spring 2004 wise traditions mag - disappointed with a few comments

[Guest guest]

hi all,

just wondering what those who have seen this latest issue of wise

traditions thought of it.

i was especially disappointed by the comments in response to a

reader's letter regarding homosexuality and diet. in a nutshell, the

reader wondered if the WAPF's position on homosexuality is that it

can be a result of malnourishment or improper food choices.

here's what the response said (in part):

" ...there is also no doubt that a diet of imitation foods can

disrupt the hormonal development of the growing child, as

demonstrated by the studies of Pottenger and many others, resulting

in same-sex orientation that would not otherwise have occurred.

Chief culprits are margarine, MSG (which causes injury to the

hypothalamus) and soy formula (which floods the infant's bloodstream

with estrogens). We believe that it is important to provide this

information to prospective parents who also want to be grandparents. "

i was also surprised (and, again, disappointed) by a segment in the

soy alert! section. the piece commented on an anti-soy article

written in the last issue of mothering magazine (a progressive

parenting glossy) calling those who wrote in to mothering mag

protesting the story " whiny " .

imo, that word was used in poor taste. it doesn't sit well with me

(and undoubtedly anyone who is still on the fence about what to

believe regarding soy who happens to read wise traditions) that an

nutrition education organization, one that i am a member of and

volunteer for, would be so thoughtless.

i understand that the editors often use harsh language to

characterize those who denounce WAPF and it's nutritional findings,

but i can't seem to rationalize how doing so could possibly urge a

layperson to accept said findings. in fact, it most likely causes a

loss of credibility.

erica z