Soy;A Dark Side
Does Soy Have a Dark Side?
KindredCommunity.com
Over the past two decades, soy has been
widely promoted as a ‘miracle’ food that can prevent heart disease,
fight cancer, fan away hot flashes and build strong bones and bodies in
far more than 12 ways.
Sales of soy foods topped $4 billion in
the USA for the first time in 2004, with most segments of the industry
reporting double-digit growth. Although such growth has mostly slowed,
sales aren’t reducing and the soy industry has been stepping up its
marketing of products all over the world.
The marketing of soy as a ‘health food’
has been so successful that few people realize that respected scientists
have warned that possible benefits should be weighed against proven
risks. Even researchers working for the soy industry have admitted to
each other at soy symposia that the ‘marketing is way ahead of the
science’.
Fortunately, the ‘whole soy story’ is
starting to emerge. In July, 2005, the first major warning came from the
Israeli Health Ministry, which warned that babies should not receive
soy formula, that children under 18 years of age should eat soy foods no
more than once per day to a maximum of three times a week and that
adults should exercise caution because of adverse effects on fertility
and increased breast cancer risk. The Ministry took its advice from a
13-member committee of nutritionists, oncologists, pediatricians and
other experts who spent a year examining the evidence. The committee was
most concerned by the possibility of hormonal disruption caused by the
estrogen-like plant hormones in soy.
Also in July, 2005, researchers at
Cornell University’s Program of Breast Cancer and Environmental Risk
Factors warned that excessive soy food consumption can increase breast
cell multiplication, putting women at greater risk for breast cancer.
In September, 2005, the US Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality released a report in which it concluded
that much of the research carried out on soy is ‘inconclusive’.5 The
review prepared by a team of researchers at Tufts in Boston, concluded
that soy products appear to exert ‘a small benefit on LDL cholesterol
and triglycerides, but the effects may be of small clinical effect in
individuals’. Furthermore, the researchers couldn’t determine from the
many studies how much soy protein might be needed for lipid reduction.
The authors found that studies show that soy products may reduce
menopausal symptoms but noted they were of poor quality or their
duration was too short to lead to definite conclusions.
The researchers failed to find clear
evidence that soy causes thyroid damage – but that’s not surprising in
that they excluded foreign studies from consideration. Most of the key
studies showing thyroid damage from soy have been carried out at leading
thyroid clinics in Japan.
Then the Journal of the American
Dietetic Association reported that the studies on soy and cancer are
inconsistent and that high intake of soy may increase breast cancer
risk. The journal indicated this lack of ‘clear, consistent message’
confuses many women and that ‘health professionals should take an active
role in communicating and clarifying such information’.
The French Government also takes the soy
risk seriously and is implementing new regulations that will require
manufacturers to remove soy isoflavones from infant formula and soy
foods targeted to children under 3 years old.
In 2007 the German Institute of Risk
Assessment warned parents and pediatricians that babies should not be
given soy infant formula without clear, concrete medical reasons and
then only under strict medical supervision. Soon after, the Germans
issued a second warning to adult consumers, saying that soy isoflavones
offer no proven health benefits and may pose health risks.
These and other warnings follow a
lengthy report issued in 2002 by the British Committee on Toxicity of
Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, which found no
merit to most of the health claims made for soy. The Committee
identified infants on soy formula, vegetarians who use soy as a primary
source of protein and adults trying to prevent disease with soy foods
and soy supplements as being at risk for thyroid damage.
Confusing consumers
For consumers, such news can be
confusing. After all, ‘everyone knows’ that Asians eat large quantities
of soy and consequently remain free of most western diseases. In fact,
the people of China, Japan and other countries in Asia eat small
quantities of soy and as condiments, not as staple foods. 11 While it
is true that Asians show lower rates of breast, prostate and colon
cancers, they suffer higher rates of thyroid, pancreatic, liver, stomach
and esophageal cancers. Thyroid disease is also prevalent in Asia, with
an epidemic of cretinism in some parts of China, and with ‘Hashimoto’s
thyroiditis’ and other thyroid problems common in Japan.
Asians also eat different soy foods from
the ones now appearing on the western table. Think small amounts of
traditional, whole soy foods such as miso, natto, tempeh, tofu, tamari
and shoyu, not veggie burgers, ‘energy bars’, shakes, TVP chili, soy
milk or other meat or dairy substitutes. Contrary to popular belief, soy
milk was rarely drunk in Asia prior to the 20th century and soy formula was first invented by a Baltimore pediatrician in 1909.
Ingredients such as soy protein isolate,
soy protein concentrate, textured soy protein and hydrolyzed plant
protein were unheard of until after World War II. These
quintessentially western products are manufactured using high-tech,
industrialized processes that compromise protein quality, reduce vitamin
levels and leave toxic residues and carcinogens. Although the latest
refining techniques yield blander, purer soy proteins than the ‘beany’,
hard-to-disguise flavours of the past, the main reason the new soy foods
taste and look better is the lavish use of sugar and other sweeteners,
salt, artificial flavorings, colors and MSG.
GM soybean linked to allergy rise
Soy is now an ingredient in more than 60
percent of the foods sold in supermarkets and natural food stores, with
much of it ‘hidden’ in products where it wouldn’t ordinarily be
expected, such as in fast-food burgers, breads and canned tuna. This is a
becoming a nightmare for the growing number of people who are allergic
to, or sensitive, to soy – which is a lot of people given that soy is
now one of the top eight allergens, with many experts predicting it will
soon be in the top four.
The likeliest reason for this rise in
soy allergies is the genetically modified (GM) soybean. The York
Nutritional Laboratories in England – one of Europe’s leading
laboratories specializing in food sensitivity – found a 50 percent
increase in soy allergies in 1998, the same year in which GM beans were
introduced to the world market. York’s researchers noted that one of the
16 proteins in soybeans most likely to cause allergic reactions was
found in concentrations higher by 30 percent or more in Monsanto’s GM
soybeans.
GM beans carry higher levels of
anti-nutrients, which decrease digestion and absorption and increase
vitamin and mineral needs, as well as more toxins than regular soybeans,
jeopardizing human and animal health. They have also caused vast damage
to the environment. Indeed, more of the Amazon Rainforest has been lost
to GM soybean farming than to beef grown for fast-food franchises.
Other health problems
Unfortunately, the health problems
caused by soy are not completely solved by eating whole bean products
and buying organic. All soybeans naturally contain anti-nutrients,
toxins and plant hormones. The best-known of these are:
* protease inhibitors (which interfere
with protein digestion and have caused malnutrition, poor growth,
digestive distress and pancreatitis);
* phytates (which block mineral absorption, causing zinc, iron and calcium deficiencies);
* lectins and saponins (linked to ‘leaky gut’ and other gastrointestinal and immune problems);
* oxalates (which can promote kidney stones and vulvodynia); and,
* oligosaccharides (which cause gas, giving soy its reputation as the ‘King of Musical Fruits’).
Apologists for soy dismiss such claims,
saying that food processing and home cooking remove most of these
anti-nutrients. In fact, modern processing removes some of them,
sometimes a lot of them, but never all. The levels of heat and pressure
needed to remove all protease inhibitors, for example, severely damage
soy protein and make it harder to digest. The trick is to eliminate the
most anti-nutrients while doing the least damage to the soy protein.
Success varies widely from batch to batch.
For years, the US Department of
Agriculture and the soy industry tried to improve the quality of animal
feeds by researching ways to get rid of these undesirable
anti-nutrients. Although they succeeded to a certain extent, producers
routinely supplement animal feeds heavily with vitamins, minerals and
methionine, a sulfur-containing amino acid that is low in soy. Even so,
makers of animal chows are still limited in the amount of soy they can
add without causing growth and fertility problems.
Food processors making soy-protein
products for people may add these supplements, but in most cases do not.
Generally, calcium and vitamin D are added to soy milk so it can
compete with dairy products. B12 often goes in because vegans are
well-known to be at high risk for this deficiency, but that’s about it.
In the past two decades, the soy
industry has switched tactics – from trying to remove unwanted
anti-nutrients to trying to convince people that they are good for them.
Protease inhibitors, saponins and lectins are being touted as curers of
cancer or lowerers of cholesterol, while phytates are being recommended
for their ability to remove potentially toxic minerals such as calcium
and excess iron from the body.
Although some of these uses look
promising, it is important to note that researchers are not achieving
these successes using regular soy foods. Most take carefully extracted
components and administer them in carefully measured and monitored
doses. News headlines to the contrary, there’s no reason to think that
willy-nilly eating of a lot of soy foods will do the trick.
Riskiest of all are the high levels of
phytoestrogens (plant estrogens) in soybeans. Although these are said to
be ‘weak estrogens’ and are promoted as ‘safe and natural’ hormone
replacement therapy, they are strong enough in numbers to cause
significant endocrine disruption, leading most often to hypothyroidism
with its symptoms of weight gain, fatigue, brain fog and depression.
More than 70 years of human, animal and
laboratory studies show that soybeans put the thyroid at risk.
Although individuals who are deficient in iodine are especially prone
to soy-induced thyroid damage, this can also occur even when iodine
levels are replete.
Soy phytoestrogens also have a
‘contraceptive effect’. Fertility problems in cows, sheep, rabbits,
cheetahs, guinea pigs, birds and mice have been regularly reported since
the 1940s.
In women, soy can impair the ovarian
development of babies and alter menstrual cycles and cause hormonal
changes indicative of infertility for adults. In men it lowers
testosterone levels, the quantity and quality of sperm and the libido.
Although scientists discovered only recently that soy lowers
testosterone levels, tofu has traditionally been used in Buddhist
monasteries to help the monks maintain their vows of celibacy. Thus
couples who desire to become pregnant are wise to cut out soy.
Humans and animals appear to be the most
vulnerable to the effects of soy estrogens pre-natally, during infancy
and puberty, during pregnancy and lactation, and during the hormonal
shifts of menopause. Of all these groups, infants on soy formula are
at the highest risk because of their small size and developmental phase,
and because formula is their main source of nutrient. Soy formula now
represents about 25 percent of the bottle-fed market and has been linked
to premature puberty in girls, delayed or arrested puberty in boys,
thyroid damage and other disorders.
Soy formula also contains 50 to 80 times
the amount of manganese found in dairy formula or breast milk, toxic
levels that can harm the infant’s developing brain, causing ADD/ADHD and
other learning and behavioral disorders. Because ADD/ADHD has been
linked to violent tendencies and crime, the California Public Safety
Committee is considering making soy infant formula illegal except by
prescription.
These and other known hazards of soy
formula have led the Israeli Health Ministry, the Swiss Federal Health
Service, the British Dietetic Association and others to warn parents and
pediatricians that soy infant formula should never be used except as a
last resort. Although children and teenagers are less vulnerable than
infants, their young bodies are still developing and are highly
vulnerable to endocrine system disruption by soy.
Despite these and many other potential
dangers, soy is still widely promoted as a health food – even as a
‘miracle food’ that can prevent and cure cancer. While a few studies
suggest that soy protein – or its phytoestrogens might help prevent
cancer, far more studies show it to be ineffective or inconsistent. Some
studies even show that soy can contribute to, promote or even cause
cancer.
In February, 2004, the Solae Company
submitted a petition to the FDA requesting permission for a cancer
health claim for soy protein and claimed that ‘there is scientific
agreement among experts’. In fact, no such consensus existed then or
now, and numerous experts, including scientists from the FDA’s own
National Laboratory for Toxicological Research, warned of soy protein’s
carcinogenic potential and the other health dangers that ensue from
excess soy-food consumption.
The idea that scientists could even
consider soy for a cancer claim is ludicrous on the face of it. Soy
isoflavones, the plant estrogens in soy most often credited with cancer
prevention, are listed as ‘carcinogens’ in many toxicology and chemistry
textbooks. Over the years, soy isoflavones have been proven to be
mutagenic, clastogenic [causing breakage of chromosomes] and
teratogenic. In addition, the modern industrial soy processing
techniques used to make soy protein isolate, textured vegetable protein
and other modern soy products popular with people on low-carb diets
create toxic and carcinogenic residues.
In 2004 and 2005 the Weston Price
Foundation and I submitted three detailed documents to the FDA that
refuted Solae’s claims that soy prevents cancer. We showed the FDA that
Solae was highly selective in its choice of evidence and biased in its
interpretations. We reported on the fact that they had omitted many
studies proving soy to be ineffective in preventing cancer, emphasized
favorable outcomes in studies with mixed results and excused the results
of the few unfavorable studies that they included to give the illusion
of balance. Most importantly, we drew the FDA’s attention to the fact
that Solae excluded many studies showing that soy protein can cause and
accelerate the growth of cancer, particularly breast cancer. In October
2005, Solae withdrew its petition. The FDA made a big mistake in 1999
when it sided with the soy industry and allowed a positive
soy-and-heart-disease health claim in the US.
Today the FDA is required by law to
consider a petition from the Weston A Price Foundation asking it to
retract that health claim based on the fact that studies on soy and
cholesterol are inconsistent and contradictory, and soy may contribute
to or even cause heart arrhythmias, cardiomyopathy and blood vessel
damage in women. The chance of retraction was significant bolstered
last August when the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) issued a
negative opinion to a health claim submission linking soy protein and
reduced LDL cholesterol. This turn down was “disconcerting” to the soy
industry, which continues to trot out new studies in hopes of
bolstering their case and, in the meantime, to keep good news in the
headines. Meanwhile, the marketing of soy for cancer prevention took a
big hit last fall with a study in Clinical and Experimental Metastisis
that announced the “good news/fad news” story that soy isoflavones don’t
worsen primary tumors but do cause cancer metastases. Risk is not
certainty, of course, but should certainly be sobering for all who would
make health claims for soy.
The bottom line is that the safety of
soy foods and formula has yet to be proven and that people eating large
quantities of soy are unwittingly participating in a large, uncontrolled
and basically unmonitored, human experiment.
Read the Full Article and comment here: http://www.kindredcommunity.com/articles/does-soy-have-a-dark-side/p/2313
Comments
Post a Comment