Fowl Play: Pumped and Plumped Meat September 9, 2010
Ever wonder about those plump well-endowed DD cup chickens at the supermarket? Yes, chickens today are bred to be mostly breasts, but that’s not all. Such chickens — or at least their parts — could well be examples of “reformed meat technology” also known as “pumped meat.” Same might be true of s upermarket turkeys, hams, beef and even fish.
To create simulated “whole cuts,” food processors start with pieces of real meat, poultry or fish, then mix in — or inject — some form of soy protein along with soy or another vegetable oil, food colorings, salt, phosphates, flavorings (including MSG) and other additives. These are then massaged, shaped and bound into familiar meat-like shapes — such as chicken nuggets. After fabrication, these products may be sliced, ground or dried.
Such products sell poorly in supermarkets– where ingredient labels are required– but briskly at fast food establishments where customers rarely ask nosy questions about what’s in those meaty nuggets and nobody is required to tell them. In 1990 Clyde Boismenue, a longtime distributor for Archer Daniels Midland, said in an interview with William Shurtleff of the Soy Foods Center in Lafayette, California, that one of the main obstacles in the U.S. to gaining consumer acceptance for his products was the “obnoxious meat labeling requirement.” Specifically he was upset that “if isolates are injected into ham, it must be sold as ‘smoked pork ham with soy protein isolate product.’’‘ Seems the soy industry has been hot and bothered by such labeling requirements for years. Back in 1969 Soybean Digest reviewed the regulatory problems and complained that “new product concepts” would be canceled because of “standard of identity” problems as well as failure to secure prompt government approvals.” Pity.
So what about those plump chickens at the supermarket? If they look like chickens, they are probably not reformulated, but they might well be plumped — meaning pumped up with a broth-like liquid containing sodium, water and other solutions and then sold as “all natural chicken.” These additives can legally make up fifteen percent of “all natural” chicken, a situation that Dr William Campbell Douglass II has described as “the most clucked up nonsense I’ve ever heard!”
Dr Douglass goes on to say such “bizarre logic” could only be found in Washington because anyone with “even a bird-sized brain knows that broth and sodium solutions are no more a ‘natural’ part of a chicken than a McNugget.” Even Perdue — a major purveyor of low-quality, factory-farmed chickens — has asked the USDA to change this regulation. Interesting that Perdue, a company whose founder claimed “It takes a tough man to make a tender chicken,” has decided to take a tough stance against the USDA and protest the unnatural ways its competitors tenderize chickens. As for Perdue, the best thing that can be said about its factory-farming operation is that its famous slogan has been hysterically mangled in translation, leading to laughter heard around the world. Billboards in Mexico for a brief time said, “It takes a hard man to make a chicken aroused.” In other countries, it was translated into “It takes a virile man to make a chicken pregnant.” Meanwhile, Kentucky Fried Chicken has had it’s own translation problems. In China, the slogan “finger-lickin’ good” came out as “eat your fingers off.” Hopefully, such advertising scared people into buying locally!
Reply to Dr Mark Hyman’s Huffington Post article
On August 10, 2010, Dr. Mark Hyman posted an article “Soy: Blessing or Curse?” on the Huffington Post blog (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ dr-mark-hyman/soy-blessing-or-curse_b_673912. html). Widely circulated online, it is being widely touted as an example of “sanity” in the “soy debate.” Hyman describes himself as “a practicing physician and an internationally recognized authority in the field of Functional Medicine.” He is founder of The UltraWellness Center and author of the best-selling The UltraMind Solution, among other books.
In Hyman’s words, he wishes there were “more convincing science to report” regarding the soy controversy but he has taken “all the available evidence together” to see “what shakes out.” Hyman has long recommended soy as part of what he calls a “whole foods diet” and is disturbed by fear mongering from anti-soy people. Who these “anti-soy” people are exactly, he doesn’t say.
The most prominent group warning about the dangers of modern soy consumption would be the Weston A. Price Foundation. The late Valerie and Richard James of Soy Online Service in New Zealand were also extremely active in warning about excessive consumption of modern processed soy products and the use of soy infant formula for babies. Our concerns revolve around the myth of soy as a “health food” and how the heavy marketing of soy has led people to over consume soy foods and soy milk and to feed their infants soy formula, putting themselves and their children at risk. To say we are “anti soy,” however, would not be entirely accurate as we support the modest consumption of old-fashioned, fermented soy products such as miso, natto and tempeh. They are nutritious and delicious foods in the context of a varied omnivorous diet. I would prefer to say we are pro real foods, whole foods and slow foods, prepared in traditional ways, which modern soy foods most assuredly are not.
NUGGET OF WISDOM
There are indeed some sage and sane observations in Hyman’s article. He advises, for instance, that eating tofu would be wiser than chicken nuggets. Presumably he is referring to fast-food nuggets from factory-farmed chickens (fed soy-based feed) with their meat then “extended” with soy protein isolate and other additives and fried in soy oil. Wise to get the plain tofu, for sure.
Hyman also advises eating old-fashioned fermented whole soybean products. Wise again to avoid industrially processed soy protein isolate, soy protein concentrate, textured vegetable protein and hydrolyzed vegetable protein, and other industrially processed products, all of which contain MSG, hexane and other toxic and carcinogenic residues. All of us so-called “anti soy” people would agree with that, except the increasing numbers of people who are allergic to soy. They have a reason to be 100 percent “anti soy.” And they are angry “anti soy” people because they find it hard to find anything that’s safe to eat. Their problem is they are trying to find soyfree, packaged, processed and fast foods, which can be well-nigh impossible to find. Soy ingredients right now are in more than 60 percent of processed and packaged foods and nearly 100 percent of fast foods. The most allergic of these people cannot even tolerate meat, poultry, fish, dairy and/or eggs from animals fed soy feed. Sadly, most of the organic and free range products sold come from animals fed in this unnatural way.
For those who are not allergic, the old-fashioned fermented soy products miso, natto and tempeh are fine, but Hyman reveals his ignorance of processing methods when he claims that tofu and soymilk are fermented. Although they are sometimes fermented in Asia — to remove the “poisons” according to one person interviewed in a National Geographic film — none,,if any, of the tofu products widely available in stores are fermented. Even so, a little regular tofu once in awhile — not everyday, and certainly not a whole slab at a time — is not a problem for most individuals. As for soy milk, few if any brands are fermented. Of the brands for sale in stores, most have been loaded up with sugar to make them palatable and with supplements to improve their inadequate nutritional profile. Too bad those supplements include cheap, hard-to-absorb forms of calcium, vegetarian Vitamin D2 (instead of the far superior D3) and beta carotene (in lieu of true Vitamin A).
Hyman is smart, too, to advise against genetically modified soybeans. Their risks to personal and planetary health are high, and described vividly and accurately by Jeffrey Smith in his own s article (www.newswithviews.com/Smith/jeffrey8.htm).
EVERYTHING IN “MODERATION”
Sadly, Hyman dismisses the idea that excessive soy consumption is a problem. In his words: “First, you should be aware that the amount of soy used in many of these studies was much higher than what we normally consume — the average dose of soy was equivalent to one pound of tofu or three soy protein shakes a day. That’s a lot of soy! Most people just don’t eat like that. So when you read negative things about soy, remember that many of those claims are based on poorly designed studies that don’t apply to real-world consumption.”
Sounds reasonable, but given the current popularity of plant-based diets and the myth of soy as a “health food,” the truth is many people do eat a pound of tofu in a single setting. Add in a daily soy protein shake made with soy milk, a veggie burger washed down with a glass of soymilk and/or soy energy bar snacks and the quantities add up quickly. Vegans who use soy as both meat and dairy replacements are clearly high risk. But so are omnivores who drink soy milk several times a day or snack on soy protein bars and/or nosh on edamame likes its popcorn. Given the increasing numbers of people who react poorly to ultrapasteurized supermarket and health food store dairy products, a whole lot of people drink soy milk several times a day. That’s excessive consumption, and it matches the levels in numerous studies showing the dangers of soy.
Hyman mocks the anti soy contingent with the words, “You could apply that thinking to other studies, too — like those that show that broccoli contains natural pesticides or that celery is high in toxins. Sure, those foods might cause you some problems — but not in the amounts that most of us eat. The same is true for soy.” Well, yes. There are risks to plant foods! I discuss some of them in my article in the Spring issue Plants Bite Back:The Surprising, All-Natural Anti-Nutrients and Toxins in Plant Foods!” About time someone noted this in the popular press. Not having the “fight or flight” mechanism, plants fight for their lives with phytochemical warfare. The evolutionary reason is so predators will weaken, possibly die, but most importantly, lose their ability to reproduce.
Until plant-based diets became fashionable, most people didn’t eat massive amounts of vegetables. Even now, few people eat, broccoli three times a day every day. And a good thing too, as there are risks to excess consumption of cruciferous vegetables. The supplement industry, however, is doing its best to “improve” on real life consumption patterns by formulating broccoli pills that will concentrate the compounds found naturally in the real vegetables. I predict that such supplements will lead sooner or later to serious health problems. In the meantime, some real life people eat soy for breakfast, lunch, dinner and snacks. One weight lifter and fitness buff I know took in a gallon of soy milk everyday for a year or so. He is now coping with neurological problems, stuttering and other speech defects.
SOY AND BREAST CANCER
“Don’t worry about soy’s effect on breast cancer,” advises Hyman, implying there is consensus in the scientific community. No such consensus exists. Indeed numerous studies link soy to breast cell proliferation, a well-known marker of breast cancer risk. Accordingly, the Israeli Health Ministry, French Food Agency and German Institute as well as Cornell University’s Center for Breast Cancer and Environmental Risk Factors have all warned women who’ve been diagnosed with — or have a family history of breast cancer — to exercise caution when it comes to soy.
If it were true that “real life” people rarely eat too much soy, we could probably relax. But “moderation” means different things to different people, and Hyman recommends both good soy foods like miso and tempeh that are rarely over consumed and bad ones like soy milk that are very easy to overindulge. Furthermore, Hyman’s assurances that soy isoflavones have beneficial hormonal effects, rarely contribute to endocrine disruption, do not endanger the thyroid and will reduce breast cancer risk will lead some women to purposely increase their consumption of any and all soy products.
Will all those women be at risk? Probably not. A few studies do suggest soy isoflavones could benefit women by reducing their breast cancer risk. But not all women and not at all stages in the life cycle. Accordingly we need reliable lab tests that will show which women might benefit from soy isoflavones, and which would be harmed. Those women who could possibly benefit from soy isoflavones could then take them like pharmaceutical drugs with appropriate dosing, monitoring and follow up. In other words,we need to treat soy isoflavones like a drug. The soy industry’s marketing of soy — of any type eaten in virtually any quantity — as the ticket to an easy menopause and breast cancer prevention is irresponsible.
Hyman’s recommendation that women who want to avoid breast cancer avoid saturated fat is yet another example of how he’s either not done his homework or is pandering to politically correct ideas of nutrition. At least he’s got it right about the dangers of trans fats. They are definitely linked to breast cancer and should be assiduously avoided.
SOY AND THE THYROID
What about the risks of soy to the thyroid? Are the anti soy critics making a “mountain out of molehill?” Are the effects “not significant or relevant unless you are deficient in iodine (which you can easily get from eating fish, seaweed or sea vegetables, or iodized salt). Hyman reaches that conclusion from just one study, a study that does not exonerate soy by the way. In fact, more than 70 years of studies — including a human study from the respected Ishizuki Clinic in Japan — link modest to moderate soy consumption to thyroid disorders. Iodine deficiency is certainly part of the problem, but iodine repletion neither consistently nor reliably solves the problem. As for Hyman’s idea that iodine deficiency is not a problem, the National Center for Health Statistics reports epidemic iodine deficiency, with intakes plummeting by more than 50 percent between surveys taken between 1970-1974 and 1988-1994, and continuing to decrease in the years since.
SOY INFANT FORMULA
As for babies, Hyman jumps on the “breast is best” bandwagon. He would prefer “no one feeds dairy or soy formula to their babies, but if you have to, try not to worry about it” and “don’t beat yourself up about it.” To reassure readers, Hyman cites a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in August 2001. Let’s take a look a good look at that study.
A team of researchers led by Brian L. Strom, MD, studied the use of soy formula and its long-term impact on reproductive heath, and announced only one adverse finding: longer, more painful menstrual periods among the women who’d been fed soy formula in infancy. The male researchers dismissed this effect — one that has been painful and debilitating for many women — as unimportant and concluded that the overall results were “reassuring.”
In fact, the data in the body of the report was far from reassuring. Mary G. Enig, PhD, President of the Maryland Nutritionists Association; Naomi Baumslag, MD, Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at Georgetown University and President of the Women’s International Public Health Network; Lynn R. Goldman, MD, MPH, Environmental Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins University; Retha Newbold, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and other experts who analyzed the findings noted numerous flaws in both the design and reporting of this study, including:
- Failure to include mention of statistically significant, higher incidence of allergies and asthma in the study’s abstract — the only part read by most busy health professionals and media reporters
- Glossing over or omitting from the main body of the report gynecological problems such as higher rates of cervical cancer, polycystic ovarian syndrome, blocked fallopian tubes, pelvic inflammatory disease, hormonal disorders and multiple births
- Manipulation of statistics by not evaluating still births or failure to achieve pregnancy (higher in the soy-fed women) but evaluating miscarriages (slightly higher in the dairy-formula-fed group)
- Excluding thyroid function as a subject for study (although thyroid damage from soy formula has been the principal concern of critics for decades). Nonetheless, thyroid damage, can be surmised by the fact that the soy-fed females grew up to report higher rates of sedentary activity and use of weight-loss medicines
- Conducting the entire study by telephone interviews, asking subjective — in some cases highly personal and emotionally painful — questions and performing no medical examinations, laboratory tests or other objective testing. Breast development, for example, was gauged by asking participants at which age they first bought their bras.
- Providing no information on the ages at which formula feeding ended; the dose length or the quantity of the soy isoflavones (all of which are basic requirements of valid toxicology studies)
- Using the criteria (trade school, college and post college) as a measure of intelligence, thus rating a graduate of a beauty school at the same level as someone who received a doctorate degree
- Following up infants who were given soy formula as infants for just 16 weeks (though serious damage can occur for at least the first nine months in boys and the first six months in girls) and failing to obtain any information about whether the subjects in the study took soy formula after the initial 16-week study period or ate soy foods during childhood
- Using a study group of 282 soy-fed persons that was too small for most of the negative findings to become “statistically significant”
I personally heard scientists at the Fifth and Sixth Symposia on the Role of Soy in Preventing and Treating Chronic Disease held in San Diego and Chicago stand up and speak out about the dismal quality of this “reassuring” study. So who funded it? The National Institutes of Health with the International Formula Council (a trade group that represents formula manufacturers). Even more reassuringly, it was carried out under the auspices of the Fomon Infant Nutrition Unit at the University of Iowa, a group which receives support from the major formula manufacturers, including Abbott, Nestle and Mead Johnson.
Hyman also feels comfortable touting the safety of soy infant formula because of a report issued in December 2009 by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR). Its 14-member committee concluded that the health risks of soy infant formula are “minimal” and insufficient human or animal data exist to prove the likelihood of harm to the baby’s developmental or reproductive health.
Before reaching this conclusion, the committee looked at 700 studies. Sounds like a lot, but the committee failed to examine at least as many others, many of which linked soy formula to severe thyroid and gastrointestinal effects especially when fed during the first few months after birth, a key developmental phase for infants. The panel also arbitrarily decided that reproductive damage had to occur during infancy although it is rare for symptoms to show up before puberty. During public proceedings, the 14 members — many of whose work and careers depend on funding from industry or government sources — were pressured by soy industry representatives who made it clear that a vote indicating “some concern” would damage soy’s “healthy” image and jeopardize industry profits.
THOSE LONG LIVED OKINAWANS
So which people are thriving on lots of soy? According to Hyman, it’s the Okinawans, the world’s longest-lived people, who “for more than five millennia have eaten whole, organic and fermented soy foods like miso, tempeh, tofu, soy milk, and edamame (young soybeans in the pod).” Interesting indeed that the Okinawans have been eating these foods for “five millenia,” when miso and tofu only entered the food supply about three thousand years ago. Tempeh came in to the food supply in Indonesia sometime between 1000 and 1595 AD. As for soy milk, the first historical reference is 1866, and it was first popularized in Asia in the 20th century by Seventh Day Adventist missionaries from America.
Where might Hyman’s careful research on the “healthy Okinawans come from?” Probably from the Bradley and D. Craig Wilcox and their bestselling popular books The Okinawa Program and The Okinawa Diet Plan. That seems to be where vegetarian John Robbins obtained the information he includes in his article about the same topic. Among other major blunders, the Willcox brothers claim that Okinawans who have reached the 100 year mark in good health did so because of ample quantitities of soy foods and canola oil in their diets. Yes, canola oil — the Canadian oil (Can-ola) that didn’t even exist on the planet until a few decades ago! The Willcoxes also show confusion from page to page about just how much soy is eaten. In fact, the amounts vary widely from place to place in Asia, but nowhere is the average very high and everywhere it’s treated as a condiment in the diet and not as a staple food. While it’s certainly true that Okinawans regularly eat some soy, the evidence indicates they also enjoy a lot of pork in their diet. And the primarily monounsaturated fat those centenarians ate over the course of their long lives was not canola oil but good old-fashioned lard. Yes, lard is a primarily monounsaturated fat.
REVIEWING THE RESEARCH
Hyman claims he has “reviewed reams of research” yet lists only three references at the conclusion of his article, the first of which is an review article by soy industry lobbyist Mark Messina, PhD. Hyman winds up by saying he’s “eager to see the studies on soy and health.” The bottom line is thousands of studies have been carried out over the past eighty years, many of which suggest risks and none prove safety.
Clearly it would be wise to advance the precautionary principle of “better safe than sorry.” That has led the Israeli Health Ministry, French Food Agency, and German Institute of Risk Assessment to issue warnings to parents and pediatricians. Warnings have also come from respected independent scientists, including Dan Sheehan, the retired senior toxicologist at FDA’s Laboratory of Toxicological Research in Jefferson, Arkansas, Retha Newbold of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in Triangle Park, NC, Irvin E. Liener, PhD, professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota and the world’s leading expert on on antinutrients such as protease inhibitors, phytates, lectins, saponins, etc., Lon R. White MD, a neuro-epidemiologist with the Pacific Health Institute in Honolulu; and Mary G. Enig, PhD, the courageous scientist who first exposed the dangers of trans fats in the late 1970s. Alternative doctors with impressive records of reversing cancer such as the late Max Gerson MD, Nicholas Gonzalez MD and others have also put soy on their “do not eat” lists. Neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock MD, has strongly warned against soy’s adverse effects on the brain and nervous system. None of these groups or individuals have been militantly “anti soy.” All have looked long and hard at the research, and have soberly and responsibly concluded that caution is warranted and soy can put infants, children and adults at risk.
Time for Dr. Hyman to do some real homework and not just express his “eagerness” to know more.
Soy, Sanitation and Food Poisoning July 28, 2010
Fears about salmonella poisoning, listeria, swine and avian flus from animal foods are boosting the market for soy and other vegan foodstuffs and supplements. The demand is being fed by vegans, of course, but also from increasing numbers of omnivores who’ve been convinced that plant foods are the best way to avoid food poisoning. The safest and most sanitary foods of all, according to this line of thinking are processed and packaged goods,
Market analyst Kathie Brownlie reveals in the online newsletterNutraIngredients “the market is driven by crises – and it did not exist a decade ago.” Another factor in this new and booming market is the widely perceived “healthy” image of vegan ingredients. According to Chris Olivant of the UK’s Vegetarian Society, the numbers of vegetarians have steadily increased over the past decade, but “tend to peak in the immediate aftermath of a animal health scare, then drop back down to prior levels afterwards.”
“If you have a complete portfolio of vegetarian ingredients, you will be prepared for any animal health-scare that breaks,” says Lukas Christian, global product manager for beta-carotene at DSM Nutritional Products. NutraIngredients reports that DSM is launching a new synthetic beta carotene to compete against animal-derived beta carotenes. Other companies too, including BASF and Biodar have come out with vegetarian beta-carotenes. If you naively thought beta carotene supplements would come from carrots and other vegetables, welcome to the brave new world of supplements . Why grow carrots, after all, when you can produce beta carotene with microorganisms? And why bother with the care and feeding of wee beasties when you can manufacture a synthetic beta carotene that can be billed as vegetarian?
Given all the vegan scare stories and the filthy reality of factory-farming operations, it’s
hardly news that people in record numbers are avoiding meat, milk and eggs, but is it wise to go vegan for safety reasons? Not if we patronize local farmers who raise healthy, happy, free-range and pastured animals and make it a priority to run clean operations. And also not if it’s diseases from listeria, e coli and salmonella that we are trying to avoid. Most cases come from contaminated commercial vegetables, strawberries, spinach, alfalfa sprouts, peppers etc, and not animal foods at all. As for soy, there are surprising risks of contamination. Packaged soy products seem aseptic, safe and sanitary, but recalls have been legion over the years, suggesting that the squeaky clean packaging might only seal in the disease.
LARGEST RECALL IN FDA HISTORY
Consider what may prove to be the largest recall in FDA history. It occurred in March 2010 and involved salmonella-contaminated hydrolyzed vegetable protein (HVP) produced by Basic Food Flavors Inc of Las Vegas, Nevada. Salmonella was found on the company’s processing equipment. HVP is used to enhance flavors of thousands of food products, extend shelf life, and otherwise increase the food industry’s bottom line. HVP is an ingredient in just about every processed food available in stores. As a paste or powder, it is added to soups, sauces, chilis, stews, hot dogs, gravies, snack foods, dips and dressings. The name hydrolyzed vegetable protein most often refers to “hydrolyzed corn protein” or “hydrolyzed soy protein” and may sometimes be labeled as such. If mixed with spices, it is routinely identified only as “natural smoke flavor” or “natural flavors.” This labeling practice protects proprietary recipes of manufacturers, but has long been a nightmare for people who are allergic to soy or corn, or who react to MSG, which is an inevitable and unavoidable byproduct of the hydrolyzing process. Products containing this additive may even state “No MSG” on the label, though this is clearly an untruth.
This particular recall has proved embarrassing to the FDA. Congressional investigators chided the agency for failing to oversee the production of HVP and other additives and food ingredients that are widely perceived as safe. In addition to HVP, these include partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, salt, spices, artificial flavors, emulsifiers, binders, vitamins, minerals, preservatives and other ingredients, most of which are intended to enhance taste, texture, nutritional content or shelf life. In a prepared statement, FDA spokeswoman Rita Chappelle conceded that the FDA “agrees broadly” that its oversight of such ingredients “could be strengthened.” Given the misplaced time and effort FDA has put into harassing small farmers, it’s not surprising that it has been asleep on its real job.
Health-conscious consumers might think that this is not their issue because the companies in the news are the big names like McCormick, Pringles, National Pretzel, Herbox (boullion), Quaker, Safeway and CVS snack products. Best Food Flavors alone has recalled nearly 800 products. This would suggest the problem lies with the processed, packaged, fast and junk foods on the Standard American Diet (SAD). Sadly, the truth is that many of the brands billed as “healthy” and sold in health food stores and upscale markets use the very same additives. Follow Your Heart brand vegetarian products, for example, recalled its barbecue, kung pao, savory, peanut and curry-flavored tofus as well as its “heart smart” veggie burgers, burritos and “chicken” pasta because of possible salmonella contamination “from one of our suppliers.”
The possibility of salmonella poisoning also drove recalls of those old hippie staples soy grits and flour. The recalled items came from Thumb Oilseed Producers’ Cooperative of Ubly, Michigan, sold under the brand names Soy Beginnings and Nexsoy.
NOT HVP ALONE
Other contamination problems have also beset soy-food manufacturers. Lifesoy Inc., a San Diego-based manufacturer of ready-to-eat soy products, was forced to stop manufacturing and distributing its sweetened and unsweetened soy milk, fried tofu, fresh tofu, soybean pudding, and other products because it did not hold and store foods under refrigerated conditions cold enough to prevent the growth of microorganisms. Interesting enough when the FDA first discovered Lifesoy’s unsanitary practices in 2007 it did not harass the company (as it does small farmers and cottage industries) but actively tried to help it comply with Good Manufacturing Practices and stay in business. The company’s failure to do so led to its shut down.
The LifeSoy case indicates why most tofu products coming out of large manufacturing facilities are pasteurized today. In the good old days, there were also cases of contamination, of course, with most occurring at Asian groceries or old-fashioned small health food stores where fresh blocks of tofu were displayed in water in produce sections. The tofu was non refrigerated and open to airborne contamination as well as bugs from customers reaching into the water with tongs.
Think soy milk is safe? Bonsoy soy drink was whisked out of markets in Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Ireland, Singapore and Hong Kong this last spring because of dangerously high iodine levels derived from kombu, a seaweed ingredient. That manufacturing error sank at least 38 people’s thyroids. Ironically, the kombu was put in there to begin with because of soy’s adverse effects on the thyroid, a risk highest among consumers who are iodine deficient. Recently a reformulated version was approved for sale by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). Meanwhile other products containing seaweed are being investigated.
FORMULA FOR DISASTER
One of the most frequently recalled products is infant formula. Between 1982 and 1994 there were 22 significant recalls of infant formula in the United States due to health and safety problems. Seven of these recalls were classified by the FDA as “Class I” or potentially life threatening. And things haven’t improved much since then. Recent recalls were made by Nestle (Carnation), Abbott, Mead Johnson, Wyeth, and Nutricia, among other companies, and for for widely sold products under the brand names of Alsoy, GoodStart, Isomil, Nutramigen, Nursoy, and Soylac. Both dairy and soy formulas have been recalled for everything from contamination by Salmonella or Klebsiella Pneumoniae to bits of glass. Yes, glass, as in the shards found in more than 102,000 Mead-Johnson jars.
Manufacturing errors are an especially big problem with soy formula. Failure to add supplemental B1, B12 Vitamin K, chloride and other needed supplements has led to deaths and hospitalizations of babies. When such omissions happen with dairy formula, the deficiency is less likely to be a life-threatening matter. Cow’s milk, after all, contains what a mammal needs to grow. Although obviously not at the ideal levels for a human baby as opposed to a calf, vital components don’t go missing. In 2003 three babies in Israeli on soy formula died from an extreme deficiency of vitamin B1, and another eight babies were hospitalized, of which four suffered permanent brain damage. The formula manufacturers had left out B1 on the false assumption that soybeans contain plenty of B1.
Hard to believe? Want to check out future recalls? Get industry news from a free online subscription to NutraIngredients and by visiting the FDA’s own website. Then put your energy into buying both animal and plant foods directly from small, local farmers you know, visit and trust.
Novel Approach to the Zipper Problem July 26, 2010
April was National Soyfoods Month. Given all the hype, soy must be good for something, right? Absolutely. The miracle bean would be very good indeed for politicians with the zipper problem.
The soy industry apparently agrees, because on March 17, it held a special Soyfoods Lunch on Capitol Hill for some 200 members of Congress, government officials and industry representatives. Billed as a way to showcase the “health benefits of soy,” the Eighth Annual Congressional Soyfoods Lunch may have had the side benefit of controlling Capitol Hill lust. Soy, after all, in Asia is eaten heavily in Zen monasteries to help monks maintain their vows of celibacy. It’s also featured heavily on the menu in Japanese homes where the husband has been unfaithful. Seems that wives know that soy can kill the desire, the ability, . . . or both.
As for US politicians, too bad Bill Clinton didn’t eat it. Not because it would have prevented his heart disease problems – even the American Heart Association (AHA) has backed off from its pro soy position – but because it might have downed his infamous libido. Accordingly, let’s urge Bill Clinton to admit the truth to the American public. The words I’d put in his mouth are, “If that woman and I had eaten soy, I’d have saved a lot of embarrassment to my presidency.”
Sadly, the American Soy Association(ASA) has a stereotypical pro soy message for the public. “ASA’s Congressional Soyfoods Lunch is a unique occasion for the U.S. soybean industry to provide Members of Congress and other government officials with the chance to taste the ever-expanding selection of soyfoods available today,” said ASA president Rob Joslin. Those taste treats included all sorts of fake steaks – er mis-steaks – and other soybean ingredients dressed up, brightened, flavored and textured into approximations of Thai Beef Salad, Mediterranean Chicken and Vegetable Pasta, Sautéed Broccoli in Garlic Sauce,and other pseudo pfoods.
The point of it all was for attendees to hear ASA spin doctors tout the “health benefits of soy” and learn how they could help acquaint the American public with said benefits. Sadly, the truth is another soy story, with soy linked to malnutrition, digestive distress, thyroid disorders, immune system breakdown, ADD/ADHD, even heart disease and cancer, especially breast cancer. Soy also causes or contributes to reproductive problems in both men and women, including infertility, loss of libido and other problems. The Israeli Health Ministry, French Food Agency and German Institute of Risk Assessment have all issued warnings about soy. Here in the U.S., the marketing of soy is business as usual, moving full speed ahead all year long and especially during April. Too bad the mis-information isn’t just an April Fool’s Day joke.
Interview with Caroline Sutherland, medical intuitive and author of The Body Knows October 28, 2009
Listen to the full interview (mp3 format, 9.2 MB)
Soya-based diet linked to lower sperm count July 25, 2008
Men who eat soya-based foods may be harming their fertility, doctors said yesterday, after a study found a link between soya-rich diets and lower sperm counts. The study showed men who consumed more than two portions of soya-based foods a week had, on average, 41m fewer sperm per millilitre of semen than men who had never eaten soya products. Read the full article by Ian Sample here.
Spilling the beans July 13, 2008
Toxic Health Food?
How do you adjust to the possibility your favourite health food is toxic and dangerous? On the good food website Gremolata.com, Lorette C. Luzajic writes a great article “Spilling the Beans”. Read the full article here.
Health Claim Re-evaluation December 21, 2007
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on its intent to reevaluate the scientific evidence for two previously authorized health claims (dietary lipids (fat) and cancer; soy protein and risk of coronary heart disease) and two qualified health claims that were the subject of letters of enforcement discretion (antioxidant vitamins and risk of certain cancers; selenium and certain cancers). The agency is undertaking a reevaluation of the scientific basis for these authorized health claims and qualified health claims because of new scientific evidence that has emerged for these substance-disease relationships. The new scientific evidence may have the effect of weakening the substance-disease relationship for these authorized health claims and either strengthening or weakening the scientific support for the substance-disease relationship for these qualified health claims.
DATES: Submit written or electronic comments by February 19, 2008.
More…
Health Committee Petition December 14, 2007
Read the Report of the NZ House of Representatives Health Committee on Petition 2005/123 of Valerie Ann James and 214 others, submitted with the support of SoyOnlineService.
The committee heard evidence on 17 October 2007 from Valerie Ann James, the New Zealand Food Safety Authority and the Ministry of Health.
“Conclusion: We support the petitioner’s request for more accurate labels on soy-based infant formula, which highlight the potential long-term risks of feeding soy-based infant formula to infants. We accept that there is evidence that soy-based formulas have a high phytoestrogen content that may pose a risk to the long-term reproductive health of infants. We acknowledge that the current labels do advise consumers to consult a doctor or health care worker for advice. However, we believe it would be prudent to supplement this advice with more specific wording which points out that the high phytoestrogen content of soy-based infant formula may pose a risk to the long term reproductive health of infants.”…
Read the full report here
Soya Supplements May Be a Health Risk: German Consumer Watchdog December 6, 2007
The Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) Germany, has undertaken a health assessment of isoflavone supplements. BfR found that there is a lack of evidence to confirm the safety of such supplements, yet there is some evidence to suggest that there may be health risks. Long term studies of these extracts are needed to evaluate the health implications.
Isoflavones are phyto-estrogens that may have a hormone like (estrogen) effect on the body. Isoflavones are found predominantly in soya beans (Glycine hispida max) and Red Clover (Trifloium pratense). Daidzein, genistein and glycitein are the main isofavones found in soya. Red clover is a mix of many isoflavone compounds; formononetin and biochanin A are thought to be the main ones. Isoflavones may be ingested naturally from food or as an isolated, fortified form in food supplements.
One of the main groups who are targeted by isoflavone marketing is post menopausal women. It is often claimed that such supplements can ease the symptoms of the menopause, offering an alternative to hormone replacement therapy. Other claimed advantages of the supplements are heart, bone and breast health.
After reports of adverse events relating the taking of soya / red clover supplements, BfR carried out a health assessment. This included evaluating the scientific studies published to date. The reported adverse events included itching, eczema, nausea, dizziness, abdominal pain, skin rash and sweating. Conflicting reports and a lack of long term studies make isoflavones a difficult subject to evaluate. Indeed one study found that isoflavones stimulated breast cancer cells in mice, while another found that women with a high soy diet generally have lower rates of breast cancer.
More…
Soya Formula for Infants Should Only Be Administered on Doctor’s Advice, Says German Consumer Safety Watchdog November 19, 2007
Infant formula and follow-up formula based on cow’s milk protein or soy protein is for sale in the European Union. Soy formula should only be administered to infants over a longer period when this is necessary on medical grounds.
Press Release — November 19, 2007 — If a mother is unable to breastfeed her baby, she can fall back on infant formula from the drug store or supermarket. Products made from soybean protein and from cow’s milk are on sale. Soybeans contain high concentrations of isoflavones. They should, therefore, only be given to infants over longer periods in exceptional, justified cases. Isoflavones are similar to the female hormone oestrogen; however, they have a far weaker effect. Furthermore, soybeans may also contain higher amounts of the plant component, phytate. Professor Dr. Dr. Andreas Hensel, President of the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), comments, “Infant formula and follow-up formula made from soy protein should only be administered on medical grounds and then only under medical supervision.”
More…
Omnivore vs Vegan August 25, 2007
This article “Omnivore vs Vegan” was a cover story for EnergyTimes magazine. It may help you decide whether Mother Nature designed us to eat animal products or we should consider veganism “our next big evolutionary leap.” Speaking for the vegans is Hope Ferdowsian, MD, of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. EnergyTimes selected me to represent the omnivores because I’m on the Board of Directors of the Weston A. Price Foundation, but did so only on the condition that I NOT speak out about soy. I agreed, expecting to be identified as the author of The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food. Apparently that was too much for EnergyTimes’ advertisers as the book’s entire title was eliminated from my biography.
Health food caution May 30, 2007
‘Functional Foods’ – also known as ‘nutraceuticals’ or ‘designer foods’ – must be monitored to assess long-term safety and effectiveness, say a group of scientists writing in today’s British Medical Journal. Nynke de Jong, project director at the Duth Institute and colleagues, focused on the potential risks of cholesterol lowering margarines and yoghurts. These products, he wrote, could trigger reactions in people taking statins – drugs that do the same job but act more powerfully – which might actually increase their risk of heart disease, the Dutch experts say. The margarines contain plant sterols which lower cholesterol but when eaten by people taking statins, the level of plant sterols in their blood is raised. There are concerns that this could increase the thickening of the arteries – and the risk of a heart attack – and Canada has banned the sale of these product. Download the British Medical Journal article here. Also see a related article in the NZ Hearld, 21st May 2007.
Death by Veganism May 21, 2007
When Crown Shakur died of starvation, he was 6 weeks old and weighed 3.5 pounds. His vegan parents, who fed him mainly soy milk and apple juice, were convicted in Atlanta recently of murder, involuntary manslaughter and cruelty.
This particular calamity — at least the third such conviction of vegan parents in four years — may be largely due to ignorance. But it should prompt frank discussion about nutrition.
I was once a vegan. But well before I became pregnant, I concluded that a vegan pregnancy was irresponsible. You cannot create and nourish a robust baby merely on foods from plants.
Indigenous cuisines offer clues about what humans, naturally omnivorous, need to survive, reproduce and grow: traditional vegetarian diets, as in India, invariably include dairy and eggs for complete protein, essential fats and vitamins. There are no vegan societies for a simple reason: a vegan diet is not adequate in the long run.
Protein deficiency is one danger of a vegan diet for babies. Nutritionists used to speak of proteins as “first class” (from meat, fish, eggs and milk) and “second class” (from plants), but today this is considered denigrating to vegetarians.
More…
Excerpt from interview with nutritionist Larrian Gillespie, M.D. October 28, 1999
About.com Thyroid Disease site guide, Mary Shoman, has discussed the risk of soy and isoflavones to perimenopausal women with nutritionist Larrian Gillespie MD. Here is an excerpt of the interview which includes a powerful testimony of what happened to Gillespie when she tried an isoflavone supplement.
Shoman: Many women are being told to take soy products as a way to help avoid breast cancer, minimize menopausal symptoms, and lower cholesterol. But some studies are showing that excessive soy consumption — particularly when women are consuming large amounts of soy powders, isoflavone supplements, and excessive soy foods and soy milks — can damage the thyroid further. Do you have any thoughts about this for women with thyroid disease, who may be confused about whether or not they should add more soy to their diets? Do you think soy products are safe? Or how much soy in the diet, and in what forms, would you consider safe?
Gillespie: You hit the nail on the head when you said “excessive soy consumption.” I was recently in China and saw how little soy is used in the daily diet of the Chinese. We in America think we must consume the entire container of tofu in one or two days, when that is enough for a whole week! Taking 40mg of isoflavones causes hypothyroidism in susceptible women…and I mean those in transitional menopause, the new word for perimenopause. I do not recommend that women take supplements. I tried the experiment on myself and developed full blown hypothyroidism in 10 days.
Listen to the full 3 minute interview (RealPlayer format).
