Reply To This Post         Return to Posts Index           VegSource Home

From:	Zebra (12-210-136-134.client.insightbb.com)
Subject:	Re: soy issues question
Date:	January 1, 2006 at 2:29 pm PST

In Reply to: Re: soy issues question posted by Vanessa on January 1, 2006 at 5:55 am:

I have gone to the sites, and importantly, I've studied the research designs on the studies that purport to demonstrate the dangers of soy. Most of them make conclusionary statements unwarranted by the design of the study and the data collected. When I've gotten my hands on the actual data, there've been whole hosts of problems with what's been excluded. Almost none of these studies are peer reviewed, and when they are, they get slammed. The press picks up the initial pitch, but not the criticism.

Remember, soy has been a staple in the diet of most of the worlds population for at least 3 thousand years. And these are cultures that keep records. We have a tremendous weight of empirical evidence pointing to the positive nutritional value of soy, and very little evidence of any dangers, historically. Most of the scientific studies on soy are peer reviewed, and so far, they hold up to the test. And they typically demonstrate the benefits of soy to the general population.

Most of the "probelms" associated with consuming soy are recent and tend to be associated with general problems with GMO foods. Just as many of the problems associated with meat and dairy consumption are recent - increased consumption plus method of production (drugs, antibiotics, etc.)

Ironically, if you remeber that the meat & dairy industries are mega-agribusiness, then you know that they're part of the same corporate groups growing the bulk of the soy in the world. The economics of agribusiness production make it more profitable to grow soy as feed, not food.

I've mentioned the book Seeds of Change by Jeffrey Smith before on this list. It specifically deals with GMO foods, processes & public policy - especially why it's so important for some to have GMO defined as "natural", or the same as.

There's another book you might want to look into. It's a slim volume written by Lester Brown (1963?), called Seeds of Change, in which he specifically deals with the economics of the "Green Revolution", which was supposed to feed the starving in the world. As he pointed out, and in fact came to pass, it did no such thing, because the starving of the world are not a market. They don't have the money. the excess production had to be shunted into the meat industry (many calories in, fewer calories out), and the one with the highest calorie loss rate was beef - sending beef production through the roof. McDonalds was made possible by the Green Revolution.

Do keep looking up the research, but also follow the money. Look at the research design, ask to look at the data. Also, don't forget that often in a study a researcher will make a minor statement in the conlusion, "...we noticed this or that and so we think this merits further attention/investigation," and the media picks up on that, not the major statements - and then the hoopla starts.

Reply To This Post         Return to Posts Index           VegSource Home