alarming: Veganism from birth causes
mal development of sex organs in males. (Read The Whole Soy Story to get the scoop.
You’ll be astounded.)

Next thing you know, vegans will be cutting out sex altogether, which, come to think of it,
wouldn’t be much of a stretch. And that’s what I think this story is REALLY about. It’s not
so much that vegans don’t want to have sex with meat­eaters — it’s that they can’t
handle being partnered up with someone who actually has a sex drive.””    ­­ Source:
Daily Dose, August 21, 2007.”    To subscribe, www.douglassreport.com/dailydose/
freecopy.html

As The Naughty Nutritionist™ gotta LOVE Dr. Douglass!
Other omnivores have also shown a great sense of humor.”    One blogger said he
would consider the body of a vegan to be a “rotting compost pile of vegetables.”” This
Naughty Nutritionist ™says “No­Fu” to bodies built of tofu (whether soft or firm).

I was once a vegan. But well before I became pregnant, I concluded that a vegan pregnancy was irresponsible. You cannot create and nourish a robust baby merely on foods from plants.

Indigenous cuisines offer clues about what humans, naturally omnivorous, need to survive, reproduce and grow: traditional vegetarian diets, as in India, invariably include dairy and eggs for complete protein, essential fats and vitamins. There are no vegan societies for a simple reason: a vegan diet is not adequate in the long run.

Protein deficiency is one danger of a vegan diet for babies. Nutritionists used to speak of proteins as “first class” (from meat, fish, eggs and milk) and “second class” (from plants), but today this is considered denigrating to vegetarians.

The fact remains, though, that humans prefer animal proteins and fats to cereals and tubers, because they contain all the essential amino acids needed for life in the right ratio. This is not true of plant proteins, which are inferior in quantity and quality — even soy.

A vegan diet may lack vitamin B12, found only in animal foods; usable vitamins A and D, found in meat, fish, eggs and butter; and necessary minerals like calcium and zinc. When babies are deprived of all these nutrients, they will suffer from retarded growth, rickets and nerve damage.

Responsible vegan parents know that breast milk is ideal. It contains many necessary components, including cholesterol (which babies use to make nerve cells) and countless immune and growth factors. When breastfeeding isn’t possible, soy milk and fruit juice, even in seemingly sufficient quantities, are not safe substitutes for a quality infant formula.

Yet even a breast-fed baby is at risk. Studies show that vegan breast milk lacks enough docosahexaenoic acid, or DHA, the omega-3 fat found in fatty fish. It is difficult to overstate the importance of DHA, vital as it is for eye and brain development.

A vegan diet is equally dangerous for weaned babies and toddlers, who need plenty of protein and calcium. Too often, vegans turn to soy, which actually inhibits growth and reduces absorption of protein and minerals. That’s why health officials in Britain, Canada and other countries express caution about soy for babies. (Not here, though — perhaps because our farm policy is so soy-friendly.)

Historically, diet honored tradition: we ate the foods that our mothers, and their mothers, ate. Now, your neighbor or sibling may be a meat-eater or vegetarian, may ferment his foods or eat them raw. This fragmentation of the American menu reflects admirable diversity and tolerance, but food is more important than fashion. Though it’s not politically correct to say so, all diets are not created equal.

An adult who was well-nourished in utero and in infancy may choose to get by on a vegan diet, but babies are built from protein, calcium, cholesterol and fish oil. Children fed only plants will not get the precious things they need to live and grow.

Nina Planck is the author of “Real Food: What to Eat and Why.”

*  *  *  *  *

© copyright 2006  Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN

Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN, is The Whole Nutritionis® and The Naughty Nutritionist™ because she outrageously and humorously debunks nutritional myths.   Her discovery that soy is not a health food led her to debunk that myth by  researching and writing The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food.  For more information and to contact Dr. Daniel, visit her website www.wholesoystory.com.     She lives in Santa Fe, NM.

by Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN
The Naughty Nutritionist™

1, The Los Angeles Tofu Festival this year stars a blocky “Mr Tofu,” a spongy fun guy who says “it’s hip to be square.” Has soy fried his brain or have things changed since I took geometry in 1967? Looks like a cube to me!

2. Last year’s mascot was Tofuzilla, a giant blob who descended on Little Tokyo, which fortunately is still standing.

3. Before that Ninja Tofu bid us “unleash the SECRET POWER of tofu.” A secret all right!

4. All those guys are anticlimactic though after “Fresh Naked Tofu” of 2003. PG rated, of course, due to missing naughty bits. Not the kind of guy equipped
“to fu . .”

5. For next year’s festival, I propose “Sponge Brain, Square Pants” in honor of the incredible shrinking brains scientists have found among tofu-eating elders.

6. Seriously, there was nothing sexy about tofu’s invention. Lord Liu-An of Hua-nan China, was a ruler and inventor committed to adding a low-cost protein to the vegetarian monastic diet.

7. Soon after, the aptly named “meat without a bone” appeared on monastery menus as an aid to spiritual development and sexual abstinence.

8. Seems the monks noticed that when tofu consumption went up, the naughty behavior went down!

9. And that’s why Japanese wives serve extra helpings of soy to straying husbands.

10. What else might soy be good for? Feeding politicians with the zipper problem, of course.

11. Just think if Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky had eaten soy. It could have saved a lot of embarrassment to his presidency.

12. Taking thyroid medications? Don’t eat soy or at least don’t eat at the same time. Doctors know that can cause a “push-pull” effect on the thyroid that can stress it out, and even cause a “blow out.”

13. Similarly, men taking the little blue pills shouldn’t eat the little yellow beans. With so much push pull and stress on the male endowment, it could wag right off.

14. As for Viagra, rumor has it The FDA went looking for a generic name. After careful consideration, it announced that it has settled on Mycoxafloppin. Also considered were Mycoxafailin, Mydixadrupin, Mydixarizin, Dixafix, and, of course, Ibepokin.

15 Okay, that last entry is fiction. Found it on the internet somewhere and don’t know whom to credit. Back to the facts, the Israeli Health Ministry wants its citizens to obey the Biblical injunction to “be fruitful and multiply” and has warned parents and pediatricians to limit consumption of soy foods for young children and adults and for babies to avoid soy formula altogether. The reason for their concern: soy’s known contribution to infertility.

16. And now the French kiss of death for soy: Out this month, the French Food Agency wants warning labels on packages of soy food and soy milk, particularly products marketed to children.

17. But soy was one of the Five Sacred Gains of ancient China, right? Yes, indeed, but it was not honored as a food — like rice, millet, barley and wheat — but as a “green manure” with nitrogen fixing roots. Soy as a food came much later in human evolution, in China around the second to fourth century BC.

18. Over in Japan around 500 AD, the goddess Oketsuhime Mikoto gave birth to fermented soybeans for the benefit of future generations. Was that a “virgin birth”?

19. Asians traditionally used whole soy foods thogh soy oil was extracted in the good old days. Not for cooking but for kerosene type lamps, to make soap, caulk boats grease axles and lubricate machinery. Seems the real men didn’t want to be anywhere near it because the soy oil making was done by eunuchs in the palaces.

20. As for the leftover soy protein, the eunuchs fed it to the palace animals to fatten them up as quickly as possible.

21. President Sukarno of Indonesia once admonished his fellow citizens, “Don’t be a tempeh nation.” Although people of all classes ate this indigenous dish, Sukarno and others of his class considered it a food for the poor.

22. Soy went west when traders, missionaries, botanists and other travelers brought soybeans back from China and Japan. Guess what they used it for: mostly ballast on ships. Or as a culinary or horticultural curiosity.

23. In 17th century France, soy sauce became the “secret seasoning” used to fuel romantic intrigue at court banquets.

24. In the U.S., soy was heavily promoted by Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, a married man and lifelong virgin who regularly warned followers that sex was not only immoral but health depleting.

25. Henry Ford produced a Soymobile out of soy plastic but failed to strengthen that plastic with spinach. Or improve its smell with soy sauce.

26. Indeed it smelled so bad drivers wouldn’t take it as a gift. Seems it had a “strong odor reminiscent of a mortuary.” Guess we could say Ford’s carma ran over his dogma!

27. Ford often appeared in public sporting a tie made of soy fiber, and he once made a pubic appearance in a suit tailored out of soybean-fiber cloth. Although the Detroit Times reported, “He is as delighted as a boy with his first pair of long pants,” the truth was another soy story. The suit was itchy when dry, smelled like a wet dog when damp, and was so prone to ripping that he could not bend over or cross his legs.

28. Vegetarian Adolf Hitler was a fan of soy, but considered soy margarine “unnatural.”

29. The Communist party in the Soviet Union once pushed soy protein and soy margarines as the solution to low-cost feeding of the masses and called the soybean “our young revolutionary Chinese ally.”

30. In 1973 Richard Nixon went to Japan and alienated US soybean farmers by confessing he had never seen, much less eaten, a soybean.

31. Soybeans quite naturally taste beany and greasy with bitter aftertastes and other deal breakers. Hardworking food scientists though have found ingenious ways to make soybeans palatable with sugar and other additives. The tasks are many: to improve and disguise the color, flavor, “bite characteristics,” “mouth feel” and aftertaste.

32, Even the soy boys admit their products are missing something. As a booster told a writer for the New Yorker in 1985, “There’s something about the soybean that just seems to put a lot of people off. You know if soybeans are in storage along with cereals, rats will always eat the soybeans last. Even the rats don’t like us.”

33. Nabil Said, PhD, Director of Research and Development at Insta-Pro invented a “value added “ product made of animal poop and soy protein that was transformed into an animal chow. Although Said finds this development exciting, fears of mad cow disease and other problems have kept bean turd production small.

34. The 1973 movie Soylent Green starring Charleton Heston is a cult classic. That too featured a revolutionary “value added” product — soy protein improved with ground up human corpses — which led to the shocking ending: “Soylent Green IS PEOPLE!”

35. Our FDA approved a soy-prevents-heart disease health claim in 1999 yet keeps a “Poisonous Plant Database” in which there are nearly 300 references to soy. Does the left hand there know what the right hand’s doing?

36. In his Far Side collection Unnatural Selections, cartoonist Gary Larson appeals to tofu haters everywhere when he depicts a hunting scene with the punch line, “in sudden disgust, the three lionesses realized they had killed a tofudebeest — one of the Serengeti’s most obnoxious health antelopes.”

37. The satirical magazine The Onion — “America’s Finest News Source” — offers up “13 of the most popular items for meat-shunning Americans,” to wit: “Approximeat, Roast Almost, Prosciuttofu, Rocky Mountain Soysters, Kielbeancurdasa, Soystrami, Misteak, Fake-un Double Cheesebulghur, Neauseages, Mockwurst, I Can’t Believe It’s Not a Dead Animal, “Tofuck You, Meat Lover, Nofu– The Tofu Substitute.”

38. Natto’s a healthy soyfood, but so odoriferous that many Japanese restaurants require natto eaters to sit apart from other patrons.

39. Is soy milk made in Willy Wonka’s Soymilk Factory? Measure the sugar in a glass of soy milk and it will weigh in at anywhere from a teaspoon to more than a tablespoon.

40. Vegan soy cheese products incur the wrath of reviewers, who have described these imitations as “barely edible,” “yukky,” “disgusting,” “plastic,” “rubbery” and “smelling like old, stinky socks” Yum!

41. Don’t like the flavor and aroma of traditional soy foods? The soy industry plans to come out soon with a “Non-PU Bean.” The LSTAR hybrid soybean is on its way,“naturally deodorized “ and readymade for food manufacturers who wish to eliminate that embarrassing inner bean odor and put greater amounts of soy flour and soy oil into food products.

42. American ingenuity has created ersatz meat and dairy products with names like Soysage, Not Dogs, Fakin’ Bacon, Sham Ham, Soyloin, Veat, Wham, Tuno, Bolono, Foney Baloney and, just the thing for a vegan Thanksgivingl, Tofurky.

43. As for ersatz dairy, think Ice Bean, Hip Whip and Tofurella.

44. Humorist Dave Barry has described a soyburger as “a well-constructed extremely cylindrical frozen unit of brown foodlike substance. Dave recommended it highly to anyone who either “needed more soy” or wanted a “backup hockey puck.”

45. Back in 1979, the US military dictated precise specifications for purchase of 60 million pounds of ground beef extended with soy protein concentrate at a level of 20 percent. The military approved SPC — even though it is considerably more expensive than soy flour — for two reasons: “better taste and lower flatulence potential.”

46. In an episode of The Simpsons, Lisa, the vegetarian, goes to a vending machine for a snack and buys a “Soy Joy” energy bar. The wrapper does more than make inflated health claims, it boasts “Now with gag suppressor.”

47. “Eat Here, Get Gas.” Many health experts believe soy burgers, soy hot dogs, TVP chili and other modern soy products provide high octane fuel. Figures released by the American Oil Chemists Association prove them right! SPI (soy protein isolate — the ingredient you most often find in veggie burgers, energy bars and other modern products — contains some 38 petroleum compounds including, but not limited to: butyl, methyl and ethyl esters of fatty acids, phenols, diphenyls and phenl esters, abietic acid derivatives, diehydroabietinal, hexanal and 2-butyl-2-octenal aldehydes; dehydroabietic acid methyl ester; dehydroabietene and abietatriene. The American Oil Chemists Association did not provide data on what kind of mileage soy eaters can expect.

48. In the late 1970s, the Federation of the American Society for Experimental Biology (FASEB) concluded that the only safe use for soy protein isolates was as a binder and sealer for cardboard boxes. No one then would have ever guessed soy protein isolate would be the product sold in those boxes!

49. Afraid to eat up that soy oil in your cupboard? You needn’t throw it out even though it’s sure to be rancid. Joseph Mazzela, an eighth grader who exhibited at the 2002 California State Science Fair, proved old vegetable oils can shine as lubricants for skateboards, bikes, boats, cars or door hinges.

50. In 1967 North Dakota legislators pressed for a law that would have forced margarine manufacturers to dye it pink or green. Yellow was reserved for real butter, and legislators thought it best that consumers not be fooled.

51. Robert Novak a medical entomologist at the University of Illinois, reports soy oil is an excellent mosquito killer. If that seems unfair to mosquitoes, consider this buzz from the soy industry: that soy could later save them from developing cancer, heart disease, hot flashes and osteoporosis!

52. And now “The Mysterious Case of the Squirt Attacks.” A Brisbane, Australia, man was arrested for repeatedly squirting soy sauce at another man in a shopping mall. The victim told police he did not know the man or agree to — or in any way encourage — a soy sauce squirting game. The soy sauce assailant refused to talk to police or explain his behavior in court. He was ordered to pay $300 so the man could buy a soy-free new pair of trousers and pay a fine of $150.

53. Soy is an incomparable gas producer — the King of Musical Fruits. Accordingly research dollars have poured into studies with titles such as “Flavor and flatulence factors in soybean protein products,” “Effects of various soybean products on flatulence in the adult man,” and “Development of a technique for the in vivo assessment of flatulence in dogs.”

54. About those studies . . . test subjects have included rats, college students and other animals. “Containment devices” have included gas tight pantaloons sealed to the skin at the waist and thighs using duct tape and equipped with two ports.

55. Soy eaters who complain that their favorite foods make them gain weight and pass gas at the same time will soon have their prayers answered with a hot, new product named Thermobean. It’s a gas-suppressing legume-protein formula that’s literally full of beans — and the enzymes that will not only make those beans behave but go to work fueling your body generator.

56. Get wind of this! Texas inventor Frank Lathrop came up with the perfect solution to the soy flatulence problem — a seat cushion known as the Toot Trapper Billed as a “reverse whoopee cushion,” it is packed with a carbon air filter that is guaranteed to absorb odors and stop toots in their tracks.

57. Pandas in zoos have problems mating and becoming pregnant. Rather than look at the soy in the panda diet, however, the researchers are doing behavioral therapy and even showing the pandas videos of humping pandas.

58. Like edamame, those green vegetable soybeans found in the freezer case at your store? The Chinese considered them useful to kill bad or evil chi

60. Bumper sticker time: “Soy, Aspartame, Vioxx – FDA Approved!”

61. “Soy – Not Worth Beans!”

62. “No Soy is Good Soy!

63. “Soy Infant Formula – Formula for Disaster.”

64. “Real Men Don’t Eat Tofu!”

65. “Oy, Soy, Veh!”

66. And for the naughty among us, “I Love To Fu” (though enough soy will eventually stop the “fu-ing.”

67. Gotta stop thinking about soy. Going crazy. Soy loco!

68. Time to go “cold tufurky.”

69. Christmas 2006 coming up soon. No Soy to the World!

© copyright 2006 Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN

Kaayla T. Daniel PhD, CCN, is The Whole Nutritionist® and The Naughty Nutritionist™ She is the author of The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food (New Trends, 2005) where many of these facts first appeared. A popular guest on radio and television, she looks forward to reporting on next year’s Los Angeles Tofu Festival, where she hopes to meet Mr. Tofu and write a “tell all” about him. She can be reached at 505-984-2093 and wholenutritionist@earthlink.net. Her website is www.wholesoystory.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FRENCH GOVERNMENT TO REQUIRE WARNING LABELS ON SOY FOODS
Albuquerque, NM: The French Food Agency (AFSSA) has announced tough new regulations that will require manufacturers to improve the safety of soy infant formula and to put warning labels on packages of soy foods and soy milk.
“The French Food Agency has acted with wisdom and courage,” said Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, author of The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food. “The new regulations will require manufacturers to remove the isoflavones from soy infant formula.    This will greatly improve product safety and protect soy­fed babies from the damage that plant estrogens can cause to their developing bodies and brains.    The French will also require warning labels on packages of soy foods and soy milk that will alert consumers to the risks for children under 3, children with hypothyroidism and women who have been diagnosed with or have a family history of breast cancer. ”
Mariette Gerber, MD, PhD, Professor at the Center of Cancer Research in Montpelier, discussed the new regulations at the “Sixth International Symposium on the Role of Soy in Preventing and Treating Chronic Disease” and at a special one­day symposium entitled “Effects of Soy on Growth and Development: How Much Do We Know” held in Chicago late October and early November.    “The Agency’s primary concern was the isoflavones in soy,” she said. “We have recommended a drastic decrease in the isoflavone content of soy infant formula to get it as low as possible, to one part per million.” “We will not require that isoflavones be removed from regular soy foods and soy milk but such products must carry a warning label with the security limits we’ve set of 1 mg per kg of body weight per day.    The food label must address special risks to children below 3 years of age, children treated for hypothyroiditis and to women with a previous history of breast cancer and/or a history of familial breast cancer.”
Dr. Gerber said that the Agency has not yet determined when the new regulation will go into effect, but that the Agency considers it a priority.    Although industry representatives at the symposium stated that the reducing isoflavone levels down to 1 ppm was impossible, Dr. Gerber noted that Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) and other companies have routinely provided isoflavone­free products for use in clinical and laboratory testing. “It is their problem,” she said. “If pediatricians do not recommend soy formula any more, they will have to change.” When industry representatives scoffed that even onions contained possible health hazards, Dr. Gerber retorted,” Do you feed infants with only onions?”
The French Food Agency is the first government agency to require the removal of isoflavones from soy infant formula and the first to require warning labels on soy foods.    Last summer the Israeli Health Ministry warned its citizens that babies should not receive soy formula, that children to age 18 should eat soy no more than once per day to a maximum of three times per week and that adults should exercise caution because of adverse effects on fertility and increased breast cancer risk. In the U.S., soy is still widely regarded as a health food, though the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Reform and Quality issued a report last September stating that the majority of studies on soy and health are inconsistent, contradictory, of poor quality and of limited clinical value.
“Clearly, the French Food Agency believes in the precautionary principle of ‘Better Safe than Sorry,’” said Dr. Daniel. “I hope their action will encourage other government agencies to alert their citizens to the fact that it is myth that soy is a ‘health food’ and that there are very real dangers to babies, children and women at risk for breast cancer.”
*****

CONTACT: Deborah Kohan, PLANNED TELEVISION ARTS, 212­593­5885 Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN, 505­266­3252 wholenutritionist@earthlink.net www.wholesoystory.com

• Propaganda Officer: Help the FDA create and spread information that discredits products,  companies and ideas that threaten FDA control.  No scientific background necessary.

• Science Censor: Bury scientific findings that harm the prestige and credibility of the FDA.

• Chief Oppression Officer: Conduct armed raids on places where dangerous criminals are teaching patients about nutrition.

• Kickback Coordinator: Keep tabs on FDA managers’ investments in pharmaceutical companies.  Criminal background preferred.  Mob ties are a plus.

• Morale Officer: Keep FDA employees in line to boost morale and work efficiently.

• Public Safety Program Director: Not really a full-time job. In fact, you don’t even need to show up.

Darn! The Naughty NutritionistTM here thought she could serve in the kick back position but it’s just not her kind of kicking back!

Not much of this press though is amusing. Newsweek (May wrote that children
given rice milks and soy milks are showing signs of malnutrition associated with children
in third world countries.    And The Daily Mail in the United Kingdom ran with the title “Is
soya a has-bean?
Unfortunately , the Wall Street Journal continues to steer clear of the soy controversy. It
has even ignored major business news such as plummeting sales in Israel due to the
Israeli Health Ministry’s warning that babies should not receive soy formula, that
children under 18 should eat soy no more than once per day to a maximum of three
times per week and that adults should exercise caution because of adverse effects on
fertility and increased breast cancer risk. Likewise, not a word in the WSJ about French
regulations that will require manufacturers to remove soy isoflavones from infant
formula and to put warning labels on soy milk and soy foods advising consumers of
risks to children under 3, children with thyroid disease and women who have been
diagnosed with or have a family history of breast cancer.! The WSJ‘s health columnist
Tara Parker-Pope, however, did write in a column that soy eaten during adolescence
might prevent breast cancer.!    Although a study by Anna Wu did link soy to reduced
risk of breast cancer in Chinese, Japanese and Filipino- Americans, it failed to properly consider other dietary and lifestyle factors.

© copyright 2006 Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN

Dr. Daniel is the Whole Nutritionist® and The Naughty Nutritionist.™   She is the author of The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food (New Trends, 2005).

In fact, neither Dr. Weil nor anyone else has completely solved this problem. The obvious solution is to steer clear of soy. Since the average American prefers to do just that, the soy industry has acknowledged that the “flatulence factor” must be overcome if soyfoods are ever to become a major part of the American diet.2,3
Accordingly, research dollars have poured into studies with titles such as “Flavor and flatulence factors in soybean protein products,” “Effects of various soybean products on flatulence in the adult man,” “Development of a technique for the in vivo assessment of flatulence in dogs” and so forth. Studies comparing types of soyfoods (tempeh, tofu, soy protein isolate, etc.) and/or different strains of soybeans (hybrid or genetically engineered) in terms of their flatulence potential are commonplace. Test subjects have included rats, college students and other animals. “Containment devices” have included gas-tight pantaloons sealed to the skin at the waist and thighs using duct tape and equipped with two ports. Qualified scientists have measured numbers of incidences per hour and day: the quantities of gas ejected per incident, the proportions of hydrogen, methane, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, methanethiol and other gases; and even propulsion force and noise levels. In addition, researchers have called on professional “odor judges” to make subjective measurements of bodily emissions.   I may be a Naughty Nutritionist™ but  truth is stranger than fiction here and I am NOT making these up.
Despite these fine efforts, scientists have not completely identified the “flatulence factor” in soybeans and can propose only partial solutions.
THE TWO STOOGES: RAF AND STACH

The chief culprit, as with all beans, is the oligosaccharides in the carbohydrate portion. The word oligosaccharides comes from oligo (few) and saccharides (sugars). The best known oligosaccharides in beans are raffinose and stachyose. They require the enzyme alpha-galactosidase to be digested properly. Unfortunately, humans and other mammals do not come so equipped.
The result is that the pair–whom we’ll call Raf and Stach–pass through the small intestine unscathed to arrive in the large intestine, where they are attacked by armies of hungry bacteria. The digestive fermentation that takes place always results in gas and sometimes in odor. The precise amount and specific smell varies widely from person to person and also depends upon gender, age and the demographics of each individual’s gut population.4 Several reports indicate that the increased availability of flatulent foods causes anaerobic bacteria to reproduce. Eating more such foods results in a “rapid rate of gas production,” with the possibility of faster, more explosive results every time additional foods of this ilk appear in the intestine.5-7
Although a few people seem able to eat soy without gassing up, studies on soybean digestion often refer to “excessive volume” and “noxious odor.” Malodorous methane (CH4) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) gases are produced in greater amounts by infants fed soy formula.8 The highly volatile and toxic H2S has been linked to many intestinal disorders, particularly ulcerative colitis.9
Over the years scientists have done their darndest to find a way to either reduce the presence of Raf and Stach in soybean products or to cut out the entire carbohydrate load. Carbohydrates in soy generally constitute 30 percent of the bean and break down into soluble sugars of sucrose (5 percent), stachyose (4 percent), raffinose (1 percent) and insoluble fiber (20 percent). The insoluble fiber consists of cellulose and pectins, which are not digested by the enzymes of the GI tract, and which absorb water and swell considerably. Unlike other beans, soybean carbohydrate contains very little starch (which humans can digest)–less than 1 percent.10,11
Neither home cooking nor high-temperature industrial heating processes dispatch Raf and Stach. They are stubbornly heat stable. However, germination, which occurs during the fermentation process, will dramatically reduce the amount of these sugars, with a complete disappearance of the oligosaccharides on the third day. Incubation with microrganisms or enzymes derived from microorganisms also has this good effect.12 Thus, old-fashioned soy products such as miso, tempeh and natto rarely cause gas but modern, heat-processed products that still contain the carbohydrate portion of the bean (soy flour, for example) create copious amounts. Among the modern processed products, soy protein concentrate is said to produce the least gas because its carbohydrate portion has been extracted by alcohol. Soy protein isolate (SPI) is almost pure protein and thus considered practically free of “flatulence factors.” 13-17
In theory, tofu should be a low gas producer because oligosaccharides concentrate in the whey (the soaking liquid) and not the curds (the part sold as tofu).18 Some Raf and Stach remain, however, and tofu is a gas producer for many consumers. The probable reason is that the product is eaten in such large quantities that even the small proportion of Raf and Stach that remain in the curd are enough to set off a feeding frenzy among colon bacteria.
In fact, science confirms the anecdotes of many soy consumers–that eating a little soy produces minimal gas, but eating just a bit more can result in discomfort or embarrassment. A study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition showed no significant increase in flatus frequency after ingestion of 34 grams (about two tablespoons) of soymilk, but a major increase after 80 grams (about one-third cup). The researchers found that as the rate of gas production in the colon increased, smaller proportions were absorbed by the body and larger amounts expelled through the rectum.19 Thus, it is no wonder that soy consumption can so easily become a social problem. To make matters worse, soy inhibits a zinc-containing enzyme known as carbonic anhydrase, which helps transport gases across the intestinal wall. If carbonic anhydrase is neutralized, gas builds up in the colon. Hydrogen sulfide in the cecum has been reduced fivefold by supplementing with zinc, a mineral blocked by the phytates in soy and in short supply anyway in many soy-eaters’ diets.20
The question remains why certain individuals experience stupendous amounts of gas even when they consume soyfoods that are virtually devoid of Raf and Stach. Imbalances in gut flora caused by trypsin inhibitors (which inhibit protein digestion) may be part of the problem, though undigested protein itself is not. Circulating levels of insulin, gastrin, gastric inhibitory polypeptide, pancreatic polypeptide and neurotensin are affected by trypsin inhibitors, but do not seem involved in flatulent dyspepsia.21
Soy-food eaters who suffer from truly excessive amounts of gas may be victims of undiagnosed soy allergies or sensitivities, and/or celiac disease. Obvious allergic symptoms to soy include sneezing, runny nose, hives, diarrhea, facial swelling, swollen tongue, shortness of breath and anaphylactic shock. Delayed allergic responses are less dramatic but even more common, and may manifest as gastrointestinal disturbances, including excess gas. Diarrhea, bloating and flatulence in celiac sufferers result not only from the consumption of wheat gluten and dairy products, but from even tiny amounts of soy.22 Soy saponins and lectins, which damage the mucosal lining of the intestine, may also be contributing to these gas and bloating problems.
RUNNING OUT OF GAS

One solution proposed by the soy industry is genetically modified strains of soybeans that are low in the two stooges Raf and Stach. Plant scientists have already developed a strain known as “High Sucrose Soybeans” that contains more sucrose and less indigestible carbohydrates than ordinary beans. It also lacks the lipoxygenase-2 enyzme that gives soy its infamous “beany” taste. The industry hopes that the modified bean, with taste improved and flatulence eliminated, will be popular with makers of soy milk and tofu.23,24
Another possibility–not seriously proposed for humans–is antibiotics. Animal studies have shown that antibiotics destroy anaerobic bacteria in the intestinal tract that eat Raf and Stach and cause gas, thus improving the smell of chicken coops and barnyards.25
FULL OF BEANO

Until such “low gas” beans come on the market, soy proponents recommend that afflicted parties take Beano™ with their soy. This was the solution proposed by soy industry spokeswoman Clare Hasler, PhD, to a consumer who said he enjoyed eating tofu and drinking soymilk but wondered what to do about levels of gas that were “almost too embarrassing to discuss” and which made him unable to “stand the smell of myself.”26 Beano™ is an over-the-counter supplement containing alpha galactosidase, the enzyme required to break down the raffish oligosaccharides into simple digestible sugars. Sometimes this works, but many times it doesn’t. Beano™ will not reduce gas caused by soy allergies or intolerances, or by celiac disease.
The best solution for people who wish to eat soy is to choose old-fashioned fermented soy products like miso, tempeh and natto. With soaking and fermenting, the content of the oligosaccharides decreases while the levels of alpha-galactosidase increase.27 Proper preparation helps reduce trypsin inhibitors, saponins and other contributors to indigestion and to bowel disturbances, along with the gas-producing duo Raf and Stach.
For gas-afflicted folks who are addicted to the taste of tofu or to modern soy products, there is one other solution–a seat cushion packed with a charcoal filter. The medical journal Gut recently reviewed this product favorably, concluding that it “effectively limits the escape of these sulfur-containing gases into the environment.”28 Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology further recommended the cushion as a viable solution for “the noxious odor associated with flatus,” saying that “the charcoal cushion may improve patients’ symptoms.”29 Taking charcoal internally will not do the trick. 30
FLATUS WITH STATUS

Meanwhile, the soy industry has begun singing its version of the popular childhood song “The more you toot, the better you feel. Let’s eat soy with every meal.” Gas–we are being told–could be a good thing, and consumers might wish to reconsider their long-standing request for a new and improved “low gas” soy.
As Mark Messina,.PhD, puts it, “there may be some beneficial effects associated with oligosaccharide consumption. Because of their growth-promoting effect on bifidobacteria, the oligosaccharides might promote the health of the colon, increase longevity and decrease colon cancer risk.”31 This observation totally ignores research showing that the trypsin inhibitors present in soybeans adversely affect gut flora and allow more pathogenic strains to establish in the intestine32 and confuses the nasty oligosaccharides in soy with another type of oligosaccharides known as the fructooligo-saccharides consumers have used effectively to feed friendly bacteria and promote gastrointestinal health. Despite considerable evidence to the contrary, Dr. Messina would prefer to believe that since soy is a good thing, then the soy constituents Raf and Stach help feed good (never bad) bacteria and produce only the finest, healthiest gas.  What that might do to one’s sex life, he does not say!
Should consumers remain unconvinced, the industry still proposes to benefit. Japanese researchers have come up with a new miracle supplement– soybean oligosaccharides in powder form to be used as a substitute for table sugar and sprinkled directly on foods.33
Do hold your breath.
REFERENCES
Question sent on November 2, 1998 by Lynn Willeford, Associate Editor of Dr. Andrew Weil’s Self Healing newsletter, to Clare Hasler at the “Ask an Expert” StratSoy website, which is sponsored by the United Soybean Board and developed at the University of Illinois at Champaign.
Suarez FL, Springfield J, et al. Gas production in humans ingesting a soybean flour derived from beans naturally low in oligosaccharides, Am J Clin Nutr, 1999, 69,1, 135-139.
Visser A, Thomas A. Review: soya protein products, their processing, functionality and application aspects. Food Rev Inter, 1987, 3 (1&2), 1-32.
Liener IE. Implications of antinutritional components in soybean foods, Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr, 1994, 34, 1, 49.
Suarez F et al. Insights into human colonic physiology obtained from the study of flatus composition. Am J Physiol, 1997, 272, 5, pt 1, G1028-1033.
Smith Allan K and Circle, Sidney J. Soybeans; Chemistry and Technology, Volume 1 Proteins (Westport, CT, Avi Publishing, 1972), p. 181.
Jiang T et al. Gas production by feces of infants, J Pediatric Gastroenterol Nutr, 2001, 32, 5, 534-541.
Levine J et al. Fecal hydrogen sulfide production in ulcerative colitis, Am J Gastroenterol, 1998, 93, 1, 83-87.
Suarez F et al. Production and elimination of sulfur-containing gases in the rat colon, Am J Physiol, 1998, 274, (4, pt1) G727-733.
Liu, KeShun. Soybeans: Chemistry, Technology and Utilization (Aspen, 1999) 72,76
Berk, Zeki. Technology of production of edible flours and protein products from soybeans, Food and Agric Organ of the United Nations, Rome, 1993 FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin, 97, 15.
Jimenez MJ et al. Biochemical and nutritional studies of germinated soybean seeds (article in Spanish), Arch Lationoam Nutr, 1985, 35, 3, 480-490.
Rackis JJ. Flatulence caused by soya and its control through processing, J Amer Oil Chem Soc, 1981, 58, 503.
Rackis JJ. Flavor and flatulence factors in soybean protein products. J Agric Food Chem, 1970, 18, 977.
Calloway DH, Hickey CA, Murphy EL. Reduction of intestinal gas-forming properties of legumes by traditional and experimental food processing methods, J Food Sci, 1971, 36, 251.
Jood S et al. Effect of flatus producing factors in legumes, J Agri Food Chem, 1985, 33, 268.
Liu, 74
Olson AC et al. Flatus-causing factors in legumes in Ory RI, ed. Antinutrients and Natural Toxicants in Foods (Westport CT, Food and Nutrition Press, 1981, p. 275.
Suarez FL et al. Gas production in humans ingesting a soybean flour derived from beans naturally low in oligosaccharides, Am J Clin Nutr, 1999, 69, 1, 135-139.
Smith and Circle, p. 182.
Watson RG et al. Circulating gastrointestinal hormones in patients with flatulent dyspepsis, with and without gallbladder disease, Digestion, 1986, 35,4, 211-216.
Faulkner-Hogg KB, Selby WS, Loblay RH. Dietary analysis in symptomatic patients with coeliac disease on a gluten-free diet: the role of trace amounts of gluten and non-gluten food intolerances. Scand J Gastroentrol, 1999, 34, 8, 784-789.
Parsons CM, Zhang Y, Araba M. Nutritional evaluation of soybean meals varying in oligosaccharide content. Poultry Sci, 2000, 79,8, 1127-1131.
Kane, Janice Roma. Chemical companies fortify with soy: soy receives heavy investment in functional foods from DuPont, ADM and Henkel. Chemical Market Reporter, November 8, 1999, 256, 19, FR14.
Smith and Circle, p. 181.
Response by Clare Hasler on January 18, 1999 to a question sent to the “Ask and Expert” part of the StratSoy website funded by the United Soybean Board and developed by the University of Illinois.
Guimaraes VM, de Rezende ST et al. Characterization of alpha-galactosidases from germinating soybean seed and their use for hydrolysis of oligosaccharides, Phytochem, 2001, 58, 1, 67-73.
Suarez, FL, Springfield J, Levitt MD. Identification of gases responsible for the odour of human flatus and evaluation of a device purported to reduce this odor. Gut, 1998, 43, 100-104.
Fink RN, Lembo AJ. Intestinal gas. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol, 2001, 4, 4, 333-337.
Suarez et al. Failure of activated charcoal to reduce the release of gases produced by colonic flora. Am J Gastroenterol, 1999, 94, 1, 208-212.
Messina, Mark. Legumes and soybeans: overview of their nutritional profiles and health effects. Amer J Clin Nutr, 1999, 70, 3, 439S-450S.
Grant, 319.
Hata Y, Yamamoto M, Nakajima K. Effects of soybean oligosaccharides on human digestive organs: estimate of fifty percent effective dose and maximum non-effective dose based on diarrhea. J Clin Biochem Nutr, 1991, 10, 135-144.
©Copyright 2005:  Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN.

This article is a slightly revised version of Chapter 15  from The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food (New Trends, 2005).   The chapter was also published prior to the book’s publication in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly magazine of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Fall 2003.  Dr. Kaayla Daniel is The Whole Nutritionist®  and is emerging as a Naughty Nutritionist™ because of her ability to outrageously and humorously debunk nutritional myths, including the prevailing myth that soy is a health food.  In fact, there are many naughty and not so nice facets to soy that can  have adverse effects on human health.   Her future books will include Naughty Nutrition: 69 Ways to Feed Your Libido and Fuel Your Lust for Life and The Whole Poop: 69 Ways to Digestive Health. Dr. Daniel lives in Santa Fe, NM and can be reached at wholenutritionist@earthlink.net and through her website www.wholesoystory.com

A surprising number of the tales are explicitly erotic, earthy and downright scatological — well deserving their reputation for making missionaries and tourists blush.     As The Naughty Nutritionist™, I cannot help but react with belly laughs.  Seems to me, Coyote sums up the best and worst of humankind, and furthermore seems to get the credit and blame for everything from mosquitoes and fleas to unplanned pregnancies!

Because storytellers have long used Coyote to educate, warn and help create and maintain community,  I could not resist cooking up a Coyote story that will instruct health-conscious consumers on the indigestible cause and gas-producing effect of soybeans.   Laughter is truly the best medicine, and I hope this naughty story will also serve to answer the many questions I get about how on earth soy foods became part of the Standard American Diet.

Coyote and the Soybeans

Coyote was roaming down the path of the health food store looking for something to eat.  He saw some soybeans in brightly colored packages.  “Oh, they might be good to eat!” he thought.

The soybeans said among themselves.  “We’d better tell him we are not fit to eat.”

He stopped there and said.  “How sweet you look.  And low saturated fat and no cholesterol too!   I think you would be very good to eat.”

“No, we are not good to eat at all.”

“What will happen if someone eats you?”

“Oh, if anyone eats us, he will have to break wind so heard that it will toss him up into the sky.”

“Well, I just want to try one,” said Coyote.  He picked one out of the package and ate it.  The soybeans nudged each other.  “Oh, you are so sweet.” he said.  He gathered them by the handful and ate another and another and another.  They didn’t nudge each other any more.

Coyote started to walk down the aisles, snacking and looking at all the other soy products.  He began singing.

When I look up, I see soybeans.

When I look down, I see soybeans.

The hard ones, the soft ones, the powdered ones, the pilled ones.  They                     are the ones I eat..

At last he had had enough.  The little soybeans winked their single eyes and nudged each other when he had gone a little distance away.  They began to work on his insides.  He ran for the door and hung on.  He went off like a horse.  He had to do this again and again..

Most of the other shoppers were in a panic, wrapping their children up and running for the exits.  A tremendous stink filled the store.  “Oh, dear, this cannot be” said Coyote’s Aunt, so she dragged Coyote outside, pulled back his tail and stuffed a large fat-free soyburger in his anus.   It stopped him up.  His farts could not come out.   Nothing could come out.  His belly swelled up to a tremendous size until at last Coyote was blown apart.  The big stink filled the whole country.   And soybeans rained onto every table in America.

*  *  THE END *  *

c copyright 2005 Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN

For Immediate Release
ISRAELI HEALTH MINISTRY ISSUES SOY WARNING
Scientists, doctors and nutritionists who have warned that soy is not a health food and poses special risks to infants and children received support this week from the Israeli Health Ministry, which issued a health advisory recommending that soy foods be eaten only in moderation.

“The Israeli Health Ministry strongly recommended that consumption of soy foods be limited for young children and adults and that soy formula be avoided altogether by infants,” said Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, author of The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food. “This is giant step forward. I hope that Israel’s action will encourage other government agencies to alert their citizens to the fact that it is a myth that soy is a ‘health food’ and that there are very real dangers from making soy a staple of their diets.”
Dr. Daniel noted that there are hundreds of studies linking soy foods and soy infant formula to digestive problems, thyroid dysfunction, ADD/ADHD, dementia, reproductive disorders and even cancer. “The Israeli Ministry took this matter very seriously and based its advice upon the conclusions reached by a 13-member committee of nutritionists, oncologists, pediatricians and other specialists who spent more than a year examining the evidence. The committee concluded that the estrogen-like plant hormones in soy can cause adverse effects on the human body, including cancer promotion and reproductive problems. They strongly urged that consumption of soy foods be minimized until absolute safety has been proven.”
According to the Jerusalem Post (July 20), soy is widely used in Israel by people of all ages because it is a cheap substitute for meat and soy infant formula is especially popular among haredi families who choose not to mix milk-based baby formulas with meat meals. The Health Ministry plans to distribute information about the dangers of soy foods and soy infant formula to pediatricians, health care workers and the public. It firmly recommends that babies that cannot be breast fed receive cow’s milk formula and be given soy infant formula only as a last resort. Day care centers and schools, many of which now frequently serve soy foods several times a day, are being told to limit them to no more than one serving per day and no more than three times per week. Finally, doctors should closely monitor the blood thyroxine levels of babies and toddlers suffering from
hypothyroidism who are on soy infant formula and/or eating soy foods because of the well-known adverse effects of soy on the thyroid.
“The Israeli Health Ministry’s recommendations are in accord with those made by the United Kingdom’s Chief Medical Officer and the British Dietetic Association, both of which have alerted pediatricians and parents to use soy infant formula only in unusual circumstances,” said Dr. Daniel. “In New Zealand, the Health Ministry has suggested that doctors carefully monitor the thyroids of infants on soy formula. However, no country has come close to Israel’s warning against soy foods for children up to age 18. This sets an important precedent.”
Although the Israeli Health Ministry stopped short of making recommendations on soy consumptions for adults, it found that the evidence on soy foods alleviating menopausal symptoms is inconsistent, that soy phytoestrogens can increase breast cancer risk and that they can reduce male fertility. The Ministry determined that soy has been shown to reduce blood cholesterol but stated that there is no clear proof that it reduces the risk of heart disease.
“The bottom line,” said Dr. Daniel “is that the Israeli Health Ministry looked long and hard at the evidence and reached the appropriate conclusion that we should eat soy only occasionally and in moderation because possible benefits are far outweighed by proven risks.”

Contact:    Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN 505-984-2093
wholenutritionist@earthlink.net www.wholesoystory.com