In college, a girl I was dating convinced me for a few weeks to drink soy milk. I found some that actually tasted pretty good. Then, I stumbled onto research that had been posted online that pointed out how soy products increase the levels of female hormones in your bodies, and I've never touched the stuff since. Jim Rutz has a good point here about how Westerners know just enough to be dangerous when it comes to other cultures in this point about soy consumption:
The previous article that he wrote for WorldNetDaily on the subject has some scary information on what soy products can do to babies and small children. Further confirmation that we cannot really trust the FDA to do its alleged mission of keeping toxic substances out of our food. This is the same agency that sees no evil, hears no evil with respect to products that contain phenylalanine[A better starting link]-a chemical that is a neurotoxin.
As I have said before about the level of salt that is in a lot of foods, we're slowly poisoning ourselves. For all that we pride ourselves on how safe our food is, what we really need is a sober examination of whether we really are eating food that is objectively safer and better for us than what existed before the FDA gave the majority of Americans the sense that the bad days were almost over.
[Update] Fox News says soy decreases your sperm count.
Soy has never been a leading staple there like rice, fish or pork. Even going back to the 1930s, calorie intake from soy in China was rarely more than 1.5 percent of their diet, whereas pork provided 65 percent! No comparison. Traditionally, soy plants were plowed under in fields as fertilizer. Soy was a poverty food, eaten heavily only by the poor in times of famine. (Grazing animals don't like to eat it, either.) People have always eaten soy in small portions as a condiment or a supplement with a meal. The highest intake of soy in Japan is among monks, who eat it to turn off sexual desire. (Think about that the next time you're in the grocery store.)
The previous article that he wrote for WorldNetDaily on the subject has some scary information on what soy products can do to babies and small children. Further confirmation that we cannot really trust the FDA to do its alleged mission of keeping toxic substances out of our food. This is the same agency that sees no evil, hears no evil with respect to products that contain phenylalanine[A better starting link]-a chemical that is a neurotoxin.
As I have said before about the level of salt that is in a lot of foods, we're slowly poisoning ourselves. For all that we pride ourselves on how safe our food is, what we really need is a sober examination of whether we really are eating food that is objectively safer and better for us than what existed before the FDA gave the majority of Americans the sense that the bad days were almost over.
[Update] Fox News says soy decreases your sperm count.
And just to add insult to injury:
Which is, no doubt, exacerbated by the level of sodium that is present in most processed foods. Here's your 250 calorie freezer meal that contains 50% of your recommended allowance of salt. Have a nice, healthy day!
By comparison, the FDA has encouraged Americans to eat 25 grams of soy protein a day as a way to prevent heart disease.
Which is, no doubt, exacerbated by the level of sodium that is present in most processed foods. Here's your 250 calorie freezer meal that contains 50% of your recommended allowance of salt. Have a nice, healthy day!
The phenylalanine link you provided is pretty uncompelling:
That's more of a religious belief than a scientific one, so I wouldn't use it as the basis for any other arguments.
Thanks, I found a link from a better source to show that while Phenylalanine isn't going to kill you, it can have some very undesirable side effects.
If your pollution on your land maims or kills me or any of mine, I should be able to have the state hand me your head. IMO, most forms of dumping and stuff like that on your own land should be limited on the grounds that on average, it won't be a use of your property that affects just you.
If you have phenylketonurea (I'll hazard you don't, since it's a very rare genetic disorder) you DEFINITELY don't want to consume any phenylalanine.
If ANY negligence on my part, pollution-related or otherwise, kills or maims someone, then by all means I should be held accountable. The issue at hand, though, is pollution that remains on my property, not pollution that crosses a property line.
IMO, most forms of dumping and stuff like that on your own land should be limited on the grounds that on average, it won't be a use of your property that affects just you.
That's a pretty sweeping statement, and not one I would be inclined to agree with. If I dump some used motor oil in the backyard 50 feet from any property line, I fail to see how it would be an issue for my neighbours.
And I'm sure I don't have to tell you how crazy the environmental laws are in the first place. Coal-fired power plants, for example, are permitted to pump radioactive elements into the atmosphere at rates that would get a nuclear plant shut down. Doctors can inject mercury into patients at levels much higher than people in other sectors are allowed to be exposed to. And, of course, the worst polluters in history have been governments. It is simply not wise to rely on government regulation to control pollution.
Soy shouldn't even be considered food. I've read about some of the birth defects that resulted from high-soy diets practiced by pregnant mothers. Awful stuff.
I suppose the phytoestrogen is beneficial for menopausal women, but everyone else should avoid soy like the plague. (Except soy sauce, which has been chemically altered during the brewing process and is safe.)
I don't think we should rely on government regulation. What I am saying is that it should be made clear to polluters that any dumping that does damage to their neighbors or their property will be not only civilly actionable, but the prosecutor will go to town on them for the harm they did to their neighbors.
Hypocrisy and inconsistency is the hallmark of government regulation, which is why the emissions issue with coal power plants doesn't surprise me. That said, I think a simple, basic liability law would do wonders for replacing all of the fine-print regulation from the EPA.
Some have noted problems with the source you are using:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2006/12/soy_not_only_ma.html
You might want to consider this counter-post:
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/soy-consumption-effects-on-men.html
"soy decreases your sperm count."
That's what I found, too.
Back when I lived in Santa Barbara, I used to be veggie. I was eating all kinds of soy substitutes for meat products. At the time, my sperm count didn't matter because I was recovering from a divorce and the last thing on my mind was my fertility.
Then, like Triton, I read about all kinds of phytoestrogens in soy, the kinds that negatively affect male development from fetus on up. That, combined with a move out of Kalifornia to places a little less loopy got me off the soy train.
Guys should stay away from soy if they know what's good for them. And moms shouldn't be feeding their boy babies soy formula (actually they shouldn't be feeding their babies formula at all, but that's an argument for alter)
Well, it's also important for mothers to breast feed because it's been shown to greatly decrease their chances of breast cancer. It's worthwhile for any woman, regardless of the inconvenience, because of all of the benefits that she stands to gain as she gets older from having less of a chance of dealing with breast cancer.
Look at her panties. Look carefully. She was just asking for trouble if her wedding photographer entered the room.
Er, "alter" should be "later"