Re: soy arguments

[Guest guest]

> soy arguments

>

>

>Hello, I am sort of in a discussion about soy now with some folks

>online, because I posted the links to some anti-soy studies on

>various sites, including the WAPF info. Since the site I posted on

>is pro-vegan, even for babies and toddlers <ugh!>, I am probably

>going to be outnumbered and don't really know how to reply to the pro-

>soy folks who have replied so far.

<snip>

Anyway, if anyone has

>anything good I could reply with, I'd appreciate it.

Rebekah, beyondveg is always a good site to pass on to vegans.

http://www.beyondveg.com/

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

@@@@@ Rebekah:

Anyway, one woman was saying that

the studies against soy were mainly funded by the dairy industry,

which isn't apparent to me, but has anyone else found this to be

true? Also she says that since the studies were done on animals that

were fed monstrous amounts of highly processed soy, that they aren't

relevant. Does anyone have anything they would say to this?

@@@@@@@

Hi Rebekah,

In itself pointing out the source of funding is not an argument at

all, and it would make perfect sense for the dairy industry to fund

anti-soy studies. The actual content of the studies needs to

addressed. Since there are tons of studies that might bear on the

anti-soy argument, a generalization like " the studies were done... "

needs to be replaced with references to specific studies and specific

claims. It's essential to sort out several completely independent

issues with soy, or you [not you so much as your pro-soy discourse

partners] will just wind up with the typical hazy mush argument

common in pop nutrition discourse. The following are completely

independent issues that form the anti-soy argument:

1. Phytoestrogens. This is the biggie. On the WAPF page some of

the references are to studies on foods like clover that are also high

in phytoestrogens, and the impetus for that research is unrelated to

dairy and soy; it's a much more general issue in animal husbandry.

The famous Hawaii study that is most responsible for widespread soy-

angst among nutritionally savvy males has no connection to dairy

specifically and was a general epidemiological study on a large scale

that dealt with people's diets as a whole, and in no way was driven

by a focus on either dairy or soy. There may be methodologically

questionable studies on soy, but make sure you get a reference for

each one and take them one-by-one. If there are poor studies, toss

them out of consideration and move on to others. It is illogical to

use a few poor studies as a basis for making broad-brushed dismissal

of a major hypothesis drawing from multiple domains of evidence.

2. Antinutrients. This is not the basis for a decisive anti-soy

argument; it just establishes the distinction between fermented and

unfermented soy foods and is most relevant to deconstructing the myth

of soy as a high-quality food. Soy is a medium-quality at best, and

this follows from basic facts about nutrition that have nothing

whatsoever to do with dairy or soy in particular. The research on

antinutrients like phytates is largely motivated by farming interests

trying to make various seed foods useful in animal feed, and has no

direct connection to dairy at all, so this aspect of the anti-soy

argument is on extremely solid footing. Also, studies of

antinutrients, unlike studies of phytoestrogens, are not

controversial at all; it is a well established body of knowledge

going back decades with thousands of publications. It's fairly cut-

and-dry chemistry for the most part. Just remember that this issue

doesn't constitute any argument that soy is dangerous or bad; it's

just part of the argument that soy is not very good, and it is

central to the argument against typical junk soy foods.

So my advice is to at least keep these two topics completely separate

in your discussion, and demand specific claims, not hazy

generalizations. Message #42422 on this list contains a brief

summary about soy I wrote a few months ago; it doesn't have much

scientific meat, but it may be useful as a way of conceptualizing the

issues and organizing the argument.

@@@@@

Also, wasn't there an article referred to recently about the number

of animal lives lost due to farming vegetable crops?

@@@@@

Message #42645

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

The best way to predict the future is to invent it. --Alan Kay