Guest guest Posted February 10, 2004 Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 Have you checked out the WAP web site? They have the best articles on soy that I've seen. Judith Alta -----Original Message----- From: katja [mailto:katja@...] i'm going to a conference next weekend and i know i'll be talking alot about WAP/NT... i'm trying to put together a conversational explanation about why soy is bad. i want it to be as short as possible, but i don't want to leave anything out, either. my audience is the northeast organic farmers' association... thanks! -katja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2004 Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 i have! i'm actually wanting to come up with a two-or-three sentence " script " though, that will incorporate the most important stuff...and i'm looking for something that would hold up as a starting point against someone like chris or brandon At 08:42 AM 2/10/2004, you wrote: >Have you checked out the WAP web site? They have the best articles on soy >that I've seen. > >Judith Alta > >-----Original Message----- >From: katja [mailto:katja@...] > >i'm going to a conference next weekend and i know i'll be talking alot >about WAP/NT... >i'm trying to put together a conversational explanation about why soy is >bad. i want it to be as short as possible, but i don't want to leave >anything out, either. my audience is the northeast organic farmers' >association... > >thanks! >-katja > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2004 Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 In other words you want a whole book in a single paragraph? Let me see what I can come up with. Please accept my apologies. I should have known that you would have searched the WAP site. Judith Alta -----Original Message----- From: katja [mailto:katja@...] i have! i'm actually wanting to come up with a two-or-three sentence " script " though, that will incorporate the most important stuff...and i'm looking for something that would hold up as a starting point against someone like chris or brandon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2004 Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 heehee. yep - that's precisely what i want! one thing in particular that i'm having trouble with is identifying the 2 or 3 " most important " bad things. like, it seems to me that they're all bad, and that they'll depend on the particular person. but i'm assuming that i might not be able to have in-depth conversations with everyone, and that i might want to just have a sort of a " business card " version that might pique people's interest in digging deeper... so maybe we can even just start with: what seems like the worst thing to you? and hee - no apologies needed! -katja At 11:37 AM 2/10/2004, you wrote: >In other words you want a whole book in a single paragraph? Let me see >what I can come up with. > >Please accept my apologies. I should have known that you would have searched >the WAP site. > >Judith Alta > >-----Original Message----- >From: katja [mailto:katja@...] > >i have! >i'm actually wanting to come up with a two-or-three sentence " script " >though, that will incorporate the most important stuff...and i'm looking >for something that would hold up as a starting point against someone like >chris or brandon > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2004 Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 Katja, So much stuff out there that is called phood contains soy isoflavones. People may not read beyond " soy " in the ingredient list and probably have no idea what an isoflavone is. This should peak some curiosity. http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/dangersisoflavones.html " Deleterious effects include endocrine disruption, thyroid suppression, immune system suppression, suppression of sperm production, DNA breakage and increased incidence of leukemia, breast cancer, colon cancer, infertility, growth problems and subtle changes in sexually dimorphic behaviors. " You might also look for what that junk does to kids. That might hit home harder than anything that might happen to them as adults. Gotta get a magazine in the mail. So don't have any more time right now. If you still need help tomorrow evening let me know. Judith Alta -----Original Message----- From: katja [mailto:katja@...] heehee. yep - that's precisely what i want! one thing in particular that i'm having trouble with is identifying the 2 or 3 " most important " bad things. like, it seems to me that they're all bad, and that they'll depend on the particular person. but i'm assuming that i might not be able to have in-depth conversations with everyone, and that i might want to just have a sort of a " business card " version that might pique people's interest in digging deeper... so maybe we can even just start with: what seems like the worst thing to you? and hee - no apologies needed! -katja At 11:37 AM 2/10/2004, you wrote: >In other words you want a whole book in a single paragraph? Let me see >what I can come up with. > >Please accept my apologies. I should have known that you would have searched >the WAP site. > >Judith Alta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2004 Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 Katja, Just in case this is helpful I'm pasting a post I wrote on some other list a while ago where I summarized my take on soy. It doesn't discuss the thyroid angle, which I don't know much about, but is probably important. Needless to say, because I wrote it, it's *not* concise! Just more raw material to have " out there " FWIW. With soy the key is that because of the phytoestrogens it's a strongly *pharmacological* food, which is usually a double-edged sword. Aside from this, in general, it think it's not so much there's *bad* stuff about it as much as there's just not a whole lot of *good* stuff about it. It's hyped as a wonderfood but it's really just a minor seed food in the grand scheme of human diet. Mike SE Pennsylvania @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ As far as I'm aware, these are the two main resources for the anti- soy perspective: http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/index.html http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/ My understanding of soy is as follows: 1. Right off the bat, like other legumes and grains, it's a relatively recent addition to the human diet and not an optimal or universal food by any stretch. Other considerations aside, it will always play second fiddle to the basic human foods (animal flesh, nuts, fruits, leaves), and many other neolithic foods like milk and poultry are nutritionally superior to legumes and grains. 2. Soy contains much higher levels of phytic acid (which blocks mineral absorption) than other common seed foods, requiring fermentation to make it nutritious. The most common forms of fermented soy are miso, tempeh, natto, and (real) soy sauce. These foods are potentially medium-quality foods (but see below for other complications). Non-fermented forms of soy (soy milk, roasted soy, soy protein isolates) are non-nutritious junk foods that should be avoided at all costs, yet sadly account for most soy consumption in non-traditional contexts. Tofu is not fermented, but a decent amount of phytic acid can be neutralized depending on production method, so it's not as bad as the others, but probably best avoided except in small quantities. Long-sprouted soy is a similar in-between case, probably okay in small quantities. There is no historical precedent for eating large quantities of soy in any traditional culture. By the way, the fermentation necessary to deal with phytic acid also takes care of the antitrypsin, so that is a less significant (but still important) issue. 3. The high levels of phytoestrogens in soy might be good for some or dangerous for others, depending on sex and stage of life, but this is a big controversy and it's a big open question for current science. Feeding soy to infants is dangerous and unethical, and for males it doesn't make sense to take a major health risk by eating a completely unnecessary food that would only be eaten in small quantities anyway. I don't even want to begin to sort through the piles of conflicting evidence for females. Any certain nutritional benefits to soy could be obtained equally as well from other legumes like lentils. It's worth noting that many other foods are high in phytoestrogens, like clover and fenugreek, and small quantities are probably harmless. (I hope!) 4. Even if the phytoestrogens are okay (???) and you're eating fermented soy (not very appealing to most palates), most soy available today is genetically modified, which introduces a separate set of concerns I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment on, but is possibly another unnecessary risk or a nutritional compromise. You could find non-GM soy and make things from scratch, but that's a lot of extra hassle for an unimportant, second-rate food. Also, the modern breeds of soy are completely different than the original ones, but this is another issue I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment on, and may be harmless, but is another question mark. Note that the Asian countries that market a lot of traditional or quasi-traditional soy products, including ones exported to the US, import tons of soybeans from the US. This concern about soy is not intrinsic to soy, unlike the concerns about antinutrients and phytoestrogens, but is rather an extrinsic consequence of a particular historical context, just like pasteurization, homogenization, and fortification make most milk a very unhealthy food, but are not intrinsic problems with milk. The following points are also not intrinsic problems with soy, just observations of extrinsic circumstances. 5. There is a widespread myth that soy is a super-healthy food, but this is based mainly on two things: protein composition and phytoestrogen content. The latter is controversial at best (see above), and the former is a total joke. The fact that soy has a slightly more favorable protein composition than most other plant foods has no practical relevance whatsoever, because ample balanced protein is extremely easy to obtain from practically any diet. For starters, the point that soy protein is " almost as good as animal protein " is relevant only if someone is not availing themselves of the lovely myriad of animal protein very readily available to any human. No traditional culture has ever foregone animal protein, and no convincing arguments have ever been brought forth to do so, despite the 20th century fad of rejecting meat on emotional grounds and the accompanying facade of scientific justification. There is an absolutely huge amount of animal protein that goes completely unutilized in modern societies (organs, stomachs, insects, wild animals, etc) despite offering nutritional benefits above and beyond mere protein. The meaninglessness of the " almost as good... " argument aside, even if someone just relied on plant foods for protein, the protein content of soy is irrelevant. After all, everyone knows that a normal, unstilted mix of legumes, grains, nuts, leaves, etc gives plenty of balanced protein, so the fact that one particular food (soy) has a little bit more of a few amino acids is completely insignificant in practice. In sum, protein is a non- issue deserving very little attention. On top of this, as a case of outlandish irony, the highly processed soy junk foods touted as convenient, accessible, and palatable forms of this " super healthy food " are subject to processes that destroy certain amino acids, hence diminishing their protein quality! So the twin pillars of soy's image as a super-healthy food crumble to dust upon brief inspection. Any other nutritional benefits to soy (mineral content being the only one that comes to mind) can be obtained easily and to greater extents from hundreds of other, unproblematic foods. Like so many other popular misconceptions about food, this is a matter of the economic interests of large corporations, not scientific truth. 6. The absurd and massive-scale monoculturing of soy, along with wheat and corn, in the US is a big part of our current agricultural nightmare. Further, most soy (and wheat and corn) is grown as food for animals whose biologically appropriate diet doesn't include soy (or wheat or corn), so this is a channel for both soy and unhealthfully raised animals to enter our food supply. Some consequences include severely lopsided omega 6/3 ratios in the general public. The problems of soy go beyond nutrition and into the realm of ecology, social structure, economics, and politics. Mike SE Pennsylvania @@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2004 Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 Katja, I'm pasting below a post I wrote a while ago for another list (oddly enough the wild food foraging list) summarizing my take on soy. It doesn't discuss the thyroid angle, which I don't know much about, but is probably very important. Because I wrote it, it's *not* concise! But it's more raw material to have " out there " FWIW. With soy, the key is that the phytoestrogen levels make it a *pharmacological* food, which may have a good side, but *always* has a bad side. Aside from this, in general it's not so much that soy is *bad* as the fact it's just not an especially *good* food. Despite the overwhelming hype of soy as a wonderfood, in the grand scheme of human diet it's just a minor seed food. Among seeds, lentils are generally a better choice, but no legume will ever compete with meat and veggies. Mike SE Pennsylvania @@@@@@@@@@@@@ As far as I'm aware, these are the two main resources for the anti- soy perspective: http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/index.html http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/ My understanding of soy is as follows: 1. Right off the bat, like other legumes and grains, it's a relatively recent addition to the human diet and not an optimal or universal food by any stretch. Other considerations aside, it will always play second fiddle to the basic human foods (animal flesh, nuts, fruits, leaves), and many other neolithic foods like milk and poultry are nutritionally superior to legumes and grains. 2. Soy contains much higher levels of phytic acid (which blocks mineral absorption) than other common seed foods, requiring fermentation to make it nutritious. The most common forms of fermented soy are miso, tempeh, natto, and (real) soy sauce. These foods are potentially medium-quality foods (but see below for other complications). Non-fermented forms of soy (soy milk, roasted soy, soy protein isolates) are non-nutritious junk foods that should be avoided at all costs, yet sadly account for most soy consumption in non-traditional contexts. Tofu is not fermented, but a decent amount of phytic acid can be neutralized depending on production method, so it's not as bad as the others, but probably best avoided except in small quantities. Long-sprouted soy is a similar in-between case, probably okay in small quantities. There is no historical precedent for eating large quantities of soy in any traditional culture. By the way, the fermentation necessary to deal with phytic acid also takes care of the antitrypsin, so that is a less significant (but still important) issue. 3. The high levels of phytoestrogens in soy might be good for some or dangerous for others, depending on sex and stage of life, but this is a big controversy and it's a big open question for current science. Feeding soy to infants is dangerous and unethical, and for males it doesn't make sense to take a major health risk by eating a completely unnecessary food that would only be eaten in small quantities anyway. I don't even want to begin to sort through the piles of conflicting evidence for females. Any certain nutritional benefits to soy could be obtained equally as well from other legumes like lentils. It's worth noting that many other foods are high in phytoestrogens, like clover and fenugreek, and small quantities are probably harmless. (I hope!) 4. Even if the phytoestrogens are okay (???) and you're eating fermented soy (not very appealing to most palates), most soy available today is genetically modified, which introduces a separate set of concerns I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment on, but is possibly another unnecessary risk or a nutritional compromise. You could find non-GM soy and make things from scratch, but that's a lot of extra hassle for an unimportant, second-rate food. Also, the modern breeds of soy are completely different than the original ones, but this is another issue I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment on, and may be harmless, but is another question mark. Note that the Asian countries that market a lot of traditional or quasi-traditional soy products, including ones exported to the US, import tons of soybeans from the US. This concern about soy is not intrinsic to soy, unlike the concerns about antinutrients and phytoestrogens, but is rather an extrinsic consequence of a particular historical context, just like pasteurization, homogenization, and fortification make most milk a very unhealthy food, but are not intrinsic problems with milk. The following points are also not intrinsic problems with soy, just observations of extrinsic circumstances. 5. There is a widespread myth that soy is a super-healthy food, but this is based mainly on two things: protein composition and phytoestrogen content. The latter is controversial at best (see above), and the former is a total joke. The fact that soy has a slightly more favorable protein composition than most other plant foods has no practical relevance whatsoever, because ample balanced protein is extremely easy to obtain from practically any diet. For starters, the point that soy protein is " almost as good as animal protein " is relevant only if someone is not availing themselves of the lovely myriad of animal protein very readily available to any human. No traditional culture has ever foregone animal protein, and no convincing arguments have ever been brought forth to do so, despite the 20th century fad of rejecting meat on emotional grounds and the accompanying facade of scientific justification. There is an absolutely huge amount of animal protein that goes completely unutilized in modern societies (organs, stomachs, insects, wild animals, etc) despite offering nutritional benefits above and beyond mere protein. The meaninglessness of the " almost as good... " argument aside, even if someone just relied on plant foods for protein, the protein content of soy is irrelevant. After all, everyone knows that a normal, unstilted mix of legumes, grains, nuts, leaves, etc gives plenty of balanced protein, so the fact that one particular food (soy) has a little bit more of a few amino acids is completely insignificant in practice. In sum, protein is a non- issue deserving very little attention. On top of this, as a case of outlandish irony, the highly processed soy junk foods touted as convenient, accessible, and palatable forms of this " super healthy food " are subject to processes that destroy certain amino acids, hence diminishing their protein quality! So the twin pillars of soy's image as a super-healthy food crumble to dust upon brief inspection. Any other nutritional benefits to soy (mineral content being the only one that comes to mind) can be obtained easily and to greater extents from hundreds of other, unproblematic foods. Like so many other popular misconceptions about food, this is a matter of the economic interests of large corporations, not scientific truth. 6. The absurd and massive-scale monoculturing of soy, along with wheat and corn, in the US is a big part of our current agricultural nightmare. Further, most soy (and wheat and corn) is grown as food for animals whose biologically appropriate diet doesn't include soy (or wheat or corn), so this is a channel for both soy and unhealthfully raised animals to enter our food supply. Some consequences include severely lopsided omega 6/3 ratios in the general public. The problems of soy go beyond nutrition and into the realm of ecology, social structure, economics, and politics. Mike SE Pennsylvania @@@@@@@@@@@@@ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2004 Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 If anyone's wondering why two slightly differently worded versions of the same post just appeared, it's because I wrote the first one and I thought it didn't get sent due to an internet lapse, so I rewrote it real quick... craziness... Mike SE Pennsylvania Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2004 Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 Haha, just tonight I was at the store and this lady was looking at the 'shortening' (coconut oil). And to make a long story short, I convinced her to buy the shortening for baking rather than the canola oil. She asked me if I saw the 'smart balance' margarine and I said, well, yes, but I avoid soy so I don't use it. (I'm assuming it's made with soy). She said, oh, I avoid soy do, what are your reasons? I told her, soy products have estrogen (you can say phytoestrogens if you think they understand that) and I have enough estrogen already in my body, I don't need more. Soy also has anti-nutrients that are not removed by processing, like in tofu. So I just stay away from it. That's a pretty short and sweet answer, and there's much more you can say if someone bites that hook. RE: soy explanation i have! i'm actually wanting to come up with a two-or-three sentence " script " though, that will incorporate the most important stuff...and i'm looking for something that would hold up as a starting point against someone like chris or brandon At 08:42 AM 2/10/2004, you wrote: >Have you checked out the WAP web site? They have the best articles on soy >that I've seen. > >Judith Alta > >-----Original Message----- >From: katja [mailto:katja@...] > >i'm going to a conference next weekend and i know i'll be talking alot >about WAP/NT... >i'm trying to put together a conversational explanation about why soy is >bad. i want it to be as short as possible, but i don't want to leave >anything out, either. my audience is the northeast organic farmers' >association... > >thanks! >-katja > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2004 Report Share Posted February 11, 2004 michael and lisa - thanks! i love it. lisa's explanation fits into a sentence. and michael's...doesn't! -katja At 03:20 PM 2/10/2004, you wrote: >Katja, >Just in case this is helpful I'm pasting a post I wrote on some other >list a while ago where I summarized my take on soy. It doesn't >discuss the thyroid angle, which I don't know much about, but is >probably important. Needless to say, because I wrote it, it's *not* >concise! Just more raw material to have " out there " FWIW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.