Wartman describes the Cornucopia Institute’s recent report in which they describe finding residues of hexane in some soy food ingredients. The Cornucopia Institute gave few details about how much hexane they actually found and there is no evidence that the amounts typically found in soy foods are harmful to consumers. However, in the interest of worker and environmental safety, as well as trying to limit any potential harm from hexane residues, I cannot fault anyone for avoiding soy products produced with hexane. As Wartman points out, there are companies that make soy meats without using hexane, such as Tofurky and Field Roast.

But this is where Wartman and I part ways. While there are legitimate concerns regarding soy, Wartman cherry-picked the studies and ignored the vast majority of research. For the topics in this article, I will cover the full range of research findings, both pro and con.

A little background: Soy contains isoflavones which have the ability to bind to estrogen receptors and can affect thyroid hormone (especially if someone has iodine deficiency). There are about 25 mg of isoflavones in one serving of soy.

Breast Cancer

Wartman implicates soy as a cause for breast cancer, mentioning only one study. Unfortunately, she didn’t cite the study correctly, so it is not clear to which she was actually referring. In any case, here is a run down of the research.

Case-control studies on soy and breast cancer have been generally encouraging to those with soy in their diets, with about half associating soy with a lower risk for breast cancer and the other half showing no effects.

Prospective studies, which are generally a higher level of evidence than case-control, have also been very positive. Of the six studies done on populations with higher soy intakes (about one to two servings per day is the typical upper intake amount), the Singapore Chinese Health Study (21), the Shanghai Women’s Study (22, 23), and the Japan Public Health Center study (26) all found that higher intakes of soy were associated with a reduced risk. The Japan Collaborative Cohort Study (17) and the Japan Life Span Study (30) found no association. The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer-Oxford (24), which contained a large number of vegetarians, also found no association. Regarding the lack of association in the European study, some have speculated that in order to receive benefits from soy, exposure must occur during adolescence when breasts are developing, while Western vegetarians often adopt the diet as adults.

As for women with breast cancer, including those with tumors that grow in response to contact with estrogen (known as estrogen receptor positive), the authors of the recently published Women’s Healthy Eating and Living Study write:

Our study is the third epidemiological study to report no adverse effects of soy foods on breast cancer prognosis. These studies, taken together, which vary in ethnic composition (two from the US and one from China) and by level and type of soy consumption, provide the necessary epidemiological evidence that clinicians no longer need to advise against soy consumption for women diagnosed with breast cancer.

Dementia

Wartman cites the 2000 Honolulu-Asia Aging Study, saying that it linked soy with an increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease and brain shrinkage. Actually, this study does not mention Alzheimer’s Disease, although it did measure cognitive function. Let me sum up the evidence on soy and mental cognition.

There have been twelve short-term (lasting one week to a year) clinical trials looking at the impact of soy on cognition, and all have shown soy to be helpful (44, 45, 48, 49, 47 50, 54, 55, 56) or neutral (51, 52, 57).

Epidemiological studies (unlike clinical trials), examine patterns of soy consumption and cognition in specific populations. One such study found tempeh (a fermented soy food) to be associated with improved cognition (9). Three reports from epidemiological studies have associated tofu with reduced cognition in some groups (2, 9, 53), but increased cognition in another group (42), and neutral in others (42, 53). The harmful findings for tofu in the epidemiological studies are likely due to confounding caused by the fact that people of lower economic status have traditionally eaten more tofu in Asian cultures as well as the fact that some tofu has been prepared using formaldehyde (at least in Indonesia from where some of these reports have come). The research as a whole provides little cause for concern.

Infant Formulas

Wartman suggests that soy-based infant formulas are “Perhaps the most alarming…” While I can understand the concern given that some infants are eating nothing but soy, the most important study to date, tracking adults who were fed soy formula as infants, provides assurance that there is no reason to be concerned about thyroid or reproductive function (95). Furthermore, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the National Toxicology Program considers soy formula safe.

The Beginnings Study is an ongoing study examining the effects of formula on child development (86). It is in its early stages with findings from children only a year old, but to date no negative effects of soy have been found on growth, sex organs, or neurological development compared to children on cow’s milk formula.

Some research shows that is best to choose a soy formula with DHA, and it is important to note that soy-formula is not intended for pre-term infants.

Feminizing Characteristics

Regarding the concern that soy could cause feminizing characteristics in men, there have been two case studies. In one, a man eating twelve servings per day of soymilk developed enlarged, sensitive breast tissue (123). In another, a man with type 1 diabetes was eating 14 servings per day of mostly processed soy foods for one year and developed erectile dysfunction (10), which normalized after ceasing the soy. While I would not recommend eating this much soy, one study used even much higher amounts of isoflavones and found no problems for most men (124).

As for sperm quantity and quality, while one epidemiological study raised concerns, albeit minor, about soy and sperm quantity (14), two clinical studies have shown no effects of soy (15, 126).

Thyroid

I do want to address one more issue that has recently arisen with the publishing of a clinical trial this year in which 16 mg/day of isoflavones in people with mild hypothyroidism appeared to cause an increased rate of advancing to overt hypothyroidism (78). Nine other clinical trials showed no effect of soy on the thyroid compared to placebo in people with presumably healthy thyroids (13, 60, 63, 64, 66, 68, 69, 71, 75) while the remaining five studies found small changes, all without physiological significance (61, 65, 70, 73, 74). People without hypothyroidism should have no problems with soy as long as they get enough iodine, but until we know more, people with mild hypothyroidism might want to avoid soy just to be safe.

Miscellaneous

In Soy: What’s the Harm?, I address other issues Wartman raised, such as mineral absorption (a non-issue) and traditional Asian intakes.

Conclusion

In addition to reducing the risk for breast cancer as mentioned above, soy also provides benefits for preventing prostate cancer, lowering LDL cholesterol, and improving menopausal symptoms. When you add up all the research on soy, there is no reason to think that two servings per day are harmful to most people, and good reason to think soy will provide some health benefits.

Originally published on JackNorrisRD.com

You may have noticed an uptick this year in news reporting that organic food isn’t really better for you, opinion pieces by conventional farmers saying that they are tired of being demonized by “agri-intellectuals”, and guilt-inducing ads by Monsanto in highbrow publications like the New Yorker touting the company’s ability to feed the world through technology.

Though all of this could be disturbing to those of us committed to sustainable agriculture and food that is fair to eaters, animals, workers and farmers, I’m choosing to see this as a good sign. I think it means we might be winning.

The turning point was when First Lady Michelle Obama planted an organic garden on the White House lawn only to receive a letter from The American CropLife Association telling her that they hoped she recognized the value of conventional agriculture in American life. The letter can be read here. Then, there were false allegations that the garden was contaminated with lead. In the face of all this, the first lady stuck with her commitment to keeping the garden organic.

Why is this happening now? For many years, organic food was a marginal market and the big players were content to let it either exist on the sidelines or hedge their bets and buy into it themselves.

But due to the excellent work by many writers and activists like Michael Pollan, Eric Schlosser, Marion Nestle, Robert Kenner and others too numerous to mention, more of us are starting to pay attention to where our food comes from and how it is produced. This market is now a force for change. And individuals and companies that benefit from the status quo don’t want change.

Let’s take a closer look at the people and ideology behind some of the more recent high profile examples of the attacks against sustainable food.

The aforementioned study by London’s School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine on the nutrient values of organic foods looked at various studies on the subject and compiled them to reach its conclusions. No new study was conducted. The meta review ignored some recent studies on nutrients, including one focused on antioxidants.

Not only that, the conductors of the survey only looked at a narrow set of very specific nutrients. They did not consider factors of taste, environmental impact, or pesticide residues in the food – all factors that most consumers I know consider when buying organic foods.

Beyond the obvious limitations of the subject matter, it’s instructive to take a closer look at how the study was covered in the media, who conducted the study and who funded it.

So let’s pull back the curtain, shall we?

Media Coverage: Though the study looked at only 8 different nutrients and concluded there was no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically- and conventionally-produced foodstuffs, it went on to say that there were other reasons to buy organic food. Headline writers like tension so all the headlines were some variation on “organic foods not really better for you” or worse yet, “the organic foods hoax”.

What is the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine? The London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine is a respected college within the University of London, so all would seem to be on the up and up. But, this is the same school that published a hateful and not at all scientifically-rigorous study blaming fat people for global warming. I’d love to get into the problems with this study but that’s another post.

Who Funded the Study? The study was commissioned by the UK’s Food Standards Agency. The agency is an independent part of government set up by Parliament in response to food contamination issues and the resulting lack of consumer confidence.

The FSA is supposed to serve consumers, and it does in many cases, but like our very own USDA and FDA, the agency can be influenced by the food industry. Their slogan says it all: “safer food, better business.” And a quick look at the profiles of FSA staffers reveals more than a few food industry folk.

And then there’s Missouri farmer, Blake Hurst, in his article for The American Enterprise Institute. He attacks Pollan and other “agri-intellectuals” and city folk in general for making all kinds of assumptions about farmers and for presuming that they know the “messy, dirty” business of farming much better than farmers.

Throughout the piece Hurst erodes his credibility by making his own unfounded assumptions about his opponents, including the guy on the plane behind him, with whom he opens the story. He also says that he won’t change until the consumer forces his hand, ignoring the real lack of consumer power inherent in a food system that uses taxpayer dollars to subsidize the production of commodity crops that are then used to produce the unhealthy foods that fill the shelves of our grocery stores.

Foods (or food products) whose sheer volume and variety of brightly-colored packaging, flavors, colors and sizes are supposed to convince us of the abundance of our choices as consumers, when in fact all we’re really buying is agricultural surplus dressed up with chemicals, technology and marketing.

Then he brilliantly skewers his own argument by using a false urban (or rural?) legend about a flock of turkeys so stupid they drowned themselves in a rainstorm to make his point that conventional farmers who pack the sentient beings we raise for food into crowded, filthy sheds are really protecting the animals from their own stupidity.

Oh, and by the way, what is this American Enterprise Institute that published Hurst’s article?

I’m glad you asked. The AEI is a neoconservative think tank devoted to free enterprise capitalism. According to Sourcewatch, AEI has funded studies that debunk climate change research, refutes studies showing the social costs of tobacco use, and has even worked to promote the Iraq war. The AEI staff listing includes Lynne Cheney, Newt Gingrich and Richard Perle.

As for Monsanto’s advertisements attempting to influence the very people who are most likely to read writers like Michael Pollan, don’t be fooled. We’ve done enough work here, here, and here that gets to the truth about Monsanto. And here’s an excellent piece from Grist detailing exactly why those specific ads are so bogus.

According to a recent survey, consumers are confused about and skeptical of green marketing claims, and misinformed about terms like natural and organic. That’s exactly how some would like it to be.

But there’s another side to this story: The status-quoers will eventually have to acknowledge that the system as it stands now will not serve anyone’s needs much longer, even theirs. As global warming accelerates and fuel costs rise, we need to figure out how to produce food differently. Maybe consumer power won’t ever be enough to force farmers like Blake Hurst to start to look at farming differently but the limiting characteristics of our unsustainable system will.

Until then, I won’t allow myself to be swayed by the propaganda of the resisters; I’ll put my money where the facts are – with the visionary, hopeful, innovative farmers who are doing things differently. Because, even though small-scale organic farming may not be the only answer, it can be part of a whole systemic change toward feeding ourselves without ruining the planet. And it tastes a lot better!

Originally published on EcoSalon