Soy has penetrated the food supply in a bad way. It can be found in nearly three quarters of processed foods used as a filler for meats, in vegetable oil, mac and cheese, salad dressings and as an emulsifier in nearly everything. The soy industry has become a powerhouse and with doctors touting it’s benefits for a low-calorie diet its demand grew beyond tofu lovers.

But those glory days for soy are slowing down as research in the passing years has linked it to numerous problems such as cancer, low-testosterone levels and of course, infertility. There is still debate going on about whether soy products such as tofu, tempeh and edamame also pose such risks since these products have been used as a part of healthy diets for centuries. But what is certain of the soy found in processed foods is that it is not going to hold any of the potential nutritional benefits and instead poses major risks to health. This is especially true since most soy consumed today is genetically modified and doused heavily with herbicides and pesticides, then its often put through a hydrolyzing process turning the soy into something that really isn’t soy anymore, just a chemical sludge.

“The extraction process of hydroliysis involves boiling in a vat of acid (e.g., sulfuric acid) and then neutralizing the solution with a caustic soda. The reultant sludge is scraped off the top and allowed to dry. In addition to soy protein it contains free-form excitoxic amino acids (e.g., MSG) and other potentially harmful chemical processes described above. There is a possibility that gentically-manipulated bacteria may be used.

“The food industry sometimes uses large amount of hydrolyzed proteins as a “taste enhancer” because it contains significant amounts of MSG (monosodium glutamate). This is what is known in the food industry as “Clean Labels” — adding MSG to food, without having to list it as “MSG” on the label. “In almost all cases, hydrolyzed soy protein contains a significant amount of genetically-manipulated soy. The hydrolyzed protein products currently added to foods should be considered a detriment to one’s health. There are much healthier sources of soy protein and soy nutrients.”- soyinfo.com

People are repeatedly exposing themselves to these harmful chemicals while consuming soy, under the guise that it is a diet enhancing alternative and a beneficial ingredient when added to other foods. This belief was fueled by the American Heart Association’s approval of it in the year 2000 along with the FDA touting “Diets low in saturated fat and cholesterol that include 25 grams of soy protein a day may reduce the risk of heart disease.” I wonder if they were wearing their ‘I’m with stupid’ t-shirts when they made that move. In 2006, the AHA withdrew it’s pro-soy proclamations, but quietly, leaving many people in the dark about the risks.

Studies continue to produce evidence of it’s issues though, alternative news sources have been reporting on the benefits and dangers of soy for years; like this past article from Health Freedoms, The War on Soy: Why the ‘Miracle Food’ May be a Health Risk and Environmental Nightmare. Unless you are consciously avoiding it, chances are you’re eating more soy then you think. Unfortunately the consumers focused on in the article below have no idea or control of what their fed and they are the most susceptible to it’s harm.

Soy has been used as the go-to alternative for lactose sensitive babies for years but it is now being called out for the dangers it poses. In a study conducted by researchers at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences they reveal the effects of plant estrogen found in soybean on the reproductivity of mice and the results have spurred the NIEHS to advise that we scrap soy formulas altogether and allow no more than just a few servings per week for those under 18 years of age.

~Health Freedoms

Santa Fe, NM: Research published in this month’s Biology of Reproduction shows that genistein, a plant estrogen found in soybeans, can disrupt the development of the ovaries of newborn female mice, causing reproductive problems and infertility.

“This is a wakeup call for parents and pediatricians,” says Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, author of The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food. “Soy infant formula contains high levels of phytoestrogens that can adversely affect the development of a baby’s ovaries and other reproductive organs. This study adds to a growing body of evidence linking soy genistein and other phytoestrogens to endocrine disruption. Clearly soy consumption must be considered a factor in America’s epidemic of infertility.”

The study, conducted by researchers at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), involved giving injections of soy genistein to three different groups of female mice during the first five days of their lives. The researchers found adverse effects at all levels, including at doses comparable to the amount of genistein found in soy infant formulas given to human infants. Mice treated with the highest dose were infertile and mice treated with the lower doses were subfertile, meaning they had fewer pregnancies and fewer pups per litter. Mice receiving the highest level of genistein showed a high percentage of oocyte (egg cell) clustering, making fertilization much less likely to occur.

“We knew that genistein was linked to reproductive problems later in life but we wanted to find out when the damage occurred,” says Retha R. Newbold, a developmental endocrinologist at NIEHS. “The study showed that genistein caused alterations to the ovaries during early development, which is partly responsible for the reproductive problems found in adult mice.” A previous NIEHS study showed that newborn mice given genistein grew up to experience irregular menstrual cycles, erratic ovulation and other problems indicative of infertility.

“I don’t think we can dismiss the possibility that these phytoestrogens are having an effect on the human population,” said Wendy Jefferson , PhD, lead author of the study. NIEHS director Dr. David Schwartz commented, “Although we are not entirely certain about how these animal studies on genistein translate to the human population, there is some reason to be cautious.”

“The NIEHS is not alone in recommending caution,” says Dr. Daniel. “Last July the Israeli Health Ministry warned that babies should not receive soy formula and that children up to age 18 should eat soy foods or drink soy milk no more than once per day to a maximum of three times per week. The ministry was most concerned about adverse effects on fertility. The French government has also taken these dangers seriously, and is now implementing regulations that will require manufacturers to remove most of the soy estrogens from soy formula and from soy foods targeted to children under 3.“

The evidence is mounting that soy formula puts infants at risk for reproductive problems, including infertility,” says Dr. Daniel. “I hope this important new study will encourage the United States to follow the examples set by the Israeli and French governments and issue warnings that will discourage the sale of soy formula. A good policy is ‘Better safe than sorry.’”

By: Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN

http://www.healthtruthrevealed.com/articles/1729282701/article

Sources:

http://www.soyinfo.com/soydefs.shtml

The FDA announced it was beginning the approval process for bio-engineered salmon in August last year. The agency determined the fish are safe for consumption based on research done by the very company selling it, AquaBounty Technologies, who used less than 30 fish in their review process. In response to the announcement, the Center for Food Safety has been leading a broad coalition of consumer activists calling on the FDA to deny its approval and demanding that if the “frankenfish” is to be on the market (despite massive protest), that it be clearly labeled.

Since 1982, when Monsanto first introduced the bovine growth hormone, the agency has claimed that it cannot require a label on GM food unless there are differences in its texture, taste or nutritional component, in comparison to the conventionally grown or raised food.  Following the FDA approval hearing for the salmon, another hearing was held regarding the labeling of the GM product when it potentially comes to market. Jaydee Hanson, Policy Analyst on Cloning and Genetics at the Center for Food Safety, says “The FDA is arguing that this genetic construct is just the same as natural constructs, and therefore it doesn’t need to be labeled because it’s the same thing that we’ve been eating”.

To say that there is no difference in the Aquadvantage salmon that is altered to grow twice as fast than a naturally raised salmon is a bold face lie . “By the company’s own data, this fish has less omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids than regular farmed salmon in worse ratios,” Hanson argued. “It tastes insipid. When you compare ordinary farm salmon to wild salmon, it doesn’t taste as good because it doesn’t have the fats that give the fish that good taste. The genetically modified salmon is not going to taste as good as even regular farm salmon. So basically everything you eat salmon for, it doesn’t have, or it’s got less of than any other kind of salmon.”

Hanson also observed the structural differences of the fish, gleamed from the largest sample size of engineered salmon in the entire study, a group of just 12 animals. That is all that was needed to note obvious issues such as the skeletons poor condition along with a more eroded jaw than those of normal farmed salmon, they also have enlarged gills and their flesh is inflamed. Even still, they say that it’s no different from conventional fish and its safe for human consumption.

It seems preposterous that companies selling adulterated food don’t have to let consumers know; what’s worse is that producers selling non-GMO products aren’t allowed to label their products as such, which leaves consumers in the dark about what they are buying. “Extra labeling only confuses the consumer,” said David Edwards, director of animal biotechnology at the Biotechnology Industry Organization. “It differentiates products that are not different.  As we stick more labels on products that don’t really tell us anything more, it makes it harder for consumers to make their choices.”

How degrading! To act as though people shouldn’t be educated or aware of what they consume because it would “confuse” them is an insult to our countries intelligence. What is ironic about their statement is that it comes at a time when US consumers are more interested than ever before to know where their food is coming from and how it is produced. The Post notes that the debate over genetically modified salmon “comes at a time when Americans seem to want to know more about their food – where it is grown, how it is produced and what it contains.” And according to the CFS, “Recent polls indicate that 95% of the public want labeling of genetically-modified foods, and that nearly 50% of the public would not eat seafood that has been genetically engineered.”

Since the FDA can not be relied upon to make the right choice when it comes to keeping consumers safe and educated, and continually disregard the desires of the American public, California is taking action to make sure that anyone buying salmon in their state knows what they’re paying for. California State Assembly member Jared Huffman has introduced a bill that would require all GE salmon sold in the state to be clearly labeled.  Alaska Representatives Bob Miller and Scott Kawaski have also announced that they would be sponsoring similar legislation requiring the labeling of genetically engineered salmon. They will also introduce this year, a second piece of legislation that would prohibit genetically engineered species from being cultivated in Alaskan waters.

Ocean Conservancy’s George Leonard told Slashfood that they support Huffman’s bill and that consumers have a right to know. ”This has implications well beyond salmon. We need a broader debate over genetically engineered fish. Conversations about sustainable seafood are all about more information and more transparency over gear type, species name and more. Whether your fish has been genetically modified or not should be part of that conversation,” says Leonard.

George Kimbrell, senior staff attorney for the Center for Food Safety says that states have the ability to enact local and state level legislation, he anticipates Oregon and Washington states to follow suit with labeling requirements. “Part of this is to prod the federal government to take action to protect our food and the environment,” he says.

Aquabounty and the fishing industry wait with bated breath for the FDA to reach their final decisions on approval and labeling; the agency has stated there’s no timeline in place for issuing a final decision. Even still, West Coast director of CFS, Rebecca Spector says “We don’t think it’s premature,” We want to send a message to the FDA that Californians don’t want bioengineered salmon, or at least want it to be labeled.”

~Health Freedoms

Dissatisfied with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) current review of the first-ever proposed commercialization of genetically engineered (GE) salmon, Today [January 6], California State Assemblymember Jared Huffman introduced an Assembly Bill (AB 88) which would require that all GE salmon sold in California contain clear and prominent labeling.  The Center for Food Safety (CFS), a co-sponsor of the bill, applauds Assemblymember Huffman for protecting the public’s right to know how their food is produced by drafting this important piece of food safety legislation.

“The federal agency charged with protecting our food supply is failing us yet again,” said Rebecca Spector, West Coast Director of the Center for Food Safety. “Consumers have the right to know that the food they consume and feed their families is safe.  Until FDA does an adequate environmental and human health review of genetically engineered salmon, it is up to individual states to protect consumers and their families.  The Assemblymember’s proposed bill will protect Californians through labeling, which restores consumer confidence and choice.”

Public opinion clearly and consistently calls for food labeling.  Recent polls indicate that 95% of the public want labeling of genetically-modified foods, and that nearly 50% of the public would not eat seafood that has been genetically engineered.

The Center for Food Safety recently called on the FDA to recognize the immense public outcry for mandatory labeling of untested, unapproved transgenic salmon. CFS led a broad coalition of consumer, environmental, religious and animal welfare groups, along with commercial and recreational fisheries associations and food retailers, grocers and chefs in demanding the FDA deny approval of the long-shelved AquaBounty transgenic salmon and require mandatory labeling of the fish is approved despite intense opposition. If approved the transgenic salmon would be the first genetically engineered animal intended for human consumption.

“Consumers sent a clear message to FDA that they do not want to eat genetically engineered salmon and should FDA decide to move forward despite overwhelming opposition it must be labeled,” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director for the Center for Food Safety. November 22^nd marked the end of a two month public comment period on the labeling of GE salmon.  Nearly 400,000 public comments have been sent to FDA, demanding the agency reject this application and require mandatory labeling of this transgenic salmon should it decide to approve it.

By: Heather- Center For Food Safety

http://ge-fish.org/2011/01/06/in-wake-of-pending-fda-approval-of-ge-salmon-california-bill-could-restore-americans%E2%80%99-right-to-choose-in-the-marketplace/#more-327

Sources:

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/genetically-modified-salmon-has-less-nutritional-value

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/fda-labeled-free-modification/

http://www.slashfood.com/2011/01/07/lawmakers-tackle-genetically-modified-salmon/#ixzz1CgDJ80lf

http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/bioengineered-salmon-california-bill-seeks-clear-label/

The struggle to feed the world has created frustration with its failure for the ones who are hungry and especially because we live in a time where food production is at its highest. Government and big-industries have been trying to make factory farming and GMOs the answer to world hunger. But as time goes on, the futility and damage from their efforts is painfully clear. According to the Worldwatch Institute’s “2011 State of the World” report, it’s time for “big” farms and engineered foods to step aside and give way to small-scale farming.

Instead of depending on large crop there could be a focus on diversity of seeds, growing food in smaller spaces, and encouraging native food production. It would put the power for these communities to feed themselves into their own hands. Recently, there has been a successful, steady incline in non-profit organizations that create sustainable farming practices in under-developed areas. With hope, this report, assistance, technology, and science will direct more attention to providing people the tools they need to survive instead of pushing the profiteering agenda of big-industry and patented seeds. By furthering education and working with the local environment, communities and countries would be able to achieve their own food production instead of relying on continued assistance.

An old adage rings uncannily true; “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” America likes to give and help, but usually in a way that breeds reliance instead of fostering independence and sustainability. The most precious resource we should export to feed the world is knowledge, not just food.

~Health Freedoms

The Worldwatch Institute’s “2011 State of the World” report identifies small-scale farming as the primary solution for world hunger. The report finds fault with the one-size-fits-all approach that has been used to address food shortages. A primary concern is the focus on seeds, à la Monsanto, and the limited crop varieties that result, instead of rebuilding and enriching soils and aquifers. It describes Agribusiness seeds as representing the focus on short-term payoffs. Nourishing the soils and waters that feed the seeds are long-term investments with genuinely big returns.

Though the Worldwatch Institute studiously avoids the term “factory farming”, there can be little doubt that it’s condemned by the report. Here is how they see the basis of the hunger problem:

The context, and the basis of Worldwatch’s Nourishing the Planet project, was this: Agriculture has come to a crossroads. Nearly a half-century after the Green Revolution, a major share of the human family is still chronically hungry. In addition, much of that revolution’s gains have been achieved through highly intensive agriculture that depends heavily on fossil fuels for inputs and energy—and the question of whether the world’s croplands can yield more food is being trumped by the question of whether they can do so without compromise to the soils, fresh water, and crop diversity the world depends on.

The methods currently being used by Agribusiness are destructive and inefficient. They have resulted in dramatic loss of diversity, destruction and loss of soil and water, and more hungry people than ever. The industrialization of agriculture, the so-called Green Revolution, has failed. Worse, it is leading us into an environmentally devastated landscape that is unable to support adequate food production.

Because Africa is home to the largest percentage of malnourished people, the study’s authors went to 25 sub-Saharan nations to investigate for two years. They found that “the continent is becoming a rich and diverse breeding ground for innovations in agriculture that support farmer income and nourishment for people at the same time.” Unstated, but clearly implied, is their inability to fully utilize their methods because of the misfocus on Agribusiness methods.

The concept of scale, so dear to Agribusiness, is turned on its ear in the report. The huge array of creative means for increasing output, improving soil and water conservation, and solving problems that small farmers were using in Africa could be “…scaled up to bring food to the tables of not one farmer but 100 million or more, as well as to the consumers who depend on them, [and that] could change the entire global food system.”

It is the “one-size-fits-all” approach that is so crippling to food production. The report is quite clear. “There is no single solution.”

…because attention has been focused relatively narrowly—on a few types of crops, on a few technologies—entire regions and ecosystems, not to mention myriad varieties of crops and rural ways of life, have been ignored.

They offer three basic suggestions to deal with hunger:

• Go beyond seeds: Focusing on only a few crops, like corn, wheat, and soy, and developing new seeds of those few species, needs to be left behind as a means of resolving hunger. The primary beneficiaries of this approach are companies like Monsanto, which reap enormous short-term profits at the expense of soils, water, production, and diversity.
• Go beyond farms: A great deal of the problem in bringing food to people is loss after harvest. Losses from pests, mold, and waste are immense. Growing foods inside cities, such as on rooftops, can ease hunger. In some areas, only indigenous and wild crops are viable. Rather than ignoring them, they should be preserved and encouraged.
• Go beyond Africa: The food distribution system as a whole needs to be examined. Relief to poor countries is often provided by Agribusiness in the United States, leaving local producers unable to compete with the low prices. The short-term benefit in bellies filled is overturned by the long-term harm to local food production by making people dependent on external sources of nutrition. Relief work should focus on providing food through local production, rather than shipping from areas where Agribusiness is entrenched.Europe has started to address this issue with the World Food Programme. They are buying locally and providing training that can help farmers compete globally.

The negative effects of Agribusiness are felt in the countries of origin, not only in the hunger of poor nations. Dead zones are found in the oceans where rivers surrounded by factory farms drain. Obesity results from the poor quality of foods produced by the system. Pollution of aquifers and huge areas around massive food production sites are destroying the environment and causing severe illnesses. The reality is that the for-profit food system harms everyone, no matter what their locations. Whether it’s by starvation from lack of food, or chronic disease from poor quality food, or poisoning from pollution, almost everyone suffers.

The Worldwatch report concludes with the relatively mild statement:

Given the limited ability of scientists to find solutions, the finite generosity of donors to support agricultural research, and the overstretched patience of struggling farmers and hungry families, shifting funds and attention in new directions is long overdue.

Ultimately the entire earth suffers as the soils deteriorate and disappear, as pollution and poisons destroy wildlife and diversity, and as clean water is destroyed. The Green Revolution has resulted in an unsustainable system of agriculture that benefits only a few as it rapes and destroys the earth.

By: Heidi Stevenson

Sources:

http://www.gaia-health.com/articles351/000384-end-world-hunger-end-factory-farms.shtml