By Bill Sardi

Does soy shrink the brain? Leave you anemic? Promote rather than prevent cancer?
Interfere with your thyroid hormones? Is soy a toxin, a food or a drug?

If you eat soy, look out, here come the soy bashers. And you won't believe who they are.

It went from being the darling of the natural products industry to being labeled as a potential toxin. Not even a year ago it was heralded in Time Magazine as the bean that brought down cholesterol and the risk of heart disease. Time Magazine said the Food & Drug Administration was soon to approve a health claim for soy protein -- - that it reduced cholesterol for people with elevated fatty plaque levels in their blood circulation. Just 1.5 ounces of soy, said Time, can lower both total and LDL "bad" cholesterol levels. [The Joy of Soy, Time Magazine, June 7, 1999]

What a joy, that soy, a natural food product, would gain such credibility that the FDA would grant a health claim for it. It was time for a soy festival. The normally pro-pharmaceutical FDA had finally succumbed to the reality that foods are a good way to prevent and even cure disease.

The FDA says scientific studies confirm that 25 grams of soy has a significant cholesterol-lowering effect.* There was an asterisk attached to the FDA announcement however (see below). A soy burger has 9 to 18 grams, and soy milk about 4 to 9 grams of soy protein, according to the Soyfoods Association of North America. The cardiovascular health claim was issued October 26, 1999. [FDA T99-48 Talk Paper]

Just a relatively short time ago soy was considered a yucky un-American food. But today two-thirds of American consumers now believe it is healthy to consume soy, which is a big jump from the 14% who felt so in 1997. Soy sales were over $1 billion in 1997 and are expected to soon jump over the $2 billion mark. Health Products Business Magazine reports that the number of new soy beverages is growing at an astounding pace. More soy, more soy!

Once approved by FDA, enter the soy bashers

But no sooner than the FDA approved a cardiovascular health claim for soy protein than the critics came out of the woodwork, and not from places one would expect. The greatest criticism of soy has come from natural health advocates themselves. Hold up on that soy protein bar, the tofu scramble and the soy milk. You might come down with Alzheimer's disease, your growing children may shows premature signs of puberty, your thyroid gland may malfunction and your body may not be able to absorb essential minerals, according to reports on soy now circulating in natural health publications.

Soy shrinks the brain?

It took less than a month from the date of the issuance of a soy health claim for a bombshell to hit the soy industry. On November 19, 1999, the Honolulu Star Bulletin reported on a study conducted by Lon White, MD, MPH, formerly of the National Institute on Aging and now with the Pacific Health Research Institute, in Hawaii. Dr. White and his colleagues indicated tofu (processed bean curd) could induce "brain aging."

Just two servings per week could be harmful said the subheadline. The newspaper report was generated from an abstract of a presentation at the Third International Symposium on the role of soy in Preventing and Treating Chronic Disease. [Journal American College of Nutrition 19: 242, 2000] Data from that report linked tofu consumption with Alzheimer's disease and low brain weight upon autopsy. [http://starbulletin.com/1999/11/19/news/story4.html]

By April 29 of this year, Fox News published its version of the soy debate, acknowledging that soy products like tofu and tempeh have "moved out of the vegetarian ghetto," but also warned that some experts claimed that "soy can mimic powerful human hormones and yield unpredictable results." The wind was changing.

Was the soybean craze just a fad?

Fox News quoted Dr. Lon White as saying that soy isoflavones, one of the active hormonal ingredients in soy, are "true drugs that are sold without warning." [Fox News April 29, 2000]

Is soy a toxin?

David Zava, PhD, a biochemist, chimes in on the anti-soy bandwagon in the www.JohnLeeMD.com newsletter. A specialist in breast cancer, Zava accurately points out that occasional soy consumption is probably the best course to get the benefits out of soy without any undesirable side effects.

But he, unfairly and inaccurately characterizes some of the components of soy as being nothing short of poison. Zava says soy contains allergens, mineral blockers, enzyme inhibitors, hormone modifiers, and iodine blockers that interfere with normal thyroid function. Zava says soy is a medicine in moderation and a potential poison in excess. [www.johnleemd.com] The wording is alarming. Soy is beginning to be compared to hemlock.

Career soy bashers

Long-time soy bashers Sally Fallon and Mary E. Enig, from the Weston A. Price Foundation in Washington DC, write in the April-May edition of Nexus Magazine that soy is not a perfect food (nobody said it was). They repeat claims that it contains anti-nutrients and toxins, which inhibit digestion and block and absorption of vitamins and minerals.

Fallon and Enig believe most of the information consumers read about soy is "propaganda."

They say, until a few decades ago, soy was considered unfit to eat, even in Asia. These self-appointed soy antagonists claim the enzyme inhibitors in soy cause pancreatic cancer (not so), and that other components in soy induce clumping of red blood cells. They admit most of the growth-depressants in soy are removed in processing and fermentation, but not completely eliminated (who said the biggest kids on the block are the healthiest?). The very interest in soy for cancer prevention emanates from its ability to thwart growth of tumors.

Fallon and Enig perform the best bait and switch routine in the history of medical reporting. While they acknowledge that the Japanese and Asians have lower rates of breast, prostate and colon cancer and that they eat 30 times more soy than North Americans, they also indicate the Japanese have higher rates of other types of cancer, particularly esophageal, stomach, thyroid, pancreas and liver cancer. They give the misimpression that soy prevents some tumors and promotes others.

This just isn't an accurate characterization. The stomach cancers in Japan are attributed to the consumption of pickled, smoked and salted meats and fish as well as raw sushi that may contain parasites. The frying of meats promotes the development of carcinogens.

The cancer-promoting agents in these foods can actually be countered by the inclusion of soy protein with ground meat prior to frying. [Basic Life Science 52: 105-18, 1990] A hidden epidemic among males in Japan is that of alcoholism, as well as rampant tobacco use, which would be likely causes of liver, esophageal and stomach cancers. Instead, Fallon and Enig infer that soy is a hidden carcinogen in Japan.

Does soy promote pancreatic cancer?

Fallon and Enig cite the work of Mark Messina, author of The Simple Soybean and Your Health (Avery Publishing 1994], who reviewed 26 animals studies at the Third International Soy Symposium. According to Messina, 65 percent of these studies confirm the protective properties of soy against cancer. Fallon and Enig claim that Messina purposely left out a 1985 study by Rackis which showed that soy increases the risk of pancreatic cancer in rats. [Advances Experimental Medicine Biology 199: 33-79, 1986]

At a workshop conducted by the National Cancer Institute, researchers pointed out that the pancreas of a few species of animals, notably rats and chicks, are extraordinarily sensitive to dietary protease inhibitors as found in soy. This effect has not been demonstrated in other species such as hamsters, mice, dogs, pigs, and monkeys and is "not expected to occur in humans," says the report. Human populations that consume high levels of soy exhibit decreased rates of pancreatic cancer. [Cancer Research 49: 499-502, 1989]

While the enzyme (protease) inhibitors in soy protein increase the weight of the pancreas, they do not appear to produce lesions, abnormal growths or DNA abnormalities among rats. [Journal Nutrition 117: 247-52, 1987]

Bird-brained soy bashers

If Fallon and Enig are to be considered bona fide health reporters, then one wonders why they included in their anti-soy epitaph the story of New Zealand bird breeders Richard and Valerie James. The James' apparently purchased a new type of bird food that contained soy, which made their birds sick, impaired their fertility and changed the coloring of their feathers.

The James' related these symptoms of illness to those of their young children, who had been fed soy-based formula. The flock of birds under their care was restored to health by the elimination of the soy-based bird food. But heavens, you don't see birds naturally eating soybeans. They know better. It's obvious the James' knew less about bird feed that their feathered but caged pets! That the James' children were intolerant to soy and may have had soy allergy, or that they may have had health problems unrelated to soy, serve as more likely explanations.

Animal data vs. human data

Fallon and Enig go on to quote Dr. Claude Hughes' animal research concerning soy isoflavones and thyroid function. Hughes claims his work will be "somewhat predictive of what occurs in humans." But there ARE differences between animal and human studies, particularly when it comes to soy. Scientists cannot infer that animal data applies to humans. Remember Thalidomide, the drug that caused all the births defects in Europe? The data on that drug checked out on animals, but among pregnant females interfered with their offspring's development.

Looking at the fine print

Fallon and Enig cite 68 scientific references in their Nexus Magazine report. The 40 scientific journal reports cited were published on average 13 years ago, with many dating back to the 1970s. Among the authoritative references listed in support of their report were "Cheese Marketing News" and "Natural Health News published by L & H Vitamin Company."

The Weston Price Foundation website, for which Fallon is president, claims their purpose is to dispel health myths. Yet a report on their own website indicates "the New Zealand government is considering removing soy formula from the market and making it available only by prescription," and lists a citation number #58. Their claim may be true, but when the reader looks for the citation in the end notes, it is missing. So the reader has to wonder why. It appears that Fallon and Enig are making a career out of bashing soy, but are they backing up their opinions with good science?

Does soy interfere with growth?

Much of Fallon and Enig's criticism is generated from reports on the use of soy infant formulas. In 1998, K.O. Klein of the Department of Clinical Science at the A.I. duPont Hospital for Children in Wilmington, Delaware, reported that soy-based infant formulas had been used for over 60 years and fed to millions of infants worldwide and studied in controlled research.

Klein says the medical literature provides "no evidence of endocrine effects in humans from infant consumption of modern soy-based formulas. Growth is normal and no changes in timing of puberty or in fertility rates have been reported in humans who consumed soy formula as infants." [Nutrition Reviews 56: 193-204, 1998] The Journal of Pediatrics also conducted an earlier study that came to a similar conclusion. [Journal Pediatrics 124: 612-20, 1994]

With no supporting evidence, Fallon and Enig state that learning disabilities among male children have reached epidemic proportions and that soy infant feeding, which began in the 1970s, "cannot be ignored as a probable cause for these tragic developments." Yet no citations are listed to back up their claim. They go on to say that one percent of all girls show signs of puberty before the age of three and quote a 1997 report in the Journal of Pediatrics. But that report makes no mention of soy.

More preposterous warnings

With little credibility left, Fallon and Enig also make the preposterous claim that Asians have lower rates of osteoporosis than Westerners, not because of soy consumption but because their diet provides plenty of vitamin D from shrimp and seafood and plenty of calcium from bone broths. They provide no references for this claim. They go on to claim that high rates of osteoporosis in Western society are attributed to the substitution of soy oil for butter. They advocate butter as a traditional source of vitamin D that helps to build strong bones.

Butter only provides about 56 units of vitamin D, and shrimp about 152 units of vitamin D per 100 gram serving, which are almost insignificant according to the latest reports on the need for vitamin D. [US Department of Agriculture data] Skin exposure to sunlight is the primary source of vitamin D. Even sunlight-deprived women who consume a diet that provides 600 IU of vitamin D a day have been found to be lacking in this essential nutrient. [Journal Internal Medicine 247: 260-68, 2000]

Recent reports indicate blood levels of vitamin D don't even begin to rise till 4000 IU of vitamin D is consumed. [American Journal Clinical Nutrition 69: 842-56, 1999] The textbooks need to be re-written for vitamin D, and Fallon and Enig are using out-dated information. Furthermore, butter raises cholesterol. [European Journal Clinical Nutrition 52: 650-54, 1998]

Click Here for Part 2

Knowledge of Health May 2000 Copyright 2000