Nexus - 0703 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

Tragedy and Hype: The Third International Soy Symposium Continued from page 24 as a drug. Daughters of women who took inhibitors, phytic acid and genistein. But DES during pregnancy suffered from infer- the FDA literature review dismissed dis- least somewhat predictive of what occurs tility and cancer when they reached their cussion of adverse impacts, with the state- in humans. There is no reason to assume twenties. ment that it was important for "adequate that there will be gross malformations of processing" to remove them. fetuses but there may be subtle changes, QUESTIONS OVER 'GRAS' STATUS Genistein could be removed with an such as neurobehavioral attributes, immune Lurking in the background of industry alcohol wash, but it was an expensive pro- function and sex hormone levels." The hype for soy is the nagging question of cedure that processors avoided. Later stud- results, he said, "could be nothing, or could whether it's even legal to add soy protein ies determined that trypsin inhibitor content be something of great concern...if mom is isolate to food. All food additives not in could be removed only with long periods of eating something that can act like sex hor- common use prior to 1958, including heat and pressure, but the FDA has mones, it is logical to wonder if that could casein protein from milk, must have GRAS imposed no requirements for manufacturers change the baby's development".69 (Generally Recognized As Safe) status. In to do so. The FDA was more concerned A study of babies born to vegetarian 1972, the Nixon administration directed a with toxins formed during processing, mothers, published in January 2000, indi- re-examination of substances believed to be specifically nitrites and lysinoalanine.7 2 cated just what those changes in baby's GRAS, in the light of any scientific infor- Even at low levels of consumption—aver- development might be. Mothers who ate a mation then available. This re-examination aging one-third of a gram per day at the vegetarian diet during pregnancy had a included casein protein which became cod- time—the presence of these carcinogens fivefold greater risk of delivering a boy ified as GRAS in 1978. In 1974, the FDA was considered too great a threat to public with hypospadias, a birth defect of the obtained a literature review of soy protein health to allow GRAS status. penis.70 The authors of the study suggested because, as soy protein had not been used Soy protein did have approval for use as that the cause was greater exposure to phy- in food until 1959 and was not even in a binder in cardboard boxes, and this toestrogens in soy foods popular with vege- common use in the early 1970s, it was not approval was allowed to continue, as tarians. Problems with female offspring of eligible to have its GRAS status grandfa- researchers considered that migration of vegetarian mothers are more likely to show thered under the provisions of the Food, nitrites from the box into the food contents up later in life. While soy's oestrogenic Drug and Cosmetic Act.71 would be too small to constitute a cancer effect is less than that of diethylstilbestrol The scientific literature up to 1974 risk. FDA officials called for safety (DES), the dose is likely to be higher recognised many antinutrients in factory- Continued on page 86 because it is consumed as a food, not taken made soy protein, including trypsin APRIL – MAY 2000 NEXUS • 85