 |
 |
make mothering.com your home page |
| shopping guide | ||
editorial columns
family tools
community features
 |
extras |
Soy Letters
The following letters are in response to the article "The
Whole Soy Story," by Kaayla T. Daniel.
Issue 124, May/June 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I applaud your courage for publishing the excellent article on the risks
and benefits of soy products, "The Whole Soy Story," by Kaayla
Daniel (May-June 2004). I found the article a refreshing alternative look
at a food that seems to be almost universally embraced as a panacea for
every ill. Throughout the article, I found that the author maintained a
balanced point of view, even when presenting information that was rather
alarming. I found the guidelines for soy consumption to be particularly
useful. I relate to the article from my own experience. When I was vegan
and macrobiotic, I consumed rivers of soy milk. I never had worse digestion,
blotchier skin, or more irregular menstrual cycles. Currently, I am an
omnivore, consuming quarts of raw milk from grass-fed cows, along with
good butter, grass-fed meat, and lots of fresh organic vegetables-and my
skin is clear, my menstrual cycles run like clockwork, and my digestion
is great.
Victoria Bloch
Los Angeles, California
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was so happy to finally see, in a popular magazine, the truth about
soy! I used to use soy in a powdered drink. I went through a two- to three-year
period of horrible menstrual cycles. At age 35 I had my first child, stopped
using soy, and followed a traditional diet-all organic, including meat,
cheese, and dairy. After nursing, I began my soy regime again. My menstrual
cycles continued to be heavy and last for a full week (plus some). I quit
using all soy products, and within two months my menstrual cycles changed
drastically-for the better. People need to be aware that we (women) tend
to be estrogen dominant, and we don't need more of the hormone from the
foods we consume!
J. Meyer
Fowlerville, Michigan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I found out the hard way about the media lies concerning soy after weaning
my first child from breastmilk when he was 22 months old. Knowing that
commercial milk was dangerous to consume, I put him on what I thought was
a healthy alternative: soy milk. He rapidly turned into a hyperactive nightmare.
I attributed it to the "terrible twos" and was told it would
pass. Well, it didn't pass! Shortly after my son turned 3, a dear friend
told me to question my choice of soy milk as a milk substitute. I did some
in-depth research and was horrified to find that hyperactivity is one of
the many possible effects of soy consumption in children. I immediately
took him off of soy milk. Within three weeks his behavior completely normalized.
Sarah Pope
Lutz, Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been finding your content increasingly objectionable. I have just
spent two days in conversation with my 11-year-old niece, who just read
my last issue of Mothering. Among other concerns, she wanted to know how
soon she was going to die because she had eaten soy. After reading the
Mothering article, she is now very frightened of soy and is feeling frustrated
by the endless list of poisons that are likely to kill her in one way or
the other. Food is starting to look like an enemy to her. We ended up going
back through the article, discussing the different points of view that
are possible concerning good nutrition. We discussed persuasive voice and
how you build an argument to suit your belief. And I'm praying that continuing
conversation will undo the damage reading that article has done.
Tandum Lett
Staten Island, New York
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a few comments about last month's article by Kaayla Daniel on soy. In regard to a set of data that I collected, to which she refers, she has grossly misread and misused these numbers in a way that indicates either a "hidden" agenda to distort facts or an ignorance of food processing and ingredient labeling. For example, she takes numbers from an old report of ours for kilos of soybeans consumed per person per year in China, Indonesia, Korea, Japan, and Taiwan and equates these into grams of soybeans per day. That she does correctly. But 36 grams of soybeans, at 40 percent protein, is equivalent to 14.4 grams of soy protein per day, or about two glasses of soy milk. And this is the high end of the spectrum she refers to. Dr. Daniel makes a big mistake by thinking of soybeans, soy protein, and finished food products like tofu and soy milk as being one and the same. Soy milk contains 90 percent water and about 10 percent solids and is only 3 percent soy protein, or about 7 grams of soy protein per serving, not 240 grams of soy as she states.
Likewise, tofu is 85 percent water and 15 percent solids and contains
about 9 grams of soy protein per serving, not 252 grams of soy as she states.
These soybean equivalents, not the ones Dr. Daniel claims, are indeed equivalent
to what many people in Asia consume daily: one or two servings of soybean-based
foods that deliver 5 to 15 grams of soy protein per day. Over the years,
writers like Dr. Daniel, and indeed even noted researchers, have confused
consumers by equating grams of soybeans to grams of soy protein, grams
of soy isoflavones, and, in extreme cases like Dr. Daniel's, finished products
such as soy milk, which contains 90 percent water, on a one-to-one basis.
Peter Golbitz
President
Soyatech, Inc.
Dr. Daniel responds: I share Mr. Golbitz's concern about the many researchers who confuse terms like soy foods (used by many people as their main source of protein), soy protein (a fractionated, highly processed product in which the soybean's fat, carbohydrate, and water have been removed), and isoflavones (the estrogenic component found in soy's protein fraction). I failed to understand that Golbitz meant "raw dry soybeans" when he gave figures for "soybean" consumption in China, Indonesia, Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. I am well aware that foods like miso, tofu, soy milk, burgers made with soy protein isolate, etc. all contain different levels of soy protein, fat, carbohydrate, and water, as well as other ingredients and various additives and residues from processing. Because Golbitz's data refer to the weight of raw soybeans, he is quite correct in suggesting that the people in Japan and Taiwan consume higher amounts of soy foods than I calculated. My figures are more accurate for countries such as China, where people consume considerably less soy. Overall, Golbitz's figures represent the high end of estimates of soy consumption in Asia, with other researchers reporting smaller amounts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are writing in response to the article by Kaayla Daniel entitled "The Whole Soy Story." We firmly congratulate Dr. Daniel for seeking to shed scientific light on misleading claims and uses of supplements, which the public feels are safe, generally without data to support that impression. However, we are disappointed that Dr. Daniel did not apply the same standards of scientific accuracy to her own work and claims. While we cannot comment on the many issues and studies she referred to, we can comment in detail on her misleading statements about our work.1 As she indicates, "most of the evidence damning soy formula can be found only in animal studies." To that end, it is disappointing that she chooses to dismiss, misquote, and misinterpret data from the one large study in humans and a study subjected to peer review by one of the most prestigious journals in the medical literature. The "buried" findings regarding thyroid problems, cervical cancer, polycystic ovarian syndrome, blocked fallopian tubes, and pelvic inflammatory disease specifically mentioned by Dr. Daniel were all based on a very small number of events. The differences between the patients with these medical conditions receiving soy formula and those receiving milk formula did not even approach statistical significance-that is, the data did not meet the minimal scientific criterion for suggesting an increased risk. Thus, our data were certainly not compatible with an increase in risk. However, since we felt we could not definitively prove the absence of risk with these small numbers, our conclusions on these outcomes were indeed not highlighted. If we had highlighted them, we would have pointed out more explicitly that there was no increased risk identified in this study.
The finding regarding the use of asthma or allergy drugs was reported in a table in the published paper because it was based on a larger number of events, and it showed a statistically significant difference between the two formula groups in females but not in males. In our study, we examined a large number of outcomes, including thyroid function, which Dr. Daniel alleged was excluded as a subject for study. Yet, consistent with standard scientific principles, prior to the start of the study we decided which outcomes would be the focus of primary analyses and which would be designated as secondary because they were not expected to provide definitive results, as these events were expected to occur too infrequently. We summarized the results from all our analyses, and we published the results from the primary analyses but also made available the results from the secondary analyses to anyone who requested them, including Dr. Daniel. Finally, we find insulting Dr. Daniel's implication that the soy industry that sponsored part of this research influenced the outcomes of our research. If the industry had not sponsored the research, Dr. Daniel would have (rightly) criticized the manufacturers for not evaluating the risks from their products. Further, we state emphatically that the sponsor did not control the research design, methods of data analysis, or content and conclusions of our study. Most importantly, our study, in contrast to Dr. Daniel's paper, met all scientific criteria for rigorous peer-reviewed scientific research.
NOTE
1. B. L. Strom et al., "Exposure to Soy-based Formula in Infancy and
Endocrinological and Reproductive Outcomes in Young Adulthood," Journal
of the American Medical Association 286 (2001): 807-814.
Brian L. Strom, MD, MPH
Rita Schinnar, MPA
Dr. Daniel responds: I am hardly alone in my assertion that Dr. Strom's study does not prove the safety of soy formula. Naomi Baumslag, MD, president of the Women's International Health Network; Lynn Goldman, MD, MPH, professor of environmental health sciences at Johns Hopkins University; and Retha Newbold, PhD, of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences are just a few of the many experts who have publicly decried this study. At the Fifth International Symposium on the Role of Soy in Preventing and Reversing Chronic Disease, held in Orlando, Florida, September 21-24, 2003, even soy promoter Mark Messina told scientists that the Strom study was so "underpowered statistically" that it proved nothing. Dr. Strom's group studied only 282 persons who were fed soy as babies, a decision that ensured that the most serious of the negative findings would not become "statistically significant." In addition, the study seems to have been designed to hide differences rather than reveal them. For example, to measure intelligence, the researchers lumped together people with trade school, university, and advanced degrees rather than assessing them separately. Worse, stillbirths and failure to achieve pregnancy (higher in the soy-fed women) were not evaluated, though miscarriages (slightly higher in the dairy-formula-fed group) were. Other design flaws include conducting the study by telephone interviews; having strangers ask highly personal, subjective questions; and failing to perform medical examinations, laboratory tests, or other objective tests. Breast development, for example, was gauged by asking participants at what age they bought their first bras. The researchers also neglected the most basic requirements of toxicology studies, namely obtaining information on the ages at which formula feeding ended and the dose length and quantity of the soy isoflavones. Finally, the researchers studied people who had been given soy formula for just 16 weeks (though serious damage can occur for at least the first six months in girls and nine months in boys) and failed to report whether the subjects took soy formula after the initial six weeks or ate soy foods during childhood. Even so, Dr. Strom's research team was compelled to report a few statistically significant adverse findings. I doubt that the soy-fed infants who grew up to experience longer, more painful menstrual periods, or to suffer increased allergies and asthma, would agree with the conclusion in the abstract that the results are "reassuring."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am writing to express my concern with "The Whole Soy Story." This article does your readers a disservice by oversimplifying a complex issue.
The article contains statements that are alarmist and are not well documented, such as "thousands of studies link soy to malnutrition [and] digestive distress." A search of the scientific literature does not support this statement. In other cases, study results are twisted to support the author's stance. For example, the statement "soy has been shown to pass through the placenta of pregnant women to their unborn babies" is true, but the author implies this is something to be concerned about. Is there evidence that it is? In several instances, the author makes sweeping conclusions based on very limited data. For example, her conclusions about soy formula use as a cause of early puberty, especially in African American girls, are not supported by any research and require a number of leaps of faith.
Space constraints do not allow me to address every point that this article makes. Readers should be aware that scientists from several countries recently examined more than 200 studies on soy safety and concluded: "The available scientific evidence supports the safety of isoflavones as typically consumed in diets based on soy, or containing soy products."1
NOTE
1. I. C. Munro, M. Harwood., J. J. Hlywka, et al., "Soy Isoflavones:
A Safety Review," Nutr Rev 61 (2003): 1-33.
Reed Mangels, PhD, RD
Nutrition Adviser
Vegetarian Resource Group
Baltimore, Maryland
Dr. Daniel responds: The article in Mothering is an abridgment of a long book that is extremely well documented and that has been reviewed, fact-checked, and endorsed by top nutritionists, physicians, researchers, and toxicologists. I do not feel it is "alarmist" to warn readers that soy's safety is unproven and that the possible benefits are outweighed by probable risks. Until we know for sure why African American girls are more prone to experiencing early puberty, I think it wise to operate under the premise "better safe than sorry" and to demand that all possibilities be properly investigated. The fact that the isoflavones will pass through the placenta of pregnant women to their unborn babies is a serious cause for concern. Estrogens-including soy estrogens-have a demasculinizing effect. Hormones produced by the fetal testes, particularly testosterone, are essential for masculinization of the male fetus during the first trimester of human pregnancy. The more severe the interference, the more severe the damage. The most severe manifestation is the birth of a genotypic male with female genitalia. Fortunately, this occurs very rarely, but milder consequences, most notably hypospadias and cryptoorchidism, are increasingly common. Although males are more susceptible than females to soy's estrogenic damage, researchers have identified long-term problems with brain and reproductive development. For an objective review of the literature, read Section 9 of the Report on Phytoestrogens and Health produced by the UK's Committee on Toxicology, available on www.foodstandards.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/working_group.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The article "The Whole Soy Story" was filled with so many inaccuracies about soy foods that it is possible to reach only one conclusion: the author was intentionally misleading readers. Although Dr. Daniel cited scientific articles, she did so selectively-that is, using only those sources that supported her points and ignoring any study that would have forced her to present a more balanced and accurate viewpoint.
Dr. Daniel erroneously stated that Asians consume 9 to 36 grams of total soy foods-or 1/3 to 1½ ounces of these foods-per day based on her analysis of two sources. The first report she used is one with which I'm very familiar, since I commissioned this document while serving as a program director in the government's National Cancer Institute. This older report was never published, and in light of more recent detailed information, it no longer represents a particularly useful source of information about soy food consumption.
Furthermore, the author failed to understand this report, as well as another source she used to suggest that the Japanese consume only 18 grams of soy foods per day. In both cases, Dr. Daniel confused foods measured in their natural whole food weight (wet weight) with those in the dehydrated (dry weight) state. Readers can understand this concept by simply imagining a pound of apples versus a pound of dried apples; these are two very different amounts of food. A failure to make this distinction produces gross measuring inaccuracies. In this case, Dr. Daniel failed to understand that 18 grams of dehydrated soy translates into approximately 100 grams of actual soy foods, or about one serving. One serving provides approximately 7 to 10 grams of soy protein and 20 to 30 milligrams of isoflavones. The exact amount varies according to the type of soy food. In addition to more accurately presenting the data, Dr. Daniel could have easily cited better estimates of soy food consumption in Asia by referring to the Food and Agriculture Organization's (FAO) website: http://apps.fao.org/default.jsp. According to this source, the average Japanese citizen consumes 8.6 grams of soy protein per day. This translates into about one serving of soy, since the average serving size provides about 7 to 10 grams of soy protein. Since the FAO averages soy intake among the entire population, including infants, children, and adults, it can be expected that soy intake among adults is actually even higher. Indeed, more precise data coming from at least 15 large surveys show this to be the case. These surveys have been conducted over the past seven years by scientists in Japan and other Asian countries. This information was readily available to Dr. Daniel since it was published in English-language scientific journals. The surveys reveal that Japanese adults consume on average a total of one and a half to two servings of soy foods per day, about 40 to 50 milligrams of isoflavones. Researchers at prestigious Asian institutions such as the Gifu University School of Medicine in Japan have played a key role in providing this information on soy intake.1
What makes Dr. Daniel's conclusions all the more curious is the fact that she was provided with all of the information I've cited above before her article was published. She could have used reliable data but chose not to.
This is just one example of how the author failed to give readers an accurate picture of how soy foods fit into the diet. Unfortunately, space limitations don't allow me to refute her false allegations in detail. Briefly, here are just a few corrections to other misinformation in this article: Eleven well-designed clinical studies failed to find any harmful effects of soy protein or isoflavones on thyroid function in healthy adults.2
While soy foods are one of many protein-rich foods that can cause allergic reactions in some individuals (others are milk, eggs, and peanuts), the incidence of soy allergy is much lower than the incidence of allergies to other protein-rich foods Americans enjoy, and the allergic response to soy is generally much less severe.3 Obviously, those with allergic reactions to soy protein should avoid soy foods, but soy allergies affect only an extremely small percentage of the population.
It is true that soy isoflavones can bind to the same receptors in cells that bind the hormone estrogen. However, extensive research shows that the many different compounds that bind to these receptors have markedly different biological effects. For example, Australian researchers showed that in postmenopausal women, very large amounts of isoflavone-rich soy protein did not affect any of the proteins that are affected by estrogen.4 Soy isoflavones are not the same as estrogen. Experts on these compounds recognize that it is not possible to draw conclusions about the biological activities of soy based on the effects of the hormone estrogen.
Birth defects in male offspring have not been linked specifically to maternal consumption of soy foods or isoflavones. Soy foods have been a regular part of Asian diets for centuries with no evidence of such a relationship.5 In fact, the one preliminary study cited by Dr. Daniel actually found that legume (not soy) intake was associated with one type of birth defect called hypospadias. Legumes do not contain nutritionally relevant amounts of isoflavones.
Finally, numerous studies have compared the effects of soy consumption within Asia. This research shows that those Asians who consume more soy foods have lower rates of heart disease, prostate cancer, and osteoporosis than Asians with lower-than-average consumption of soy foods.6,7,8 Soy foods can be an excellent means of broadening a child's options for nutritious foods. In suggesting that families should exclude these foods, based on erroneous analysis of the science, Mothering magazine does a great disservice to its readers.
NOTES
1. C. Nagata et al., "Association of Diet with the Onset of Menopause
in Japanese Women," Am J Epidemiol 152, no. 9 (1 Nov 2000): 863-867.
2. B. Bruce, M. Messina, G. A. Spiller, "Isoflavone Supplements Do
Not Affect Thyroid Function in Iodine-replete Postmenopausal Women," J
Med Food 6, no. 4 (Winter 2003): 309-316.
3. C. T. Cordle, "Soy Protein Allergy: Incidence and Relative Severity," J
Nutr 134, no. 5 (May 2004): 1213S-1219S.
4. H. J. Teede, "Dietary Soy Containing Phytoestrogens Does Not Have
Detectable Estrogenic Effects on Hepatic Protein Synthesis in Postmenopausal
Women," Am J Clin Nutr 79, no. 3 (March 2004): 396-401.
5. K. North, J. Golding, and the ALSPAC Study Team, "A Maternal Vegetarian
Diet in Pregnancy Is Associated with Hypospadias," BJU Int 85, no.
1 (Jan 2000): 107-113.
6. X. Zhang et al., "Soy Food Consumption Is Associated with Lower
Risk of Coronary Heart Disease in Chinese Women," J Nutr 133, no.
9 (Sept 2003): 2874-2878.
7. T. Sonoda, "A Case-Control Study of Diet and Prostate Cancer in
Japan: Possible Protective Effect of Traditional Japanese Diet," Cancer
Sci 95, no. 3 (Mar 2004): 238-242.
8. Y. Somekawa, "Soy Intake Related to Menopausal Symptoms, Serum
Lipids, and Bone Mineral Density in Postmenopausal Japanese Women," Obstet
Gynecol 97, no. 1 (Jan 2001): 109-115.
Mark Messina, PhD
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Nutrition
Loma Linda University
President, Nutrition Matters, Inc.
Port Townsend, Washington
Dr. Daniel responds: I appreciate Dr. Messina's clarification of some confusing figures that have been published in journals and on the Soyatech website concerning soy consumption in Asian countries. Prior to publication, Dr. Messina did not provide specifics concerning proper interpretation of this data. Nor did he make these criticisms when he was contacted by the editors at Natural Health magazine regarding an article entitled "Does Soy Have a Dark Side?" published in the March 2000 issue.
Although Dr. Messina's figures on soy consumption are far higher than those provided by other sources that he considers less reputable, they still provide a valuable corrective to the widely held misconception that Asians eat a great deal of soy. Dr. Messina's figure of soy protein at 8.6 grams per day is dramatically lower than the FDA's health claim recommending 25 grams per day. The amount he cites is also lower than the quantities of soy consumed by many vegetarians and others today. These amounts also represent a recent trend toward the eating of greater amounts of soy foods in China, Japan, and other countries, thanks to the importing of soybeans from American farmers and the increased presence of international corporations such as DuPont.
Dr. Messina is a paid consultant to the soy industry, and he is well versed in "selective" reporting concerning the safety of soy foods. A case in point is his citing of 11 studies showing no risk to thyroid and his dismissal of the studies that do show damage as either "out of date" if they are not recent or "poorly designed" if the results aren't satisfactory. The study referenced here was one of his own and funded by Archer Daniels Midland.
Soy allergies are on the rise, and soy is now widely considered to be one of the top eight allergens. Some experts put it in the top four. This is a very serious and life-threatening problem in that soy is included in just about every processed food today.
Dr. Messina is correct that the subject of estrogens is highly complex. "The Whole Soy Story" includes a lengthy discussion of how phytoestrogens exert estrogenic effects directly by binding with estrogen receptors, or indirectly by modulating estrogen production, and how they exert their influence throughout the body in many different ways. The timing of exposure to estrogens is critical, and the safe, intelligent use of soy isoflavones as food or supplements demands sure knowledge of windows of vulnerability -as found in utero, during infancy, before puberty, during puberty, during the reproductive years, and beyond. The important thing to remember is that plant estrogens are not "weak," can exert adverse effects, and have not been proven safe.
Birth defects have been linked to soy foods or soy isoflavones in every animal species studied. The human study linking hypospadias to maternal vegetarian diets concerned phytoestrogens.1 Soy is the only commonly eaten food that contains high quantities of phytoestrogens. Other familiar sources are flax, clover, and alfalfa, with other plant foods containing very low concentrations. The authors concluded that hypospadias and other possible effects of phytoestrogens on humans should not be dismissed. Legumes other than soy were not a factor.
Dr. Messina is being highly selective in his choice of studies supporting links between soy consumption and lowered risks of cancer, heart disease, and osteoporosis. Readers who would like to see an unbiased review of the effects of phytoestrogens on the thyroid, cancer, nervous system, immune system, osteoporosis, cardiovascular system, breast cancer, prostate cancer, and other cancers will find it in "Report on Phytoestrogens and Health," issued by the British Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT). This report can be found on-line at www.foodstandards.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/working_group.
Until safety has been conclusively proven, I do not share Dr. Messina's
belief that soy foods should constitute more than a minimal part of a child's
diet.
NOTE
1. K. North, J. Golding, and the ALSPAC Study Team, "A Maternal Vegetarian
Diet in Pregnancy Is Associated with Hypospadias," BJU Inter 85 (2000):
107-113.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the last several years, I have taken a keen interest in following the great soy debate, reading every article, both pro and con, and most of the published scientific studies. I totally agree with Kaayla Daniel's assessment of highly processed, chemically derived, modern soy products such as isolates, concentrates, textured vegetable protein, soy supplements, protein shakes, and the like. They are unhealthy products that are not only chemically derived but most are made from genetically engineered soybeans. However, I think it unfair to portray tofu and soy milk as potentially harmful. Even her statement "old-fashioned soy products should not be a problem" implies that she thinks they could be. Yes, for those with severe allergies, but not for the vast majority of people.
I also felt it was an insult to the intelligence of your readers for Dr. Daniel to assume that our only or main source of protein was going to be soy. Any food taken in excess, whether it's parsley, broccoli, potatoes, eggs, meat, dairy, or soy, has the potential of being harmful. No one food is the key to disease prevention and maximum longevity. The key to health is moderation, variety, and a well-balanced diet.
Equally disappointing was the lack of any advice on alternatives to soy formula or the recommendation that concerned parents work with a pediatrician. The last I read, no significant hormonal differences have been found between dairy- and soy-formula-fed babies in the past 30 years of human observation. There is currently a six-year study being conducted in Arkansas.
I was unimpressed with the scare tactics, sometimes inaccurate or purposely omitted data, and contradictory and confusing statements. Dr. Daniel's article was hardly the whole soy story. It is her story and the story her colleagues have continually recycled on the Internet for several years now. I found it absurd for Ms. Daniel to recommend that a woman visiting her website consider giving up her cold breakfast cereal, even if it is natural, and soy milk, too, since she considers neither to be healthy. Then she refers the woman to the book The No-Grain Diet by Dr. Joseph Mercola, another soy-bashing colleague. What reputable nutritionist would recommend a no-grain diet?
The author continually refers to studies showing the negative effects of soy without once mentioning what the unfortunate test animals were fed. But when referring to positive studies, she is quick to point out "that researchers are not achieving these successes using regular soy foods." Well, they certainly weren't getting the negative results feeding the animals miso soup, soy milk, tofu, and tempeh sandwiches; noodles and shoyu broth; or any other healthy traditional soy food every day either. The test animals were fed, often at very high levels, genetically engineered and chemically derived soy protein isolates, concentrates, extracted isoflavones, and raw or roasted soy meal that was defatted using hexane gas. Many of the studies were flawed, since the test animals' basic nutritional needs were not being met. Genetically engineered soybeans, by the way, are 29 percent lower in choline, which is needed for brain function, and 27 percent higher in protease inhibitors, and they contain almost double the suspected allergen culprit, lectins, than conventional soybeans.
I have eaten traditionally processed organic soy foods such as tofu, dried tofu, okara, natto, tempeh, yuba, soy milk, cooked yellow and black soybeans, miso, shoyu, and tamari several times per week for more than 30 years. These products were included as part of a varied, healthy diet of whole grains, whole-grain pasta, beans, vegetables, fruits, nut and seeds, sea vegetables, and occasionally fish. I ate soy products and other vegetable sources of protein throughout my eight pregnancies and while breastfeeding. My husband, children, grandchildren, and I have never experienced any of the problems with soy that Ms. Daniel reports. Tofu certainly didn't reduce libido either, as suggested by Ms. Daniel. I have taught natural foods cooking classes for more than 30 years to thousands of students and have found quite the opposite to be true. Traditional, organic soy foods, incorporated into a varied, balanced diet, are healthy.
I would have appreciated an article educating parents in how to choose the best quality soy foods for their families. Not once did she mention organic foods. She referred to "old-fashioned soy products" but failed to inform the reader that not all so-called old-fashioned products are processed the same. I choose traditionally and preferably organically processed soy foods from reputable companies such as Eden Foods (importer of traditional Japanese foods and producer of Organic EDENSOY-the healthiest soy milk on the market in my opinion), Mitoku International, Kushi Institute Store, Rosewood Market, Nasoya, Miso Master, Cold Mountain Miso, South River Miso, Gold Mine Natural Foods, and many other companies that have a commitment to supplying the best quality food, including soy, to consumers.
For another view of soy, please read the article by John Robbins, author
of Diet for a New America, entitled "What About Soy," and "Soy
Protein: Your Key to Better Health" by Dr. Suzanne J. Paxton, one
of the world's most respected phytopharmacologists.
Wendy Esko
Clinton, Michigan
Dr. Daniel responds: Wendy Esko is a prominent member of the macrobiotic community, a group that has effectively encouraged the eating of local foods, careful food preparation, and traditional processing methods, and that has also identified some of the problems of commercial food processing. Although she herself may eat a rich and varied diet, the sad truth is that many vegetarians and near-vegetarians consider soy to be their primary source of protein and eat massive amounts of soy every day. Indeed, most letter writers who have complained about my article have desperately asked, "What are the alternatives?" Although soy milk and tofu are not nearly as dangerous as modern, fractionated products, I do not share Esko's belief that they are harmless. Most companies selling organic soy milk have incorporated shortcuts into their processing methods and use recipes that include undesirable additives such as sweeteners and vitamin D2. I have seen many women who have severely damaged their thyroids and reproductive health by the daily drinking of soy milk. The study that allegedly proves "no significant hormonal differences" between babies fed soy and dairy formula is discussed in response to other letter writers. I have often recommended The No-Grain Diet by Joseph Mercola to my clients, many of whom are recovering from serious health challenges caused in part by damage to their gastrointestinal tracts from excess grains and starchy carbohydrates in their diets. A good introduction to this important subject can be found on Dr. Mercola's website, www.mercola.com. Finally, I would refer Esko back to the original article, as I most certainly did guide Mothering's readers to healthy versions of soy foods and advise them to choose organic and to purchase products from reputable old-fashioned companies, including several of those she named.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've been a devoted fan of Mothering and have read every issue for more than 15 years. During this time I've repeatedly been grateful for the wisdom in its pages. On many occasions I've given subscriptions as gifts to new mothers and families. I've always understood why Mothering readers have so much respect for the magazine and place so much trust in it.
But the article you printed warning against soy products betrays that trust. Actually, it wasn't an article, it was a diatribe. Under the guise of warning people, and pretending to be a voice of caution, it spreads fears that are unwarranted, exaggerated, and fictitious. Young mothers don't have the time to investigate the credibility and balance of the articles you print. They trust you to do that for them. In this case, you failed them big time.
I have no association to the soy industry, but I do have a strong dedication to people having accurate information about foods. It is difficult in a short letter to respond to seven pages of biased material, particularly when each page is crowded with half-truths, statements taken out of context, and conclusions drawn inappropriately from data.
The article's author, Kaayla Daniel, repeatedly says that people of China, Japan, and other countries in Asia eat very little soy, so there is no historical precedent for eating the amounts being recommended by people like Dr. Andrew Weil and Dr. Christiane Northrup. This is a misleading half-truth. It is true that in parts of Asia, most notably China, soy consumption has been low. But Asia is a very large area with several billion people.
What's important is not the average soy consumption for the whole of Asia but the soy consumption in those parts of Asia that demonstrate the highest levels of human health. And there is no question about where that is. The elder population of Okinawa (a prefecture of Japan) has the best health and greatest longevity on the planet.
This is important, because the highest soy consumption in the world is in Okinawa. Many North Americans know of Okinawa only for being the site of one of the longest and bloodiest battles of World War II and for now housing US military bases. But the people of Okinawa have repeatedly been shown to be the healthiest people in the world. This fact has been demonstrated conclusively by the renowned Okinawa Centenarian Study, a 25-year study sponsored by the Japanese Ministry of Health.
How much soy have elder Okinawans eaten throughout their lives? The Okinawa Centenarian Study included an extremely thorough analysis of food consumption in the prefecture. The principal investigators and authors of the study (Makoto Suzuki, MD, Bradley J. Willcox, MD, and D. Craig Willcox, PhD) state: "Okinawan elders eat an average of two servings of flavonoid-rich soy products per day."
This is about 20 times more than the amount of soy Kaayla Daniel claims "Asians really eat." When she says "there is no historical precedent for eating the large amounts of soy food now being consumed," she is incorrect. Soy makes up 12 percent of the diet of Okinawan elders.
The authors of the Okinawan Centenarian Study analyzed the diet and health profiles of Okinawan elders and compared them to other elder populations throughout the world. They concluded that high soy consumption was one of the main reasons that Okinawans are at extremely low risk for hormone-dependent cancers, including cancers of the breast, prostate, ovaries, and colon. Compared to North Americans, they have a staggering 80 percent less breast cancer and prostate cancer, and less than half the ovarian cancer and colon cancer.
This enormously reduced cancer risk arises in part, the study's authors say, from the Okinawans' large consumption of isoflavones from soy. This is an important finding. The lowest cancer rates in the industrialized world are found in Okinawans who consume the most soy. Other studies have confirmed the link between soy consumption and reduced cancer risk. The Japan Public Health Center Study found the lowest breast cancer rates in those prefectures where women ate the most soy products. And a recent study published in the British medical journal The Lancet showed that women who ate the most flavonoids (mostly isoflavones from soy products) had a substantially lower risk for breast cancer than those who had lower flavonoid intake.
The reason the ardently pro-pharmaceutical FDA wound up affirming that soybeans can prevent and even help cure disease was not, as Kaayla Daniel says, because the agency is in bed with the soy industry, but because the evidence was so convincing. The reason the FDA now allows food manufacturers to talk about the benefits of heart-healthy soy in their products is because the substantiating data are overwhelming.
Indeed, the authors of the Okinawa Centenarian Study state that high soy consumption in Okinawa is one of the primary reasons elder Okinawans have 80 percent fewer heart attacks than North Americans do. And because of high soy consumption, if Okinawans do suffer heart attacks, they are more than twice as likely to survive.
These are staggering numbers. The study's authors state that if North Americans lived more like elder Okinawans and ate the amount of soy they do, we "would have to close 80 percent of the coronary care units and one-third of the cancer wards in the US, and a lot of nursing homes would also be out of business. By 1990, Okinawan life expectancy figures had even surpassed the absolute limits of population life expectancy assumed by the Japan Population Research Institute. Limits had to be revised upwards simply to account for the phenomenal longevity of the Okinawans."
It is not an accident that in Okinawa, home to the highest soy consumption in the world, heart disease is minimal; breast cancer is so rare that screening mammography is not needed; and most aging men have never heard of prostate cancer. The three leading killers in the West-coronary heart disease, stroke, and cancer-occur in Okinawans with the lowest frequency in the world.
Elder Okinawans also have much stronger bones than we do and less than half the hip fractures. The authors of the Okinawa Centenarian Study attribute the increased bone strength and health in Okinawa to soy consumption. Many other studies confirm the connection between increased soy consumption and reduced osteoporosis.
I am very sorry that Mothering printed the article by Kaayla Daniel because it is so full of bias and fallacies. Its authoritative tone may sway some people to unnecessarily avoid soy, and that would be a shame. For most people, consumption of the levels of whole soy foods recommended by authors like Dr. Andrew Weil and Dr. Christiane Northrup, which correspond to the levels eaten by the Okinawans, are not only safe, but tremendously helpful to disease prevention and the creation of vibrant and resilient wellness. Of course if you are allergic to any food, then you shouldn't eat it. But dairy products, for which soy products are often substituted, are more likely to produce allergic reactions than soy. And by the way:
Cow's milk
provides more than nine times as much saturated fat as soy beverages,
so it is far more likely to contribute to heart disease.
Soy beverages provide more than 10 times the essential fatty acids than
cow's milk and so provide a healthier quality of fat.
Soy beverages are cholesterol-free, while cow's milk contains 34 milligrams of cholesterol per cup, which again means that cow's milk is far worse for your heart and cardiovascular system.
Soy beverages lower both total and LDL ("bad") cholesterol levels, while cow's milk raises both total and LDL cholesterol levels, providing yet more reasons soymilk is better for your health.
Soy beverages contain numerous phytochemicals that may protect against chronic diseases such as heart disease and osteoporosis. Cow's milk contains no phytochemicals.
Men who consume one to two servings of soy milk per
day are 70 percent less likely to develop prostate cancer than men who
don't.
I do not understand why Mothering would allow its pages to be used for
such a misleading article. I hope that you allow more balanced voices
substantial space in the future to undo the damage you've done. Mothering's
readers expect and deserve sane and helpful articles, especially about
subjects like nutrition. They don't need more fear mongering. We've got
quite enough of that in our society today.
Readers who want further information about health and longevity in Okinawa
can see the excellent book The Okinawa Program. And readers who want to
see a balanced response to many of the specific allegations made against
soy can visit www.foodrevolution.org/what_about_soy.htm
John Robbins
Author, Diet for a New America, May All Be Fed, and The Food Revolution
Dr. Daniel responds: In The Okinawa Diet Plan, the authors of the Okinawa Centenarian Study report that Okinawans eat "60 to 120 grams per day of soy protein." The context indicates that they mean soy foods eaten as a protein source. On another page the authors say that Okinawans eat an average of three ounces of soy products per day, mostly tofu and miso. Robbins, quoting from the earlier book The Okinawa Program: How the World's Longest-Lived People Achieve Everlasting Health-and How You Can Too, says the elders eat an average of two servings of soy products per day, without mentioning that the serving size is very small-only one ounce.
According to respected gerontologist Kazuhiko Taira, the most common cooking fat used traditionally in Okanawa is lard. Although often called a "saturated fat," lard is 50 percent monounsaturated fat (including small amounts of the health-producing antimicrobial palmitoleic acid), 40 percent saturated fat, and 10 percent polyunsaturated fat. Dr. Taira's findings differ from those of the Okinawa Centenarian Study in that he reports that healthy and vigorous Okinawans eat 100 grams each of pork and fish each day. Finally, the longevity of Okinawans has been attributed to many factors besides soy consumption. Indeed, the three authors of the Okinawa Centenarian Study name caloric restriction as "the key to eating the Okinawa way."
Robbins is correct that some studies show reduced rates of cancer, heart disease, and osteoporosis among people who consume soy foods. Other studies, however, show the reverse, with frightening evidence emerging that soy isoflavones can cause the proliferation of breast cancer cells. Interested readers who would prefer not to trust either Robbins's agenda or mine can look at the research-both pro and con-in the "Report on Phytoestrogens and Health" by the British government's Committee on Toxicity: www.foodstandards.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/working_group.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me begin by saying that I am a huge fan of Mothering magazine and remain so. However, I was deeply troubled, and not in the way I think you intended, by the soy article by Kaayla Daniel. This article struck me as an extremely unbalanced bit of reporting-downright alarmist. There may very well be cause for genuine concern due to the large amounts of soy that many people are consuming, but I do not think the tone of this article was the best vehicle to set forth that concern. The author seemed to have a definite agenda-she was downright shrill at times, seeming to see conspiracies at every turn. And while that is her prerogative, I would have hoped that you, as the publisher, would have at least sought out other viewpoints, particularly from those people that Daniel cited, namely Dr. Andrew Weil (someone I respect very much) and Dr. Northrup. I will certainly look into this matter further and have in fact contacted my pediatrician, Dr. Jay Gordon, as well as Dr. Weil himself. But I think that we as parents have enough things to fear without someone coming along and trying to whip us into a frenzy of worry. I would hope that your publication would be more supportive than that.
As a vegetarian who doesn't consume dairy with a daughter in the same
boat, what do you suggest? While thought provoking, I think this article
was too heavy-handed to justify publication.
Gail Goldman
Dr. Daniel responds: There is no point in worrying. It is prudent to minimize soy consumption until soy's safety has conclusively been proven.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To provide your readers with fair and balanced information, the International
Formula Council (IFC)1 offers the following clarifications regarding soy-based
infant formula in response to the article "The Whole Soy Story," by
Kaayla T. Daniel (May-June 2004):
"While it is true that soy is one of the most frequent human food allergens,
soy has a long history of providing infants who are allergic to cow's milk
with a safe and nutritious source of protein. In fact, 89.5 percent of infants
allergic to cow's-milk-based formula could be effectively managed with soy
formula (Cordle, J. Nutrition 2004). Because many babies are given soy formula
for medical reasons, it is essential to the health of these infants that
parents not change their feeding practices (after reading this article) without
consulting with their doctor.
"Largely as a result of research in animals, concerns have been raised regarding the plant-hormone content (e.g., phytoestrogen and isoflavone) of soy-based infant formula in relation to sexual development. However, because there are substantive differences in how the intestinal tract of animals and humans break down and use compounds in food, including isoflavones, the same results may not be relevant to human health. Available evidence from adult human and infant populations indicates that dietary isoflavones in soy infant formulas do not have a negative impact on human growth, development, or reproduction (Merritt & Jenks, J. Nutrition 2004).
"The Strom study referenced in the abovementioned article clearly demonstrates that soy-based infant formulas support the growth and nutritional status of infants. According to Brian Strom, MD, MPH, "This large study reaffirms the safety of soy infant formula. We saw no significant differences between the formula groups [soy-based versus cow's-milk-based], in either females or males, with over 30 outcomes, including height, usual weight, body mass index, indices of pubertal maturation, and a large number of reproductive and other outcomes, including cancer and fertility." These findings were consistent with other studies that found no changes in weight and height or effects on puberty or fertility associated with the consumption of soy isoflavones. It is important to note that Strom's work was also sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, the primary federal agency for conducting and supporting medical research that improves people's health and saves lives.
To conclude, soy-based infant formulas are a safe and important feeding option for many infants. For over 60 years, soy-based infant formulas have been fed to millions of infants and extensively studied in controlled clinical research. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), an association of pediatricians who dedicate their efforts and resources to the health, safety, and well-being of infants, children, adolescents, and young adults, supports the use of soy-based infant formulas as "safe and effective alternatives [to maternal breastmilk or cow's-milk-based formula] to provide appropriate nutrition for normal growth and development." Soy-based infant formulas meet all AAP recommendations and US Food and Drug Administration specifications. Parents can be assured that soy-based infant formulas are safe and nutritious feeding options for their infants. We encourage you to provide these comments to your readers to ensure they have accurate, balanced information on this important issue.
NOTE
1. IFC is an international association of manufacturers and marketers of
formulated nutrition products (e.g., infant formulas and nutritionals)
whose members are predominantly based in North America. IFC members are
Mead Johnson Nutritionals; Nestle USA, Inc., Nutritional Division; Ross
Products Division, Abbott Laboratories; Solus Products; and Wyeth Nutrition.
Rachel W. Spector, PhD
Manager of Regulatory and Technical Affairs
International Formula Council
Atlanta, Georgia
www.infantformula.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are some feral cats that live on my farm. Since they help keep down
the rodents, I give them food twice a day. I made a decision to add a soy-based
dog food to their diet to try to keep down their reproduction rate. I expected
they would just quit cycling, and that would be the end of the problem.
I was successful, but the results were quite grim.
These cats have access to the outdoors, so I do not know how much food
each one of them eats. Last year, the females who were kittens when I started
feeding them soy had three to four kittens; they would feed them for a
few days, walk away, and let them die.
This year, the females born after I started feeding the soy continue to cycle and do not get pregnant. There is one male cat with undeveloped testes. Many of the kittens died almost immediately after they were born; one became paralyzed after about six weeks and starved. One of the adult females has a tumor in her ear. I have lived around wild barn cats for most of my 65 years. I have seen distemper, feline leukemia, and kittens lost to predators, but I have never seen anything like what happened after I fed these cats soy.
June Varner
Featured Product
Klean Kanteen and Avent, an unbeatable combination for a safer, healthier sippy at nubiusorganics.com
