Re: Comments on this please...

[Guest guest]

Observation number 1) It is by Robbins. Robbins is an idiot. The

nutrition section of Diet For a New America is through and through wrong on

just about every point.

2)So what if soy lowers LDL cholesterol? Who cares about lower LDL

cholesterol?

3)Soy probably lowers LDL cholesterol because the PUFA gets incorporated into

cell membranes the body's response is to trasport cholesterol from blood into

membrane to add integrity to the membrane ruined by the PUFA. In turn, the

PUFA will hog the delta-6-desaturase enzyme and make people even more

deficient in important elongated n-3s.

4)Sally Fallon explicitly recognizes that fermented soy products neutralize

enzyme inhibitors. Robbins is wrong that tofu neutralizes the enzyme

inhibitors. Tofu is not fermented and only partially neutralizes them. Soy

milk is not fermented either, to my knowledge. Moreover, if you go into your

average supermarket, you'll have a tough time finding tempeh. Most people

eat soy in the form of imitation meats, which are absolutely abundant in an

average supermarket.

5)Robbins ignores the way most cultures consume soy products in regards to

thyroid depressants. Eg Japanese eat it in fish broths which are loaded with

iodine which counteracts thyroid depressants.

6) Robbins is right about animal studies. However, Fallon/Enig's point about

scientific double-talk was that the studies showed potential for harm in many

different kinds of tissues and that " most parents would err on the side of

caution " with their children. I think that's accurate.

7) Robbins is right that fermenting reduces phtates, however Fallon/Enig

explicitly recognize that.

8)I was a vegetarian who consumed lots of soy, I definitely had " severe

mineral deficiencies. "

9)Vegetarian diets being sufficient is bunk. Robbins recognizes this in his

book where he strongly cautions all vegetarians to supplement with B12

10) Robbins seems to make a lot of assertions without citing anything. At

least Fallon/Enig's work is well-cited. Robbins claims all these studies

show vegetarians have less bone problems but doesn't refute the studies

showing higher protein intake to have less bone problems. Moreover, in his

book his evidence for this is studies showing pastuerized milk crap to have

minimal calcium absorption compared to calcium carbonate pills, and studies

showing people eating 800 grams of protein a day to have calcium loss.

11)Dr. Mercola tests all his pateints for vitamin D and finds 95% of them

deficient. Robbins says they have no evidence, but the the necessity of D

for calcium abosorption is irrefutable, and that people have replaced butter

is simply a fact.

12) More protein=less calcium : flat-out lie. Maybe he should cite some.

13) Not controversial? What a lying sack of shit.

13) More vegetables = strong bones. Duh. Who argues?

14) Skin exposure to light is not sufficient for D. See work of Krispin

Sullivan. www.sunlightandvitamind.com

15) Robbins ignroes difference between grain-fed and grass-fed butter.

Ok, I don't have time for anymore, that's enoguh for now.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of

them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense

compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to

bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature.

Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the

truth, and for those who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

,

The hardest part about reading this article is that Robbins

attempts to de-legitimize Fallon and Enig by implying they have

and " agenda " ... as if he does not.

Let's call a spade a spade.

All three of them have an agenda. It doesn't mean anything more

than they disagree.

I believe this paragraph sums it up...

" There are legitimate questions about certain soyfoods, and much we

have yet to learn. Becoming soy-a-holics and automatically downing

anything made from soybeans is not the road to health, but neither

is shunning and stigmatizing soyfoods. "

Robbins' first sentence her sez it all " there are legitimate

questions about certain soyfoods. " That's it, no more needs to be

known, no more needs to be discussed even if the pro health soy

studies were valid there are enough major questions regarding soy

consumption that touting it as an ideal protein staple is not only

inappropriate but is idiotic.

Asians have done well with traditionally produced soy products such

as tempeh, bean curd and miso. I have no concerns with people

consuming these as occasional foods. But anything more than that as

Mr. Robbins himself says in his first sentence above... " more needs

to be learned. "

Realize this article you posted was written by one of the LARGEST

soy promoters in the last 30 years. While he does attempt to

discredit Fallon and Enig at times and does defend soy to a degree.

More than anything else realize he himself did NOT provide a glowing

review or testimony for soy in this article. He certainly does not

come off as the staunch advocate that he has been in the past.

This article reminds me of his answering a question about eating

grassfed meat, where he fully acknowledged that grass fed meat was

far superior to factory farm meat and was acceptable to eat!

However he didn't recommend it because the entire world could not be

fed if everyone ate grassfed meat as enough couldn't be produced.

Hardly a condemnation of meat from the veggie king.

DMM

www.cedarcanyonclinic.com

--- In , " Evely " <je@h...>

wrote:

>

>

> Subject: What About Soy?

>

> by Robbins

>

> http://www.foodrevolution.org

>

> Over the past months, I've received quite a number of requests from

> people asking for my views on soy products. Many of these inquiries

> have mentioned a stridently anti-soy article written by Sally

Fallon

> and G. Enig, titled " Tragedy and Hype, " that has been widely

> circulated.

>

> This article presents a systematic series of accusations

> against soy consumption, and has formed the basis for many similar

> articles.

> Large numbers of people, as a result, are now seriously

> questioning the safety of soy.

>

> The litany of dangers with soy products, according to the article

by

> Fallon and Enig, is nearly endless.

>

> Tofu, they say, shrinks brains and causes Alzheimer's. Soy

products

> promote rather than prevent cancer.

>

> Soy contains " antinutrients " and is full of toxins. The pro-

> soy publicity of the past few years is nothing but " propaganda. "

> Soy formula, they say, amounts to " birth control pills for

babies. "

>

> " Soy is not hemlock, " they conclude, " soy is more insidious than

> hemlock. "

>

> Fallon and Enig say the soy industry knows soy is poisonous,

and " lie

> (s) to the public to sell more soy. " They say that soy is " the next

> asbestos, " that there will be huge lawsuits with " thousands and

> thousands of legal briefs, " and that those who will be held legally

> responsible for deliberately manipulating the public to make

> money " include merchants, manufacturers, scientists, publicists,

> bureaucrats, former bond financiers, food writers, vitamin

> companies, and retail stores. "

>

> Given the rapidly expanding role that soy in its many forms has

come

> to play in the Western diet, these accusations are extremely

> serious.

> If they are to be believed, the widespread trust that many

> people have come to have in soy is not only misplaced, but

> disastrous.

>

> ARE SOYFOODS A BLESSING OR A CURSE?

>

> It's not that long ago that soybeans were considered by most

> Americans to be " hippie food. "

>

> But then medical research began accumulating, affirming that soy

> consumption reduced heart disease and cancer risk, that it

lengthened

> lives and enhanced their quality, and that it provided an almost

ideal

> protein to substitute for animal proteins that almost inevitably

come

> packaged with cholesterol and saturated fat.

>

> The mainstream culture began taking note. In a 1999 article

titled " The

> Joy of Soy, " Time Magazine announced that a mere 1.5 ounces of soy

can

> lower both total and LDL ( " bad " ) cholesterol levels.

>

> The evidence was becoming so convincing that even the ardently

> pro-pharmaceutical FDA wound up affirming that soybeans are a food

that

> can prevent and even cure disease.

>

> As the evidence of soy's health benefits kept accumulating, sales

> and consumption skyrocketed. Books like The Simple Soybean and Your

> Health, Tofu Cookery, and The Book of Tofu helped spread the word.

> Annual soymilk sales, which amounted to only a few million dollars

> in the U.S. 20 years ago, have now soared to hundreds of millions

of

> dollars.

>

> But, according to the article by Sally Fallon and Enig, this

is

> all a tragic mistake, because soy is far indeed from living up to

> the many health claims that its proponents have made for it. Quite

> to the contrary, Fallon and Enig say, " the soybean contains large

> quantities of natural toxins or 'antinutrients,' (including) potent

> enzyme inhibitors that block the action of trypsin and other

enzymes

> needed for protein digestion. They can produce serious distress,

> reduced protein digestion and chronic deficiencies in amino acid

> uptake. "

>

> These are serious allegations, because soy is often consumed

> precisely for its considerable protein levels.

>

> In my view, there is a kernel of truth behind these charges,

though one

>

> that Fallon and Enig greatly overstate.

>

> It is true that the protein in cooked soybeans is slightly less

> digestible than that found in most animal foods.

>

> However, when soybeans are made into soymilk, tofu, tempeh,

> and the other common forms of soyfoods, their protein digestibility

> is enhanced and becomes similar to animal foods.

>

> Any negative impact on protein digestibility due to the presence

of the

>

> enzyme inhibitors found in soybeans is rendered nearly irrelevant

in

> such foods.

>

> And even simple soybeans, with their reduced digestibility,

> are so high in protein and in all the essential amino acids that

> they could still easily serve as the sole source of protein in a

> person's diet if that was necessary for some reason.

>

> " Soybeans also contain haemagglutinin, " continue Fallon and

Enig, " a

> clot-promoting substance that causes red blood cells to clump

> together.

> Trypsin inhibitors and haemagglutinin are growth inhibitors. Soy

also

> contains goitrogens - substances that depress

> thyroid function. "

>

> It is true that soybeans contain these substances. But there is

little

> evidence that as a result soybeans represent a health danger to

humans.

> Moderate amounts of soyfoods have been eaten happily by entire

> civilizations for thousands of years. Fallon and Enig's case is

built on

>

> animal studies in which test animals fed extremely large amounts

of soy

> containing these substances " failed to grow normally, " and

developed

> " pathological conditions of the pancreas, including cancer. "

>

> ANIMAL STUDIES

>

> Animal studies are at the very foundation of many of the

accusations

> against soy. But animals are not the same as humans, so foods that

> affect them in one way may well affect us differently.

>

> Protease inhibitors are substances that retard the action of

digestive

> enzymes that cause the breakdown of protein. Fallon and Enig refer

to

> studies that show that protease inhibitors isolated from soybeans

can

> cause cancer in some animal species, but there is almost no

evidence

> even suggesting that they have the same effect in humans.

>

> In fact, protease inhibitors found in soybeans appear to reduce the

> incidence of colon, prostate and breast cancer in humans.

>

> Fallon and Enig make much of a 1985 study which showed that soy

> increases the risk of pancreatic cancer in rats.

>

> But researchers with the National Cancer Institute point out that

the

> pancreas of a few species of animals, notably rats and chicks, are

> extraordinarily sensitive to dietary protease inhibitors such as

those

> found in soy.

>

> This sensitivity has not been found in other species such as

> hamsters, mice, dogs, pigs, and monkeys, they say, and is " not

> expected to occur in humans. "

>

> In fact, while rats fed nothing but soy run higher risks of

pancreatic

> cancer, human populations

> consuming high levels of soy have decreased rates of pancreatic

> cancer.

>

> Species, even those that seem quite closely related, often function

> quite differently at a molecular level.

>

> It is true, as Fallon and Enig point out, that baby rats fail to

thrive

> on soy.

>

> But they also fail to thrive on human breast milk.

>

> This is because rats and humans

> have vastly different requirements. Human milk, for example, is 5%

> protein; rats' milk is 45% protein.

>

> The difference in nutritional requirements and responses for

different

> species can be enormous.

>

> Foods that are highly nutritious for one species are often inedible

> or even poisonous to other species.

>

> Fallon and Enig, however, build their case against soy upon animal

> studies. Soybeans are high in isoflavones - phytoestrogens, or

plant

> substances that behave like weak forms of the hormone estrogen. K.

> O. Kline, M.D., of the Department of Clinical Science at duPont

> Hospital for Children in Delaware comments in a 1998 article in

> Nutrition Reviews.

>

> " It is clear from the literature, " writes

> Kline, " that different species and different tissues are affected

by

> (soy) isoflavones in markedly different ways. "

> Fallon and Enig, however, do not agree. They denounce Kline's

comments,

> fuming that " this is scientific double talk. "

>

> To my eyes, in contrast, Kline's remark is the thoughtful humility

of a

> scientist acknowledging the realities and limitations of animal

> research.

>

> Remember thalidomide, the drug that caused horrendous birth defects

> in children born to mothers who took the drug during their

> pregnancy?

>

> Thalidomide had been widely tested on animals, where it

> appeared to be totally safe. Similarly, the combination of

> fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine, recently touted to be the answer

> to dieters' prayers, was extensively tested on animals and found to

> be very safe.

>

> Unfortunately it caused heart value abnormalities in

> humans. When the arthritis drug Opren was tested on monkeys, no

> problems were found, but it killed 61 people before it was

> withdrawn.

>

> Cylert was fine for animals, but when it was given to

> hyperactive children it caused liver failure.

>

> DOES SOY INHIBIT MINERAL ABSORPTION?

>

> Fallon and Enig are adamant in their beef with soy, however, and

> their indictment of the bean continues. They fault soy for its

> phytic acid content. " Soybeans are high in phytic acid, " they

> say, " a substance that can block the uptake of essential minerals -

> calcium, magnesium, copper, iron and especially zinc in the

> intestinal tract. Vegetarians who consume tofu as a substitute for

> meat and dairy products risk severe mineral deficiencies. Phytates

> found in soy products interfere with zinc absorption more

completely

> than with other minerals. Zinc deficiency can cause a 'spacey'

> feeling that some vegetarians may mistake for the 'high' of

> spiritual enlightenment. "

>

> It is true that soybeans are high in phytates, as are many plant

> foods such as other beans, grains, nuts and seeds, and it is true

> that phytates can block the uptake of essential minerals, and

> particularly zinc.

>

> This would be a problem if a person consumed large amounts of

phytates;

> for example, if they ate nothing but

> soybeans or wheat bran.

>

> But the phytic acid levels found in a plant-

> based diet including a serving or two of soy a day are not high

> enough to cause mineral absorption problems for most people eating

> varied diets.

>

> Furthermore, when soy products are fermented - as they

> are in tempeh, miso, and many other soyfoods - phytate levels are

> reduced to about a third their initial level.

>

> Other methods of soy preparation such as soaking, roasting and

sprouting

>

> also significantly reduce phytate content.

>

> While phytates can compromise mineral absorption to some degree,

> there is absolutely no reliable evidence that vegetarians who eat

> soyfoods " risk severe mineral deficiencies. "

>

> The complete adequacy of vegetarian diets is now so thoroughly

proven

> and documented that even the National Cattlemen's Beef Association

has

> acknowledged the legitimacy of meatless diets.

>

> In an official statement, these representatives of the beef

industry

> declared, " Well planned vegetarian diets can meet dietary

> recommendations for essential nutrients. "

>

> The statement that vegetarians risk severe mineral deficiencies

> sounds frightening, but Fallon and Enig provide no supporting

> documentation.

>

> The statement that " zinc deficiency can cause

> a 'spacey' feeling that some vegetarians may mistake for the 'high'

> of spiritual enlightenment " is totally unsupported by any data

> whatsoever, and is devoid of any scientific basis.

>

> Let's look, one by one, at the minerals Fallon and Enig claim to be

> lacking for vegetarians.

>

> Zinc: It is wise for vegetarians to include plenty of zinc-rich

> foods in their diets, but the levels of zinc found in the hair,

> saliva, and blood of vegetarians are typically in the normal range.

>

> Zinc deficiency would be particularly harmful in pregnant women,

but

> studies of pregnant women have consistently found no difference in

> zinc status between vegetarians and nonvegetarians.

>

> Iron: Vegetarian diets are much higher in vitamin C, and vitamin C

> greatly enhances iron absorption, so even without eating red meat

> (which is high in iron), and even with the reduction in iron

> absorption from phytates, vegetarians are no more prone to iron

> deficiency than are nonvegetarians.

>

> Copper: Vegetarian diets tend to be higher in copper, which

> overrides any reduced rate of absorption from phytates. Vegans, in

> particular, consume considerably more copper than meat-eaters.

>

> Magnesium: Although the higher phytate content of soybeans and

> grains slightly reduces magnesium absorption, vegetarians diets are

> typically so much higher in this crucial mineral that vegetarians

> consistently show markedly higher serum magnesium levels than do

> nonvegetarians.

>

> Calcium: Calcium from soy is nearly as bioavailable as calcium from

> cow's milk. Hundreds of studies have found vegetarians in the West

> to have healthier bones, more positive calcium balance and less

> osteoporosis than meat-eaters - as well as less heart disease,

> cancer, high blood pressure, obesity, and diabetes, and

> substantially longer lifespans.

>

> Without providing any supporting evidence, Fallon and Enig go on to

> say that " soyfoods block calcium and cause vitamin D deficiencies.

> The reason that Westerners have such high rates of osteoporosis is

> because they have substituted soy oil for butter, which is a

> traditional source of vitamin D.needed for calcium absorption. "

>

> Why, then, do Westerners have such high rates of osteoporosis? We

> have become sedentary, plus we consume a highly processed, high-

> salt, high-animal protein diet.

>

> Study after study has found that the

> more animal protein you eat, the more calcium you lose.

>

> The calcium-losing effect of animal protein on the human body is

not

> a matter of controversy in scientific circles. Researchers who

> conducted a recent survey of diet and hip fractures in 33 countries

> said they found " an absolutely phenomenal correlation " between the

> percentage of plant foods in people's diets, and the strength of

> their bones.

>

> The more plant foods people eat (particularly fruits

> and vegetables), the stronger their bones, and the fewer fractures

> they experience. The more animal foods people eat, on the other

> hand, the weaker their bones and the more fractures they

experience.

>

> Similarly, in January 2001, the American Journal of Clinical

> Nutrition published a study that reported a dramatic correlation

> between the ratio of animal to vegetable protein in the diets of

> elderly women and their rate of bone loss.

> In this seven-year study

> funded by the National Institutes of Health, more than 1,000 women,

> ages 65 to 80, were grouped into three categories: those with a

high

> ratio of animal to vegetable protein, a middle range, and a low

> range. The women in the high ratio category had three times the

rate

> of bone loss as the women in the low group, and nearly four times

> the rate of hip fractures.

>

> Might this have been due to other factors than the ratio of animal

> to vegetable protein? According to the study's lead author, Deborah

> Sellmeyer, M.D., Director of the Bone Density Clinic at the

> University of California, San Francisco, Medical Center,

researchers

> found this to be true even after adjusting for age, weight,

estrogen

> use, tobacco use, exercise, calcium intake, and total protein

> intake. " We adjusted for all the things that could have had an

> impact on the relationship of high animal protein intake to bone

> loss and hip fractures, " Sellmeyer said. " But we found the

> relationship was still there. "

>

> What, then, about Fallon and Enig's assertion that Westerners have

> such high rates of osteoporosis because they have substituted soy

> oil for butter, and as a result no longer consume enough vitamin D

> for calcium absorption?

>

> Vitamin D is indeed needed for calcium

> absorption. But skin exposure to sunlight is the primary source of

> vitamin D in humans. In fact, people whose skin is not exposed to

> direct sunlight have difficulty getting enough vitamin D from their

> diets without supplementation.

>

> A 1999 report in the American Journal

> of Clinical Nutrition said that blood levels of vitamin D in

> sunlight-deficient people don't begin to rise until 4,000 units of

> vitamin D are consumed.

>

> Someone relying on butter for this amount

> would have to eat four pounds of butter a day. The data simply

> provide no basis whatsoever for blaming the osteoporosis rates in

> Western culture on the decrease in butter consumption.

>

> They do, however, point a definite finger at animal protein

consumption,

>

> which helps explain the reduced rates of osteoporosis in people

> consuming soyfoods.

>

> DOES SOY PROTECT AGAINST HEART DISEASE?

>

> If the articles written and spawned by Fallon and Enig were to be

> believed, just about everything we've been taught to believe about

> soy's benefits is completely backwards. What about soy's vaunted

> reputation (and FDA approval) for bringing down cholesterol

> levels? " For most of us, " say Fallon and Enig, " giving up steak and

> eating veggieburgers instead will not bring down blood cholesterol

> levels. " The kernel of truth in Fallon and Enig's statement is that

> soy consumption tends to bring down total cholesterol levels most

in

> people whose cholesterol levels are high.

>

> But even people with normal levels benefit from eating more soy,

> according to dozens of studies, because it improves the ratio

between

> HDL (good) and LDL (bad) cholesterol. This ratio is now recognized

by

> the American Heart Association to be an even more important factor

than

> total cholesterol levels in heart disease risk.

>

> In 2000, the Nutrition Committee of the American Heart Association

> published a major statement in the peer-reviewed journal

> Circulation, officially recommending the inclusion of 25 grams or

> more of soy protein, with its associated phytochemicals intact

> (i.e., not in the form of an isolated soy protein supplement),

> in the daily diet as a means of promoting heart health.

>

> This recommendation is consistent with the FDA's recent ruling

allowing

>

> soy protein products to carry the health claim: " 25 grams/day of

soy

> protein, as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol,

may

> reduce the risk of heart disease. "

>

> What do the soy pooh pooh-ers say to this? They say that lowered

> cholesterol levels, even those lowered by diet, are

> dangerous. " Studies in which cholesterol levels were lowered

through

> either diet or drugs, " claim Fallon and Enig, " have consistently

> resulted in a greater number of deaths in the treatment groups than

> in controls. " To document this remark, which is entirely

unsupported

> in the scientific literature, the authors provide a footnote to an

> article written by themselves.

>

> Elsewhere they write: " The truth is that cholesterol is your best

> friend. When cholesterol levels in the blood are high, it's because

> the body needs cholesterol. There is no greater risk of heart

> disease at cholesterol levels of 300 than at 180. "

>

> That's quite a point of view, ignoring as it does nearly everything

> that has been learned about heart disease and cholesterol in the

> past 30 years by medical science.

>

> The Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial, for

> example, is considered the broadest and most expensive research

project

> in medical history.

>

> Sponsored by the federal government, it took over ten years of

> systematic research, and cost over $150,000,000. Lundberg,

> M.D., the editor of the Journal of the American Medical

Association,

> where the gargantuan study was first published, said that the study

> proved that even small changes in our blood cholesterol levels

> produce dramatic changes in heart disease rates.

>

> Glueck, M.D., director of the University of Cincinnati

Lipid

> Research Center, one of the twelve major centers participating in

the

> project, noted: " For every one percent reduction in total blood

> cholesterol level, there is a two percent reduction of heart

disease

> risk. "

>

> DOES SOY PROTECT AGAINST CANCER?

>

> What about soy and cancer? Is there anything to the allegations

> coming from the anti-soy camp that soy consumption causes cancer?

>

> Such charges are certainly incompatible with the findings of the

> prestigious Health Professionals Follow-up Study, which found a 70%

> reduction in prostate cancer for men who consume soymilk daily.

>

> In 1997, the American Institute for Cancer Research, in

> collaboration with its international affiliate, the World Cancer

> Research Fund, issued a major international report, Food, Nutrition

> and the Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective.

>

> This report analyzed more than 4,500 research studies, and its

> production involved the participation of more than 120

contributors and

> peer reviewers, including participants from the World Health

> Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

> Nations, the International Agency on Research in Cancer, and the

> U.S. National Cancer Institute.

>

> In 2000, Riva Bitrum, the President of Research for the American

> Institute for Cancer Research, said that " Studies showing

consistently

> that just one serving a day of

> soyfoods contributes to a reduction in cancer risk are encouraging.

> Consuming one serving of soyfoods is a step most individuals would

> not find too difficult to take. "

>

> Of course, any foods with such potent biological properties - even

> healthful ones - are bound to have some unwanted side effects in

> some people under some circumstances.

>

> Although soy consumption on the whole reduces cancer incidence,

there

> are questions about its effect on women who have estrogen-positive

(ER+)

>

> breast tumors. These tumors are stimulated by estrogen. Might they

> therefore be stimulated by the weak estrogenic activity of the

> isoflavones found in soy? There is some evidence this may be the

case,

> though there is

> also evidence that soy consumption favorably alters the metabolism

> of estrogen so that it is less likely to stimulate tumor growth.

>

> At this point, given the uncertainty, women with ER+ breast cancer

> should probably avoid eating more than three or four servings of

soy

> a week. For healthy women, according to the American Institute for

> Cancer Research, " even two or three servings a day of soyfoods

> should be fine as one part of a mostly plant-based diet. "

>

> Soy supplements are a different story. Soy pills and powders can

> contain amounts of isoflavones (usually daidzein and genistein) far

> in excess of the amounts possible to get through diet. Very little

> research has been done on the effects of such mega-doses.

>

> Although there is no firm evidence to demonstrate that ingestion

of

> isoflavones has adverse effects on human beings, there is also no

> clear evidence that large doses are safe.

>

> When manufacturers of soy protein isolates and supplements

recommend

> that people consume 100 grams of soy protein a day (the equivalent

of 7

> or 8 soyburgers), they are ignoring the unknown effects of

overdosing on

>

> isoflavones.

> I believe it's probably safer, until more is learned, to avoid

> concentrated soy supplements entirely.

>

> DOES SOY CAUSE BIRTH DEFECTS?

>

> One of the most alarming allegations in the Fallon and Enig article

> is that, due to the phytoestrogens in soyfoods, vegetarian diets

> promote birth defects. They repeatedly refer in the article and

> elsewhere to a study published in the British Journal of Urology

> that found baby boys born to vegetarian mothers were five times

more

> likely to suffer from hypospadias, a malformation of the penis

> correctable with surgery.

>

> I found this disturbing, and somewhat difficult to believe,

because I

> know of no other study that links vegetarian diets with a higher

rate of

>

> any birth defect, including hypospadias, and there are a number

that

> show the opposite - lower rates of a variety of birth defects in

babies

> born to vegetarian mothers. If the findings of this study were

valid,

> however, it would be extremely important.

>

> We certainly need more studies to determine what is going on, but

> after reading the actual study I am not nearly as concerned as I

was

> upon reading Fallon and Enig's description, because what they

> neglect to mention is the significant fact that the total number of

> baby boys in the study born with this condition to vegetarian

> mothers was only seven.

>

> And it was not just vegetarian women who were found to be at

greater

> risk for delivering a boy with hypospadias. Women who took iron

> supplements during pregnancy, and women who had the flu during the

first

>

> trimester, also were at heightened risk.

>

> It's hard to know just what to make of this isolated study. To my

> eyes, it highlights how much we have yet to learn about the impact

> of the phytoestrogens contained in soy.

>

> Given our current state of knowledge, I think that pregnant women

> should largely avoid soy-

> based supplements. But there is no cause to conclude that

vegetarian

> diets, or soyfoods, are suspect in pregnancy.

>

> Vegetarian diets have consistently shown profound benefits for

> pregnancy and lactation, including much lower levels of the toxic

> chemicals that typically concentrate higher on the food chain in

> meat, fish and dairy products.

>

> A report in the New England Journal of Medicine on the levels of

> contamination in human breastmilk found that vegan mothers had

> dramatically lower levels of toxic chemicals

> in their milk compared to mothers in the general population. The

> highest level seen among these vegan mothers was actually lower

than

> the lowest level seen in nonvegetarian mothers. In fact, the levels

> of contamination found in the milk of the vegetarian mothers was

> only 1 to 2 percent as great as the level found in the milk of

> nonvegetarians.

>

> DOES SOY CAUSE ALZHEIMER'S?

>

> " Tofu Shrinks Brain, " shouted the headlines of a tidal wave of

> articles emanating from the anti-soy camp in recent years. The

basis

> for the excitement were discoveries made in the Honolulu Heart

> Program, an ongoing study of the health of Japanese-American men

> living in Hawaii. It seems that those who consumed the most tofu

> (two to four times a week) during middle age showed the most signs

> of mental deterioration in later years, including greater incidence

> of Alzheimer's disease.

>

> This was startling, because high cholesterol levels have long been

> intimately linked to increased risk for Alzheimer's, and soy has

been

> shown repeatedly to lower cholesterol levels. The researchers who

> conducted the study, led by Lon White,

> believe the negative effect could stem from the hormonal effects of

> the isoflavones found in soy.

>

> Other scientists were not so sure just what was going on here. If

> tofu consumption increased Alzheimer's incidence, then there would

> be more Alzheimer's in Japan than in Hawaii, because more tofu is

> eaten in Japan. But in fact the reverse is true.

>

> What, then, could have been the cause of the findings? People with

> Alzheimer's disease characteristically have higher levels of

> aluminum in their brains.

>

> Many studies have shown a link between increased levels of aluminum

> consumption and risk of Alzheimer's disease. Higher levels of

aluminum

> in drinking water, for example, typically produce higher rates of

the

> disease.

>

> When a physician practicing in Hawaii, Bill , subsequently

had

> soy products made in Hawaii and those from the mainland tested for

their

>

> aluminum levels, the levels of aluminum in the Hawaii products were

> found to be significantly higher.

>

> Could it be that it is aluminum - used in the refining of some soy

> products in Hawaii - that is the actual culprit? No other study to

my

> knowledge has ever found a link between soy consumption and

Alzheimer's,

>

> but dozens of studies have supported the link between aluminum and

the

> disease.

>

> While the anti-soy crusaders have been claiming, based on this

> single isolated study, that soy causes a decrease in cognitive

> function, students at Bay Point Schools in South Miami-Dade County,

> Florida, have been having a very different experience. This is an

> alternative year-round residential public school for students 13 to

> 18. Most of the kids are sent to this school by the court system

> after committing offenses. Many come from the streets, and their

> academic achievement typically is low. But many of them are finding

> an experiment with vegetarianism could be the recipe for success.

>

> The school's culinary arts program challenges the kids to be vegans

> for a month, and the achievements have been stunning, with students

> in the program reporting boosts in both their grades and their

> energy. " I came in here with a 1.6 (grade-point average). That's

not

> even a passing grade. At this point I've got a 3.4, " said Willie

> , who admits that at first he was skeptical of the tofu.

But

> Willie, who plays both basketball and football, soon noticed an

> improvement both in the classroom and on the court and field. " I'm

> considering doing this for a long time, just make it a constant

> thing, " he says. He's not alone. Kovanic Capron, 17, saw his grade

> point average improve from 3.1 to 3.9.

>

> The brain-boosting powers of soy were evident in that not a single

one

> of the students enrolled in the program scored below 85 on the

final

> exam. And the students say that eating this way has them devouring

the

> competition in school sports. " I used to get tired when I ran laps

or

> lifted weights, " said Saintvil, 18. " Now I get endurance

and

> keep on doing it. "

>

> INFANT SOY FORMULAS: BIRTH CONTROL PILLS FOR BABIES?

>

> Another of the disturbing charges made by the soy bashers is the

> allegation that " an infant exclusively fed soy formula receives the

> estrogenic equivalent (based on body weight) of at least five birth

> control pills per day. " Soy formula, say Fallon and Enig, amounts

> to " birth control pills for babies. "

>

> In my view, there is some basis here for concern. For an adult to

> regularly eat soy characteristically produces a reduced risk of

> developing breast or prostrate cancer. But the same phytoestrogens

> that produce this effect in adults may produce very different

> effects in infants.

>

> " With adults, half their phytoestrogens are

> freed into the bloodstream to bind to estrogen receptors, which

> helps to fight breast cancer, " explains Bertron, dietician

> director of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

>

> " But with infants, less than five percent are available to bind to

> receptors. " There is a possibility that this could pose a risk to

> the sexual development of infants and children. Because the milk

> source makes up nearly the entire diet of infants, babies fed soy

> formulas may be at increased risk of harm.

>

> These theoretical risks are quite disturbing, but they appear at

> this point to be merely theoretical, because we have yet to see any

> substantive evidence of this harm in people.

>

> It is striking that there have been no reports of hormonal

> abnormalities in people who were fed soy formula as infants - and

this

> includes millions of people in the past 30 years.

>

> In fact a major study published in the August, 2001, Journal of the

> American Medical Association found that

> infants fed soy formula grow to be just as healthy as those raised

> on cow's milk formulas.

>

> If the phytoestrogens in soy were affecting the reproductive

system of

> infants fed soy formulas, then soy-fed babies would develop

reproductive

>

> health problems as adults. The

> study evaluated 811 men and women between the ages of 20 and 34 who

> had participated in soy and cow's milk studies as infants.

> No significant differences were found between the groups in more

than 30

>

> health areas.

> The major exception was that women who had been soy-fed reported

> slightly longer menstrual periods (one-third of a day) than women

raised

>

> on cow's milk formulas.

>

> The debate as to which is better, formulas based on soy or cow's

> milk, is unresolved. Each seems to have its own dangers. What is

> indisputable is that babies reared on breastmilk have tremendous

> health advantages over babies reared on any type of formula.

>

> Compared to babies who are fed soy or cow's milk based formulas,

> babies who are beast-fed for at least six months have three times

> fewer ear infections, five times fewer urinary tract infections,

> five times fewer serious illnesses of all kinds, seven times fewer

> allergies, and are fourteen times less likely to be hospitalized.

>

> Babies who are breast-fed spit up less often, have less diarrhea

and

> less constipation. For every 87 formula-fed babies who die from

> Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, only three breast-fed babies die from

> the disease. Babies who are fed only human milk for at least six

> months are six times less likely to develop lymphoma, a cause of

> cancer, in childhood. Babies breast-fed for at least one year are

> only half as likely to develop diabetes. Children who were fed

human

> milk have an average I.Q. seven points higher.

>

> As adults, people who were breast-fed have less asthma, fewer

> allergies, less diabetes, fewer skin problems including dermatitis,

> lower risks of heart attacks and stroke due to lower cholesterol

> levels, less ulcerative colitis (ulcers in the large intestines),

> less Crohn's disease, and protection from certain chronic liver

> diseases.

>

> The indisputable advantages of breast-feeding apply to mothers,

too,

> affording major reductions of breast cancer risk. Yet working

> mothers wanting to breast-feed are often faced with a formidable

> challenge, because few workplaces have daycare facilities for their

> workers or allow for breast-feeding breaks. In 1998, New York

> Representative Carolyn Maloney sought to change that, introducing a

> bill in Congress that would provide a mandated daily one hour of

> unpaid leave for expressing breast milk, plus provide incentives

for

> employers who created a " lactation-friendly " environment.

>

> The evidence that breast is best is overwhelming. Infants breast-

fed

> by vegetarian mothers have all these advantages, plus more, because

> the milk of vegetarian mothers has the added advantage of harboring

> substantially fewer residues from pesticides and other toxic

> chemicals. Yet the anti-soy crusader Sally Fallon would evidently

> prefer that an infant be fed a cow's milk formula rather than

> breastmilk, if the mother is a vegetarian. She writes that " breast

> milk is best IF the mother has consumed a .diet.rich in animal

> proteins and fat throughout her pregnancy and continues to do so

> while nursing her child. "

>

> Why would someone make a statement like that? Where are these soy

> antagonists coming from? What are they trying to prove?

>

> Fallon and Enig are proponents of the philosophy that in order to

be

> healthy people must eat large amounts of saturated fat from animal

> products.

>

> They insist that only with the regular consumption of

> lard, butter and other full fat dairy products, and beef, can

people

> derive the nutrients they need to be healthy. They deplore the fact

> that soy products are increasingly replacing animal products in the

> American diet.

>

> Many of the most vocal soy bashers are of similar dietary

> persuasions. ph Mercola, for example, a Chicago osteopath who

> has authored a series of vehemently anti-soy articles that have

> circulated widely on the internet, is an ardent advocate of eating

> beef, chicken, turkey, ostrich, and other meats.

>

> COWS' MILK VS. SOYMILK

>

> Other anti-soy crusaders, most notably the U.S. dairy industry,

> clearly have a financial agenda.

>

>

> In recent years, the dairy industry has been waging war against

> soymilk. They have attempted to keep soy beverages from being

included

> in the milk group in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

>

> They have sued the manufacturers of soy beverages for using the

word

> milk, claiming that the dairy industry

> alone has a right to use the term.

>

> And they have tried to keep soy beverages from being sold

alongside

> cow's milk in the grocery aisles. A spokesperson for the National

Milk

> Producers Federation made it clear why the industry was upset. " It

is, "

> he said, " a clear attempt to compete with dairy products. "

>

> Meanwhile, the dairy industry spends hundreds of millions of

dollars

> on ads and other forms of promotion trying to convince the public

> that cow's milk is vastly preferable to soymilk.

>

> For example, the Dairy Bureau tells you about the nutritional

> comparison between cow's milk and soymilk. " Unfortified soy

beverages, "

> they say, " contain only half of the phosphorus, 40 percent of the

> riboflavin, 10 percent of the vitamin A, (and) 3 percent of the

calcium

> . . . found in a serving of cow's milk. " Let's look at this

carefully

> for a moment.

>

> Only half the phosphorus? is a registered dietitian

and

> former Chair of the American Dietetic Association's Vegetarian

> Practice Group. She is not impressed by the dairy industry

> claims.

>

> " We get plenty of phosphorus in the diet, " she says, " and

> possibly even too much. Providing only half the phosphorus of cow's

> milk is an advantage, not a disadvantage. "

>

> Only 40 percent of the riboflavin? It's true that unfortified

> soymilks contain only about half as much of this nutrient as cow's

> milk, but riboflavin is plentiful in nutritional yeast and green

> leafy vegetables, and is found in nuts, seeds, whole grains, and

> legumes, so getting enough riboflavin isn't a problem for people

who

> eat a variety of healthy foods.

>

> In fact, vegans (who consume no dairy products) consume as much,

or

> nearly as much, of this vitamin as lacto-ovo vegetarians and

> non-vegetarians. A mere teaspoon of Red Star Nutritional Yeast

powder

> contains as much riboflavin (1.6 mg) as an entire quart of cow's

milk.

>

> Only 10 percent of the vitamin A? Vitamin A is plentiful in plant-

> based diets. We don't need milk to get sufficient amounts of this

> nutrient. In fact, vitamin A deficiency is quite rare among North

> Americans and Europeans who eat plant-based diets. Furthermore,

> vitamin A is high in cow's milk only because it's added to it, and

> there is no reason it could not be added to non-dairy beverages if

> there was some advantage to doing so.

>

> Only 3 percent of the calcium provided by cow's milk? Where does

the

> dairy industry come up with this stuff? All of the most popular soy

> beverages sold in the United States provide vastly more calcium

than

> the 3 percent claimed by the Dairy Bureau.

>

> Westsoy Plus provides 100 percent as much; Vitasoy Enriched

provides 100

>

> percent as much;

> Pacific Soy Enriched provides 100 percent as much; and Edensoy

Extra

> provides 67 percent as much. Even those soy beverages that have not

> been enriched provide two to nine times as much calcium as claimed

> by the Dairy Bureau.

> Meanwhile, there are a few more things the dairy industry isn't

> telling you about the nutritional comparison between cow's milk and

> soymilk. For example:

>

> Cow's milk provides more than nine times as much saturated fat as

> soy beverages, so is far more likely to contribute to heart

disease.

>

> Soy beverages provide more than 10 times as much essential fatty

> acids as cow's milk, and so provide a far healthier quality of fat.

>

> Soy beverages are cholesterol-free, while cow's milk contains 34 mg

> of cholesterol per cup, which again means that cow's milk is far

> worse for your heart and cardiovascular system.

>

> Soy beverages lower both total and LDL ( " bad " ) cholesterol levels,

> while cow's milk raises both total and LDL cholesterol levels,

> providing yet more reasons soymilk is better for your health.

>

> Soy beverages contain numerous protective phytochemicals that may

> protect against chronic diseases such as heart disease and

> osteoporosis. Cow's milk contains no phytochemicals.

>

> Men who consume one to two servings of soymilk per day are 70

> percent less likely to develop prostate cancer than men who don't.

>

> FRANKENSOY?

>

> There are legitimate questions about soy. One of the most recent,

> and most disturbing, stems from the fact that two-thirds of the

U.S.

> soybean crop today is genetically engineered.

>

> These are beans that have been genetically altered to enable the

growing

>

> plants to withstand being sprayed with weedkillers, particularly

> Monsanto's Roundup. Because so much Roundup is used on these

crops, the

> residue levels in the harvested crops greatly exceed what until

very

> recently was the allowable legal limit.

>

>

> For the technology to be commercially viable, the FDA had to

triple the

>

> residues of Roundup's active ingredients that can remain on the

crop.

> Many scientists have protested that permitting increased residues

to

> enable a company's success reflects an attitude in which corporate

> interests are given higher priority than public safety, but the

> increased levels have remained in force.

>

> Does eating *genetically engineered* soybeans pose potential health

> risks to people?

>

> In 2001, the Los Angeles Times published an exposé

> revealing that Monsanto's own research had raised many questions

> about the safety of their Roundup Ready soybeans.

>

> Remarkably, the FDA did not call for more testing before allowing

these

>

> soybeans to flood the marketplace. Since half the soybeans grown

in the

> United States are now Monsanto's Roundup Ready variety, and

because soy

> is contained in such a wide array of processed foods, tens of

millions

> of people are unknowingly eating these experimental foods daily.

>

> According to Monsanto's own tests, Roundup Ready soybeans contain

29

> percent less of the brain nutrient choline, and 27 percent more

> trypsin inhibitor, the potential allergen that interferes with

> protein digestion, than normal soybeans.

>

> Soy products are often prescribed and consumed for their

phytoestrogen

> content, but according to the company's tests,

>

> the genetically altered soybeans

> have lower levels of phenylalanine,

>

> an essential amino acid that

> affects levels of phytoestrogens.

>

>

> And levels of lectins, which are most likely the culprit in soy

> allergies,

>

> are nearly double in the

> transgenic variety.

>

> I find it fascinating that compared to regular soybeans, the

> genetically engineered beans have more of the very things that are

> problematic, and less of the very things that are beneficial.

>

> To my eyes, this is certainly another reason to eat organic foods

> whenever possible. The best way to insure that any soyfoods you

eat are

> not genetically engineered is if they are organically grown.

>

> WHITHER THE JOY OF SOY?

>

> While soyfoods have much to offer, they have certainly been at

times

> heavily over-promoted. As a result, some people have gathered the

> impression that as long as they eat enough soy, they don't have to

> worry about the rest of their diet and lifestyle. This is a

> dangerous and mistaken belief.

>

> Just as taking vitamins can't atone for a poor diet, taking soy

can't

> make up for a diet that's

> otherwise high in calories, saturated fat, and junk food. Nor can

it

> compensate for a lack of exercise, or other destructive lifestyle

> habits.

>

> The hype has also made us forget something important. We are eating

> soy products today at levels never before seen in history. Advances

> in food technology have made it possible to isolate soy proteins,

> isoflavones, and other substances found in the bean, and add them

to

> all kinds of foods where they've never been before.

>

> The number of processed and manufactured foods that contain soy

> ingredients today is astounding.

>

> It can be hard to find foods that don't contain soy

> flour, soy oil, lecithin (extracted from soy oil and used as an

> emulsifier in high-fat products), soy protein isolates and

> concentrates, textured vegetable protein (TVP), hydrolyzed

vegetable

> protein (usually made from soy) or unidentified vegetable oils.

>

> Most of what is labeled " vegetable oil " in the U.S. is actually

soy oil,

>

> as are most margarines. Soy oil is the most widely used oil in the

U.S.,

>

> accounting for more than 75 percent of our total vegetable

> fats and oils intake.

>

> And most of our soy products are now

> genetically engineered.

>

> This has never before been done in human history. It is an

> experiment, and should be undertaken, if at all, with great

> humility, watchfulness, and caution.

>

> Instead, under the influence of an almost mystical belief in soy's

> virtues, we've tended to fall prey to an illusion that has haunted

> American culture in all kinds of ways - the illusion that if a

little is

>

> good, then surely more must be better.

>

> The anti-soy crusaders, on the other hand, point to certain

> substances found in soy, and tell us that almost any amount of soy

> is too much.

>

> The reality, though, is all foods contain substances

> that, if eaten in high enough concentrations, would cause problems.

>

> Even the most healthful foods contain components that produce

> unwanted effects when they are tested in isolation in a laboratory.

>

> For example, broccoli, lentils, and grapefruit contain naturally

> occurring pesticides that can cause mutations if eaten in high

> enough quantities.

>

> Peanuts and peanut butter often have traces of aflatoxin, a

substance

> found in a mold that grows on the nuts that

> causes cancer in high enough amounts.

>

> Celery harbors toxins that at high enough levels damage the human

> immune system and causes photosensitivity. (Highest levels occur in

> celery that has brownish patches.)

>

> Spinach and chard contain oxalic acid, a substance which

> binds with calcium and diminish its absorption.

>

> Common mushrooms contain several substances that in sufficient

> concentrations are carcinogens.

>

> This doesn't mean, though, that you should avoid eating broccoli,

> lentils, grapefruit, peanut butter, celery, spinach, chard and

> mushrooms.

>

> In fact, if you made it your policy to eat no food that

> contained substances which can in large enough concentrations cause

> damage, there would be literally nothing left for you to eat.

>

> It's true that soybeans contain substances that in excess can be

> harmful. But to imply, as some do, that as a result eating soyfoods

> poses a risk to human health is taking things much further than the

> evidence warrants.

>

> There would be dangers in eating a diet based entirely on

soybeans.

> But, then, the same could be said for broccoli or any other healthy

> food.

>

> This is one of the reasons why varied diets are so important.

Diversity

>

> protects. For most people under most circumstances, soy products

are a

> healthful addition to a balanced diet that includes plenty of

> vegetables, whole grains, seeds, nuts, fruits, and other legumes.

For

> most people, substituting soyfoods for some of the animal foods

they now

>

> eat is one of the healthiest dietary changes they could make.

>

> What, then, would be a healthy relationship to soy in the diet? Are

> some forms of soy healthier than others? In my view, the best way

to

> take advantage of soy's health benefits is to follow the example of

> the traditional Asian diets and stick with whole foods.

>

> As a population, these are cultures that, when they have eaten

their

> traditional diets, have tended to be healthier and live longer than

> Americans. The Okinawa Japanese, the longest living people in the

world,

>

> average 1-2 servings of soy each day.

>

> They have traditionally eaten regular but moderate amounts of whole

> soyfoods such as tofu, soymilk, and edamame, as well as the

fermented

> versions, tempeh, tamari, and miso.

>

> These are the soyfoods that I prefer to eat -

> rather than the soy products made with soy protein isolates, soy

> protein concentrates, hydrolyzed soy protein, partially

hydrogenated

> soy oil, etc..

>

> Whole soyfoods are more natural, and are the soyfoods

> that have nourished entire civilizations for centuries.

>

> For me, the best of the bean includes foods like:

>

> Tofu, soaked and cooked soybeans that are made into a custardlike

> curd. The soaking process used traditionally to make tofu reduces

> the trypsin inhibitors and phytates.

>

> High in protein, tofu has a bland and neutral taste, and can be

added

> to all kinds of foods. As with all soy products, get organic if

you can.

>

>

>

> Tempeh, a fermented soybean cake with a nutty, mushroom flavor and

> chewy texture. Extremely high in protein and fiber, and produced in

> a way that greatly lowers trypsin inhibitors and phytates, tempeh

> is, from a nutritional perspective, an ideal way to eat soybeans.

>

> Miso, a paste made from cooked soybeans that are fermented with

rice

> or other grains. Widely used as a salty condiment and a basis for

> soups, miso is a potent probiotic, containing many kinds of

friendly

> bacteria that are beneficial to the intestinal tract. The

> fermentation process used to make miso deactivates the trypsin

> inhibitors and phytates.

>

> Tamari (or Shoyu), a fermented soysauce that is very flavorful and

> salty

>

> Soymilk, made from soaked, ground soybeans, and increasingly used

in

> the U.S. as a substitute for the milk of cows. Often called

> soy " beverages, " or soy " drinks, " because the dairy industry

refuses

> to allow them to use the word " milk. " Trypsin inhibitors and

> phytates are low. I prefer the brands made with whole soybeans, and

> avoid those made with soy protein or soymilk powder. (There are

also

> milks made from rice, almonds and oats that offer their own

> advantages to cow's milk.)

>

> Soy Nuts and Soy Nut Butter, a particular favorite with many

> children. Roasting helps reduce phytate levels.

>

> Edamame, a green vegetable soybean harvested while immature, so

that

> the seeds fill 80% to 90% of the pod. Cooked for about 15 minutes

in

> lightly salted boiling water, it's served as a snack, mixed with

> vegetables, or added to salads or soups.

>

> Soy ice creams (non-dairy frozen desserts) may not technically

> belong on a list of the healthiest of ways to eat soy, but I've got

> a weakness for them. I eat the ones made with organic beans and/or

> organic soymilk, not those (like Tofutti) made with soy proteins or

> soy protein isolates. (As with soymilk, there are frozen desserts

> made from rice and other plant foods that also offer advantages to

> cow's milk ice cream.)

>

> There are legitimate questions about certain soyfoods, and much we

> have yet to learn. Becoming soy-a-holics and automatically downing

> anything made from soybeans is not the road to health, but neither

> is shunning and stigmatizing soyfoods.

>

> The anti-soy crusade has needlessly frightened many away from a

food

> source that has long been a boon to humankind, a food source that

can,

> if we are respectful of our bodies and of nature, nourish and

bless us

> in countless ways.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/22/03 2:13:06 PM Eastern Standard Time,

radiantlife@... writes:

> Sure there is a long way to go but with some media

> coverage and some key funding of the Foundation, anything's possible.

Definitely... the people that invited Sally out to my area (or a little east

that is) announced at her seminar that they were getting together to start a

raw milk dairy! All in a relatively short matter of time that probably

started with one person getting their hands on NT or something, showing some

other people, etc.

I have to ammend what I said earlier about Robbins. Idiot is harsh

because while he simply doesn't know what he's talking about or uses

*obviously* heavily biased studies in his book, he is definitely a decent

person, driven largely by compassion, and I loved the first section of DFANA,

the stories about dolphins, etc.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of

them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense

compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to

bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature.

Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the

truth, and for those who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

There are certainly overpopulated areas in the world, but much of the United

States and other areas is wilderness or open land. There are obvious

socio-political factors that have led to overpopulation in the third world

especially, rather than overpopulation being a force in and of itself, and

getting nutritious food back into people might *help* these problems.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of

them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense

compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to

bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature.

Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the

truth, and for those who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

> Chris-

>

> >Does it even take more land? All that grain has to be grown

> >for confinement cattle.

>

> Well, grain is more calorie-dense than grass, so in the short run

> it probably takes more land, but we have to remember to factor in

> all the hidden costs of factory farming which no free market

> fetishist ever acknowledges: the pollution, the destruction of

> soil fertility, the eventual elimination of arable land, etc.

For a long time, people have been saying Malthus was wrong. But, I

believe your last item, the eventual elimination of arable land, is

why Malthus may ultimately prove correct. According to Jeavons

of Ecology Action, large-scale mechanized agriculture, even when done

organically, allows topsoil to be lost faster than it is created. He

said in a seminar I attended several years ago something along the

lines that in the last 50 years China has lost 50% of the topsoil

that had sustained Chinese culture for thousands of years. If we keep

losing our topsoil, we'll eventually reach the point when it is no

longer possible to grow enough food to feed the entire human

population. Jeavons says we'll reach that point within 40 years.

[Guest guest]

I have tried to correspond with JRobbins to show him that he and Sally

Fallon are actually on the same page in terms of what they are working

for, and that they would be jolly buddies if that he understood and

integrated Dr. Price's research. If he did so, he would know that he

should adjust his extreme vegan diet to include sustainably produced,

humanely raised animal products prepared in traditional ways, and could

keep his antipathy for conventional ag, his desire to feed the world,

and his love of plant foods, all of which Sally shares.

I invited him to meet Sally at a talk she gave in his area a couple

years ago, sending him Sally's book and some articles to prep him. But

in email correspondence, he tried to answer my points in favor of

including animal foods by pointing out the scarcity of such good quality

foods, and asserted that (as Dr. M also pointed out) since the whole

world can't be fed this way, we should all be vegans! What a limited

view of the world! I pointed out that the purpose of the Weston A.

Price Foundation was not only to educate about traditional nutrition

principles, but to actively work to create markets for these foods, do

everything possible to support farmers to produce these foods, and to

help consumers find these foods! And what success they are having after

just 3 years! Sure there is a long way to go but with some media

coverage and some key funding of the Foundation, anything's possible.

I hate to say it but when you've built an empire around a certain belief

system, which is heavily funded by industries like soy, and when you

have 2nd gen. vegan children and have inspired MANY thousands more, it

is probably hard to let in all this contradictory information. After

all JR already rebelled against his entire world and family once before!

(Baskin Robbins empire)

I feel for him but also hope that if I were in the same position that I

would follow Gandhi's dictum that it is better to pursue the truth than

it is to be consistent.

Cheers,

-----Original Message-----

From: Evely [mailto:je@...]

Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 4:46 PM

Subject: Comments on this please...

Subject: What About Soy?

by Robbins

http://www.foodrevolution.org

Over the past months, I've received quite a number of requests from

people asking for my views on soy products. Many of these inquiries

have mentioned a stridently anti-soy article written by Sally Fallon

and G. Enig, titled " Tragedy and Hype, " that has been widely

circulated.

[Guest guest]

That is too bad. I have noticed that his agruments lack a certain logic. If

all the fresh water in the world is polluted that does not mean that we can

live without it. Most vegetarians I know succumb to hamburger attacks from

time to time. They usually interpret this as a junk food fling rather than

their body telling them something.

At 11:10 AM 3/22/03, you wrote:

>I have tried to correspond with JRobbins to show him that he and Sally

>Fallon are actually on the same page in terms of what they are working

>for, and that they would be jolly buddies if that he understood and

>integrated Dr. Price's research. If he did so, he would know that he

>should adjust his extreme vegan diet to include sustainably produced,

>humanely raised animal products prepared in traditional ways, and could

>keep his antipathy for conventional ag, his desire to feed the world,

>and his love of plant foods, all of which Sally shares.

>

>I invited him to meet Sally at a talk she gave in his area a couple

>years ago, sending him Sally's book and some articles to prep him. But

>in email correspondence, he tried to answer my points in favor of

>including animal foods by pointing out the scarcity of such good quality

>foods, and asserted that (as Dr. M also pointed out) since the whole

>world can't be fed this way, we should all be vegans! What a limited

>view of the world! I pointed out that the purpose of the Weston A.

>Price Foundation was not only to educate about traditional nutrition

>principles, but to actively work to create markets for these foods, do

>everything possible to support farmers to produce these foods, and to

>help consumers find these foods! And what success they are having after

>just 3 years! Sure there is a long way to go but with some media

>coverage and some key funding of the Foundation, anything's possible.

>

>I hate to say it but when you've built an empire around a certain belief

>system, which is heavily funded by industries like soy, and when you

>have 2nd gen. vegan children and have inspired MANY thousands more, it

>is probably hard to let in all this contradictory information. After

>all JR already rebelled against his entire world and family once before!

>(Baskin Robbins empire)

>

>I feel for him but also hope that if I were in the same position that I

>would follow Gandhi's dictum that it is better to pursue the truth than

>it is to be consistent.

>

>Cheers,

>

>

>

>

>-----Original Message-----

>From: Evely [mailto:je@...]

>Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 4:46 PM

>

>Subject: Comments on this please...

>

>

>

>Subject: What About Soy?

>

>by Robbins

>

><http://www.foodrevolution.org>http://www.foodrevolution.org

>

>Over the past months, I've received quite a number of requests from

>people asking for my views on soy products. Many of these inquiries

>have mentioned a stridently anti-soy article written by Sally Fallon

>and G. Enig, titled " Tragedy and Hype, " that has been widely

>circulated.

>

>

>

>

>

>Sponsor<http://rd./M=245314.3072841.4397732.2848452/D=egroupweb/S=1705\

060950:HM/A=1495890/R=0/*http://www.netbizideas.com/yheb42>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

At 04:50 PM 3/22/2003 -0500, you wrote:

> There are obvious

>socio-political factors that have led to overpopulation in the third world

>especially, rather than overpopulation being a force in and of itself, and

>getting nutritious food back into people might *help* these problems.

There was a great article on the Ugandan people going back to their

traditional farming methods, which pretty much solved their

starvation problems. Turns out their traditional methods

involved burying the food underground for years -- it fermented

nicely and got better with age. When there was a drought year,

they could eat the fermented stuff.

Around where I live, this all used to be dairy country, now

most of the dairies are shut down. But there is lots of grass.

Most families could have a cow or two on their lots if they

wanted. In Mendicino county, which is rather tight-packed,

they had " neighborhood milk goats " which did the lawn-mowing.

Large steer are hard to keep, but the " midget " varieties aren't,

nor are goats (which have been used for meat longer). And

shoot, you can raise chickens on an apartment balcony, if you

are so inclined, off your leftovers ( " save a garbage disposal: grow

a chicken! " )

So I'd guess there is room for more meat-animals in the U.S., and

they are easier on the topsoil than farming is.

I'm not sure about the desert areas though. Those spots just

don't support high population density, and traditionally

people kept their population at a level sustainable with

their environment, one way or another (often by moving

into someone else's territory and having a nice war). Deserts

don't support many meat animals either, and during droughts

the cows die a lot in many parts of the world. So yeah, you have

to address those " socio-political " factors sooner or later.

Heidi S

[Guest guest]

,

I see the same lack of understanding of how nature works in captivity

here(agriculture and livestock domestication) that I've seen so many times

before. Agriculture cannot be done " sustainably " without livestock and their

manure. Whats so sustainable about mining Vermont for greensand or granite

dust

for these animal free veggies grown in California? Not only is it leaving a

hole somewhere else on the planet, it pollutes the planet with transportation

costs and presently especially contributes to war. Positively, it gives people

jobs and the country an economy. The money is better spent on a few more acres

with livestock to let nature do her work and keep the soil fertility from

failing. This is how the costs of quality produce are put out of some people's

ability to have yet their vision is to feed the world. Suze's old style New

England farmer makes a lot more sense and can feed his world ( local

community)

like its been done through most of history.

Its frustrating when such tunnel vision can't be opened up with any amount of

reason. Visions are good only if they honor and respect who the others are

culturally and individually. Works only for the individual and their

follower's

personal survival or egos otherwise.

Wanita

>At 11:10 AM 3/22/03, you wrote:

>>I have tried to correspond with JRobbins to show him that he and Sally

>>Fallon are actually on the same page in terms of what they are working

>>for, and that they would be jolly buddies if that he understood and

>>integrated Dr. Price's research.  If he did so, he would know that he

>>should adjust his extreme vegan diet to include sustainably produced,

>>humanely raised animal products prepared in traditional ways, and could

>>keep his antipathy for conventional ag, his desire to feed the world,

>>and his love of plant foods, all of which Sally shares.

>>

>>I invited him to meet Sally at a talk she gave in his area a couple

>>years ago, sending him Sally's book and some articles to prep him.  But

>>in email correspondence, he tried to answer my points in favor of

>>including animal foods by pointing out the scarcity of such good quality

>>foods, and asserted that (as Dr. M also pointed out) since the whole

>>world can't be fed this way, we should all be vegans!  What a limited

>>view of the world!  I pointed out that the purpose of the Weston A.

>>Price Foundation was not only to educate about traditional nutrition

>>principles, but to actively work to create markets for these foods, do

>>everything possible to support farmers to produce these foods, and to

>>help consumers find these foods!  And what success they are having after

>>just 3 years!  Sure there is a long way to go but with some media

>>coverage and some key funding of the Foundation, anything's possible.

>>

>>I hate to say it but when you've built an empire around a certain belief

>>system, which is heavily funded by industries like soy, and when you

>>have 2nd gen. vegan children and have inspired MANY thousands more, it

>>is probably hard to let in all this contradictory information.  After

>>all JR already rebelled against his entire world and family once before!

>>(Baskin Robbins empire)

>>

>>I feel for him but also hope that if I were in the same position that I

>>would follow Gandhi's dictum that it is better to pursue the truth than

>>it is to be consistent.

>>

>>Cheers,

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>-----Original Message-----

>>From: Evely [<mailto:je@...%5D>mailto:je@...]

>>Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 4:46 PM

>>

>>Subject: Comments on this please...

>>

>>

>>

>>Subject: What About Soy?

>>

>>by Robbins

>>

>><<http://www.foodrevolution.org/>http://www.foodrevolution.org><http://ww

w.foodrevolution.org/>http://www.foodrevolution.org

>>

>>Over the past months, I've received quite a number of requests from

>>people asking for my views on soy products. Many of these inquiries

>>have mentioned a stridently anti-soy article written by Sally Fallon

>>and G. Enig, titled " Tragedy and Hype, " that has been widely

>>circulated.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>Sponsor<<http://rd./M=245314.3072841.4397732.2848452/D=egroupweb

/S=1705060950:HM/A=1495890/R=0/*http://www.netbizideas.com/yheb42>http://rd

../M=245314.3072841.4397732.2848452/D=egroupweb/S=1705060950:HM/A=14

95890/R=0/*http://www.netbizideas.com/yheb42>

>>

>>

>>

[Guest guest]

>I see the same lack of understanding of how nature works in captivity

>here(agriculture and livestock domestication) that I've seen so many times

>before. Agriculture cannot be done " sustainably " without livestock and their

>manure. Whats so sustainable about mining Vermont for greensand or granite

>dust

>for these animal free veggies grown in California?

That is so true. I don't have the technique down yet, but the chickens

sure get along well with gardens. They eat all the bugs, and fertilize

and aereate the soil. Then I just have to chase them out long enough

for the plants to get a foot high or so (that's the part I don't have

down yet!), and chase them again when the fruit sets.

This year I finally figured out how folks got by without slug bait

in the old days. They had chickens! I have not seen ONE slug

this year, and in this neck of the woods, that is amazing.

Heidi S

[Guest guest]

I agree with what y'all are saying about sustainable ag. It's

interesting to read Quinn's works in this context. He points out

that it is the production of greater amounts of food that leads to a

corresponding upward spiral of population levels. Take a bunch of mice

and give them unlimited food, and their population swells. Reduce the

food gradually, and the increase in population growth slows, then there

is a level where it levels out - all without starvation. Combine this

with the recent discoveries that small-scale sustainable ag is actually

more productive per acre than conventional monoculture ag, the

understanding of how important animals are to sustainable ag, and how

much land is not suitable for crops but can be grazed, and you wonder

how the amber waves of grain advocates like JR can keep going....

-----Original Message-----

From: Wanita Sears [mailto:wanitawa@...]

Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 4:20 PM

Subject: RE: Comments on this please...

,

I see the same lack of understanding of how nature works in captivity

here(agriculture and livestock domestication) that I've seen so many

times

before. Agriculture cannot be done " sustainably " without livestock and

their

manure. Whats so sustainable about mining Vermont for greensand or

granite

dust

for these animal free veggies grown in California? Not only is it

leaving a

hole somewhere else on the planet, it pollutes the planet with

transportation

costs and presently especially contributes to war. Positively, it gives

people

jobs and the country an economy. The money is better spent on a few more

acres

with livestock to let nature do her work and keep the soil fertility

from

failing. This is how the costs of quality produce are put out of some

people's

ability to have yet their vision is to feed the world. Suze's old style

New

England farmer makes a lot more sense and can feed his world ( local

community)

like its been done through most of history.

Its frustrating when such tunnel vision can't be opened up with any

amount of

reason. Visions are good only if they honor and respect who the others

are

culturally and individually. Works only for the individual and their

follower's

personal survival or egos otherwise.

Wanita

>At 11:10 AM 3/22/03, you wrote:

>>I have tried to correspond with JRobbins to show him that he and Sally

>>Fallon are actually on the same page in terms of what they are working

>>for, and that they would be jolly buddies if that he understood and

>>integrated Dr. Price's research.  If he did so, he would know that he

>>should adjust his extreme vegan diet to include sustainably produced,

>>humanely raised animal products prepared in traditional ways, and

could

>>keep his antipathy for conventional ag, his desire to feed the world,

>>and his love of plant foods, all of which Sally shares.

>>

>>I invited him to meet Sally at a talk she gave in his area a couple

>>years ago, sending him Sally's book and some articles to prep him. 

But

>>in email correspondence, he tried to answer my points in favor of

>>including animal foods by pointing out the scarcity of such good

quality

>>foods, and asserted that (as Dr. M also pointed out) since the whole

>>world can't be fed this way, we should all be vegans!  What a limited

>>view of the world!  I pointed out that the purpose of the Weston A.

>>Price Foundation was not only to educate about traditional nutrition

>>principles, but to actively work to create markets for these foods, do

>>everything possible to support farmers to produce these foods, and to

>>help consumers find these foods!  And what success they are having

after

>>just 3 years!  Sure there is a long way to go but with some media

>>coverage and some key funding of the Foundation, anything's possible.

>>

>>I hate to say it but when you've built an empire around a certain

belief

>>system, which is heavily funded by industries like soy, and when you

>>have 2nd gen. vegan children and have inspired MANY thousands more, it

>>is probably hard to let in all this contradictory information.  After

>>all JR already rebelled against his entire world and family once

before!

>>(Baskin Robbins empire)

>>

>>I feel for him but also hope that if I were in the same position that

I

>>would follow Gandhi's dictum that it is better to pursue the truth

than

>>it is to be consistent.

>>

>>Cheers,

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>-----Original Message-----

>>From: Evely [<mailto:je@...%5D>mailto:je@...]

>>Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 4:46 PM

>>

>>Subject: Comments on this please...

>>

>>

>>

>>Subject: What About Soy?

>>

>>by Robbins

>>

>><<http://www.foodrevolution.org/>http://www.foodrevolution.org><http:/

/ww

w.foodrevolution.org/>http://www.foodrevolution.org

>>

>>Over the past months, I've received quite a number of requests from

>>people asking for my views on soy products. Many of these inquiries

>>have mentioned a stridently anti-soy article written by Sally Fallon

>>and G. Enig, titled " Tragedy and Hype, " that has been widely

>>circulated.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>Sponsor<<http://rd./M=245314.3072841.4397732.2848452/D=egroup

web

/S=1705060950:HM/A=1495890/R=0/*http://www.netbizideas.com/yheb42>http:/

/rd

../M=245314.3072841.4397732.2848452/D=egroupweb/S=1705060950:HM/

A=14

95890/R=0/*http://www.netbizideas.com/yheb42>

>>

>>

>>

[Guest guest]

--- In , Wanita Sears <wanitawa@b...>

wrote:

> Agriculture cannot be done " sustainably " without livestock and

> their manure.

Actually, it can. Ecology Action's grow biointensive method is

probably the most sustainable agricultural system of all, and it

requires zero animal manure input. In fact, their research shows

composted plant material is superior to composted animal manure.

Grow biointensive focuses on the carbon cycle and making sure that

enough carbon crops are grown to provide compost for the planting

beds. The carbon crops are typically grains grown for the straw and

edible seed, with millet being a stellar performer because the stalks

can be grown out and cut twice before finally letting it go to seed

and harvesting the seed and the third batch of straw.

Grow biointensive also includes methods for returning human waste

back into the bed rotations in a sanitary manner. Technically

speaking, grow biointensive could be used in a completely sustainable

closed system if all human waste were utilzed and the bodies of the

people eating the food were composted after death and returned to the

soil.

Granted, grow biointensive is not likely to ever replace large scale

agriculture due to its very hands on nature, involving the double

digging of beds, seeds being started in trays and transplanted, etc.

But, no large scale agricultural system can ever be considered

sustainable if it requires vast amounts of external input, whether

fertilizer, chemicals, or fuel for machinery. For more info, here's

their website:

http://www.growbiointensive.org/

BTW, while I'm extremely impressed with grow biointensive's huge

yields, I find it way too technical and anal retentive, and I really

hate double digging. I like my gardening nice and undisciplined, even

if it means I steal resources from other parts of the planet.

>Whats so sustainable about mining Vermont for greensand or granite

>dust for these animal free veggies grown in California?

There's nothing sustainable about it. But, how often are livestock

raised without giving them mineral supplements? Go to any farm store

out here in Iowa, and you'll see stacks of mineral blocks. Even the

Azomite that Sally recommends in Nourishing Traditions is mined out

in Utah and sold as a mineral supplement for animals.

[Guest guest]

>

> I think we're overlooking the fact that their plan *does* contain

> animal manure-- human manure.

Works with or without humanure. A lot of people are squicked by it

and won't use it. When it is used, the humanure beds are used to grow

compost crops for a number of years before being returned back into

food crop rotation. The food crops are grown solely with composted

plant material. IIRC, what they found is that heavy use of animal

manure results in salt build-up in the soil and a drop in yield as a

result. Their suggestion is if you're going to use animal manure,

limit it to only 10% of the total compost amount.

[Guest guest]

I respect your posts here and we have certainly gone off topic

here but you really do NOT have an understanding of economic theory

at all. In all seriousness you're speaking on a topic

authoritatively that you really don't seem to have made a true study

of.

DMM

> In a message dated 3/23/03 10:49:52 PM Eastern Standard Time,

larry@m...

> writes:

>

> > Yes I answered and explained your error. You are

confusing National

> > Socialism with the free market. And you blame the failure of

socialism on

> > the free market. Is this what they teach you in school???? A

course in

> > Austrian free market economic theory might be in order for you

in the

> future.

> >

>

> Yes Larry, I get all my information from school because of a

severe lack of

> ability to think for myself which I was diagnosed with when I was

four years

> old. It is a disability and I cannot be blamed for it.

>

> You did not answer my questions, you used guilt-by-association

*terms*

> without explaining anything. If you don't like something you call

it

> " socialism " and you deny that markets exist in our economy or have

existed

> the way pro-socialists deny there was anything socialist about the

Soviet

> Union.

>

> I don't care about labels and am not interested in discussing the

value of

> " socialism " or " the true free market " which is a utopia that only

exists in

> your head.

>

> I'm interested in the practical effects of economic transactions

in the real

> world. What makes the price of a product decline? Are there

hidden costs

> that are not in that transaction? Someone producing a product

that uses more

> fossil fuels is extracting energy from the earth which is, more or

less,

> free, rather than from humans that must be paid. That cost is

past on to the

> consumer. But there are cost increases that we all have to pay

for with the

> environmental effects. Where in the equation is the gov't

subsidy? I

> totally agree with you that gov't subsidies do FAR more harm than

good, but

> you have not answered this question: if the gov't subsidy stops,

HOW does it

> affect this dynamic?

>

> Chris

>

> ____

>

> " What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion?

It is a

> heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings,

birds, and

> animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the

sight of

> them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and

intense

> compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them

unable to

> bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any

creature.

> Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for

enemies of the

> truth, and for those who do them wrong. "

>

> --Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

>>>>There was a great article on the Ugandan people going back to their

traditional farming methods, which pretty much solved their

starvation problems. Turns out their traditional methods

involved burying the food underground for years -- it fermented

nicely and got better with age. When there was a drought year,

they could eat the fermented stuff.

---->that's fascinating! where did you read that?

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

Have read Quinn's first three books. Recent findings on the

relationship

of insulin production to longevity in worms and chicken's egg production

reduced with less grain back up Quinn's population increase to increased

agricultural supply. Tells of medicine's increased need to counteract. Helps

Sally as nutrient dense foods reduce consumption levels by satiating with

less.

The reply would be more land use for grazing, methane production, water

pollution etc. Large open spaces are not supportive to only agriculture. The

erosion alone to the world's grain belts shows this.

Wanita

At 05:41 PM 3/22/03 -0800, you wrote:

>I agree with what y'all are saying about sustainable ag.  It's

>interesting to read Quinn's works in this context.  He points out

>that it is the production of greater amounts of food that leads to a

>corresponding upward spiral of population levels.  Take a bunch of mice

>and give them unlimited food, and their population swells.  Reduce the

>food gradually, and the increase in population growth slows, then there

>is a level where it levels out - all without starvation.  Combine this

>with the recent discoveries that small-scale sustainable ag is actually

>more productive per acre than conventional monoculture ag, the

>understanding of how important animals are to sustainable ag, and how

>much land is not suitable for crops but can be grazed, and you wonder

>how the amber waves of grain advocates like JR can keep going.... 

>

>

[Guest guest]

> >>>>There was a great article on the Ugandan people going back to their

>traditional farming methods, which pretty much solved their

>starvation problems. Turns out their traditional methods

>involved burying the food underground for years -- it fermented

>nicely and got better with age. When there was a drought year,

>they could eat the fermented stuff.

>

>---->that's fascinating! where did you read that?

New Scientist, I believe (and it might have been Libya, I'm not

good with names). I can't find the article right now though, if

I run across it I'll send a link (I have the hard copy, but not

all the hard copy stuff is available online). It is a GREAT

reference though, as I've said before -- their approach is, I

think, very balanced (they have articles from both sides of the

fence).

If you go to their site and do a search on " crops " though,

you'll get all kinds of interesting stuff. Like organic vs. regular yeilds that

relates to a recent discussion:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992351

Results of a 20-year study into organic farming

===============

Organic soils had up to three times as many earthworms, twice as many

insects and 40 per cent more mycorrhizal fungi colonising plant roots.

Soils microbes went into overdrive, transforming organic material into new

plant biomass faster than microbes in conventional plots.

....

However, in practice, where poor farmers cannot afford expensive

agrochemicals, switching to organic methods boost yields, he says: " Last

year I visited a project in India, the Maikaal Project near Indore, where

more than a thousand farmers are growing food organically - and increasing

their yields compared to neighbouring conventional farmers. "

=======================

Heidi S

[Guest guest]

I'm sorry to butt in, but does this not remind you of the scene in

Monty Python's " Search for the Holy Grail " - " ...Come see the

violence inherit in the system! " Sorry - just couldn't resist. I

have enjoyed reading your discussion.

[Guest guest]

>The reply would be more land use for grazing, methane production, water

>pollution etc. Large open spaces are not supportive to only agriculture. The

>erosion alone to the world's grain belts shows this.

The other thing people don't bring up much about grazing land is

the grass root systems. The mid-US used to be grassland -- and the

root/soil formed a mat that was several feet thick. The buffalo

grazed the grass, but they never touched the matted part. Grassland

doesn't need to be plowed or sprayed or anything else -- the ruminants

can graze it and move on. Grassland and grain-land may LOOK alike

but it's a whole different ecosystem.

Heidi Schuppenhauer

" If you like Magic, you need CONJURINGS! "

Subscribe today! (It's free: just send me a note with SUBSCRIBE in the header)

www.cabritasoftware.com

[Guest guest]

Thanks Larry while I have read that story from Colonel Crockett

before, its been a while and I always enjoy reading it. I hope

others do to.

DMM

>

> http://users.mo-net.com/mlindste/crockett.html

>

>

> Good Day

>

> Larry

>

>