The Politics behind the Soy Industry

Soy Politics

The soy industry's influence over the media, research institutions and government agencies is strong.
The goal of soy research is to boost industry profits and the US economy.
We uncover soy industry politics.

"Soya: The Quiet Conquest"

Follow this link to a 1994 revelation on the way soy has infiltrated your food, your government and has captured well wishers in food safety regulatory agencies everywhere.

Who Funds Soy Research and Why?

$4 Million in Research Grants to Examine Soy Health Benefits. The soybean checkoff's Soy Health Research Program solicits research proposals to study soy consumption and its impact on the prevention of osteoporosis, breast cancer, prostate cancer and the health benefits of isoflavones, a component of soy protein. Scientists submit research proposal applications to USB and, if their applications are selected, USB awards a $10,000 grant to scientists to help defray the cost of preparing the proposal submission to the NIH. In 2000, the very first year of the program, it yielded a $1.2 million NIH grant. Since then, an additional $4 million has been secured.

Multiple millions of dollars are spent on soy research each year. Most State Soybean Boards fund their own research programmes (e.g., Arkansas Soybean Board which spent US$1.1 Million in research in 1998-1999) but the grants offered are insignificant when compared with that of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

The USDA Soybean Promotion and Research Program was established by the Soybean Promotion and Research Order and is authorised by the Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act [7 U.S.C. 6301-6311]. The Act was passed as part of the 1990 Farm Bill. It authorized the establishment of a national soybean promotion, research, and consumer information program. The program became effective on July 9, 1991, when the Order was published. Assessments began September 1, 1991.

As required by the Act, USDA conducted a referendum among soybean producers on February 9, 1994, to determine whether the program should continue. Of the 85,606 valid ballots cast, 53.8 percent of soybean producers voting favoured the program. As required by the Act, USDA conducted a producer poll on July 26, 1995, to determine whether producers supported conducting a referendum to determine if refunds should continue. Only 48,782 producers participated in the poll--less than the 76,200 required to cause a refund referendum to be conducted. Refunds were discontinued on October 1, 1995.

The program’s goal is to strengthen the position of soybeans in the marketplace and to maintain and expand domestic and foreign markets and uses for soybeans and soybean products. It is funded by a mandatory assessment of 0.5 of 1 percent of the net market price of soybeans. All producers marketing soybeans must pay the assessment. Assessments under this program total approximately $80 million annually and are used to fund promotional and informational campaigns and to conduct research with the objective of expanding and improving the use of soybeans and soybean products.
You can read more about the USDA Soybean Promotion and Research Program at the United Soybean Board Site.

Of course there's nothing wrong with research, but Soy Online Service think that the motivation for research should be the honest search for scientific truth (remember the good old days!!). The vast majority of current USDA and industry funded soy research is obscenely slanted toward the benefits of soy. And, what do you know? Soy cures cancer! Little surprise soy consumption is up, the soy magnates are laughing all the way to the bank and the US economy also gets a nice little boost.

Well the facts are that if you believe the industry message about how great soy is then you are just another sucker. Soy Online Service views the soy industry as the worst type of scum on the face of the earth; happy to promote dubious health claims and take your money, while at the same time endangering more than a million soy formula fed babies each year.

Don't upset the Soybean Cart

Soy Online Service first encountered the politics of soy when we addressed the New Zealand Ministry of Health over concerns about the phytoestrogen content of soy formulas for infants. An internal memo from the Chief Toxicologist to the Minister of Health (and ex Prime Minister, Jenny Shipley) indicated a high level of concern for the health of infants fed soy formulas but stating that:

'if the dose was high enough over a sufficient length of time, such toxicants could cause significant adverse health effects including growth depression, immunosuppression, abnormal responses to hormonal stimulation and cancer'.

However, the memo also noted that the concerns we had raised had potential for 'mischief, especially in the media' and that 'soybeans are big business, especially in the United States and is a traded item on international commodity markets''. An earlier memo clearly stated the New Zealand government's desire to 'regain control' of the situation.

This was in 1994 and rather than 'risk damaging an industry' the New Zealand Ministry of Health lied to the public about the risks associated with feeding soy formulas. Despite mounting evidence to the contrary, and continual questioning in Parliament, the Ministry of Health maintained the lies by continuing to state that there 'was no evidence of harm' and 'no substance to our concerns'. But in November 1998 came a dramatic about-face. One can only wonder at the power of multi-national interests when Ministers of the New Zealand government would condone the breaking of consumer protection laws that they in their oaths of office swore to uphold."

Quote from "The Cholesterol Conspiracy" by Dr Russell L. Smith.

Both the public and clinical physicians have simultaneously been swamped by an ever-growing tidal wave of exaggerations, distortions and even fabrications of the facts. The media blitz has been so successful that nearly everyone is now thoroughly brainwashed.

In fact, it is nothing less than astonishing that this juggernaut has grown larger, richer and more powerful as the mountainous negative findings accumulated. How can this happen? If you control the money and the media, negative findings are little more than irritants because the public will never hear about them. It is a version of George Orwell's Newspeak.

The reader should be aware that such a state-of-affairs is by no means unique. It has occurred in every branch of science for as long as anyone cares to remember. But it is particularly devastating in medicine where billions of dollars are spent worthlessly and millions of lives are lost prematurely because research funding agencies have disregarded masses of scientific findings and fraudulently used public monies to disseminate dogma and propaganda.

Hitler did it. He was not the first but he did it quite successfully. It being the big lie. He and his cohorts told it often enough, and with official state backing, so that just about everyone involved believed it. And if you thought it could never happen again - outside of politicians, that is - you were mistaken. What is even worse, the big lie may well kill millions of people without ever interfering with their rights, their beliefs or their backgrounds.