Is soy bad for you? There are those that incorrectly discuss the dangers of soy, that soy milk bad for you, especially the Weston Price Foundation. Soy, er…Boy!…are they wrong!
Since I tend to be a little opinionated about health issues…and I love science based factual discussion about health…I ran into a comment from columnist Jim Rutz of World Net Daily that I couldn’t pass up. Among other outrageous claims about soy being unhealthy for you, he contended that because there is so much estrogen in soy, it was turning men gay.
I fired off this response, but what it generated was more interesting:
Mr. Rutz,
Where do I begin? I know I’m a little late to the party, but I ran into your soy comments as I was researching another anti-soy position in UTNE magazine. Let me make 2 quick comments.
1) There is not one molecule of estrogen in any soy product. Not one! Isoflavones are not estrogens. The ability of the soybean has long been recognized as an “adaptogen”, meaning it will improve estrogen levels in women who need it and block estrogen use in women with high levels.
2) Weston Price is a marketing arm of the American Dairy Association. Though their claims of not accepting funds from the ADA are accurate, they are funded almost in whole by individual dairy farmer donations. They rose after the popularity of soy milk as an alternative to milk. Always follow the money trail.
I am providing you with a link to my website to an article I had published in Today’s Chiropractic that was a response to an anti-soy article published the previous month in the same magazine. I cover most of this anti-soy frenzy and easily knock down every objection.
https://drdahlman.com/benefits-of-soy.shtml
I would be happy to continue a dialog if you wish, but this false information has been going on too long. Also please know that I do have some problems with soy in the diet, especially kids formulas, soy oil used in frying…but why fry anyway?…and I oppose GM soy.
OK, so thinking not much of it, suddenly I received a response from the president of the main anti-soy nuts. (That’s a pun.) Obviously, Mr. Rutz thought them better equipped to handle my pro-soy irrationality. Weston Price is the organization behind all the anti-soy hysteria and lies. Note that I never received a response from Mr. Rutz and I assume that to this day he has not bothered to read my retort to the anti- soy folks. He obviously promptly fired off a copy of my email to Weston Price:
Dear Dr. Dahlman,
I am sure you want to be accurate in your statements to the public. Regarding your statement below, we are not funded “in whole” by individual dairy farmers. Probably dairy farmers make up less than 1% of our membership. And none of these members is associated with the dairy industry. We are probably the dairy industry’s worst enemy, as we advocate direct sales of raw milk and not processed milk sold by the dairy industry. We do not receive any donations from the milk or dairy industries, nor from any branch of the food processing industry.
I’d also like to point out that the commercial milk industry and the soy milk industry are largely the same. Silk, the largest soy milk company, is controlled by Dean Foods, America ‘s largest dairy company. And all the major dairy companies sell soy milk in their product lines.
Sincerely,
Sally Fallon, President
The Weston Price Foundation
OK, I guess I could be wrong about their funding…I know full well that 1% of your membership could provide the majority of your funds…ask any politician. I responded politely with:
Ms. Fallon,
Surprised, yet very nice to hear from you. I apologize if I am mis-leading myself and anyone else, but could you please provide me with a list of your donors. I assume the foundation is non-profit and therefore, you should have no reason to not provide me with that info.
Might I also add that we have much common ground. I also am a huge fan of animal products, fat is irrelevant when it comes to heart disease, high cholesterol means nothing…especially in the presence of high HDL’s….pasteurized milk is worthless, raw would be much better for all and everything in my kitchen is organic. My own diet has been in excess of 50% fat each day and very low carb for over 30 years…I love my rib eyes, make a dandy meat loaf, eat lots of fish and sushi and my soy intake is edemame and a soy beverage with tons of great isoflavones in them. I also am against GM soy.
My BP is 108/72, ultrasound shows no carotid artery problems, I take no meds, bike 200 miles a week after a 20 year career in triathlons and have 8% body fat….and on and on. Then there’s my genetic history of my father dying of heart disease at an early age. I am unconcerned.
But let’s get real. I know you know for a fact there’s no estrogen in soy. You also know you are skewing the studies to add weight to your position and scare people. I will provide you with a link to a published article from Today’s Chiropractic that I wrote that blew apart the claims of an article written in the previous issue. Each and every citation included in the first article was found by me and * READ*! That’s opposed to the author who parroted your foundations claims. I was stunned at what I learned actually reading the studies. You all should be ashamed.
Purposely misleading the public when you have so much to offer them is despicable. And you know I’m right. The article and research took me four days of almost round the clock work.
Complete protein?…mineral absorption, thyroid problems, rickets in dogs….geez, in 1921 with the dogs kept in a basement with no sunlight?…cancer and hormone levels, muscle breakdown, cardiovascular disease???? I looked at the citations of the author and found misleading statements based on the title of the study or a complete blindness to the facts of the study. I also know there are other positions you take that these two articles didn’t address. Let’s not get into them, I’ve invested enough time already. If you have evidence that supports your position and shatters the positions I take in my article, I would love to hear it. Point by point and study by study. Let’s not waste each others time.
Let’s applaud our common ground, but really, there’s only one reason that you would take this position against this product. I still doubt your claim of no dairy funding. If you have no special interests funding you and the claims you make are purposeful errors….? Why?
Here’s the link to my and the other author’s published article:
https://drdahlman.com/benefits-of-soy.shtml
So, here’s her response, let’s see if she gives any indication she has read my report that disproved each and every position the anti-soy folks have used to misinform the public:
Dr. Dahlman,
We publish a list of all donors $250 and over in our magazine, the latest is attached (which happened to be at the end of our regular column on soy).Those listed under Corporate were mostly the sponsoring exhibitors at our 2006 conference. The biggest source of income from us is membership fees of our approximately 9000 members. You can see a summary of our finances here: http://westonaprice.org/funding.html
Sorry but I do not agree with you on soy, there is just too much evidence showing toxicity, including the recent research of Retha Newbold showing the toxicity of isoflavones. (See http://westonaprice.org/soy/soy-industry-on-attack.html) We also hear from so many heartbroken parents who gave their infants soy formula. We also hear from many adults who were wiped out by soy, mostly thryoid problems.
Sounds like your high-fat, low carb diet is protecting you. Others have not been so lucky.
Best, Sally Fallon
OK, so the American Dairy Association is not one of their donors and she does provide me with a list of those donating more than $250. The corporations listed ALL have a vested interest in decreasing the sales of soy! She is once again polite, missing the issue and no indication she has read my article nor has she addressed any of the points I make in it. She just disagrees. Quoting me another anti-soy “study” means so little when she hasn’t debated the first points I try to make. But, I did research the Newbold study and found it lacking logic as well. So, at the end of the next email I try to get her to admit to at least one point:
Ms. Fallon,
I am impressed and appreciate your reasoned and quick response. I will look into your funding as closely as I can and/or have time for. I will tell you that I will refrain from the statements I have made that initially caused you to contact me.
Let me address Ms. Newbold’s research. No one takes genistein by itself. Again, I’m afraid, you and I have common ground. Bear with me…… We both know that aspartame is toxic. In addition to the methanol in it, it also contains two amino acids, L-aspartic acid and phenylalanine….both found in almost every piece of protein anyone has ever eaten. Should we stop eating proteins that contain them (* ALL*) because of the studies, or anecdotal evidence that show these isolated aminos to be a problem? Why are they toxic in this artificial sweetener?
We probably agree that nature is very smart. There are around 30 amino acids in any given piece of protein and they all compete for receptors. When you have isolated amino acids in large amounts, they are toxic as they have nothing to compete with. The two aminos in aspartame cause many neurological symptoms….and others… because they overwhelm the receptors, especially to neurological tissue .
To test just genistein and not the source product it is contained in…with no competition at the receptor level will * ALWAYS* show toxic results. In other words, the soybean cannot be tested and a conclusion found that the genistein only should be blamed for anything, nature contains synergy that prevents just what Newbold tested for….isolated compounds possibly causing problems.
It is the synergy…the other compounds/chemicals found in nature competing at the cellular level that prevent the same results (negative responses) when eating the whole food. Put another way, where are the studies that show soy (the entire bean) causes the same problems that Newbold found when just genistein was used in the study? Show me the mice that had “subtle changes”, decreased prostate weight and spleen cells and disruption of ovulation cycles when * FED* the soy bean. These studies probably don’t exist….at least those by scientists unfunded by anti-soy folks.
To take this to a logical conclusion….if hydrogen is found…when consumed or injected into mice…to have toxic effects, does that mean we should stop drinking water? Once again…and I have never considered myself an expert about soy….using simple logic, your position seems in error. Here you cite another study that you believe bolsters your position and logically, it does not. I repeat: No one takes just genistein!
Tell me one thing: you agree there is * NO* estrogen in soy….right?
OK, imagine taking the fructose out of apples and feeding just fructose to mice and they get obese and develop diabetes. Does that mean apples are bad for you? I made one little semantic mistake that Ms. Fallon corrects, but conveniently ignores the broader point and she does make a feeble attempt to address the question I have asked her:
Dr. Dahlman,
Actually, people do take genistein by itself–you can buy genistein tablets in drug stores.
As far as I know, the phyto-estrogens in soy are always referred to as “estrogen-like compounds.” They are not exactly the same as the various estrogen isomers in the human body, but they have estrogenic effects, on both animals and people.
For some studies that looked at the problems with whole soy (as distinguished from isolated isoflavones) see http://westonaprice.org/soy/soy_studies.html.
Many substances are benign or even beneficial as part of a food, but toxic when produced separately or consumed separately. But some substances are toxic both in the foods and when removed from the food–isoflavones fall into this category.
So she throws out another website…from her organization…that I should look at to help prove her point. Yawn!, here we go again. I correct myself, take a look at three or four of the studies that are cited on the link she has sent me to in her previous email and find the same darn flaws as before and respond in boring detail:
Ms. Fallon:
OK, I think it might be best to leave this as is…if you wish to respond further, I would happily continue, but I’m sure we are both busy people….
I am fully aware that genistein is available in health food stores. Perhaps I should have said, “…not many people take genistein by itself.” Having said that, your aversion to isoflavones of any kind within the synergy that nature provides is not based in fact. It is based on your desire for it to be so. Your suggestion that some substances are toxic both in food and as isolates makes me pause to think what you might be talking about…other than isoflavones…so, you’re saying there are foods that are toxic? God’s green earth has produced foods that humans are eating that are toxic? I know there’s methanol in apples, toxic alone, but apples are good, right? Can’t think of anything to support your claim, I guess God just made a mistake when it comes to soy. Oops, put those pesky naturally occurring isoflavones in those darn beans! Doh!! Sorry for the sarcasm, but not likely that this one food is full of toxic substances when all others are not. Just this one point may actually negate your entire position. Synergy is a purposeful part of nature and is part of how chemical reactions in the human body are controlled.
And, no, they don’t really have “estrogenic effects”…OK, yes they do, but not in the way you are positioning it. Selective estrogen response modifiers (SERM’S) enhance or suppress the use of * NATURALLY* occurring estrogen in the body. True estrogens are agonists, soy, or “estrogen-like phytoadaptogen” in it is a substance that is used by the body depending on need. It allows the use of the body’s * OWN* estrogens or blocks the use of the body’s * OWN* estrogen. It adapts depending on the need. That is quite a bit different than what estrogen does. There are many SERM’S found in nature….there’s that pesky synergy again. Repeat after me: There is no estrogen in soy!
It’s obvious you have not read my article in Today’s Chiropractic. It serves no purpose for me to make points and then you throw back at me…as if it proves your position…the same studies that I also have looked at and have shown to be misinterpreted by your side. Cases in point:
The first study listed on the page you sent me to on your website…from 1971, suggests the high heat process necessary to neutralize the protease inhibitors found in soy renders its protein content largely ineffective. Not true. Raw soy has only half the protease inhibitors as raw potato and the same as raw egg. Better not bake a potato or cook your eggs!
The study from 1974 suggests that the use of a soy protein isolate increased requirements for vitamins E, K, D and B12 and created deficiency symptoms of calcium, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, copper, iron and zinc. Oops! You forgot to mention the animals were fed exclusively uncooked soy. Guess a balanced diet is good, even for lab animals. Additionally, bioavailability depends on the form of soy used as…yes, phytic acid can bind to minerals and not allow absorption, but even low heat cooking destroys phytic acid and makes more nutrients available.
The 1976 study suggests Asians have more thyroid cancer but makes no mention at all that it is due to the ingestion of soy. You and your organization infer that. In fact, it would be a gigantic leap of faith to suggest that, as soy is obviously not the only food in the Asian diet. Furthermore, an understanding of iodine’s role in all thyroid diseases, including cancer would lead a fair minded observer to also note that iodine is a deficiency condition in most of the Asian world because of the large number of non-costal living people who cannot get iodine as easily from iodine rich seaweed and fish as their coastal living countrymen.
One point not discussed…I am in agreement that soy formulas are not suitable for babies…and neither are milk based formulas. I have no opinion on raw cow’s milk for babies. Seems better suited for baby cows!
Ms. Fallon, let me be very honest here. I am surprised at how easy it is to take a much different look at the position you and your organization take on this subject. You can throw supposed truth at me all day and I have yet to find one valid study that was either not misinterpreted, a key fact left out or was simply quoted in error. I fully understand that you have created a cottage industry here and this world pays your mortgage. But really, a God given food that has been used for centuries by millions of people…and they all were wrong because they didn’t have access to the intelligence and good will of your group?
Let’s agree to disagree on this. I will continue…when I have time…to extol the virtues and great health benefits of soy. In fact, I will place far more info about all this on my websites, including our email discussion and your once again weak attempt to prove your point. I am not trying to close you out on this discussion or tell you it’s over and I have won. I will respectfully read anything else you may want to send to me, but we both are spending a bit too much time on this. You have an enormous organization and following, but sadly, it’s not based in fact.
Needless to say, I never heard back from her. Maybe Mr. Rutz should have tackled this on his own…! The unfortunate aspect of this debate is that her organization has other beliefs with which I actually agree. Their position on soy is amazingly irrational and misleading. Simply READ the studies!
