If any substance over the past three decades has been sanctified by health foodies as miracle food and all-round "good thing" - it is the humble soy bean. Oriental women don't get breast cancer until they emigrate to the West we hear. Why? Because they traditionally ate soy until overcome with the urge to scoff Big Macs like all true Americans. Soy, we are told, has been found to be a powerful preventative of many cancers, cardiovascular disease, elevated cholesterol, osteoporosis, gallstones, it protects kidney function, alleviates PMS and is a safer form of ERT (estrogen replacement therapy).
Apart from futuristic media sneers a while back, that we'd all end up eating soy T-bone steaks in the Soy World we were supposed to be moving into, not much was heard against the Sainted Soy Bean. Except that is, from the odd conspiracy nut, who claimed it was all a US military-industrial plot. The soy bean was the only thing that would grow on barren radioactive land used for A-Bomb tests. Soy was a radioactive toxic weed fit only for industrial use, totally unfit for human consumption and it was only on account of the OBSCENE profits to be made that it was being foisted upon us by Big Biz, whom we all know will do anything, however dastardly, to make a buck. Well, if you believe that Good Luck in the Redoubt! Oh! Yes It Isn't!
But recently, if you listen, we have been hearing from people who aren't conspiracy nutters. A few doctors and medical researchers warn that soy isn't necessarily the wonder food we are told it is. They say that it can, among other things, interfere with digestion and the absorption of key nutrients, cause your red blood cells to stick together, and may actually cause cancer and infertility in certain cases. They say that the manufacturing process of soy products denatures it's fragile proteins and results in high levels of aluminium, toxic to the kidneys and the nervous system. What are we to make of all this? Who are we to believe? The answer I'm afraid is both or neither, which is no answer at all. You're going to have to use your own common sense. Get used to the idea if you want to stay healthy and wealthy. First off, it is not at all unusual for there to be seemingly contradictory data about any foodstuff and, so far as I can judge in this case, the claims pro and con justify consideration. What you have to watch out for are the commercially motivated constructions put upon the facts which are often a distortion and used out of context. You also want to know who is commissioning the research and why? So where are the non-partisan experts who can tell us if soy really is good or bad for us? Conspicuous by their absence I'm afraid. We are on our own on this one and will just have to make up our own minds as best we can.
Too Much of Anything.....
What you need to know, if you didn't already, is if you eat too much of anything it will most likely be bad for you. That is why you have to have variety in your diet. And this absolutely includes your fruit and veggies, which contain natural toxins and hormones God put there so they would eventually sterilize or poison the greedy mammals that would otherwise graze them to extinction. Of course you'd have to eat an awful lot of any one plant for this to happen to you. After all you're not a cow. Just as well, 'cos research shows that the natural carcinogens and toxins produced in plants are present in far greater quantities than the pesticide residues non-organically grown produce contains. And that's something any vegan eco-warriors or other food zealots out there might like to bear in mind. We need to keep a sense of proportion about things, and that certainly goes for how much and what we eat.
Next basic fact to know is that the soy industry is BIG. What was once a minor crop (listed in the 1913 USDA handbook not as a food but as an industrial oil) now covers 72 million acres of American farmland. Part of this harvest is used to feed chickens, turkeys, pigs, cows and salmon. Most of the rest will be squeezed to produce oil for margarine, shortenings and salad dressings. In recent years we have now found out that 70% of all the soy sold to us is genetically modified. Whether that is good or bad for us is moot, but the fact is they didn't want to tell us and successfully resisted the requirement for labelling. And if those fussy Euros hadn't kicked up all that fuss we'd never have known. Back in the 50's advances in technology made it possible to produce isolated soy protein (SPI) from what was once considered a waste product that looked and smelled terrible and transform it into something that could be consumed by human beings. First they started to sell it to us as extenders and as a meat substitute. It didn't really work too well and people didn't "buy" it. So the industry changed tactics and went up-market. It's well known in marketing circles that the quickest way to gain product acceptability with the less affluent is to sell it to their demographic superiors. And so it was soy went from an ugly duckling to a New Age Cinderella. Today it is sold not as a cheap poverty food, but as a miracle substance that will prevent heart disease and cancer, whisk away hot flushes and build strong bones and keep us forever young. Now, soy serves as 'meat and milk' for a whole new generation of politically correct vegetarians, the competition in the form of milk, butter, cheese and eggs having been duly demonised by the appropriate government agencies and the media. Well, I don't want to bang on about Greeks bearing gifts but when Big Biz is trying to force something down your throat because it's good for you I think it's worth checking out.
It Ain't Necessarily So.......
Why don't we read about this controversy in the media? There are hundreds of so-called health magazines out there, so why don't they enlighten us? The simple answer is that it is not in their interests to do so. You need only take a look at all those full page colour adverts and you can quickly see where their bread is buttered. It's chock full of adverts for soy products, herbs, vitamins, and formulations of every kind. Their editorial is usually OK, so far as it goes, which isn't very far. They tell us that such and such a substance is good for us and they tell us that most of what we ate in a traditional diet is bad for us. Here's what they usually don't tell us:
- the negative or contradictory findings
- any comparative info pro and con so we can make an informed decision
- why 40% to 70% of what is sold in shops and advertised in their pages is useless for one reason or another.
- what amount constitutes a therapeutic dose that would do you any good.
- the fact that the big international pharmaceutical companies have been operating a cartel for the past decade to inflate the prices of vitamins and have just settled out of court with the US government for tens of millions of dollars. That's headline news I would have thought. Did you read that anywhere? In other words, the last thing health mags or their advertisers want is for you to become an educated consumer. Almost all the "health" publications you'll see are advertising driven or are actually published by some company who is retailing the stuff. Your only chance of getting the real story is via a newsletter or on the net, but again most of these too are commercially driven or the fulminations of some loonie with God knows what bee in his or her bonnet. I've yet to find a website I would trust flogging supplements. It's a Scandal!
Then there are people like your own humble and devoted correspondent. You can make of me what you will, it won't bug me none, but I can tell you now that I think the supplements industry is a US$30 billion DISGRACE (for the most part that is, there are some good guys) and it offends me deeply when I am taken for the fool I am not. And so it should you. I'm not a crusader but I don't like it when the public is cynically suckered by these unprincipled rogues and just love to shed a little light in these murky areas. OK! Basta already! Coming off my pulpit for the moment, what are we to think about soy then? As I say, from what I can establish the claims for and against (barring the A-Bomb that is) could have merit so let's take a look at them. On the plus side:
- Genistein and other soy components provide anti cancer protection by blocking the cell mutation of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides from binding to estrogen-testosterone cell receptors in the breast and prostate;
- by inhibiting the enzymes causing tumor cell proliferation; u by inhibiting new blood vessel growth required to feed tumors;
- by inhibiting cancer cell protein synthesis; u by inducing cancer cells to differentiate into normal cells. The following forms of cancer have been shown to respond favorably to soy adjuvant therapy:
- prostate cancer, breast cancer, leukemia, bladder cancer, and Glioblastoma multiforme. Other research has shown the Isoflavones in soy:
-alleviate post-menopausal symptoms;
- stimulate bone formation;
- inhibit LDL cholesterol oxidation;
- reduce total and LDL (the bad) cholesterol levels;
- inhibit the progression of atherosclerosis;
-prevent gallstones;
- reduce the risk of cancer at multiple sites; and
- protect kidney function. All good stuff, but responsible soy proponents will also point out that so far as cancer is concerned soy is a preventative/adjuvant therapy and not a cure, that it works for some, while others may derive limited benefit and others should not use it at all.
Now for the negative claims. Soy they say contains high levels of
- phytic acid, which reduces assimilation of calcium, magnesium, molybdenum, copper, iron & zinc.
- Trypsin inhibitors in soy interfere with protein digestion and could cause pancreatic disorders.
- Soy phytoestrogens (i.e. plant based) disrupt endocrine function and may cause infertility and promote breast cancer.
- Soy phytoestrogens or goitrogens, potent antithyroid agents, can cause hypothyroidism in adults, or thyroid cancer in infants.
- Vit B12 analogs in soy are not absorbed and may increase the need for B12.
- Soy foods (SPI) increase the need for Vit D, E & K. u Haemaglutinin, in soy can cause red blood cells to clump together.
- Two or more servings Tofu (SPI) p/week could lead to accelerated brain and overall aging.
- The fragile proteins in soy are denatured during high temperature processing to make soy protein isolate and textured vegetable protein.
- Nitrates, which are carcinogenic, and a toxin called lysinialanine are formed during alkaline processing of SPI's.
- Soy foods can contain high levels of aluminium through processing, which is toxic to the nervous system & kidneys. None of this is gospel and some of it I don't buy; accelerated brain and overall aging for example. It is just that apparently reputable sources say there is evidence that some of these things could be so. You gotta listen, you gotta weigh the pros and cons. At least four of these negative findings relate to the processing of soy protein isolate (SPI or powder). That means soy milk, bean curd and tempe are far less likely to cause these negative effects, though they might to some degree, but nobody seems to know for sure. I buy a soy protein powder from a good manufacturer whom I trust and asked them about this.
They answered about 50% of my questions and ignored the others. That's not necessarily sinister, it means the person I asked, not being a doctor, didn't know. Actually most doctors don't know either and to get any answer at all from an American company is good going. But you end up going round in circles. They say, that by heating SPI you eliminate the bad effects of phytic acid. "Yes,!" I say, "but by heating it, do you not denature it?" And so it goes, and that's the good guys........ What are we to conclude?
I am not a vegetarian. I eat fish but I don't eat meat and that means I don't eat chicken either. You'd be amazed the number of people who don't think a hen is made of meat. I therefore eat a lot of soy in one form or another, that includes soy milk, soy protein powder, tahu and tempe cooked in a variety of ways. What I don't do is eat is eat any packaged goods - period. So not only don't I eat the SPI in them but also I don't get to eat any other of the noxious poisons they routinely shove into these things. Nor should you if you know what's good for you. In the light of the above I am going to eliminate soy protein powder (SPI) entirely and limit the amount of soy milk I drink. If you need a protein powder get a whey or rice based one, but only from a manufacturer who's processing you can trust or your throwing your money away. For those who are concerned about treating cancer, cancer prevention, osteoporosis and the estrogenic effect I believe the beneficial and preventative effects of Isoflavones outweigh the downside, based on the evidence so far. Nothing I have heard to date convinces me that phytoestrogens sensibly used are anything but good, while synthetic estrogens have clearly been shown to cause both breast and endometrial cancer. Call me a cynic but I'd rather like to know who's behind the survey that calls phytoestrogens in question? ERT is Bigtime Babe! Bet you a donkey's tail to a pig's ear it's one of the pharmaceutical majors. Little is as it seems and as I say, it's your call. It always is.
" To soy or not to soy? That is the question" (groan, sorry 'bout that!).
Me? I'm going to soy a little & not soy another word....... Too much of anything is bad for you. That includes fruit & veggies, which contain natural toxins & hormones that could poison or sterilise the greedy mammals that might otherwise graze them to extinction. Since you're not a cow I wouldn't worry too much......
