vegan muscle building??
- Thread starter Cnyle33
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 116
- Reaction score
- 0
I wish there was more discourse like this on these boards. Too often, discussions just degenerate into "he" said "she" said flame wars instead of an open exchange of knowledge. I was wrong on my assumption that it would take large amounts of soy to produce negative estrogenic effects and Entropy didn't just blast me for the fact. He did what everyone should do and produced evidence to refute it. This is how people get better.
In the past I have limited soy intake based upon reading many articles similar to what Entropy posted here. Phytoestrogens - no thanks, I'm a dude! 
I can see how that might be a great benefit for post-menapausal women, however.
Howvever, I'm not all that overconcerned as I still use soy-sauce and also cook with soy oil.
If I was a super-vegan, I'd switch back to eating at least fish dairy.
Also - humans clearly evolved to be Omnivores. Just look at the teeth. It is why we have teeth for crushing/mashing vegatative matter (molars) and also cutting/tearing meats (incisors, canines).
Look at the eyes of most predators (carnivores and many omnivores). They face forward, and can focus at points right in front of the head. Look at the eyes of most herbavores. They are on the sides of the head to maximize peripheral vision.
What do your eye most resemble? The configuration of a cat or a cow?
A "truly natural" diet will consist of many whle grains, vegtables, legumes, nuts, roots, fruits, and meats.
Eliminating meats and milk based products (complete animal protiens) puts you in a deficit scenerio that can be overcome by careful eating, but it is a permanent disadvantage.
I can see how that might be a great benefit for post-menapausal women, however. Howvever, I'm not all that overconcerned as I still use soy-sauce and also cook with soy oil.
If I was a super-vegan, I'd switch back to eating at least fish dairy.
Also - humans clearly evolved to be Omnivores. Just look at the teeth. It is why we have teeth for crushing/mashing vegatative matter (molars) and also cutting/tearing meats (incisors, canines).
Look at the eyes of most predators (carnivores and many omnivores). They face forward, and can focus at points right in front of the head. Look at the eyes of most herbavores. They are on the sides of the head to maximize peripheral vision.
What do your eye most resemble? The configuration of a cat or a cow?
A "truly natural" diet will consist of many whle grains, vegtables, legumes, nuts, roots, fruits, and meats.
Eliminating meats and milk based products (complete animal protiens) puts you in a deficit scenerio that can be overcome by careful eating, but it is a permanent disadvantage.
- Joined
- May 16, 2003
- Messages
- 16,942
- Reaction score
- 60
actually your canines are more for threatening other primates than for tearing meat. We haven't used them for that for hundreds of thousands of years. Even today's omnivorus primates don't use them for eating very often. One theory on why we yawn and why yawns are contageous claims that it used to be a threat to other males: "look at how big my fucking Canines are! You don't want none of this!" But then one day a hominid learned to beat the guy with big teeth to death with a stick and that ended the progression of that trait.
In addition, paleo diets, and anthropological conclusions on how we SHOULD live based on our ancestors is a slippery slope. You have to realize they lived that way because they had to. today we don't have the same stressors they did, and that's not to say we can't learn from them, but we definitely shouldn't be touting their way of life as Ideal.
in any event, somebody back me up on this, I remember reading on t-mag that fermented soy products (soy sauce, miso, etc.) do not have the negative effects that unfermented products do. Any truth to this?
In addition, paleo diets, and anthropological conclusions on how we SHOULD live based on our ancestors is a slippery slope. You have to realize they lived that way because they had to. today we don't have the same stressors they did, and that's not to say we can't learn from them, but we definitely shouldn't be touting their way of life as Ideal.
in any event, somebody back me up on this, I remember reading on t-mag that fermented soy products (soy sauce, miso, etc.) do not have the negative effects that unfermented products do. Any truth to this?
Urban said:
Thanks for the additional info, Urban, and after reading a bit more on it, I think you are right about the canines. Plus, your post was pretty damn funny to read
Just thinking about yawning in light of what you wrote -- I instinctively want to pull my upper lip up at the peak of a yawn as well, so I guess that can be interpreted as "wanting to show off my puny little canines" to "maximum" effect!
As for the soy -- I wanted to greatly increase my protein intake about half a year ago when I restarted my weight training program (after not working out for several years), and I was getting tired of my usual sources (chick, fish, lean beef) and wanted to add something else. I started eating tofu/rice/veggie stir-fry a few times a week just for variety, and then did some reading on the soy....that put a stop to that!!!
ENTROPY
Purple Belt
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2003
- Messages
- 2,363
- Reaction score
- 0
Urban said:
That's funny as fuck...
Urban said:
Accurate points that many logically neglect.
Urban said:
The propaganda that has created the soy miracle is all the more remarkable because, only a few decades ago, the soybean was considered unfit to eat - even in Asia. During the Chou Dynasty (1134-246 BC) the soybean was designated one of the five sacred grains, along with barley, wheat, millet and rice.
However, the pictograph for the soybean, which dates from earlier times, indicates that it was not first used as a food; for whereas the pictographs for the other four grains show the seed and stem structure of the plant, the pictograph for the soybean emphasizes the root structure.
Agricultural literature of the period speaks frequently of the soybean and its use in crop rotation. Apparently the soy plant was initially used as a method of fixing nitrogen.13
The soybean did not serve as a food until the discovery of fermentation techniques, some time during the Chou Dynasty. The first soy foods were fermented products like tempeh, natto, miso and soy sauce.
In the 2nd century BC, Chinese scientists discovered that a puree of cooked soybeans could be precipitated with calcium sulfate or magnesium sulfate (plaster of Paris or Epsom salts) to make a smooth, pale curd - tofu or bean curd. The use of fermented and precipitated soy products soon spread to other parts of the Orient, notably Japan and Indonesia.
The Chinese did not eat unfermented soybeans as they did other legumes such as lentils because the soybean contains large quantities of natural toxins or "antinutrients". First among them are potent enzyme inhibitors that block the action of trypsin and other enzymes needed for protein digestion.
These inhibitors are large, tightly folded proteins that are not completely deactivated during ordinary cooking. They can produce serious gastric distress, reduced protein digestion and chronic deficiencies in amino acid uptake. In test animals, diets high in trypsin inhibitors cause enlargement and pathological conditions of the pancreas, including cancer.
Although not a household word, phytic acid has been extensively studied; there are literally hundreds of articles on the effects of phytic acid in the current scientific literature. Scientists are in general agreement that grain- and legume-based diets high in phytates contribute to widespread mineral deficiencies in third world countries.
Analysis shows that calcium, magnesium, iron and zinc are present in the plant foods eaten in these areas, but the high phytate content of soy- and grain-based diets prevents their absorption.
The soybean has one of the highest phytate levels of any grain or legume that has been studied, and the phytates in soy are highly resistant to normal phytate-reducing techniques such as long, slow cooking. Only a long period of fermentation will significantly reduce the phytate content of soybeans.
When precipitated soy products like tofu are consumed with meat, the mineral-blocking effects of the phytates are reduced. The Japanese traditionally eat a small amount of tofu or miso as part of a mineral-rich fish broth, followed by a serving of meat or fish.
Traditionally fermented soy products make natural seasoning that may supplies nutritional factors in the Asian diet. But except in times of famine, Asians consume soy products only in small amounts, as condiments, and not as a replacement for animal foods - with one exception. Celibate monks living in monasteries and leading a vegetarian lifestyle find soy foods quite helpful because they dampen libido.
Products using nonfermented soy include:
Fresh green soybeans
Whole dry soybeans
* Nuts
* Sprouts
* Flour
* Soy milk
* Tofu
Products using fermented soy include:
* Natto
* Miso
* Tempeh
* Soy sauces
It is being increasingly recognized that while, for example, soy and soy protein isolates have potentially anti-nutritive value due to their high phytate and oxalic acid levels, cultured soy products such as miso, natto, and tempeh have enhanced nutritive bioavailability with less ill effects than uncultured soy products
Uncultured soy with its high phytate levels has been shown in a number of studies to block absorption of vital nutrients such as calcium. The use of soy as a culturing medium is also advantageous because iron is naturally available in soy.
Iron in an elemental form is potentially toxic and pro-oxidative, but a lack of iron in the body potentiates development of anaemia and can thus be lethal. Culturing soy has been shown to enhance the bioavailability of iron and copper, hence rendering the delivery of these nutrients in their most advantageous forms.
Be that as it may, even though fermentation has benefits from a probiotic perspective coupled with the fact that it negates some of soys negative effects, the fact remains that the process does not eradicate the hormonal effects of estrogen, estradiol and other negative aspects.
Haard N, Odunfa SA, Lee C, et al. Fermented Cereals: A Global Perspective. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome 1999. ISBN 92-5-104296-9.
Sarnat R, Schulick P, Newmark TM. The Life Bridge: The Way to Longevity with Probiotic Nutrients. Herbal Free Press, Brattleboro, VT, 2002. ISBN 0-9716548-0-8.
Qin HS. A study on the effect of fermented soybean Chinese J Prev 1989; 23 (6): 352-4.
ENTROPY
Purple Belt
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2003
- Messages
- 2,363
- Reaction score
- 0
Grady said:
Secrets of the Edible Oil Industry
By Mary Enig and Sally Fallon
Modern-day diets high in hydrogenated vegetable oils instead of traditional animal fats are implicated in causing a significant increase in heart disease and cancer.
In 1954 a young researcher from Russia, named David Kritchevsky, published a paper describing the effects of feeding cholesterol to rabbits.1 Cholesterol added to vegetarian rabbit chow caused the formation of atheromas - plaques that block arteries and contribute to heart disease. Cholesterol is a heavyweight molecule - an alcohol or a sterol - found only in animal foods such as meat, cheese, eggs and butter.
In the same year, according to the American Oil Chemists Society, Kritchevsky published a paper describing the beneficial effects of polyunsaturated fatty acids for lowering cholesterol levels.2 (Polyunsaturated fatty acids are the kind of fats found in large amounts in highly liquid vegetable oils made from corn, soybeans, safflower seeds and sunflower seeds.
Mono-unsaturated fatty acids are found in large amounts in olive oil, palm oil and lard; saturated fatty acids are found in large amounts in fats and oils that are solid at room temperature, e.g., butter, tallow and coconut oil.)
Scientists of the period were grappling with a new threat to public health: a steep rise in heart disease. While turn-of-the-century mortality statistics are unreliable, they consistently indicate that heart disease caused no more than 10 per cent of all deaths - considerably less than infectious diseases such as pneumonia and tuberculosis. By 1950, coronary heart disease (CHD) was the leading source of mortality in the United States, causing more than 30 per cent of all deaths.
The greatest increase came under the rubric of myocardial infarction (MI) - a massive blood clot leading to obstruction of a coronary artery and consequent death to the heart muscle. MI was almost non-existent in 1910 and caused no more than 3,000 deaths per year in 1930. By 1960, there were at least 500,000 MI deaths per year in the US. What lifestyle changes had caused this increase?
One change was a decrease in infectious disease, following the decline of the horse as a means of transport, the installation of more sanitary water supplies and the advent of better housing, all of which allowed more people to reach adulthood and the heart attack age. The other was a dietary change.
Since the early part of the century when the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) had begun to keep track of food 'disappearance' data (the amount of various foods going into the food supply), a number of researchers had noticed a change in the kind of fats Americans were eating.
Butter consumption was declining, while the use of vegetable oils, especially oils that had been hardened to resemble butter by a process called 'hydrogenation', was increasing dramatically.
By 1950, butter consumption had dropped from 18 pounds per person per year to just over 10 pounds. Margarine filled in the gap, rising from about two pounds per person at the turn of the century to about eight. Consumption of vegetable shortening - used in crackers and baked goods - remained relatively steady at about 12 pounds per person per year, but vegetable oil consumption had more than tripled from just under three pounds per person per year to more than 10 pounds.3
The statistics pointed to one obvious conclusion: Americans should eat the traditional foods - including meat, eggs, butter and cheese - that nourished their ancestors, and avoid the newfangled, vegetable-oil-based foods that were flooding the grocers' shelves.
The Kritchevsky articles attracted immediate attention because they lent support to another theory - one that militated against the consumption of meat and dairy products.
This was the lipid hypothesis: namely, that saturated fat and cholesterol from animal sources raise cholesterol levels in the blood, leading to deposition of cholesterol and fatty material as pathogenic plaques in the arteries.
Kritchevsky's rabbit trials were actually a repeat of studies carried out four decades earlier in St Petersburg, in which rabbits fed saturated fats and cholesterol developed fatty deposits in their skin and other tissues - and in their arteries.
By showing that polyunsaturated oils from vegetable sources lowered serum cholesterol at least temporarily in humans, Kritchevsky appeared to show that the findings from the animal trials were relevant to the CHD problem, that the lipid hypothesis was a valid explanation for the new epidemic, and that, by reducing animal products in their diets, Americans could avoid heart disease.
In the years that followed, a number of population studies demonstrated that the animal model - especially one derived from vegetarian animals - was not a valid approach for the problem of heart disease in human omnivores.
A 1955 report on artery plaques in soldiers killed during the Korean War showed little difference in the number and severity of plaques between American soldiers and those of Japanese natives - 75 per cent versus 65 per cent - even though the Japanese diet at the time was lower in animal products and fat.4
A 1957 study of the largely vegetarian Bantu found that they had as much atheroma - occlusions or plaque build-up in the arteries - as other races from South Africa who ate more meat.5
A 1958 report noted that Jamaican Blacks showed a degree of atherosclerosis comparable to that found in the United States, although they suffered from lower rates of heart disease.6
A 1960 report noted that the severity of atherosclerotic lesions in Japan approached that of the United States.7
The 1968 International Atherosclerosis Project, in which over 22,000 corpses in 14 nations were cut open and examined for plaques in the arteries, showed the same degree of atheroma in all parts of the world - in populations that suffered from a great deal of heart disease, and in populations that had very little or none at all.8
All of these studies pointed to the fact that the thickening of the arterial walls is a natural, unavoidable process. The lipid hypothesis did not hold up to these population studies, nor did it explain the tendency toward fatal clots that caused myocardial infarction.
In 1956, an American Heart Association (AHA) fund-raiser was aired on all three major networks. The Master of Ceremonies interviewed, among others, Irving Page and Jeremiah Stamler of the AHA and researcher Ancel Keys.
Panellists presented the lipid hypothesis as the cause of the heart disease epidemic and launched the Prudent Diet, one in which corn oil, margarine, chicken and cold cereal replaced butter, lard, beef and eggs.
The television campaign was not an unqualified success because one of the panellists, Dr Dudley White, disputed his colleagues at the AHA. Dr White noted that heart disease in the form of myocardial infarction was non-existent in 1900 when egg consumption was three times what it was in 1956 and when corn oil was unavailable.
When pressed to support the Prudent Diet, Dr White replied:
"See here, I began my practice as a cardiologist in 1921 and I never saw an MI patent until 1928. Back in the MI-free days before 1920 the fats were butter and lard, and I think that we would all benefit from the kind of diet that we had at a time when no one had ever heard the word 'corn' oil."
But the lipid hypothesis had already gained enough momentum to keep it rolling, in spite of Dr White's nationally televised plea for common sense in matters of diet and in spite of the contradictory studies that were showing up in the scientific literature.
In 1957, Dr Norman Jolliffe, Director of the Nutrition Bureau of the New York Health Department, initiated the Anti-Coronary Club in which selected businessmen, ranging in age from 40 to 59 years, were placed on the Prudent Diet. Club members used corn oil and margarine instead of butter, cold breakfast cereals instead of eggs and chicken, and fish instead of beef.
Anti-Coronary Club members were to be compared with a 'matched' group of the same age who ate eggs for breakfast and had meat three times a day. Jolliffe, an overweight diabetic confined to a wheelchair, was confident that the Prudent Diet would save lives, including his own.
In the same year, the food industry initiated advertising campaigns that touted the health benefits of their products: low in fat or made with vegetable oils. A typical ad read "Wheaties may help you live longer". Wesson recommended its cooking oil "for your heart's sake".
An ad in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) described Wesson oil as a "cholesterol depressant". Mazola advertisements assured the public that "science finds corn oil important to your health". Medical journal ads recommended Fleishmann's unsalted margarine for patients with high blood pressure.
In his syndicated column, Dr Frederick Stare, head of Harvard University's Nutrition Department, encouraged the consumption of corn oil - up to one cup a day. In a promotional piece specifically for Proctor and Gamble's Puritan oil, he cited two experiments and one clinical trial as showing that high blood cholesterol is associated with CHD.
However, both experiments had nothing to do with CHD, and the clinical trial did not find that reducing blood cholesterol had any effect on CHD events. Later, Dr William Castelli, director of the Framingham Study, was one of several specialists to endorse Puritan. Dr Antonio Gotto, Jr, former AHA president, sent practising physicians a letter promoting Puritan oil - printed on Baylor College of Medicine, The De Bakey Heart Center letterhead.9
The irony of Gotto's letter is that De Bakey, the famous heart surgeon, co-authored a 1964 study involving 1,700 patients, which also showed no definite correlation between serum cholesterol levels and the nature and extent of coronary artery disease.10 In other words, those with low cholesterol levels were just as likely to have blocked arteries as those with high cholesterol levels.
But while studies like DeBakey's mouldered in the basements of university libraries, the vegetable oil campaign took on increased bravado and audacity.
The American Medical Association (AMA) at first opposed the commercialisation of the lipid hypothesis and warned that "the anti-fat, anti-cholesterol fad is not just foolish and futile...it also carries some risk".
The American Heart Association, however, was committed. In 1961, the AHA published its first dietary guidelines aimed at the public. The authors, Irving Page, Ancel Keys, Jeremiah Stamler and Frederick Stare, called for the substitution of polyunsaturates for saturated fat, even though Keys, Stare and Page had all previously noted in published papers that the increase in CHD was paralleled by increasing consumption of vegetable oils. In fact, in a 1956 paper, Keys had suggested that the increasing use of hydrogenated vegetable oils might be the underlying cause of the CHD epidemic.11
Stamler showed up again in 1966 as an author of Your Heart Has Nine Lives, a little self-help book advocating the substitution of vegetable oils for butter and other so-called 'artery-clogging' saturated fats.
The book was sponsored by makers of Mazola corn oil and Mazola margarine.
Stamler did not believe that lack of evidence should deter Americans from changing their eating habits. The evidence, he stated, was "...compelling enough to call for altering some habits even before the final proof is nailed down... the definitive proof that middle-aged men who reduce their blood cholesterol will actually have far fewer heart attacks waits upon diet studies now in progress."
His version of the Prudent Diet called for substituting low-fat milk products such as skim milk and low-fat cheeses for cream, butter and whole cheeses, reducing egg consumption and cutting the fat off red meats. Heart disease, he lectured, was a disease of rich countries, striking rich people who ate rich food, including 'hard' fats like butter.
It was in the same year, 1966, that the results of Dr Jolliffe's Anti-Coronary Club experiment were published in JAMA.12 Those on the Prudent Diet of corn oil, margarine, fish, chicken and cold cereal had an average serum cholesterol of 220, compared to 250 in the meat-and-potatoes control group.
However, the study authors were obliged to note that there were eight deaths from heart disease among Dr Jolliffe's Prudent Diet group, and none among those who ate meat three times a day. Dr Jolliffe was dead by this time. He succumbed in 1961 from a vascular thrombosis, although the obituaries listed the cause of death as "complications from diabetes".
The compelling "proof" that Stamler and others were sure would vindicate wholesale tampering with American eating habits had not yet been "nailed down".
The problem, said the insiders promoting the lipid hypothesis, was that the numbers involved in the Anti-Coronary Club experiment were too small. Dr Irving Page urged a National Diet-Heart Study involving one million men, in which the results of the Prudent Diet could be compared on a large scale with those on a diet high in meat and fat.
With great media attention, the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute organised the stocking of food warehouses in six major cities, where men on the Prudent Diet could get tasty polyunsaturated doughnuts and other fabricated food items free of charge.
But a pilot study, involving 2,000 men, resulted in exactly the same number of deaths in both the Prudent Diet group and the control group. A brief report in Circulation (March 1968) stated that the study was a milestone "in mass environmental experimentation" that would have "an important effect on the food industry and the attitude of the public toward its eating habits".
But the million-man Diet-Heart Study was abandoned in utter silence "for reasons of cost". Its chairman, Dr Irving Page, died of a heart attack.
Most animal fats - like butter, lard and tallow - have a large proportion of saturated fatty acids. Saturated fats are straight chains of carbon and hydrogen that pack together easily so that they are relatively solid at room temperature. Oils from seeds are composed mostly of polyunsaturated fatty acids.
These molecules have kinks in them at the point of the unsaturated double bond. They do not pack together easily and therefore tend to be liquid at room temperature.
Judging from both food data and turn-of-the-century cookbooks, the American diet in 1900 was a rich one, with at least 35 to 40 per cent of calories coming from fats, mostly dairy fats in the form of butter, cream, whole milk, and also eggs. Salad dressing recipes usually called for egg yolks or cream; only occasionally for olive oil. Lard or tallow served for frying.
Rich dishes like head cheese and scrapple contributed additional saturated fats during an era when cancer and heart disease were rare. Butter substitutes made up only a small portion of the American diet, and these margarines were blended from coconut oil, animal tallow and lard - all rich in natural saturates.
The technology by which liquid vegetable oils could be hardened to make margarine was first discovered by a French chemist named Sabatier. He found that a nickel catalyst would cause the hydrogenation (the addition of hydrogen to unsaturated bonds to make them saturated) of ethylene gas to ethane.
Subsequently, the British chemist Norman developed the first application of hydrogenation to food oils and took out a patent. In 1909, Procter & Gamble acquired the US rights to a British patent on making liquid vegetable oils solid at room temperature.
The process was used on both cotton-seed oil and lard to give "better physical properties", to create shortenings that did not melt as easily on hot days.
The hydrogenation process transforms unsaturated oils into straight 'packable' molecules by rearranging the hydrogen atoms at the double bonds. In nature, most double bonds occur in the cis configuration - that is, with both hydrogen atoms on the same side of the carbon chain at the point of the double bond. It is the cis isomers of fatty acids that have a bend or kink at the double bond, preventing them from packing together easily.
Hydrogenation creates trans double bonds by moving one hydrogen atom across to the other side of the carbon chain at the point of the double bond. In effect, the two hydrogen atoms then balance each other and the fatty acid straightens, creating a packable 'plastic' fat with a much higher melting temperature.
Although trans fatty acids are technically unsaturated, they are configured in such a way that the benefits of unsaturation are lost. The presence of several unpaired electrons presented by contiguous hydrogen atoms in their cis form allows many vital chemical reactions to occur at the site of the double bond.
When one hydrogen atom is moved to the other side of the fatty acid molecule during hydrogenation, the ability of living cells to make reactions at the site is compromised or altogether lost. Trans fatty acids are sufficiently similar to natural fats that the body readily incorporates them into the cell membrane; once there, their altered chemical structure creates havoc with thousands of necessary chemical reactions - everything from energy provision to prostaglandin production.
After the Second World War, 'improvements' made it possible to plasticise highly unsaturated oils from corn and soybeans. New catalysts allowed processors to 'selectively hydrogenate' the kinds of fatty acids found in soy and canola oils - those with three double bonds.
Called 'partial hydrogenation', this new method allowed processors to replace cotton-seed oil with more unsaturated corn and soybean oils in margarines and shortenings. This spurred a meteoric rise in soybean production from virtually nothing in 1900 to 70 million tons in 1970, surpassing corn production. Today, soy oil dominates the market and is used in almost 80 per cent of all hydrogenated oils.
The particular mix of fatty acids in soy oil results in shortenings containing about 40 per cent trans fats - an increase of about 5 per cent over cotton-seed oil and 15 per cent over corn oil. Canola oil, processed from a hybrid form of rape-seed, is particularly rich in fatty acids containing three double bonds and can contain as much as 50 per cent trans fats.
Trans fats of a particularly problematic type are also formed during the process of deodorising canola oil, although they are not indicated on labels for canola oil.
Certain forms of trans fatty acids occur naturally in dairy fats. Trans vaccenic acid makes up about four per cent of the fatty acids in butter. It is an interim product which the ruminant animal then converts to conjugated linoleic acid, a highly beneficial anti-carcinogenic component of animal fat. Humans seem to utilise the small amounts of trans vaccenic acid in butter fat without ill effects.
However, most of the trans isomers in modern hydrogenated fats are new to the human physiology. By the early 1970s, a number of researchers had expressed concern about their presence in the American diet, noting that the increasing use of hydrogenated fats had paralleled the increase in both heart disease and cancer.
The unstated solution was one that could be easily presented to the public: eat natural, traditional fats; avoid newfangled foods made from vegetable oils; use butter, not margarine.
But medical research and public consciousness took a different tack - one that accelerated the decline of traditional foods like meat, eggs and butter, and fuelled continued dramatic increases in vegetable oil consumption.
Although the AHA had committed itself to the lipid hypothesis and the unproven theory that polyunsaturated oils afforded protection against heart disease, concerns about hydrogenated vegetable oils were sufficiently great to warrant the inclusion of the following statement in the organisation's 1968 diet heart statement: "Partial hydrogenation of polyunsaturated fats results in the formation of trans forms which are less effective than cis, cis forms in lowering cholesterol concentrations.
It should be noted that many currently available shortenings and margarines are partially hydrogenated and may contain little polyunsaturated fat of the natural cis, cis form."
While 150,000 copies of the statement were printed, they were never distributed. The shortening industry objected strongly, and a researcher named Fred Mattson of Procter & Gamble convinced Campbell Moses, medical director of the AHA, to remove it.13
The final recommendations for the public contained three major points:
* restrict calories
* substitute polyunsaturates for saturates
* reduce cholesterol in the diet
Other organisations fell in behind the AHA in pushing vegetable oils instead of animal fats. By the early 1970s, the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, the AMA, the American Dietetic Association and the National Academy of Sciences had all endorsed the lipid hypothesis and the avoidance of animal fats for those Americans in the 'at risk' category.
Since Kritchevsky's early studies, many other trials had shown that serum cholesterol can be lowered by increasing ingestion of polyunsaturates. The physiological explanation for this is that when excess polyunsaturates are built into the cell membranes, resulting in reduced structural integrity or 'limpness', cholesterol is sequestered from the blood into the cell membranes to give them 'stiffness'.
The problem was that there was no proof that lowering serum cholesterol levels could stave off CHD.
That did not prevent the American Heart Association calling for "modified and ordinary foods" useful for the purpose of facilitating dietary changes to newfangled oils away from traditional fats. These foods, said the AHA literature, should be made available to the consumer, "...reasonably priced and easily identified by appropriate labeling. Any existing legal and regulatory barriers to the marketing of such foods should be removed."
The man who made it possible to remove any "existing legal and regulatory barriers" was Peter Barton Hutt, a food lawyer for the prestigious Washington, DC, law firm of Covington and Burling. Hutt once stated: "Food law is the most wonderful field of law that you can possibly enter." After representing the edible oil industry, he temporarily left his law firm to become general counsel for the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1971.
The regulatory barrier to foods useful to the purpose of changing American consumption patterns was the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938, which stated: "...there are certain traditional foods that everyone knows, such as bread, milk and cheese, and that when consumers buy these foods, they should get the foods that they are expecting... [and] if a food resembles a standardized food but does not comply with the standard, that food must be labeled as an 'imitation'."
The 1938 Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act had been signed into law partly in response to consumer concerns about the adulteration of ordinary foodstuffs. Chief among the products with a tradition of suffering competition from imitation products were fats and oils.
In Life on the Mississippi, Mark Twain reports on a conversation overheard between a New Orleans cottonseed oil purveyor and a Cincinnati margarine drummer. New Orleans boasts of selling deodorised cottonseed oil as olive oil in bottles with European labels.
"We turn out the whole thing - clean from the word go - in our factory in New Orleans... We are doing a ripping trade, too." The man from Cincinnati reports that his factories are turning out oleomargarine by the thousands of tons, an imitation that "you can't tell from butter". He gloats at the thought of market domination.
"You are going to see the day, pretty soon, when you won't find an ounce of butter to bless yourself with, in any hotel in the Mississippi and Ohio valleys, outside of the biggest cities... And we can sell it so dirt cheap that the whole country has got to take it ... butter don't stand any show - there ain't any chance for competition. Butter's had its day - and from this out, butter goes to the wall.
"There's more money in oleomargarine than - why, you can't imagine the business we do."
In the tradition of Mark Twain's riverboat hucksters, Peter Barton Hutt guided the FDA through the legal and congressional hoops to the establishment in 1973 of the FDA "Imitation" policy which attempted to provide for "advances in food technology" and give "manufacturers relief from the dilemma of either complying with an outdated standard or having to label their new products as 'imitation'... [since] ...such products are not necessarily inferior to the traditional foods for which they may be substituted".
Hutt considered the word 'imitation' to be oversimplified and inaccurate - "potentially misleading to consumers". The new regulations defined 'inferiority' as any reduction in content of an essential nutrient that is present at a level of two per cent or more of the US Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA).
The new 'imitation' policy meant that imitation sour cream, made with vegetable oil and fillers like guar gum and carrageenan, need not be labelled 'imitation' as long as artificial vitamins were added to bring macronutrient levels up to the same amounts as those in real sour cream.
Coffee creamers, imitation egg mixes, processed cheeses and imitation whipped cream no longer required the 'imitation' label, but could be sold as real and beneficial foods, low in cholesterol and rich in polyunsaturates.
These new regulations were adopted without the consent of Congress, continuing the trend instituted under Nixon in which the White House would use the FDA to promote certain social agendas through government food policies. They had the effect of increasing the lobbying clout of special-interest groups such as the edible oil industry, and short-circuiting public participation in the regulatory process.
It allowed food processing innovations, regarded as 'technological improvements' by manufacturers, to enter the marketplace without the onus of economic fraud that might be engendered by greater consumer awareness and congressional supervision.
They ushered in the era of ersatz foodstuffs, convenient counterfeit products - weary, stale, flat and immensely profitable.
Congress did not voice any objection to this usurpation of its powers, but entered the contest on the side of the lipid hypothesis. The Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, chaired by George McGovern during the years 1973 to 1977, actively promoted the use of vegetable oils.
"Dietary Goals for the United States", published by the committee, cited USDA data on fat consumption and stated categorically that "the overconsumption of fat, generally, and saturated fat in particular...have been related to six of the ten leading causes of death" in the United States.
The report urged the American populace to reduce overall fat intake and to substitute polyunsaturates for saturated fat from animal sources - margarine and corn oil for butter, lard and tallow.
Opposing testimony included a moving letter (buried in the voluminous report) by Dr Fred Kummerow of the University of Illinois, urging a return to traditional whole foods and warning against the use of soft drinks.
In the early 1970s, Kummerow had shown that trans fatty acids caused increased rates of heart disease in pigs. A private endowment allowed him to continue his research, but government-funded agencies such as the National Institutes of Health refused to give him further grants.
One study that was known to McGovern Committee members, but not mentioned in its final report, compared calves fed saturated fat from tallow and lard with calves fed unsaturated fat from soybean oil.
The calves fed tallow and lard did indeed show higher plasma cholesterol levels than the soybean-oil-fed calves; fat-streaking was found in their aortas, and atherosclerosis was also enhanced.
But the calves fed soybean oil showed a decline in calcium and magnesium levels in the blood, possibly due to inefficient absorption. They utilised vitamins and minerals inefficiently, showed poor growth and poor bone development, and had abnormal hearts.
More cholesterol per unit of dry matter was found in the aorta, liver, muscle, fat and coronary arteries - a finding which led the investigators to the conclusion that the lower blood cholesterol levels in the soybean-oil-fed calves may be the result of cholesterol being transferred from the blood to other tissues.
The calves in the soybean oil group collapsed when forced to move around and they were unaware of their surroundings for short periods. They also had rickets and diarrhoea.
The McGovern Committee report continued dietary trends already in progress: the increased use of vegetables oils, especially in the form of partially hydrogenated margarines and shortenings.
In 1976, the FDA established the GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) status for hydrogenated soybean oil.
A report prepared by the Life Sciences Research Office of the Federation of American Scientists for Experimental Biology (LSRO-FSAB) concluded: "There is no evidence in the available information on hydrogenated soybean oil that demonstrates or suggests reasonable ground to suspect a hazard to the public when it is used as a direct or indirect food ingredient at levels that are now current or that might reasonably be expected in the future."
When Mary Enig, a graduate student at the University of Maryland, read the McGovern Committee report, she was puzzled. Enig was familiar with Kummerow's research and she knew that the consumption of animal fats in America was not on the increase.
Quite the contrary: the use of animal fats had been declining steadily since the turn of the century.
A report in the Journal of American Oil Chemists - which the McGovern Committee did not use - showed that animal fat consumption had declined from 104 grams per person per day in 1909 to 97 grams per day in 1972, while vegetable fat intake had increased from a mere 21 grams to almost 60 grams.14
Total per-capita fat consumption had increased over the period, but this increase was mostly due to an increase in unsaturated fats from vegetable oils - with 50 per cent of the increase coming from liquid vegetable oils and about 41 per cent from margarines made from vegetable oils.
Enig noted a number of studies that directly contradicted the McGovern Committee's conclusions that "there is...a strong correlation between dietary fat intake and the incidence of breast cancer and colon cancer" - two of the most common cancers in America.
Greece, for example, had less than one-fourth the rate of breast cancer compared to Israel, but the same dietary fat intake.
Spain had only one-third the breast cancer mortality of France and Italy, but the total dietary fat intake was slightly greater.
Puerto Rico, with a high animal fat intake, had a very low rate of breast and colon cancer.
The Netherlands and Finland both used approximately 100 grams of animal fat per capita per day, but breast and colon cancer rates were almost twice in the Netherlands what they were in Finland. The Netherlands consumed 53 grams of vegetable fat per person compared to 13 grams in Finland.
A study from Cali, Colombia, found a fourfold excess risk for colon cancer in the higher economic classes which used less animal fat than the lower economic classes.
A study found that Seventh Day Adventist physicians, who avoid meat (especially red meat), had a significantly higher rate of colon cancer than non-Seventh Day Adventist physicians.
Enig analysed the USDA data that the McGovern Committee had used and concluded that they showed a strong positive correlation with total fat and vegetable fat and an essentially strong negative correlation or no correlation with animal fat to total cancer deaths, breast and colon cancer mortality and breast and colon cancer incidence - in other words, use of vegetable oils seemed to predispose to cancer, and animal fats seemed to protect against cancer.
She noted that the analysts for the committee had manipulated the data in inappropriate ways in order to obtain mendacious results.
Enig submitted her findings to the journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB), in May 1978, and her article was published in FASEB's Federation Proceedings15 in July of the same year - an unusually quick turnaround. The assistant editor, responsible for accepting the article, died of a heart attack shortly thereafter.
Enig's paper noted that the correlations pointed a finger at trans fatty acids and called for further investigation. Only two years earlier, the Life Sciences Research Office, which is the arm of FASEB that does scientific investigations, had published the whitewash that ushered partially hydrogenated soybean oil onto the GRAS list and removed any lingering constraints against the number-one ingredient in factory-produced food.
Enig's paper sent alarm bells through the industry. In early 1979 she received a visit from S. F. Reipma of the National Association of Margarine Manufacturers. Short, bald and pompous, Reipma was visibly annoyed. He explained that both his ssociation and the Institute for Shortening and Edible Oils (ISEO) kept careful watch to prevent articles like Enig's from appearing in the literature.
Enig's paper should never have been published, he said. He thought that ISEO was "watching out". "We left the barn door open," he said, "and the horse got out."
Reipma also challenged Enig's use of the USDA data, claiming that it was in error. He knew it was in error, he said, "because we give it to them".
A few weeks later, Reipma paid a second visit, this time in the company of Tom Applewhite, an adviser to the ISEO and representative of Kraft Foods, Ronald Simpson with Central Soya, and a representative from Lever Brothers.
They carried with them - in fact, waved in the air in indignation - a two-inch stack of newspaper articles, including one that appeared in the National Enquirer, reporting on Enig's Federation Proceedings article. Applewhite's face flushed red with anger when Enig repeated Reipma's statement that they had "left the barn door open and the horse got out" and his admission that Department of Agriculture food data had been sabotaged by the margarine lobby.
The other thing Reipma told Enig during his unguarded visit was that he had called in on the FASEB offices in an attempt to coerce them into publishing letters to refute her paper, without allowing Enig to submit any counter-refutation as was normally customary in scientific journals.
He told Enig that he was "thrown out of the office" - an admission later confirmed by one of the FASEB editors. Nevertheless, a series of letters did follow the July 1978 article.16 On behalf of the ISEO, Applewhite and Walter Meyer of Procter & Gamble criticised Enig's use of the data.
Applewhite accused Enig of extrapolating from two data points, when in fact she had used seven. John Bailar, Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute pointed out that the correlations between vegetable oil consumption and cancer were not the same as evidence of causation, and warned against changing current dietary components in the hope of preventing cancer in the future - which is, of course, exactly what the McGovern Committee did.
In reply, Enig and her colleagues noted that although the National Cancer Institute (NCI) had provided them with faulty cancer data, this had no bearing on the statistics relating to trans consumption and did not affect the gist of their argument - that the correlation between vegetable fat consumption, especially trans fat consumption, was sufficient to warrant a more thorough investigation. The problem was that very little investigation was being done.
University of Maryland researchers recognised the need for more research in two areas. One concerned the effects of trans fats on cellular processes once they are built into the cell membrane.
Studies with rats, including one conducted by Fred Mattson in 1960, indicated that the trans fatty acids were built into the cell membrane in proportion to their presence in the diet, and that the turnover of trans in the cells was similar to that of other fatty acids. These studies, according to J. Edward Hunter of the ISEO, were proof that "trans fatty acids do not pose any hazard to man in a normal diet".
Enig and her associates were not so sure. Kummerow's research indicated that the trans fats contributed to heart disease; and Kritchevsky, whose early experiments with vegetarian rabbits were now seen to be totally irrelevant to the human model, had found that trans fatty acids raise cholesterol in humans.17
Enig's own research, published in her 1984 doctoral dissertation, indicated that trans fats interfered with enzyme systems that neutralised carcinogens and increased enzymes that potentiated carcinogens.18
________________________________________
About the Authors:
Mary G. Enig, PhD, is an expert of international renown in the field of lipid biochemistry.She has headed a number of studies, in America and Israel, on the content and effects of trans fatty acids, and has successfully challenged government assertions that dietary animal fat causes cancer and heart disease. Recent scientific and media attention on the possible adverse health effects of trans fatty acids has brought increased attention to her work.
She is a licensed nutritionist, certified by the Certification Board for Nutrition Specialists, a qualified expert witness, a nutrition consultant to individuals, industry, and state and federal governments, a contributing editor to a number of scientific publications, a Fellow of the American College of Nutrition, and President of the Maryland Nutritionists Association.
She is the author of over 60 technical papers and presentations, as well as a popular lecturer. Dr Enig is currently working on the exploratory development of an adjunct therapy for AIDS using complete medium-chain saturated fatty acids from whole foods.
She is the mother of three healthy children brought up on whole foods including butter, cream, eggs and meat.
Sally Fallon is the author of Nourishing Traditions: The Cookbook that Challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats (with Pat Connolly, Executive Director of the Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, and Mary G. Enig, PhD), as well as of numerous articles on the subject of diet and health.
She is a founder of the Weston A. Price Foundation.
She is the mother of four healthy children raised on whole foods including butter, cream, eggs and meat.
Her publications may by obtained by contacting the Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation in San Diego, California, USA, on (619) 574 7763.
1. D Kritchevsky, et al, "Effect of Cholesterol Vehicle in Experimental Atherosclerosis", Am. J. Physiol. 178:30-32, July-September 1954
2. "Notice of Supelco-AOC Award to Kritchevsky", Inform 7:315, 1996
3. Enig, M., Trans Fatty Acids in the Food Supply: A Comprehensive Report Covering 60 Years of Research, Enig Associates, Inc., Silver Spring, MD, USA, 1995 (2ed), pp. 4-8
4. Groom, D., "Population Studies of Atherosclerosis", Annals of Int. Med. 55(1):51-62, July 1961; Enos, W. F. et al., "Pathogenesis of Coronary Disease in American Soldiers Killed in Korea", JAMA 158:912, 1955.
5. Laurie, W. et al, "Atherosclerosis and its Cerebral Complications in the South African Bantu", Lancet, February 1958, pp. 231-232
6. Robertson, W. B., "Atherosclerosis and Ischaemic Heart Disease," Lancet 1:444, 1959
7. Gordon, T., "Mortality Experience Among Japanese in the US, Hawaii and Japan", Pul. Health Rep. 51:270, 1957; Pollak, O. J., "Diet and Atherosclerosis," Lancet 1:444, 1959
8. McGill, H. C. et al., "General Findings of the International Atherosclerosis Project," Laboratory Investigations 18(5):498, 1968
9. Smith, R. L. and E. R. Pinckney, The Cholesterol Conspiracy, Warren H Green, Inc., St Louis, MO, USA, 1991, p. 125
10. De Bakey, M. et al., "Serum Cholesterol Values in Patients Treated Surgically for Atherosclerosis", JAMA 189(9):655-59, 1964
11. Keys, A., "Diet and Development of Coronary Heart Disease", J. Chron. Dis. 4(4):364-380, October 1956
12. Cristakis, G., "Effect of the Anti-Coronary Club Program on Coronary Heart Disease Risk-Factor Status", JAMA 198(6):129-35, November 7, 1996
13. "Dietary Goals for the United States - Supplemental Views", prepared by the Staff of the Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, United States Senate, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, November 1977, pp. 139-140
14. Rizek, R. L. et al., "Fat in Today's Food Supply - Level of Use and Sources", J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 51:244, 1974
15. Enig, M. G. et al., "Dietary Fat and Cancer Trends - A Critique", Federation Proceedings 37(9):2215-2220, FASEB, July 1978
16. Applewhite, T. H., "Statistical 'Correlations' Relating Trans Fats to Cancer: A Commentary", Federation Proceedings 38(11):2435-2439, FASEB, October 1979
17. Kummerow, F. A., "Effects of Isomeric Fats on Animal Tissue, Lipid Classes and Atherosclerosis", Geometrical and Positional Fatty Acid Isomers (E. A. Emken and H. J. Dutton, eds), American Oil Chemists Society, Champaign, IL, USA, 1979, pp. 151-180;
Kritchevsky, D., "Trans Fatty Acid Effects in Experimental Atherosclerosis", Federation Proceedings 41:2813, FASEB, 1982
18. Enig, M. G., "Modification of Membrane Lipid Composition and Mixed-Function Oxidases in Mouse Liver Microsomes by Dietary Trans Fatty Acids", Doctoral Dissertation for the University of Maryland, 1984
To be fair to the discussion the following is pro spy bean oil:
The following is about an international study performed by UNL food scientists suggesting that highly refined soybean oil does not cause reactions in people who are allergic to soybeans, said food toxicologist Sue Hefle, who headed this research with food scientist Steve Taylor.
The Nebraska findings played a role in recent European Union food allergen labeling decisions as well as the U.S. Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004, which Congress passed to protect allergic consumers.
In March, highly refined soybean oil was among the soy components that the European Union temporarily exempted from food allergen labeling regulations slated to take effect later this year, he said.
The EU's European Food Safety Authority allowed industry groups to request exemptions if they could provide scientific evidence that a food product or ingredient doesn't cause allergic reactions. Industry included UNL's findings in a successful request for a three-year temporary exemption.
"The temporary exemption means the EU panel has some questions but feels comfortable that refined soy oil won't cause reactions," Hefle explained. During the next three years, the Europeans will further study the matter.
The fact remains that I'm skeptical of their research given the millions that have been allocated to researchers who are virtually blackmailed into revealing highly selective data.
The soy campaign is a case study in the use of propaganda to promote commercial interests.
ENTROPY
Purple Belt
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2003
- Messages
- 2,363
- Reaction score
- 0
Response To Those Who Believe Soy Is Healthy.
By Sally Fallon and Dr. Mary Enig
In his Guest Editorial of October 2000 in the Townsend Letter, Mr. Bill Sardi expresses surprise that the "greatest criticism of soy has come from natural health advocates." Yet most of the soy-based products on the market today can hardly be called "natural" foods.
They are produced in factories at high temperatures and pressures and with the help of a variety of chemicals. The soybeans themselves are grown on huge corporate farms, most of which use toxic pesticides and herbicides.
And a large percentage of soy foods come from genetically engineered plants.
The fact that these products can be labeled "natural" only demonstrates the power and duplicity of soy interests in America. Dr. Zava is one of many honest scientists who have read the literature and discovered that soy contains:
* allergens.
* mineral blockers.
* enzyme inhibitors.
* hormone modifiers.
* iodine blockers that interfere with normal thyroid function.
Mr. Sardi says these characterizations are unfair and inaccurate. Like Dr. Zava, we do not repeat "claims" that soy contains antinutrients and toxins; we quote the scientific literature. Propaganda is "the systemic propagation of a given doctrine or of allegations reflecting its views and interests; material disseminated by the advocates of a doctrine."
The promotion of soy as a miracle food has been both systematic and reflective of the doctrine of the food industry-that imitation foods are good for us and traditional foods are unhealthy.
The soy campaign is, in fact, a case study in the use of propaganda to promote commercial interests.
Mr. Sardi misquotes us frequently. We stated that soy was not considered fit to eat in Asia a few centuries ago (not a few decades ago); we did not "acknowledge that Asians consume 30 times more soy than North Americans." We pointed out studies showing that soy consumption in Asia is actually much lower than claimed-averaging 10 grams per person, less than two teaspoons.
He does not seem to understand our argument that if soy is given as the reason Asians have lower rates of breast, prostate and colon cancer (simply because Asians supposedly eat large amounts of soy), then the same logic requires us to blame high rates of cancers of the esophagus, stomach, thyroid, pancreas and liver in Asian countries on consumption of soy.
The truth is that we don't know exactly why Asian countries have certain types of cancers and western countries have other types. Eastern types of cancers have been attributed to many factors, of which soy consumption is one, but to claim that soy consumption is associated with lower rates of certain types of cancers while neglecting to mention that soy is also associated with higher rates of certain types of cancer is typical of industry dishonesty.
Sardi acknowledges that Asians have higher rates of pancreatic cancers in one paragraph, but states that populations that consume high levels of soy exhibit decreased rates of pancreatic cancer in another. We are confused.
Messina did indeed omit the Rackis study in his "exhaustive" survey. In fact, Messina did not include any animal studies on pancreatic effects. The Rackis study showed not only enlargement of the pancreas but also precancerous changes. And why the double standard? Why is it appropriate to use rats prone to develop breast cancer in experiments with soy, but not rats prone to demonstrate disturbances in the pancreas?
It is standard scientific practice to use rats bred to react in specific ways in order to study effects over short periods of time. Normal rat chow did not cause pancreatic changes in sensitive rats-only rat chow based on soy.
Birds don't eat soy, says Sardi. They know better. The Jameses should have known that soy is not appropriate for birds (something that would come as a surprise to the chicken industry.) The Jameses trusted the literature that came with the product, which stated that soy was an excellent food for birds. They also trusted the claims made for soy infant formula, that soy was "better than breast milk."
They should have known that soy was not an appropriate food for humans, particularly for babies and so should Mr. Sardi and all the others out there who continue to provide glib assurances that soy formula is a good substitute for milk-based formula.
The James learned a terrible lesson the hard way-that we should not trust claims for commercial food products, especially when these claims are too good to be true. In the absence of animal instinct, it's important to be skeptical. "Scientists cannot infer that animal data applies to humans," says Sardi.
But they do it all the time, especially when the data show protective effects. Only when the studies are negative do scientists get reprimanded for using them. Onward with the double standard. It is axiomatic that when a chemical carcinogen is definitely active in one or more animal models, it can be stated with certitude that certain individuals of Homo sapiens would be at risk.
Soy proponents don't want the public to know that phytoestrogens can induce tumors in several different species of animals.
The younger the animal, the more susceptible it is to the action of plant-based estrogens, as it frequently is to other carcinogens. Sardi objects to some of our references.
One of them-Natural Health News published by L & H Vitamin Company- was given as an example of promotional advertising, which in this case claimed that soy could prevent cancer. He complains of a missing citation, number 58, but there is no missing citation. It is published on the website and was published in the Townsend Letter.
Another criticism is that the average published date of our references is 13 years old. We were not aware that averaging publication dates was a valid method for assessing studies and reports. Nevertheless, one of the aims of our article was to show that studies indicating soy toxicity date back as far as fifty to sixty years, especially studies showing adverse affects on the thyroid gland. (Goitrogenic components have been confirmed very recently by Divi and Doerges.)
Much good scientific work was done in past decades and it is work that can be depended upon because it took place before the soy industry began funding university research.
We hope that citation of the following recent studies will make our "average published date" more acceptable:
A study from Cornell University, published in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 1986, which found that children who develop diabetes mellitus were twice as likely to have been fed soy.
A November 1994 warning published in Pediatrics in which the Nutrition Committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics advised against the use of soy formulas due to the diabetes risk. These warnings have been neglected ever since it was reported that the AAP accepted a multi-dollar donation from the Infant Formula Council for their new headquarters building outside Chicago.
A 1994 article by Lonnerdal published in Acta Paediatr summarizing the reduced bioavailability of trace minerals due to high phytic acid content in soy infant formula; and high levels of manganese in soy formula compared to cows milk formula and breast milk. Excessive intake of manganese is linked to problems with the central nervous system.
A 1996 report published in the German magazine Klin Padiatr describing the development of hypocalcemic tetany in an infant fed soy formula.
Two 1997 studies published in Nutrition and Cancer. One found that phytoestrogens at levels close to probable levels in humans stimulate cellular changes leading to breast cancer; the other found that dietary soy suppressed enzymes protective of breast cancer in mice.
A 1998 study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition further confirming that soy-protein supplementation stimulates cell proliferation in human breast tissue.
A 1998 study published in Cancer Research which found that dietary genistein enhances the growth of mammary gland tumors in mice.
A 1998 study by Nagata and others published in the Journal of Nutrition which gives daily consumption of tofu in Japan's Gifu prefecture as less than 1 gram per day.
A 1998 study published in Toxicology and Industrial Health indicating the phytoestrogens are potential endocrine disrupters in males.
A March 12, 1999 Daily Express article with the headline "Soy Allergy/Adverse Effect Rates Skyrocket - Monsanto's Roundup-Ready Soy Blamed"
A 1999 study at the Clinical Research Center at MIT, published in the Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Pacific Coast Reproductive Society which found that estrogens in soy had no effect on menopausal symptoms such as hot flashes and night sweats.
May 1999 and June 2000 studies published in Brain Research indicating that phytoestrogens have adverse affects on brain chemistry.
An April 2000 study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science which found that flavonoids, especially genistein, can cross the placenta and induce cell changes that lead to infant leukemia.
An article published in Nutrition and Cancer 2000 which found lower testosterone levels and higher estrogen levels in Japanese men who consumed higher levels of soy foods.
Publication in the British Journal of Urology, January 2000, of the study showing a five-time greater risk of delivering a boy with hypospadias, a birth defect of the penis, in mothers who ate a vegetarian diet during pregnancy. The researchers attributed high rates of the birth defect to phytoestrogens in soy products.
An April 2000 study published in Carcinogenesis found that soy feeding stimulated the growth of rat thyroid with iodine deficiency, partly through a pituitary-dependent pathway.
A June 2000 article in American Journal of Cardiology which found that soy had no impact on lipid levels in healthy postmenopausal women
Evidence that disturbing results were omitted from a 1994 study presented to the FDA during the approval process for Roundup Ready Soybeans. Researchers found that raw Roundup Ready meal contained 27 percent more trypsin inhibitor and toasted Roundup Ready meal contained 18 percent more trypsin inhibitor compared to non-genetically manipulated controls.
The most serious concerns regarding soy foods involve the use of soy infant formula.
Sardi cites a 1998 Nutrition Reviews article by K. O. Klein of duPont Hospital for Children as proof that soy infant formulas do no harm.
Yet in the article Klein notes that effects of isoflavones on various animal species include hormonal changes, increased uterine weight and infertility. " It is clear from the literature," says Klein, "that different species and different tissues are affected by isoflavones in markedly different ways.
It is difficult to know which tissue, if any, are affected in infants, and the variation among species makes extrapolation to infants inappropriate." This is scientific double talk.
Scientists may be reluctant to extrapolate but parents would certainly err on the side of caution if they knew that "isoflavones affect different tissues in markedly different ways." Klein says that medical literature provides "no evidence of endocrine effects. . and no changes in timing of puberty."
But she makes no mention of the Puerto Rican study which found that consumption of soy formula correlated strongly with early maturation in girls.
Why would Dr. Klein leave out any reference to the Puerto Rican study in her review? Is it because DuPont, owner of Protein Technologies International, is the leading manufacturer of soy protein isolate?
Or is it because her review was sponsored by the Infant Formula Council? Or because Nutrition Reviews, which published her whitewash, is funded by industry giants, including Pillsbury, Hershey Foods, Kellogg, Roche, General Mills, Kraft, Campbell Soup, Monsanto, Coca-Cola, Cargill, Heinz, Nabisco, Proctor and Gamble and Pepsi-Cola?
Soy can be implicated as a probable cause in the current epidemic of learning disabilities because it has similar effects in monkeys. Sardi is correct in stating the 1997 Journal of Pediatrics article makes no mention of soy. Neither does Time Magazine in their recent article on early puberty in girls.
The Time article speculates that exogenous estrogens might be the cause. Is it not appropriate to speculate that estrogens in soy formula, which are not "reduced significantly by their first pass through the liver" as Sardi claims but end up in the blood of infants in huge amounts, might also be a cause?
Perhaps it is the hormones in meat and milk, say the writers of the article. But hormonal levels in these products are minuscule compared to levels in soy formula. And in the Puerto Rican study, consumption of milk was negatively correlated with early maturation, which means that it might be protective.
We do not claim that Asians have lower rates of osteoporosis-it is the soy supporters who make that claim. But if in fact they do have lower rates of bone loss, it is much more likely due to factors in the diet that are consumed in large amounts and that provide vitamin D and calcium, such as bone broth, shrimp and lard.
We are aware of new research indicating that consumption of vitamin D is optimal at 4000 IU per day, not the RDA of 400 IU. This research is an excellent confirmation of the work of Weston Price who found that the diets of healthy primitives peoples had at least ten times more vitamin D than that of the average American of his day. (Sunlight will not provide adequate vitamin D unless a large portion of the skin is exposed during the summer months or in tropical latitudes.)
The textbooks do indeed need to be rewritten to stress consumption of vitamin-D-rich animal foods and to minimize consumption of foods that increase our requirements for vitamin D-like soy. Shrimp sauces and shrimp pastes used in Asia and Africa are made from dried shrimp, hence very concentrated.
They are eaten daily, often at every meal and could be expected to provide vitamin D in amounts greatly exceeding vitamin D intake levels in the US. The vitamin D content of butter varies with the feed of the animals. Butter from cows on green growing grass is likely to provide far more vitamin D than butter from cows in confinement. We advocate consumption of butter from pasture-fed animals (and eggs, lard and other animal foods for the same).
By Sally Fallon and Dr. Mary Enig
In his Guest Editorial of October 2000 in the Townsend Letter, Mr. Bill Sardi expresses surprise that the "greatest criticism of soy has come from natural health advocates." Yet most of the soy-based products on the market today can hardly be called "natural" foods.
They are produced in factories at high temperatures and pressures and with the help of a variety of chemicals. The soybeans themselves are grown on huge corporate farms, most of which use toxic pesticides and herbicides.
And a large percentage of soy foods come from genetically engineered plants.
The fact that these products can be labeled "natural" only demonstrates the power and duplicity of soy interests in America. Dr. Zava is one of many honest scientists who have read the literature and discovered that soy contains:
* allergens.
* mineral blockers.
* enzyme inhibitors.
* hormone modifiers.
* iodine blockers that interfere with normal thyroid function.
Mr. Sardi says these characterizations are unfair and inaccurate. Like Dr. Zava, we do not repeat "claims" that soy contains antinutrients and toxins; we quote the scientific literature. Propaganda is "the systemic propagation of a given doctrine or of allegations reflecting its views and interests; material disseminated by the advocates of a doctrine."
The promotion of soy as a miracle food has been both systematic and reflective of the doctrine of the food industry-that imitation foods are good for us and traditional foods are unhealthy.
The soy campaign is, in fact, a case study in the use of propaganda to promote commercial interests.
Mr. Sardi misquotes us frequently. We stated that soy was not considered fit to eat in Asia a few centuries ago (not a few decades ago); we did not "acknowledge that Asians consume 30 times more soy than North Americans." We pointed out studies showing that soy consumption in Asia is actually much lower than claimed-averaging 10 grams per person, less than two teaspoons.
He does not seem to understand our argument that if soy is given as the reason Asians have lower rates of breast, prostate and colon cancer (simply because Asians supposedly eat large amounts of soy), then the same logic requires us to blame high rates of cancers of the esophagus, stomach, thyroid, pancreas and liver in Asian countries on consumption of soy.
The truth is that we don't know exactly why Asian countries have certain types of cancers and western countries have other types. Eastern types of cancers have been attributed to many factors, of which soy consumption is one, but to claim that soy consumption is associated with lower rates of certain types of cancers while neglecting to mention that soy is also associated with higher rates of certain types of cancer is typical of industry dishonesty.
Sardi acknowledges that Asians have higher rates of pancreatic cancers in one paragraph, but states that populations that consume high levels of soy exhibit decreased rates of pancreatic cancer in another. We are confused.
Messina did indeed omit the Rackis study in his "exhaustive" survey. In fact, Messina did not include any animal studies on pancreatic effects. The Rackis study showed not only enlargement of the pancreas but also precancerous changes. And why the double standard? Why is it appropriate to use rats prone to develop breast cancer in experiments with soy, but not rats prone to demonstrate disturbances in the pancreas?
It is standard scientific practice to use rats bred to react in specific ways in order to study effects over short periods of time. Normal rat chow did not cause pancreatic changes in sensitive rats-only rat chow based on soy.
Birds don't eat soy, says Sardi. They know better. The Jameses should have known that soy is not appropriate for birds (something that would come as a surprise to the chicken industry.) The Jameses trusted the literature that came with the product, which stated that soy was an excellent food for birds. They also trusted the claims made for soy infant formula, that soy was "better than breast milk."
They should have known that soy was not an appropriate food for humans, particularly for babies and so should Mr. Sardi and all the others out there who continue to provide glib assurances that soy formula is a good substitute for milk-based formula.
The James learned a terrible lesson the hard way-that we should not trust claims for commercial food products, especially when these claims are too good to be true. In the absence of animal instinct, it's important to be skeptical. "Scientists cannot infer that animal data applies to humans," says Sardi.
But they do it all the time, especially when the data show protective effects. Only when the studies are negative do scientists get reprimanded for using them. Onward with the double standard. It is axiomatic that when a chemical carcinogen is definitely active in one or more animal models, it can be stated with certitude that certain individuals of Homo sapiens would be at risk.
Soy proponents don't want the public to know that phytoestrogens can induce tumors in several different species of animals.
The younger the animal, the more susceptible it is to the action of plant-based estrogens, as it frequently is to other carcinogens. Sardi objects to some of our references.
One of them-Natural Health News published by L & H Vitamin Company- was given as an example of promotional advertising, which in this case claimed that soy could prevent cancer. He complains of a missing citation, number 58, but there is no missing citation. It is published on the website and was published in the Townsend Letter.
Another criticism is that the average published date of our references is 13 years old. We were not aware that averaging publication dates was a valid method for assessing studies and reports. Nevertheless, one of the aims of our article was to show that studies indicating soy toxicity date back as far as fifty to sixty years, especially studies showing adverse affects on the thyroid gland. (Goitrogenic components have been confirmed very recently by Divi and Doerges.)
Much good scientific work was done in past decades and it is work that can be depended upon because it took place before the soy industry began funding university research.
We hope that citation of the following recent studies will make our "average published date" more acceptable:
A study from Cornell University, published in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 1986, which found that children who develop diabetes mellitus were twice as likely to have been fed soy.
A November 1994 warning published in Pediatrics in which the Nutrition Committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics advised against the use of soy formulas due to the diabetes risk. These warnings have been neglected ever since it was reported that the AAP accepted a multi-dollar donation from the Infant Formula Council for their new headquarters building outside Chicago.
A 1994 article by Lonnerdal published in Acta Paediatr summarizing the reduced bioavailability of trace minerals due to high phytic acid content in soy infant formula; and high levels of manganese in soy formula compared to cows milk formula and breast milk. Excessive intake of manganese is linked to problems with the central nervous system.
A 1996 report published in the German magazine Klin Padiatr describing the development of hypocalcemic tetany in an infant fed soy formula.
Two 1997 studies published in Nutrition and Cancer. One found that phytoestrogens at levels close to probable levels in humans stimulate cellular changes leading to breast cancer; the other found that dietary soy suppressed enzymes protective of breast cancer in mice.
A 1998 study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition further confirming that soy-protein supplementation stimulates cell proliferation in human breast tissue.
A 1998 study published in Cancer Research which found that dietary genistein enhances the growth of mammary gland tumors in mice.
A 1998 study by Nagata and others published in the Journal of Nutrition which gives daily consumption of tofu in Japan's Gifu prefecture as less than 1 gram per day.
A 1998 study published in Toxicology and Industrial Health indicating the phytoestrogens are potential endocrine disrupters in males.
A March 12, 1999 Daily Express article with the headline "Soy Allergy/Adverse Effect Rates Skyrocket - Monsanto's Roundup-Ready Soy Blamed"
A 1999 study at the Clinical Research Center at MIT, published in the Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Pacific Coast Reproductive Society which found that estrogens in soy had no effect on menopausal symptoms such as hot flashes and night sweats.
May 1999 and June 2000 studies published in Brain Research indicating that phytoestrogens have adverse affects on brain chemistry.
An April 2000 study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science which found that flavonoids, especially genistein, can cross the placenta and induce cell changes that lead to infant leukemia.
An article published in Nutrition and Cancer 2000 which found lower testosterone levels and higher estrogen levels in Japanese men who consumed higher levels of soy foods.
Publication in the British Journal of Urology, January 2000, of the study showing a five-time greater risk of delivering a boy with hypospadias, a birth defect of the penis, in mothers who ate a vegetarian diet during pregnancy. The researchers attributed high rates of the birth defect to phytoestrogens in soy products.
An April 2000 study published in Carcinogenesis found that soy feeding stimulated the growth of rat thyroid with iodine deficiency, partly through a pituitary-dependent pathway.
A June 2000 article in American Journal of Cardiology which found that soy had no impact on lipid levels in healthy postmenopausal women
Evidence that disturbing results were omitted from a 1994 study presented to the FDA during the approval process for Roundup Ready Soybeans. Researchers found that raw Roundup Ready meal contained 27 percent more trypsin inhibitor and toasted Roundup Ready meal contained 18 percent more trypsin inhibitor compared to non-genetically manipulated controls.
The most serious concerns regarding soy foods involve the use of soy infant formula.
Sardi cites a 1998 Nutrition Reviews article by K. O. Klein of duPont Hospital for Children as proof that soy infant formulas do no harm.
Yet in the article Klein notes that effects of isoflavones on various animal species include hormonal changes, increased uterine weight and infertility. " It is clear from the literature," says Klein, "that different species and different tissues are affected by isoflavones in markedly different ways.
It is difficult to know which tissue, if any, are affected in infants, and the variation among species makes extrapolation to infants inappropriate." This is scientific double talk.
Scientists may be reluctant to extrapolate but parents would certainly err on the side of caution if they knew that "isoflavones affect different tissues in markedly different ways." Klein says that medical literature provides "no evidence of endocrine effects. . and no changes in timing of puberty."
But she makes no mention of the Puerto Rican study which found that consumption of soy formula correlated strongly with early maturation in girls.
Why would Dr. Klein leave out any reference to the Puerto Rican study in her review? Is it because DuPont, owner of Protein Technologies International, is the leading manufacturer of soy protein isolate?
Or is it because her review was sponsored by the Infant Formula Council? Or because Nutrition Reviews, which published her whitewash, is funded by industry giants, including Pillsbury, Hershey Foods, Kellogg, Roche, General Mills, Kraft, Campbell Soup, Monsanto, Coca-Cola, Cargill, Heinz, Nabisco, Proctor and Gamble and Pepsi-Cola?
Soy can be implicated as a probable cause in the current epidemic of learning disabilities because it has similar effects in monkeys. Sardi is correct in stating the 1997 Journal of Pediatrics article makes no mention of soy. Neither does Time Magazine in their recent article on early puberty in girls.
The Time article speculates that exogenous estrogens might be the cause. Is it not appropriate to speculate that estrogens in soy formula, which are not "reduced significantly by their first pass through the liver" as Sardi claims but end up in the blood of infants in huge amounts, might also be a cause?
Perhaps it is the hormones in meat and milk, say the writers of the article. But hormonal levels in these products are minuscule compared to levels in soy formula. And in the Puerto Rican study, consumption of milk was negatively correlated with early maturation, which means that it might be protective.
We do not claim that Asians have lower rates of osteoporosis-it is the soy supporters who make that claim. But if in fact they do have lower rates of bone loss, it is much more likely due to factors in the diet that are consumed in large amounts and that provide vitamin D and calcium, such as bone broth, shrimp and lard.
We are aware of new research indicating that consumption of vitamin D is optimal at 4000 IU per day, not the RDA of 400 IU. This research is an excellent confirmation of the work of Weston Price who found that the diets of healthy primitives peoples had at least ten times more vitamin D than that of the average American of his day. (Sunlight will not provide adequate vitamin D unless a large portion of the skin is exposed during the summer months or in tropical latitudes.)
The textbooks do indeed need to be rewritten to stress consumption of vitamin-D-rich animal foods and to minimize consumption of foods that increase our requirements for vitamin D-like soy. Shrimp sauces and shrimp pastes used in Asia and Africa are made from dried shrimp, hence very concentrated.
They are eaten daily, often at every meal and could be expected to provide vitamin D in amounts greatly exceeding vitamin D intake levels in the US. The vitamin D content of butter varies with the feed of the animals. Butter from cows on green growing grass is likely to provide far more vitamin D than butter from cows in confinement. We advocate consumption of butter from pasture-fed animals (and eggs, lard and other animal foods for the same).
ENTROPY
Purple Belt
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2003
- Messages
- 2,363
- Reaction score
- 0
Grady said:
Research on soy oil provided by the Weston Price foundation, which I'm a member of...
By Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN
Lecithin is an emulsifying substance that is found in the cells of all living organisms. The French scientist Maurice Gobley discovered lecithin in 1805 and named it
ENTROPY
Purple Belt
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2003
- Messages
- 2,363
- Reaction score
- 0
Who Funds Soy Research and Why?
http://thesoydailyclub.com/Research/researchfunds10032003.asp
$4 Million in Research Grants to Examine Soy Health Benefits. The soybean checkoff's Soy Health Research Program solicits research proposals to study soy consumption and its impact on the prevention of osteoporosis, breast cancer, prostate cancer and the health benefits of isoflavones, a component of soy protein. Scientists submit research proposal applications to USB and, if their applications are selected, USB awards a $10,000 grant to scientists to help defray the cost of preparing the proposal submission to the NIH. In 2000, the very first year of the program, it yielded a $1.2 million NIH grant. Since then, an additional $4 million has been secured.
Multiple millions of dollars are spent on soy research each year. Most State Soybean Boards fund their own research programmes (e.g., Arkansas Soybean Board which spent US$1.1 Million in research in 1998-1999) but the grants offered are insignificant when compared with that of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
The USDA Soybean Promotion and Research Program was established by the Soybean Promotion and Research Order and is authorised by the Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act [7 U.S.C. 6301-6311]. The Act was passed as part of the 1990 Farm Bill. It authorized the establishment of a national soybean promotion, research, and consumer information program. The program became effective on July 9, 1991, when the Order was published. Assessments began September 1, 1991.
As required by the Act, USDA conducted a referendum among soybean producers on February 9, 1994, to determine whether the program should continue. Of the 85,606 valid ballots cast, 53.8 percent of soybean producers voting favoured the program. As required by the Act, USDA conducted a producer poll on July 26, 1995, to determine whether producers supported conducting a referendum to determine if refunds should continue. Only 48,782 producers participated in the poll--less than the 76,200 required to cause a refund referendum to be conducted. Refunds were discontinued on October 1, 1995.
The program
http://thesoydailyclub.com/Research/researchfunds10032003.asp
$4 Million in Research Grants to Examine Soy Health Benefits. The soybean checkoff's Soy Health Research Program solicits research proposals to study soy consumption and its impact on the prevention of osteoporosis, breast cancer, prostate cancer and the health benefits of isoflavones, a component of soy protein. Scientists submit research proposal applications to USB and, if their applications are selected, USB awards a $10,000 grant to scientists to help defray the cost of preparing the proposal submission to the NIH. In 2000, the very first year of the program, it yielded a $1.2 million NIH grant. Since then, an additional $4 million has been secured.
Multiple millions of dollars are spent on soy research each year. Most State Soybean Boards fund their own research programmes (e.g., Arkansas Soybean Board which spent US$1.1 Million in research in 1998-1999) but the grants offered are insignificant when compared with that of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
The USDA Soybean Promotion and Research Program was established by the Soybean Promotion and Research Order and is authorised by the Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act [7 U.S.C. 6301-6311]. The Act was passed as part of the 1990 Farm Bill. It authorized the establishment of a national soybean promotion, research, and consumer information program. The program became effective on July 9, 1991, when the Order was published. Assessments began September 1, 1991.
As required by the Act, USDA conducted a referendum among soybean producers on February 9, 1994, to determine whether the program should continue. Of the 85,606 valid ballots cast, 53.8 percent of soybean producers voting favoured the program. As required by the Act, USDA conducted a producer poll on July 26, 1995, to determine whether producers supported conducting a referendum to determine if refunds should continue. Only 48,782 producers participated in the poll--less than the 76,200 required to cause a refund referendum to be conducted. Refunds were discontinued on October 1, 1995.
The program
ground force
Orange Belt
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2005
- Messages
- 482
- Reaction score
- 0
Hemp seed protein is the best form of plant protein that the human body can absorb.
Better than Flax, Whey, and Soy. www.veganessentials.com click on foods and sweets.
Better than Flax, Whey, and Soy. www.veganessentials.com click on foods and sweets.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 61,626
- Reaction score
- 25,718
Entropy, regarding post #70, am I to infer that it would be superior to consume egg-based lecithins rather than soy-based lecithins? I also checked this page out, the top-ranked search result from Google for "phosphatidylcholine."
http://www.pdrhealth.com/drug_info/nmdrugprofiles/nutsupdrugs/pho_0288.shtml
Sure, the soy has a better fat profile, but I only ingest 2g lecithin per serving, and 4-6g daily (in my Phyto Foods by NOW Foods). Besides, I get my DHA and EPA from my fish oil pills, so I don't need it for that. I'm assuming this is a soy-based lecithin since it's cheaper to produce and NOW is the cheapest brand on the market.
My Phyto Greens only says "Lecithin fine powder," it tells me nothing of the origin. I'm guessing that if it is egg-based, the manufacturer is going to market that point (since egg-based is more expensive)?
http://www.pdrhealth.com/drug_info/nmdrugprofiles/nutsupdrugs/pho_0288.shtml
Sure, the soy has a better fat profile, but I only ingest 2g lecithin per serving, and 4-6g daily (in my Phyto Foods by NOW Foods). Besides, I get my DHA and EPA from my fish oil pills, so I don't need it for that. I'm assuming this is a soy-based lecithin since it's cheaper to produce and NOW is the cheapest brand on the market.
My Phyto Greens only says "Lecithin fine powder," it tells me nothing of the origin. I'm guessing that if it is egg-based, the manufacturer is going to market that point (since egg-based is more expensive)?
ENTROPY
Purple Belt
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2003
- Messages
- 2,363
- Reaction score
- 0
Madmick said:
Soy lecithin is inferior to egg lecithin for 3 primary reasons:
1* The phospholipid content in soybean oils range from 1.48 to 3.08 percent, whereas is egg yolks it is roughly 30.
2* The manufacturing process of soy requires it to be treated with chemical solvents and bleach and that does not take into account traces of chemical pesticides that remain in the final product.
3* Soy lecithin contains the trypsin inhibitor (known for its multiple negative effects), highly toxic lysinoalanine, carcinogenic nitrosamines, high levels of aluminum, and potent neurotoxins such as free-glutamic acid which are formed during soy processing.
Madmick said:
I don
ground force
Orange Belt
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2005
- Messages
- 482
- Reaction score
- 0
www.ratical.org/renewables/hempseed2.htmlMadmick said:
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 61,626
- Reaction score
- 25,718
I already wrote and explained with greater scientific integrity on this subject than Lynn Osburn. She misconstrues the facts to favorably present hemp. This article is from the "Hemp Line Journal" for Christ's sake.ground force said:
From the thread in D&S:
Madmick said:
ground force
Orange Belt
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2005
- Messages
- 482
- Reaction score
- 0
- Status
