How many Prius owners are Vegetarians?

Madler is usually pretty good with his facts.

 

It's not clear that they do affect women. The scientific studies are inconclusive on whether or not there is an effect. There are many remedies that we take, and some that we may even swear by, but that have not been shown to work by the scientific gold standard (the double-blind study). All too often ones that we have sworn by are later shown to be ineffective.

There are many hysterical web sites out there about soy. As a result, it is difficult to know who to believe. It's that way about many things. (Global warming comes to mind.) I don't have a good solution, except caveat lector.

By the way, while phytoestrogens don't appear to act like estrogen, estrogen does act like estrogen and real estrogen can often be found in significant quantities in beef and dairy products! So if you're really worried about estrogen, then don't worry about the soy (or nuts or cranberry juice or whatever), worry about the beef and dairy.

 

Soybeans are a perfectly natural agricultural crop. They are higher in lysine (an essential amino acid) than any other plant product. This is good. But they are also higher in fat than any other bean. This is bad. And by themselves they do not taste very good. They find a very large market in junk foods and cooking oils. They are the principal ingredient in tofu and tempeh, and they are the foundation for some dairy substitutes, such as non-dairy milk and non-dairy ice cream.

Soy milk should not be used as a substitute for mothers' milk. It should not be used as a substitute for infant formula unless the baby is allergic to milk; but infant formula should not be used as a substitute for mothers' milk either.

I use soy milk on rare occasions, because I am lactose-intolerant. And I eat soy ice cream on occasion for the same reason.

But I detest imitation meat, whether made of soy or gluten or anything else. That's because I detest the taste of meat. Therefore I do not agree that tofurky or boca burgers, or any of that crap makes being a vegetarian easier. There is far more variety of plant-based foods than there is of animal foods, and nobody needs fake meat to make a vegetarian diet interesting.

Sorry. This is utterly wrong and shows a complete ignorance of evolution.

Most often a new species evolves when a small population becomes isolated from the main population at the outskirts of its range. The older species continues to exist on its main range, and now there is a newer species on a separate range. In time the two different species may once again occupy an overlapping range. Thus the evolutionary record is not a "ladder," stepping from one species to the next, but rather a "shrub," branching from one species to many. In the course of time, some of the branches go extinct, while the surviving branches continue to branch out into multiple species themselves. Some ancient lines, such as cockroaches, continue to exist relatively unchanged for long periods, while others, such as primates, go extinct relatively quickly, so that all extant species are relatively young, and no ancient species survive to the present.

 

Actually, it looks like there are many credible studies, including double blind and peer reviewed, that show problems with soy. More than ten are shown on this link:
http://reliableanswers.com/med/soy.asp

Also, the author of the article on the link makes the very good point that pro-soy advocates usually have a strong commercial bias (ie: they make money on soy sales) and little science to support their position. The soy-concerned group generally is the one with no commercial bias and solid science.

If you take the time to read the article on the above link and check out a few of the scientific studies, I don't think it's possible to credibly maintain the position that soy does not pose major health risks.

Re hormones in meat, I agree. That's why I don't eat it. Re the hormones in milk, I only drink BGH free milk. If I had to chose between soy milk (even organic soy milk) and regular BGH milk, I'd take the cow's milk every time. I've heard that soy is a human bred crop, meaning it didn't occur naturally in nature, whereas milk does. (I fully recognize that milk has problems too. It's intended for baby cows that grow from 200 to 2,000 pound in two years, not for adult humans.)

But again, I am not a nutrition expert. Maybe I'm wrong about soy. But given the potential risks indicated by abundant, credible research, I'm playing it safe by avoiding soy as much as possible. (The only way to avoid it completely is to not eat processed foods, since most of them contain it. But I'm not that much of a purist.)

 

This is called allopatric speciation. It is a direct result of a prezygotic barrier. Gene flow is interupted when a population is divided into geographically isolated subpopulations. A classic example would be when a large lake dries up into several smaller lakes and the original fish species that inhabited the large lake are subject to different environmental factors and any allele patterns that exist in the founder species of each lakes population. We can see this in the ancient Lake Lahontan in Nevada and the subspeciation of Lahontan Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi).

 

I admit that I had a real hard time taking anything in that article seriously when he writes:

So on your urging, I went back and tried to look past the garbage. Pretty much all of the sources link to the same website, Soy Online Service. So step one is to go straight there, and avoid the odd bible guy.

That web site looks a lot more reasonable.

So I started poking around there. Lots of stuff. First I looked for hot flashes. It turns out that they substantiated the point made in my post that you responded to, which is that menopausal women get no benefit from soy. A good study was quoted.

Then I looked for what the original poster on this forum was worried about: the effect of soy on male, um, masculinity. Well, I started to get a little annoyed when they quoted a provocative interview at the beginning of the article, but when their link was followed to the full interview, there was no mention of soy whatsoever. The person being interviewed was talking about an estrogen-like chemical from plastics (bisphenol-A -- interesting stuff by the way). Of course, no mention of this was made on the soyonlineservice page. That seemed a little disingenuous.

The rest of the page had lots of carefully and properly phrased statements based on the paucity of evidence that "it is possible" or "may be implicated", etc. Lots of innuendo. The only relatively interesting studies are of animals (though not humans) who are exposed to large amounts of the isoflavones when developing before birth results in a reduction in fertility.

Overall, the page supports the statement that there is no evidence that soy has an impact on male masculinity or fertility. All they can say is that it might.

I respect the authors care in not making claims beyond what the abstracts say. But I'm not sure what they're trying to get across with that page.

I looked around some more, and found some more convincing and disturbing stuff on the effect of soy on thyroids in humans. That appears to be worth researching.

Anyway, I've already spent too much time on this. Maybe I'll poke around in other pages there some other time. They did amass a large number of abstracts, though clearly cherry-picked abstracts to support their thesis, so it's hard to tell what the rest of their peers' research is showing. It will take some effort for me to assess this and search for opposing views.

 

I have never deliberately eaten soy products, well I may have but I didn't know it however my female bits must have grown a lot because some people think I am all female sex parts!

It's the discipline of a vegy diet that I can't handle. Currently I just eat some veg and some meat, seems to work for me. I would hate to look like some of the alternative types I worked with when I worked in a community centre, always sickly looking. I don't know if that was diet or herbal

I was almost vegetarian for a couple of years when I left home in my teens but that was more financial than health or planet based. I was eating eggs and dairy products and a little fish from time to time.

 

Pointing out the religious stuff on the site:
http://reliableanswers.com/med/soy.asp
is a red herring. It's less than 5% of the site and it's not done in an in-your-face type of way. 95% of the site is a logical discussion of the risks of soy. The author sites at least 24 studies or expert articles showing the risks of soy.

It sounds like you're taking the position that soy is safe or probably safe. You say there's not enough research to prove it's unsafe. Your standard of proof seems questionable. The priority should be on the safety of the public, not the protection of corporate profits. The standard with soy and other materials going into the human body should be guilty until proven innocent. You seem to be putting the burden of proof on mothers wanting to protect their children, when instead it should be on profit seeking entities wishing to put substances in children, and all people.

The author of the article points out some compelling facts. For example, other countries are much more vocal about warning the public about the risks of soy. It's understandable that this information would be suppressed in the US since business has such a large influence over government.

To illustrate, there have been more than 20 major polls asking should genetically-modified foods (GMO's) be labeled. Every poll showed 75 to 95% support for labeling. Even supporters of GMO's felt that people have a right to know what's going in their bodies. But GMO's aren't labeled. Why? Probably because companies profiting from GMO's are allowed to give money (directly or indirectly) to politicians who oversee the regulators that decide what gets labeled.

Business is structurally required to put profits first. Without profits, they die. The CEO and board can get sued for not putting the shareholder first. As a result, management has an obligation to oppose anything that threatens profits. Of course companies aren't going to put out products that kill or sicken people on the spot. That would be bad for business. But if there is uncertainty, the inclination is to err on the side of profit maximization rather than public safety. For example, if management is faced with definite reduction of profit versus possible public damage through a risk that isn't 100% proven, they usually oppose the "uncertain" science.

Soy is a huge business in the US. Do you think companies will readily acknowledge the risks of it? Or will they do what the tobacco companies did and say they don't believe smoking is risky. Will they do what Exxon did until recently where, in the face of huge evidence showing that climate change was real, they aggressively denied the existence of human driven climate change.

The fact that other countries warn the public about soy and the fact that there are many credible studies showing negative soy impacts should bring one to the logical conclusion that soy is probably unsafe in many scenarios (ie: baby formula, etc).

Reading the 24+ references shown on the site above, it is not logical to conclude that soy is probably safe. Your drawing of this conclusion shows bias of some type. Why would you not err on the side of public safety? Do you work for a company that profits from soy sales?

 

Sorry, but that's all it takes for me to consider the remainder of the site not worth reading. There's a lot of crap out there, so I have stringent crap filters.

In this case, his site doesn't matter anyway, since he is almost entirely parroting the other site. So the other site is the proper reference. Did you follow those links? It was immediately obvious to me that it was the other site someone should be looking at for a source of material, at least from their side of the issue.

When something has been a staple of much of the world's diet for thousands of years (soy has been a staple cultivated crop in Asia since before there were written records), then I start with the assumption that the food is pretty safe. I then need proof that consumption of soy in moderation isn't. I treat meat or other common foods the same way.

If on the other hand someone came to me with a newly discovered plant that has a tasty bean, then I would demand proof that it is safe. If there's something new we're doing to the old food, like pumping hormones into the meat, then it is certainly worthy of concern. In all cases, I consider eating any single food well in excess of moderation to be unsafe until proven otherwise. Significant deviations from heritage is what needs to be proven safe.

This doesn't seem at all unreasonable to me.

I am in agreement that infants shouldn't be drinking any kind of "formula", be it cow milk based, soy based, or whatever. Again, the heritage there is breast feeding. My children were breast fed exclusively. (Fortunately the owner of the breasts agreed with my position.)

That would be nice, but there's not enough money in the world to prove scientifically that every thing we eat, prepared in every possible manner that can change the chemistry, is safe. In almost all cases we're the guinea pigs. So we are left with the unavoidable starting point that foods that have been eaten for hundreds or thousands of years must be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Replace "soy" with, say, "corn". Where are the studies proving that corn is safe? Obviously since the corn industry is so huge (much bigger than soy), they must be trying to kill us.

Where are the studies that prove tomatoes are safe? Eggs? (Assuming that they're not rotten.) Dolly Madison cupcakes? (Ok, strike the last one. No one really knows what they're made out of.)

Funny. No. I do space exploration. Also I don't eat very much soy. I had some about two days ago, and the last time before that was about a month and a half ago.

My reaction is to people coming to the conclusion that something is dangerous because of hysterical web sites. If you believed all of the hysterical web sites out there, you would be completely frozen in a state of paralysis.

My bias is simply thousands of years of soy consumption experience. If you don't start with biases like that, you are doomed to starvation since there can't ever be enough research to show that enough foods are safe.

In the particular case of the soy controversy, I learned some things I didn't know about soy and thyroids, and there may be more. I can change my mind. But the existence of one web site with 24 references all to one other web site doesn't do that by itself. Not for me anyway. Maybe for you.

 

The processed soy we eat today in large quantities (since it's in most processed foods) is nothing like the soy eaten hundreds of years ago in Asia. Most of the soy we consume today is genetically modified. It's not the same as what ancient Asians ate. Therefore the position that it's safe because ancient Asians ate it is not logical.

Whatever you say about the site above, it still pointed to several research abstracts and studies that were done by reputable researchers who appeared to reach logical conclusions.

There isn't a large amount of research showing corn or tomatoes are unsafe, the way there is about soy. Soy is known to have significant hormonal impacts on women. You can't change that fact, regardless of the spin you put on it. If it affects women, why wouldn't it affect the hormones of men and children. You are of course free to draw the conclusion that it doesn't. And I am free to conclude it does, as I have.

I am not suggesting that everything be tested, as you imply. Only that the bias be toward protecting public health. That means the precautionary position for substances going in the human body should be taken (ie: guilty until proven innocent). Testing would occur in cases where there's an indication that there might be a risk. For example, if it's known that soy has large hormonal impacts on women, then it's logical to assume it would hormonally affect children, and therefore should be tested.

I've worked in the field of corporate responsibility for many years (some of my work is shown on www.GlobalSystemChange.com). I know that companies are hugely creative. Given the right incentives, they can figure out how to get things done. Currently they are not held accountable for many negative impacts, such as the potential negative impacts of soy.

If companies know beforehand that whatever they produce will be subject to rigorous safety testing (due to society's adoption of the precautionary principle) they will work hard to develop safe products (in term of soy, I'm not sure what that would be since I'm not a food expert). Now firms are able to manipulate the regulatory process, escape safety testing requirements, and use your children and others as guinea pigs. That's a system problem.

Using the excuse that testing is too expensive so we shouldn't do, as you're implying, is crazy. If we require companies to operate at a higher safety standard, they will figure out how to do it because survival is a great motivator. Some companies might not be able to meet the higher safety standard, and thus go out of business. But that would be a good thing, because business existence is not a right. It is a privilege based on benefiting society. If a company can't operate without significantly damaging society, it shouldn't be in business.

 

I think the whole point is based on a reasonable presumption that we should not eat too much of any one substance. Simple as that. Corn is indeed bad for us and can cause terrible illness if eating in high quantities to the exclusion of other nutrional sources (think pellagra). So while we can argue back and forth about the deleterious effects of soy or lack thereof, who the heck is going to eat that much of it and be on this site reading this thread? Anyone who can afford a Prius is likely to have enough cash surplus that they can take part in a richly varied diet.

 

None of our agricultural products is entirely natural. They all reached their present form through artificial selection by breeders. Our principal grain crops (wheat, rye, oats, millet, corn, etc.) were bred thousands of years ago by early agriculturalists. The modern dairy cow has been bred to produce many times more milk than its ancestors. In this sense, your statement about soy is true, but it's no different than anything else we eat.

On the other hand, our food comes from too few sources. Corn and soy are both woven inextricably throughout our industrial food supply. The more you can minimize the staples and diversify your diet, the better it will be for your health.

 

for every study concluding that soy has significant effects, there's another that concludes the opposite.

there is a similar issue in a research area related to the one i'm working with. it's frustrating.

 

The key question is, who's funding the studies that find soy safe? There's a huge commercial incentive to show that soy is safe since it's a multi-billion dollar industry. But there is no equally strong incentive to show that soy is unsafe. Based on this alone, it seems the studies showing that soy is unsafe are more credible.

Along similar lines, one could ask where did the majority of funding for the well publicized studies showing that humans weren't causing climate change or smoking wasn't dangerous come from.

 

your compensatory bias limits what information you're willing to take in. i agree, one should use caution in determining what sources are trustworthy. but there are far better ways to determine credibility than the overall result of the study.

that's like saying that i'm going to eliminate from my consideration all papers that conclude that my receptor is somehow involved in glutamate release because i don't think it should be, based upon my background reading. (how i'd like to!)

no, you find reasons beyond the conclusion. arbitrary is bad.

recall also that some are holding up hope that soy phytoestrogens have positive effects through their weak agonist properties at the estrogen receptors- things such as increases in mental function. that's saying that soy does agonize the receptor and in some cases people want to use it for that intended function... which would also benefit the soy industry. this is a very multidimensional argument and cannot just be reduced to
soy estrogens affect human ERs=legit
soy does not affect human ERs=bad

 

Where was "All of the above?"

Bob Wilson

 

I'm not saying the funding source conclusively decides the accuracy of research. Rather I'm saying the large commercial incentive indicates strong bias potential, which should be taken into account when considering the results.

Also, I wasn't suggesting that soy is always bad. Clearly women use it with success for hormonal reasons. But since the "food" acts as a drug, shouldn't it be regulated as a drug? And just because it's beneficial in one application, doesn't mean it's beneficial in all applications.

To stop beating up on soy for a minute, as others have said, there are plenty of other troubling foods, like dairy and meat, as discussed in this thread. The article below from the NY Times shows one more cause for concern -- sugar beets.

About 75% of processed food in the US contains genetically modified ingredients, mainly soy and corn. GM sugar beets will raise that number.

GMO's obviously provide some benefits, mainly to farmers, not the consumer. But they also have large potential risks. There is little to no third-party safety testing requirement for GMO's, due at least in part to corporate influence of the regulatory process.


The Beet Generation
Genetically modified sugar beets expected to be in widespread use in U.S. soon

The U.S. sweetener industry may soon have a new sugar daddy as it gears up for the widespread rollout of genetically modified sugar beets. GM sugar beets have been approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture since 2005, but resistance from end-users such as chocolatiers Hershey's and Mars had disrupted their widespread use. But now with that resistance largely overcome, the sweetener industry is gearing up for a quiet rollout of sugar produced from Monsanto's herbicide-resistant sugar beets. Much of the 1.3 million acres of sugar beets produced in the U.S. each year are expected to go over to the GM side as early as next season. "Basically, we have not run into resistance," said David Berg, president of American Crystal Sugar, the U.S.'s largest sugar beet processor. "We really think that consumer attitudes have come to accept food from biotechnology." Besides, it's not like sweeteners are widely used in the food supply or anything.

source:
The New York Times <http://lists.grist.org/t?ctl=16321:771E3CCBD2415B56EFD3D983033DBC8A>

 

well... you can find something to object to in just about everything we eat short of backyard grown foods. i don't like it, but that's the consequence of large groups of people demanding a product for lower and lower prices, and a smaller and more powerful group demanding more profits to go along with those lower prices. imo that should not happen in our FOOD of all things, but so it goes.

as far as the "nutraceutical" industry goes... don't even get me started there. seriously.

 

Yet you then say ...

So, you didn't read the abstracts you mention above that you're putting so much stock in? It's not my spin. It's yours!

It doesn't affect women. Read the reference above at the site pointed to by your link. The placebo had slightly more effect on their hot flashes than the isoflavones. I love double-blind studies for this sort of thing. They put all the anecdotal experience and "obvious" logical inferences to bed, one way or the other.

I'm all for protecting public health. I'm all for testing with the proper prioritization of the very limited funds. (Sorry, but my crazy idea of not testing everything that might not be safe is not my idea -- it's dictated by reality.) If soy is part of that prioritized list, great. If that scares companies into due diligence, great.

I object to your guilty until proven innocent.

Absolutely anything can earn your status of "an indication that there might be a risk", quite easily. Just do one study feeding rats the equivalent of 59 servings of the food item per day, and the rats will die of cancer. I promise. (Seriously, there are studies like this out there.)

If we then make all of those foods with an indication that there might be a risk guilty until proven innocent, we should stop eating them all immediately. Then how do you know that we are protecting public health by removing theoretical threats, or reducing public health by removing nutritional options from their diet?

This seems pretty straightforward to me. Test whatever you're most worried about. When you have enough evidence that something is bad (not even beyond a shadow of doubt, but simply enough evidence), then warn about its use or ban it. Don't create new threats to public health by scaring people away from variety in their diet because of the myriad of instances of "an indication that there might be a risk". Knee jerk reactions to inadequate information will usually have adverse consequences.

<soapbox>Information flow in the modern world greatly amplifies the perception of risk, to the point that people make bad risk decisions, like not wanting to fly since they saw the horrific airplane crash site on the news, and decide to drive instead. Clearly there is an indication that there is a risk there. But that doesn't mean that the alternative is better. I think that there should be a required course in high school on the assessment and comparison of risk probabilities and consequences, and how to define and assess risk / benefit trades.</soapbox>