Soy There
There's no risk to humans from soya
The hormones in cow's milk are potentially far more harmful than those in plants, says Justine Butler
Dr Justine Butler
Tuesday August 8, 2006
The Guardian
Felicity Lawrence's article on soya was potentially misleading (Soya: it's in most of the processed food we eat, but is it safe?, July 25). Lawrence described how a dead parrot in New Zealand led Dr Mike Fitzpatrick to investigate the safety of phytoestrogens (plant hormones) in soya. She didn't mention that he is a director of the Weston A Price Foundation, a body that promotes traditional farming and the consumption of butter, eggs, whole milk, meat and saturated animal fat. It is also responsible for a long-running campaign against soya.
Lawrence states: "In its raw form, the mature [soya] bean is known not only for its oestrogenic qualities but also for its anti-nutrients, according to the clinical nutritionist Kaayla Daniel, author of The Whole Soy Story." Yet Daniel too is a director of the foundation.
Moreover, Lawrence presents the conclusions of the government's committee on the toxicity of food in 2002 as saying that "in general the health benefits claimed for soya were not supported by clear evidence and [it] judged that there could be risks from high levels of consumption for certain age groups". In fact, the committee concluded that neither the risks nor benefits were supported by clear evidence.
However, the UK's Joint Health Claims Initiative is so convinced of the health benefits of soya that it has approved the following health claim: "The inclusion of at least 25 grams soya protein per day as part of a diet low in saturated fat can help reduce blood cholesterol." Lawrence acknowledges that "30-40% of all infants in the US are raised on soya formula", but doesn't point out that, if soya is so harmful to babies, then this massive sample would prove it. It doesn't.
It's one thing to feed experimental animals massive doses of soya isolates, but human studies show a different result. In 1998, one study (Klein) looked at soya formulas, found no risk to infants and found them to be a nutritionally complete feeding option. Another study (Strom, 2001) looked at the effect of soya on reproductive health and found none.
As a health campaigner, I think it would be extraordinary for any organisation to promote cow's milk as a better alternative to soya when it contains 35 different hormones and 11 growth factors, which can be up to 20,000 times stronger than phytoestrogens, and have been linked to cancers of the breast, ovaries, prostate and colon - as we in the Vegetarian & Vegan Foundation established in White Lies, our report on the health consequences of consuming cow's milk. Two-thirds of UK milk comes from pregnant cows, when hormone levels are particularly high. In a country where breast cancer has increased 80% since 1971 and now affects one in nine women, we should be much more concerned about oestrogen rather than phytoestrogen, a plant hormone that has been consumed by millions of people for thousands of years.
Lawrence is right, soya production is devastating the rainforests: but as at least 80% goes for animal feed, including dairy cows, the promotion of dairy will ensure the destruction continues.
· Dr Justine Butler is a health campaigner for the Vegetarian & Vegan Foundation justine@vegetarian.co.uk
[X-posted to ukvegans]
The hormones in cow's milk are potentially far more harmful than those in plants, says Justine Butler
Dr Justine Butler
Tuesday August 8, 2006
The Guardian
Felicity Lawrence's article on soya was potentially misleading (Soya: it's in most of the processed food we eat, but is it safe?, July 25). Lawrence described how a dead parrot in New Zealand led Dr Mike Fitzpatrick to investigate the safety of phytoestrogens (plant hormones) in soya. She didn't mention that he is a director of the Weston A Price Foundation, a body that promotes traditional farming and the consumption of butter, eggs, whole milk, meat and saturated animal fat. It is also responsible for a long-running campaign against soya.
Lawrence states: "In its raw form, the mature [soya] bean is known not only for its oestrogenic qualities but also for its anti-nutrients, according to the clinical nutritionist Kaayla Daniel, author of The Whole Soy Story." Yet Daniel too is a director of the foundation.
Moreover, Lawrence presents the conclusions of the government's committee on the toxicity of food in 2002 as saying that "in general the health benefits claimed for soya were not supported by clear evidence and [it] judged that there could be risks from high levels of consumption for certain age groups". In fact, the committee concluded that neither the risks nor benefits were supported by clear evidence.
However, the UK's Joint Health Claims Initiative is so convinced of the health benefits of soya that it has approved the following health claim: "The inclusion of at least 25 grams soya protein per day as part of a diet low in saturated fat can help reduce blood cholesterol." Lawrence acknowledges that "30-40% of all infants in the US are raised on soya formula", but doesn't point out that, if soya is so harmful to babies, then this massive sample would prove it. It doesn't.
It's one thing to feed experimental animals massive doses of soya isolates, but human studies show a different result. In 1998, one study (Klein) looked at soya formulas, found no risk to infants and found them to be a nutritionally complete feeding option. Another study (Strom, 2001) looked at the effect of soya on reproductive health and found none.
As a health campaigner, I think it would be extraordinary for any organisation to promote cow's milk as a better alternative to soya when it contains 35 different hormones and 11 growth factors, which can be up to 20,000 times stronger than phytoestrogens, and have been linked to cancers of the breast, ovaries, prostate and colon - as we in the Vegetarian & Vegan Foundation established in White Lies, our report on the health consequences of consuming cow's milk. Two-thirds of UK milk comes from pregnant cows, when hormone levels are particularly high. In a country where breast cancer has increased 80% since 1971 and now affects one in nine women, we should be much more concerned about oestrogen rather than phytoestrogen, a plant hormone that has been consumed by millions of people for thousands of years.
Lawrence is right, soya production is devastating the rainforests: but as at least 80% goes for animal feed, including dairy cows, the promotion of dairy will ensure the destruction continues.
· Dr Justine Butler is a health campaigner for the Vegetarian & Vegan Foundation justine@vegetarian.co.uk
[X-posted to ukvegans]