Dairy Truth

Going to the grocery store and picking up that gallon jug of pure white cow’s milk might seem innocent and simple enough, but there is more going on in the jug of milk than you ever knew! From the poisonous plastic your milk is packed in, to the way the milk is processed, you would be amazed at what happens to that simple white liquid as it makes it way from the cow to your refrigerator. It’s a scary journey.

In the old days, when grandma and grandpa lived on the farm, the milk they drank was far different from the chemical concoction we call milk today. In those days, cows roamed free on the farm, eating natural grasses, and drinking pure, clean water. The milk was collected once or twice a day, by hand. Some of the cream was skimmed off the top for butter (again made by hand), and the rest was consumed as whole, raw milk. It was generally consumed by the family and perhaps offered for sale to the neighbors.

Today, we have huge mechanized dairy factories where cows are methodically fed chemical-laced food, injected with anti-biotics and hormones and milked by machines. The milk is loaded into huge diesel trailers and trucked to large milk factories where the milk from thousands of cows is mixed, processed, packaged, and trucked again to a store near you.

What impact does this have on your health? Well, actually quite a lot. The milk we are told to consume today is not-nearly as nutritious as milk in the past. All those chemicals and toxins floating in the milk “soup” we find in our supermarkets today, is not the pure milk our ancestor drink.

Packaging is also another problem. In the past, milk was taken from the cow, immediately placed in clean glass bottles (bottles washed by hand by grandma using natural soaps) and refrigerated immediately in a dark refrigerator. Today, milk is collected into huge vats with wide variations in temperature, pumped into tanker trucks, driven for sometimes hours to the processing plant, and then finally separated and packaged.

The type of packaging is important as well. Just recently, scientists are discovering that plastic containers (or plastic milk jugs) are actually harmful to the milk and to the people who consume the milk stored in plastic! Not only do poisonous chemicals leach from the plastic into the milk, but plastic milk containers allow light to pass through. Light is a natural enemy of milk! The exposure to light can actually oxidize the milk in the jug. And the light damage is not only caused by sunlight, but also by the fluorescent lighting used in the refrigerated section of the grocery store.

Exposure to light causes the milk to taste bad and causes a degradation of the vitamins in the milk. In fact, exposure to as little of five to fifteen minutes of sunlight can degrade the quality of the milk. And paper cartons are not immune to this light-induced oxidation. If the light is intense enough, oxidation can even occur in paper milk cartons.

We’ll explore the problems with our modern dairy practices in future articles. But for now, milk doesn’t necessarily do a body good.

By James Ferrel

Question: Have plastic food and beverage containers been proven safe?

Answer: No.

During the film’s graduation party in THE GRADUATE, Mr. McGuire pulls Benjamin Braddock (Dustin Hoffman) aside to offer sage advice for his future. His future would be one word: “plastics.”

Of course, we all know Mr. McGuire’s advice and prognostication was correct. Plastics can only be made by man in his infinite wisdom, hence they are patentable. The profit in the manufacture of plastics has been huge. Plastics are everywhere. Plastic manufacturing now uses 4% of the world’s oil production annually. Automobiles are now 9% plastic. It is of my special concern that more foods and beverages are being put into plastic containers. Plastics are ubiquitous now. They persist and accumulate in our society as their production exceeds their chemical degradation rate. Harmful chemicals from plastics are now commonly found in groundwater, waterways, and drinking water.

While standing out in the summer heat in Phoenix, Arizona in 1981, my girlfriend asked me what was causing the film to form on the inside of the windshield of her new Mazda 626. She said that she had to wipe it off every morning so she could see to drive to work. I didn’t know then. I do now! It was phthalates, the chemical that was added to the plastic dash cover to soften it and prevent cracking. I’m sure by now most of the phthalate has evaporated into our atmosphere and the Mazda is in some junkyard with a cracked up dash.

Phthalates are EDC’s (Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals.) They are chemicals found in recycle codes #1 through #6 plastics. Another EDC (Bisphenol A) is in recycle code #7 plastics. All of these types of plastic EDC’s interfere with the function of sex hormones receptors. In THE GRADUATE Benjamin was quite a stud. I wonder if he’s now taking one of the popular drugs to treat erectile dysfunction, a disorder that has become one of the many epidemics in our new plastic world.

In 2003 a group of Croatian scientists reported that phthalates in plastics dissolved in various solutions. They used a variety of plastic items, including plastic food containers. After 10 days of sitting in distilled water, an average of 55.4 mg/ of phthalates from each kilogram of plastic “migrated” into the water. To a lesser degree the phthalates from plastics dissolved into acetic acid 3% (44.4 mg/kg) and 10% ethyl alcohol (32.3 mg/kg).

The Croatian study shows what Benjamin would suspect, if he took chemistry in college: Water is the universal solvent; and it dissolves even the primarily fat soluble phthalates. The more that you filter water to remove other toxic solutes, the more aggressive water becomes in its power to reach osmolar equilibrium by dissolving its non-inert containers.

What is also obviously missing from the Croatians’ controlled, static testing model are the temperature variations that the plastic bottled water product goes through to get from bottling point to the mouth of the consumer. Transport trucks probably reach a very high temperature in the non refrigerated cargo areas that carry PETE (recycle code #1 plastic) bottled water in the summer. Heat facilitates the dissolution of phthalates into the water. Then the bottles may be stored for a much longer time than 10 days prior to consumption. Furthermore, freezing the containers produces micro-fissures in the interior surface of the plastic bottle container as the water expands, exponentially exposing more solute surface area. Traumatic handling or any motion of the package will further enhance diffusion. Applying the laws of physics, all of these factors clearly by extrapolation will increase the water dissolution of the plastic containers.

Fatty foods in plastic containers are even more problematic, as fats are absorbed differently and carry their phthalate solvents into our bodies more easily. Phthalates bio-accumulate because of their fat solubility. Phthalates concentrate in such fat organs in our bodies such as brains, prostates, testicles, ovaries, breasts and, unfortunately, breast milk. (The other popular food alternatives for infants are worse. Commercial baby formulas are loaded with the manmade phthalates.)

I think the worst example of food containment in plastic is milk. All milk except non-fat milk contains fat. Cow milk itself represents a major source of the fats ingested by the public, especially children. Cattle concentrate these chemicals by bioaccummulation because EDC’s from plastics are ubiquitous in water and most animal food sources. Meat and dairy products are therefore a major contributor to this group of human food chain derived toxins, regardless of their containment. It is now irresponsible to add more phathalates to the products by putting the milk products in plastic containers that add MORE EDC’s.

Cattle have intentially been “fattened up” by adding hormones AND unintentially “fattened up” more by the contamination of cattle food and water by EDC’s. The combination of these chemicals passed on to the consumers in concentrated form in milk products will most likely exacerbate obesity in humans that consume them as well.

Our current scientific knowledge and common sense screams for an end to consumer purchase of milk bottled in plastics. Until milk companies have their products quantatatively analysed for these EDC’s by competent independant laboratories, my strong recommendation is to avoid purchase and consumption of milk and dairy products contained in plastic.

Sadly, the Croatian authors’ 2003 conclusions about the safety of plastics were: “These (exposure) levels would not present a hazard for human health, not even for a prolonged period of time.” However, what was deemed acceptable levels of phthalates in 2003 now is recognized as “crystal clearly” too high.

Selective interpretations from the ACC (American Chemistry Council) lead to this erroneously high level being “set” for past toxicity standards. The ACC is an “industry group” advisor. It’s much like the wolf guarding the henhouse. Thanks to the ACC efforts, control regulations placed upon this chemical class are minimal. An ongoing perpetuation of phthalate approval for use in virtually everything, including containment of food, has resulted. In fact, the perpetuation of these mythological high safety standards has resulted in the majority of our food being wrapped or contained in plastics that leach EDC’s into our foods.

The ACC’s Phthalate Esters Panel is made up representatives from BASF, Eastman Chemical, Exxon-Mobil Chemical, Ferro, and Teknor Apex Corporations. After graduating, Benjamin could have gone to work for any of these companies to share the wealth that plastics manufacturing have reaped, instead of hanging around and sporting Mrs. Robinson for the summer!

I love one of the rationalization examples the ACC makes on their PHTHALATES INFORMATION CENTER webpage: “Thanks to phthalates, your nail polish doesn’t chip.” I wonder if they are aware of the “unexplained” high rate of breast cancer in manicurists. I also wonder if they are aware that most breast tissues and breast cancers have sex hormone receptors that are acted upon by the EDC’s found in plastics.

To further confuse the public, the ACC webpage also redefines the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE which in its un-perverted definition simply is: A (chemical) should not be considered safe until it is proven safe. Environmentalists who are trying to unravel the cause-effect relationships of environment chemicals, to the otherwise unexplained epidemics of various diseases now affecting man as well as every species on our planet, encourage its application. The ACC’s watered down version suggests that cost effective, fearless risks are worth taking.

Can the ACC keep up the phthalate safety illusion forever? The American Tobacco Association almost got away with it!

We now know that EDC’s, like hormones themselves require very minute amounts to have physiologic impact. EDC’s are active in parts per trillion! For example, the usual adult maintenance dose of levothyroxine, a drug to replace depleted natural thyroid hormone in hypothyroidism, is 1.6 micrograms/Kg/day. Why would I even think about saying that a dose in the milligrams (1000 times as much as a microgram) of a known EDC would be safe, especially for a child or developing fetus?

We now know that phthalates also work in synergy with chemicals in other classes to exert “more than additive” physiologic effects.

Previous experiments in rodents showed that high levels of phthalates interfer with testosterone during gestation resulting in birth defects of the genitalia, testicular cancer, and infertility in the rats.

The ACC inspired acceptable level of phthalate myth should be blown out of the water with a recent study completed by the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry. This study of 85 human infant boys reported in May 2005 showed that phthalate levels found normally in the general population adversely influenced sexual development. The phthalate exposure these children had correlated with smaller penis size and incomplete testicular descent, which is a condition that greatly increases the risk of testicular cancer if left untreated.

Solution 1 - Choose glass containers over plastic for purchase and storage of food and beverages including milk and water.

American children can consume several milligrams of phthalate each day.

I wonder if THE GRADUATE’s Mr. Robinson noticed that most of the teenage girls now-days have bigger breasts than his seductive wife (gynecomastia), and that they begin thelarche (breast development) and menarche (menstruation) at a significantly younger age, or that many more have an endocrine pathology called PCOS (polycystic ovary syndrome).

The chances of a woman getting breast cancer in her lifetime has probably gone from a risk of less than 1 in 10 (10%) before THE GRADUATE was made to a 1 in about 7.5 (13.2 %) rate today.

The choice to avoid food chain plastics is a “no-brainer” when you understand how these chemicals persist and accumulate in our environment, and how they function in our bodies!

Solution 2 - Choose stainless steel containers over plastic for storage of food and beverages including water.

Unfortunately, we are past the point of no return with phthalates. Just like cigarettes I think we’ll have to live as prisoners with their impact on future generations. The only defense we have at this time is to individually choose to avoid them when we can, to mitigate their effects on our health.

Phthalates clearly act upon hormone receptors in both men and women. A concern is the potential phthalate impact on breast and other hormone sensitive tissue in human females, but phthalate’s demasculinizing potential on males is more of a threat to all species on the planet.

Unlike Mr. McGuire, I think we can choose a better future by avoiding his “one word.” We should start by trying to reduce plastics in our food chain exposures.

Bottom line:
I would strongly advise consumers to purchase beverages and non-solid food products packaged in glass rather than plastic if given the choice.

© Life Dynamix 2005 All Rights Reserved

James A. Ferrel M.D., CNC is a board certified family physician and a certified nutritional consultant who specializes in preventative and environmental medicine. He currently resides in Phoenix, Arizona. More wellness articles and web streams with Dr. Ferrel are available at http://www.lifedynamix.com - The New Science for Energetic Living!

By John Mericle M.D.

In this newsletter we will discuss the current controversy about soy phytoestrogens. The established literature to date is replete with studies that find soy phytoestrogens beneficial to disease prevention including prevention of breast cancer. There is, however, some current literature coming from a publication know as Nexus Magazine which, for the most part, parrots the “literature” from the Weston A. Price Foundation. I have attempted to present this literature as I have found it.

A brief look at Weston and the Foundation …

The Weston A Price Foundation today is composed mostly of farmers and denies any relationship with any of the current beef and dairy lobbies or corporations.

Dr. Price was a dentist who died in 1948. He traveled the world studying the teeth of tribes far removed from civilization and made some correct observations about dental cavities and western eating habits. He extrapolated them to aging in general and, to some degree, he was correct. I totally agree that western eating habits cause premature aging and are responsible for most, if not all, of the epidemic of lifestyle disease we see today. When he died in 1948 the country was then just being taken over by the beef and dairy lobbies and a lot of important research regarding the dangers of meat and dairy had not been done. However, now some fifty six or so years later, we have a “foundation” that advocates meat and dairy even though Weston himself did not advocate dairy. I quote from one of the sites about him:

“These primitives with their fine bodies, homogeneous reproduction, emotional stability and freedom from degenerative ills stand forth in sharp contrast to those subsisting on the impoverished foods of civilization–sugar, white flour, Pasteurized milk and convenience foods filled with extenders and additives.”

However, in addition to the Foundation’s promotion of the ingestion of meat, there is even a movement from the “Foundation” that is suggesting that we drink whole unprocessed milk. Unpasteurized milk caused a lot of bovine type tuberculosis at one point, not to mention the risk today of transmitting Mad Cow Disease. This is the reason that milk was then, as it is today, Pasteurized. I think that movie has already been played once. Reminds me of being in Brown County, Indiana with my father who was a physician. His friend, Jim Huntsman, wanted to give me some unpasteurized milk and my father said no, politely … but no. No discussion of milk is complete without mentioning the late Dr. John Oski, head of the Department of Pediatrics of Johns Hopkins when he wrote, “Don’t Drink Your Milk.” Another book on milk by Jane Heimlich “Milk, the Deadly Poison” is another good read.

Perhaps one of the remote tribes that I don’t think Weston had the occasion to meet are the Bantu of Africa.

“The African Bantu woman provides an excellent example of good health. Her diet is free of milk and still provides 250 to 400 mg of calcium from plant sources, which is half the amount consumed by Western women. Bantu women commonly have 10 babies during their life and breast feed each of them for about ten months. But even with this huge calcium drain and relatively low calcium intake, osteoporosis is relatively unknown among these women.”

John McDougall, M.D.

This quote from Suzanne Havala, R.D.

“There is no human requirement for milk from a cow.” Suzanne Havala, R.D. author of the American Dietetic Association’s Position Paper on Vegetarian Diets

We would all like to think that Weston, if he was alive today and was as smart as they say he was, would look at the China study and the rest of the current information available today and realize that animal protein in any amount, from any source, is detrimental to one’s health.

Now, for some of the “studies” that form the basis for the “soy alert.”

We picked some of these studies at random from all the studies listed that “support” the soy alert from Nexus Magazine and The Weston A Price Foundation. We could have gone on literally for many days, if not months.

2002 Lephard ED and others. Neurobehavioral effects of dietary soy phytoestrogens.

Neurotoxicol Teratol 2002 Jan-Feb;24(1):5-16. Male mice fed diets rich in phytoestrogens had lower levels of maze performance than male mice fed diets free of phytoestrogens. (Opposite results were observed in female mice.) The results indicate that consumption of dietary phytoestrogens resulting in very high plasma isoflavone levels (in many cases over a relatively short interval of consumption in adulthood) can significantly alter sexually dimorphic brain regions, anxiety, learning and memory.

This one is really exemplary of the typical academic study that has been tailored to fit the “researchers” desired outcome. First, we are using extracted phytoestrogens. Before this study can even be discussed we need to know how the phytoestrogens were extracted and what “chemicals” were used to do so. Many laboratory extraction processes involve the use of very carcinogenic organic solvents. Second, the study was done in rats with an isolated isoflavone (phytoestrogen). Third, the researchers found by their own admission that the exact opposite effects happened in female rats, as opposed to the male rats. This data was conveniently ignored since it did not fit what the “researcher” had designed the study for. As is well known in Medicine and Research -any study can be tailored to have any outcome.

2003 Gardner-Thorpe D and others. Dietary supplements of soya flour lower serum testosterone concentrations and improve markers of oxidative stess in men. Eur J Clin Nutr 2003 Jan;57(1):100-6.

In a study carried out at University Hospital of Wales, male volunteers ate three scones per day in addition to their normal diet for a period of six weeks. The scones were made either with wheat flour or soy flour providing 120 mg per day of isoflavones (about the amount contained in 3 cups of soy milk). Researchers noted “significant improvements in two of the three markers of oxidative stress” and concluded that “these findings provide a putative mechanism by which soya supplements could protect against prostatic disease and atherosclerosis. However, testosterone levels fell in the volunteers eating the soy but researchers did not stress this alarming finding in their conclusion.

This study shows that actually soya flour, as they call it, did provide some protection against prostatic disease and atherosclerosis. Again, listen to the commentary, the researchers did not stress the lowering of the testosterone levels. A polite Duh … Why would they? The mechanism for the improved health in the volunteers is most likely the lowering of testosterone, much the same as breast cancer rates go down with decreasing estrogen levels in the female. Not to mention that Nexus advocates eating heavily estrogen laden beef in place of whole organic soy products. What sense does this make to you? Apply the rule of common sense here … if the results don’t make sense to the authors they simply twist it around and try to “buffalo” the reader into a “false” conclusion.

2003 Hartley DC and others. The soya isoflavone content of rat diet can increase anxiety and stress hormone release in the male rat. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2003 Apr ;167(1) :46-53.

This report begins with the following statement: “Isoflavones form one of the main classes of phytoestrogens and have been found to exert both oestrogenic and anti-oestrogenic effects on the central nervous system. The effects have not been limited to reproductive behaviour, but include effects on learning and anxiety and actions on the hypothalamo-pituitary axis.” Noting that most rat chow contains soy, investigators compared the behavior of rats given isoflavones in their diets with those on an isoflavone-free diet. Rats fed isoflavones spent significantly less time in active social interaction and had significantly elevated stress-induced corticosterone concentrations. The conclusion: “Major changes in behavioural measures of anxiety and in stress hormones can result from the soya isoflavone content of rat diet. These changes are as striking as those seen following drug administration and could form an important source of variation between laboratories.”

This study really doesn’t prove anything. We have no idea how much isolated isoflavones were used and what relevance this study may have to whole organic soy products and human beings is not clear.

Another “scientific” relevation from the Foundation on cholesterol.

“Read Dr. Ravnskov´s thought-provoking paper -High cholesterol may protect against infections and atherosclerosis, recently published in the prestigious Quarterly Journal of Medicine. ”

I especially like this one from the Nexus site. Dr. Ravnskov’s thought provoking paper is really thought provoking -is the good doctor brain dead? I’m sorry but here I have an ally in conventional medicine -The American College of Cardiology. I have been in medicine since 1965 having graduated from Indiana Medical School in 1969. I have never occasioned the prestigious Quarterly Journal of Medicine, although I frequently saw the New England Journal, Internal Medicine and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The position of the American College of Cardiology, as long as I have been around to be aware of it, has been that high cholesterol is not good. I’m sorry here folks -but I’ll go with the ACC.

The Art of Propaganda!

The next three paragraphs are from “Soy and the Brain” from the Weston A PriceFoundation.

“Soybeans grown in the United States contain residues of the pesticide dieldrin, an organochlorine similar to DDT. Although both chemicals were banned in the 1970s, dieldrin still persists in soils and is absorbed through the roots. Today it is the most toxic residue found on domestic soybeans.22 In Silent Spring, Rachel Carson warned that dieldrin is nearly 50 times as poisonous as DDT. In addition to disrupting hormones, it can have long delayed neurological effects, ranging from loss of memory to mania.23 Chinese aphids were recently discovered in fields scattered across Wisconsin, so increased pesticide applications are likely.

Combinations of insecticides, weed killers, and artificial fertilizers—even at low levels—have measurable detrimental effects on thyroid and other hormones as well as on the brain.24 EPA scientists now want to upgrade the commonly used herbicide, atrazine, to a “likely carcinogen.” In animal tests, atrazine attaches to sites on the hypothalamus, a crucial brain region involved with regulating levels of stress and sex hormones.25

Individuals newly diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease were more than twice as likely to have been exposed to insecticides in their home, compared to those without the disease.26 In September 2000, The Lancet reported that farmers and gardeners regularly exposed to pesticides may have more than five times the risk of developing mild cognitive dysfunction.”

Read these carefully as they are good examples of the art of propaganda. Includea litte truth to disarm the reader in the midst of your propaganda. No one will dispute that soybeans grown in America are “loaded” with pesticides. The implication is that the non-organically grown soybean and the rest of soy products such as tofu, tempeh and infant fomula, have higher concentrations of these pesticides than meat, or even more unbelievable, that meat raised in America doesn’t have any of these pesticide residues. Stop and ask yourself “Where do these heavily pesticided soybeans go?” At least 80-90% of all the commercially grown soybeans are -fed to cattle(we could feed the world population if we didn’t feed all of our farm production to animals so that we can eat them). Stop again and ask yourself “how much fat does your average soybean have as compared to your average cow, free range or otherwise? Your average soybean is 10% or less fat while the leanest “cut” of meat is at least 40% fat. The cow wins by a landslide. Now for a little biochemistry -toxic pesticides are organic compounds that “bioconcentrate” in fat, animal fat, your fat or any fat -period. See Louis Regenstein “How to Survive in America the Poisoned.”

This is pure propaganda from the Weston A. Price Foundation. They start out with a “nugget” of truth and follow it with a sea of propaganda. Yes, Weston did make some real observations regarding cavities and western eating habits. He even, to some degree, extended these to aging in general. Once again as we learn from the study of propaganda -all propaganda must have a kernel of truth somewhere. However, think for a minute -how much pesticide residue will you get from the soybean itself as compared to the amount in even a small portion of animal fat that has bioconcentrated all the pesticides it was fed during its whole life into its fat? Compare either of these to what you will get from eating whole organic tofu. That is a no brainer. The MericleDiet and DrMericle.com has at its very initial premise that all food eaten, especially here in America, needs to be organic. The second premise is that at least one meal a day must be from only whole foods, preferably vegan and sugar free.

To visit the MericleDiet:

http://www.DrMericle.com/fscook3c.php

To visit DrMericle.com:

http://www.DrMericle.com

The Hawaii aging study was flawed because a significant number of the participants who were lost to follow up were included in the final results. This was from the Hawaii Cancer Research Center.

Most of the studies that overpopulate the WWW today incriminating soy as being like diethylstilbesterol were done with commercially grown soybeans and their extracts. DES was banned quite a while ago but the black market for DES in commercial livestock operations -is alive and well. Nothing fattens a poor tortured animal like DES. Once again, time for a brain check -phytoestrogens have been shown to be beneficial to the human in many studies. DES never has. The amount of DES in organic tofu is zero. Are we are to believe that heavily pesticided meat is a better choice than soy products …based on these “studies?” I am amazed that anyone who is intellectually honest can recommend heavily pesticided meat as being better than organic soy products under any circumstance. “How you got to teach a course in anything is simply amazing.” Marshall McLuan in Woody Allen’s Annie Hall.

On a more personal basis.

I mention this (not to brag) but in reference to this statement made once again on the Weston A. Price Foundation site that soy products can: “have adverse effects on the brain during development and throughout life.”

My ex-wife and I raised five mostly vegan children. The youngest doesn’t even remember ever drinking milk. Between these five children are eleven degrees, five at the B.A. levels and six Masters. The four girls were home schooled. The older two started the University of Arizona at 15 and 16 years old. The 15 year old graduated Magna Cum Laude (one of her Masters is from Oxford) and the 16 year old Cum Laude (she just got her Masters in History from the University of Arizona). Of the two younger girls one has her Masters in Photography and the other should complete hers this June. Our son has a degree in Classical Guitar, did Pike’s Peak Ascent when he was ten years old and still has the second fastest age ten time in all of Arizona for the ten kilometer distance. These children were all raised vegan in a house with running parents and NO television.

My ex-wife is now ten years post discovery of a hypoechoic irregular mass in her left breast that had psammomatous-like calcifications. Unfortunately, she continued to eat dairy longer than anyone else (much like a famous rock star’s wife who was vegetarian but continued to eat cheese). For the past ten years she has eaten completely organic, vegan and sugar free and continues to eat organic tofu and tempeh regularly. She still has her left breast and the lesion has decreased to about one-half its original size but the skin retraction is still there. Basically the lesion is stable. This “ancedotal” series of one is, however, still a series of one. When and if there is some valid research that incriminates whole organic soy, we will consider stopping it.

Common Sense Conclusions:

No valid research has been done regarding the ingestion of whole organic soy food products. Until there is some -I will go with what solid, well conducted studies we already have.

T. Colin Campbell’s thirty-five plus year old China Study is the only significant study done to date that adequately examines the relationship between diet and human health.

This quote from Dr. Campbell …

“In the next 10 to 15 years, one of the things you’re bound to hear is that animal protein … is one of the most toxicnutrients of all that can be considered . Risk for disease goes up dramatically when even a little animal protein is added to the diet.” T. Colin Campbell Ph.D. (Author of The China Study).

To visit the Bookstore at DrMericle.com where you can view Dr. Campbell’s book and other books mentioned in this article:

http://www.DrMericle.com/fslibrary.php

The Chinese have been eating tofu and tempeh for a lot longer than we have been eating meat. Their incidence of cancer and vascular (heart and stroke) disease doesn’t go up until they start to eat beef and dairy.

What to do from here.

If you are concerned in the least about whole organic soy products then don’t eat them. It’s that simple.

Don’t utilize extracted soy products. We don’t know if it is the extraction process or the isolates themselves that could cause a problem. Common sense dictates eat your food as Mother Nature intends -whole.

As the MericleDiet has always advocated -always eat organic and whole.

I will continue to eat organic tofu and tempeh as I have for over some 27 years.

One last study on the plus side of soy just so you can see the difference.

A randomized trial to prevent hormonal patterns at high risk for breast cancer: the DIANA (Diet and Androgens) project.Berrino F., Secreto G., Camerini E., Bellati C., Maffei F., Pala V., Allegro G., Venturelli E., Cavalleri A., Rinaldi S., Oldani S., Fissi R., Campa T., Magni A., Kaaks R.*, Catania S.**, Gastaldi S.*** , Ricciuti A.*** and Burrone A.*** Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Via Venezian 1, Milan, Italy; *International Agency for Research on Cancer,150 Cours A. Thomas Lyon, France; **Ospedale San Donato Milanese, Milan, Italy; ***Association “Attivecomeprima”, Via Livigno 3, Milan, Italy;

Recent prospective studies with biological banking have proven beyond reasonable doubt that post-menopausal breast cancer is preceded by high serum levels of sex steroid hormones, both androgens and estrogens, especially of their bioavailable fraction, i.e. the fraction not linked to the sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) (Toniolo et al, JNCI 1995; Berrino et al, JNCI 1996; Dorgan et al, Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 1966). Several in vitro and in vivo studies have suggested that both sex hormone levels and breast cancer risk can be reduced through dietary manipulation (Adlercreutz, Scand J Clin Lab Invest, 1990; Messina et al, Nutr Cancer, 1994).

We have hypothesized that a comprehensive modification of western diet for the prevention of breast cancer should include: 1) phytoestrogen rich foods, such as traditional soyfoods, other legumes, flaxseed, whole cereals, seaweeds, various seeds, berries and nuts and cruciferous vegetables, which may stimulate SHBG synthesis and modify sex hormones metabolism; 2) low glycemic index food, such as unrefined cereals and legumes, in order to decrease insulin level, which inhibits SHBG synthesis and may stimulate androgen production; 3) factors enhancing insulin sensitivity, such as omega-3 fatty acids, vegetable fibers, vitamin B6, chromium; and 4) less animal fat (except omega-3) and refined carbohydrates in order to reduce body fat and waist to hip ratio, associated with high sex hormones and low SHBG levels.

We have carried out a randomized trial on 104 voluntary post-menopausal healthy women, aged 50 to 65, living in Milan (Northern Italy), at high risk of breast cancer because of high serum testosterone level (above the upper tertile of the distribution) 52 of them were randomized to follow for 4.5 months the diet outlined above, based on mediterranean and macrobiotic recipes, without any recommendation to reduce total food intake, and 52 to follow their usual diet. Compliance with the protocol was 98%. Fasting blood was collected at baseline and after 2 and 4.5 months of intervention and serum was preserved at -80(inf)C to be analyzed for hormones in the same RIA assays. Serum testosterone decreased significantly in the diet group (-18,3%) compared to the control group (-7.0%, P=0.006), and SHBG increased (23.4% versus 4.1%, P=0.000). Dietary intervention also significantly decreased total cholesterol (-13.6% versus -4.6% among controls), body weight (-4 kg versus -0.6 kg) and waist circumference (-3.8 versus -0.4 cm). Other hormonal assays are being carried out.

Thanks for your time …

Copyright J. Mericle M.D. 2005 All Rights Reserved

http://www.DrMericle.com is devoted to achieving optimal health and peak performance through diet and lifestyle change. Dr. Mericle brings together a unique blend of formal medical education, 29 marathons, 3 Hawaii Ironman competitions and a lot of practical real life experience.