"Soy is making kids 'gay'"
This one's especially for my friend, Marty. This comes from WorldNetDaily, via Fr. Tucker's blog "Dappled Things":
Soy is making kids 'gay'
Posted: December 12, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern


Hmmm, how did people become homosexual before soy use was widespread?

His arguments seem a litle extreme. I wish he would add sources for his research claims.

Quote:James Rutz is chairman of Megashift Ministries and founder-chairman of Open Church Ministries. He is the author of "MEGASHIFT: Igniting Spiritual Power," and, most recently, "The Meaning of Life." If you'd rather order by phone, call WND's toll-free customer service line at 1-800-4WND-COM (1-800-496-3266).

*That* sounds creepier than feminizing soy.

Just out of curiosity then ...

How is that China has a billion people? They consume far more soy than Americans, have been doing so for thousands of years. Yet they have enough heterosexuals to procreate to the point of having a billion people.

And Japan ... why hasn't Japan become an unpopulated island? They eat more soy than even the Chinese. Yet they have managed to keep their island alive and pretty heavily populated through procreation.

This is just silly. Funny ... but silly.  And totally lacking any basis in scientific fact.  Phytoestrogens are not estrogen.  Further his "avoid tofu" ... Tofu is fermented so if fermentation makes tempeh acceptable then tofu is fine.

This guy's a nutcase.  And I agree that the "who he is" line at the bottom is far scarier than his pseudo-scientific rant against soy.

Here's some material from a very reputable organisation (in my opinion): the Weston A. Price Foundation!
Myths & Truths About Soy Myth: Use of soy as a food dates back many thousands of years.
Truth: Soy was first used as a food during the late Chou dynasty (1134-246 BC), only after the Chinese learned to ferment soy beans to make foods like tempeh, natto and tamari.
Myth: Asians consume large amounts of soy foods.
Truth: Average consumption of soy foods in Japan and China is 10 grams (about 2 teaspoons) per day. Asians consume soy foods in small amounts as a condiment, and not as a replacement for animal foods.
Myth: Modern soy foods confer the same health benefits as traditionally fermented soy foods.
Truth: Most modern soy foods are not fermented to neutralize toxins in soybeans, and are processed in a way that denatures proteins and increases levels of carcinogens.
Myth: Soy foods provide complete protein.
Truth: Like all legumes, soy beans are deficient in sulfur-containing amino acids methionine and cystine. In addition, modern processing denatures fragile lysine.
Myth: Fermented soy foods can provide vitamin B12 in vegetarian diets.
Truth: The compound that resembles vitamin B12 in soy cannot be used by the human body; in fact, soy foods cause the body to require more B12
Myth: Soy formula is safe for infants.
Truth: Soy foods contain trypsin inhibitors that inhibit protein digestion and affect pancreatic function. In test animals, diets high in trypsin inhibitors led to stunted growth and pancreatic disorders. Soy foods increase the body's requirement for vitamin D, needed for strong bones and normal growth. Phytic acid in soy foods results in reduced bioavailabilty of iron and zinc which are required for the health and development of the brain and nervous system. Soy also lacks cholesterol, likewise essential for the development of the brain and nervous system. Megadoses of phytoestrogens in soy formula have been implicated in the current trend toward increasingly premature sexual development in girls and delayed or retarded sexual development in boys.
Myth: Soy foods can prevent osteoporosis.
Truth: Soy foods can cause deficiencies in calcium and vitamin D, both needed for healthy bones. Calcium from bone broths and vitamin D from seafood, lard and organ meats prevent osteoporosis in Asian countries—not soy foods.
Myth: Modern soy foods protect against many types of cancer.
Truth: A British government report concluded that there is little evidence that soy foods protect against breast cancer or any other forms of cancer. In fact, soy foods may result in an increased risk of cancer.
Myth: Soy foods protect against heart disease.
Truth: In some people, consumption of soy foods will lower cholesterol, but there is no evidence that lowering cholesterol improves one's risk of having heart disease.
Myth: Soy estrogens (isoflavones) are good for you.
Truth: Soy isoflavones are phyto-endocrine disrupters. At dietary levels, they can prevent ovulation and stimulate the growth of cancer cells. Eating as little as 30 grams (about 4 tablespoons) of soy per day can result in hypothyroidism with symptoms of lethargy, constipation, weight gain and fatigue.
Myth: Soy foods are safe and beneficial for women to use in their postmenopausal years.
Truth: Soy foods can stimulate the growth of estrogen-dependent tumors and cause thyroid problems. Low thyroid function is associated with difficulties in menopause.
Myth: Phytoestrogens in soy foods can enhance mental ability.
Truth: A recent study found that women with the highest levels of estrogen in their blood had the lowest levels of cognitive function; In Japanese Americans tofu consumption in mid-life is associated with the occurrence of Alzheimer's disease in later life.
Myth: Soy isoflavones and soy protein isolate have GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) status.
Truth: Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) recently withdrew its application to the FDA for GRAS status for soy isoflavones following an outpouring of protest from the scientific community. The FDA never approved GRAS status for soy protein isolate because of concern regarding the presence of toxins and carcinogens in processed soy.
Myth: Soy foods are good for your sex life.
Truth: Numerous animal studies show that soy foods cause infertility in animals. Soy consumption enhances hair growth in middle-aged men, indicating lowered testosterone levels. Japanese housewives feed tofu to their husbands frequently when they want to reduce his virility.
Myth: Soy beans are good for the environment.
Truth: Most soy beans grown in the US are genetically engineered to allow farmers to use large amounts of herbicides.
Myth: Soy beans are good for developing nations.
Truth: In third world countries, soybeans replace traditional crops and transfer the value-added of processing from the local population to multinational corporations.

Thanks Vox!! :smile:
It's goin on the blog!
huh... I've been sitting here wondering why it is raw vegans/veggies tend to not include soy products into their diet (in fact, they specifically reccommend against it). Now I know why. This would be an intersting topic to research. Thanks!
nicollette Wrote:huh... I've been sitting here wondering why it is raw vegans/veggies tend to not include soy products into their diet (in fact, they specifically reccommend against it). Now I know why. This would be an intersting topic to research. Thanks!

Raw foodists are a group unto themselves. And they do include soy as long as it is uncooked. Since you have to cook soybeans to make soy milk, tempeh, tofu and a slew of other soy products they tend to avoid it.

As for vegans. They're pretty much evenly divided. But many tend to avoid commercially produced soy products using isolated soy protein because these often tend to also have trace dairy and egg ingredients.

But it is highly misleading to say that they "specifically recommend against it" as regards vegans. That simply isn't true as I doubt that there is a concensus among vegans. I've been vegetarian since 1992 and I have yet to meet two vegans who agree on anything let alone soy.

This is another situation in which the "science" on both sides is so murky that you can find documentation to support either side of the arguement.  So pick the side you want to be on, find documentation to support it and then eat happy.  Because at this point you migh as well flip a coin to decide who is right and who is wrong.
VoxClamantis Wrote:This one's especially for my friend, Marty. This comes from WorldNetDaily, via Fr. Tucker's blog "Dappled Things":
Soy is making kids 'gay'
Posted: December 12, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern


Knight Ridder Newspapers
27 June 2003

Estrogen can bend gender of male fish living in water contaminated by birth-control pill residue
By Seth Borenstein

WASHINGTON - The female hormone estrogen can bend the gender of male fish that live in bodies of water contaminated with the residue of birth-control pills, a new study indicates.

For three years, Canadian scientists have put birth-control pills into a remote Ontario lake to measure this impact. The results: All male fish in the lake - from tiny tadpoles to large trout - were "feminized," meaning they had egg proteins growing abnormally in their bodies.

The experiment was intended to match the impact that the female hormone estrogen may be having on many American bodies of water, as city sewage systems empty waste into them that is contaminated with residue from birth-control pills.

One-third of male Pearl Dace minnows grew eggs in their testes. The entire population of the common Fathead minnow, once numbering in the several thousands, crashed to near zero because the hormone-stoked fish couldn't reproduce.

"Any fish species we have in the lake, any male is responding to the estrogen," said Karen Kidd, a research scientist at the Canadian Freshwater Institute and the study's chief researcher. She presented her findings to the American Chemistry Council this week. "It is a feminization. ... It's enough to be concerned about what's going on in the bigger picture (from estrogen)."

Kidd's research - the most controlled experiment ever to look at the effects of estrogen on ecosystems - has heightened concerns that human female hormones may be hurting wildlife, said several scientists in the U.S. government.

Scientists are looking at whether estrogen and chemicals that act like estrogen are affecting human males, as well, said Mike Mac, the director of the U.S. Geological Survey's Columbia Environmental Research Center. He noted that a study earlier this month in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives found that rural men exposed to certain pesticides that act like estrogen had lower sperm counts.

Kidd's $925,000 study is mostly funded by the Canadian government, with help from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and private industry.

Estrogen gets into waterways through a familiar path. Millions of women take different types of estrogen in birth-control pills and hormone replacement therapy; Kidd's study used the synthetic estrogen called ethynylestradiol, or EE2. When the women urinate, the estrogen passes into sewer systems, where bacteria eat much but not all of it. The remaining estrogen leaves sewage-treatment plants and flows into rivers, lakes and streams along with the treated wastewater.

"We do not have a good handle on what's (coming out of) these sewage treatment plants in this country yet," said Jim Lazorchak, the acting chief of the EPA's molecular ecology branch in Cincinnati, who has worked with Kidd on the lake experiment. "This is a very emerging issue."

Scientists have suspected for years that estrogen from humans is at least partially to blame for strange animal sexual oddities - such as hermaphrodites, which have both male and female characteristics - but other hormones and common chemicals also are thought to disrupt animals' endocrine systems. As a result, scientists have had a difficult time finding a direct cause-and-effect example in the wild. Kidd's study shows that link.

The clarity of the result stems from the fact that Kidd used Canada's unique Experimental Lakes Area, a range of 85 unpolluted lakes hours from any city. For 35 years the Canadian government has set it aside for experiments in environmental science.

Since 2001, Kidd and her colleagues have put birth-control pills into one lake three times a week every summer. She then compared the fish in the lake to those they found there in 2000 and to those in two control lakes where no estrogen was added.

Kidd seeded the lake with 5 nanograms of EE2 for every liter of water, a level roughly equivalent to a typical U.S. urban waterway, said Larry Barber, a USGS geochemist who studied the prevalence of estrogen in 70 U.S. rivers, lakes and streams. In Barber's study, four U.S. sites - in Florida, New York state, Massachusetts and Montana - had EE2 levels many times higher than in Kidd's lake. The Florida site, near Moriczville, had 273 nanograms per liter, according to Barber's study.

"The study in the experimental lakes shows that EE2 as an environmental contaminant has an important ecological impact," Barber said. "This is an issue in the U.S."

But there's hope, Kidd said.

Bacteria that occur naturally in lakes and are used for treatment in sewer plants consume the estrogen in water. The answer to the estrogen problem in waterways could be simply to arrange for more prolonged bacteria treatment in sewer plants, she said.

"These are issues that are starting to come to the fore a little bit more now," said Adam Krantz, a spokesman for the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies. "We're waiting to see what the science shows us. We're tracking it."

[quote='CaroleK'][quote]But it is highly misleading to say that they "specifically recommend against it" as regards vegans. That simply isn't true as I doubt that there is a concensus among vegans. I've been vegetarian since 1992 and I have yet to meet two vegans who agree on anything let alone soy.

There isn't a concensus as to what raw foodism is (whether it be vegan, vegetarian or Carol Alt's diet which includes raw meat), but from all that we have been reading on it the last few years I've not found any raw foodist (of any kind of slant) that include soy in their diet. It's certainly possible that I've just not read books on the subject where the author does include it in the diet, but I am comfortable stating that for the most part it is recommended against (for whatever reason).

The reasoning against soy leans toward the idea that it's not "natural" (they don't like the fermentation?) and they claim it is not healthy and is in fact bad for you. I've never researched why they think it's bad for you (and never really intended to do so because it doesn't really apply to me or my family), so I thought it interesting to have Vox's article "fall into my lap" per se. I could really care less if it was bad or good because it's not a main staple of my diet, so I was just commenting on what my thought process was.

As far as vegans agreeing on anything I certainly understand. The raw vegan side of this lifestyle has a wide variety of spectrums, but from what I've read so far the raw foodists in general stay away from soy. I just assumed it was because of the processing it goes through but was surprised to hear that it was for "health reasons". And like I stated above, I just may not have run across a raw foodist that uses soy yet. I wasn't attempting to be misleading about my comments so I probably should have worded it differently. My statement was based on what I know on this subject (and I certainly admit I'm not a fully fledged raw foodist yet). But as anyone could point out, that wouldn't make me an expert on the subject anyway; diet is what you make it and there can be no hard and fast rules. ;)


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)