MAD SOY

“If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies
will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.” ~Thomas Jefferson
.
"There is No Right to Consume or Feed Children Any Particular Food; There is No Generalized Right
to Bodily and Physical Health; There is No Fundamental Right to Freedom of Contract." ~ US Dept of
Health & Human Services and US Food & Drug Administration, 2010
.
Would you trust your diamonds to someone who believed you didn't have a right to them?
.
"Let thy food be thy medicine and thy medicine be thy food." Hippocrates (460-370 BCE)

You will have heard of mad cow disease.

Now "mad soy disease", is troubling farmers and scientists in Brazil, where it causes yield losses of
up to 40%, and is expanding out of its stronghold in the north of the country. And, like its bovine
namesake, it is incurable.
Indeed, its growing occurrence in Mato Grosso state, which produces nearly 30% of Brazil's
soybean crop, has "brought this issue to the forefront", US Department of Agriculture staff said.
http://www.agrimoney.com/news/brazil-battles-spread-of-mad-soy-disease--2316.html

excerpt

Mad Soy Disease Strikes Brazil

http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/10/27/mad-soy-disease-strikes-brazil/

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho Institute of Science in Society

They call it “mad soy disease” in Brazil, where it has been spreading from the north, causing yield
losses of up to 40 percent, most notably in the states of Mato Grosso, Tocantins and Goias. Like its
namesake, mad cow disease, it is incurable [1, 2, 3].
This is the latest GMO fiasco to surface since our report on the meltdown in the USA [4] (GM Crops
Facing Meltdown in the USA, SiS 46), China [5] (GM-Spin Meltdown in China, SiS 47), and Argentina
[6] (Argentina’s Roundup Human Tragedy, SiS 48).
Mad soy disease has afflicted soybeans sporadically in the hot northern regions of Brazil in the past
years, but is now spreading to more temperate regions in the south “with increased prevalence overall”,
according to a US Department of Agriculture scientist.

The disease delays the maturation of infected plants indefinitely; the plants remain green until they
eventually rot in the field. The top leaves thin out, and the stems thicken and become deformed. The
leaves also darken compared to healthy plants; the pods, when formed, are abnormal with fewer beans.

Researchers have yet to find a cure for the disease, as they are still not sure what causes it. The prime
suspect for spreading disease is the black mite found in stubble when soybean is grown in no-till
production systems.

According to the USDA Global Agricultural Information Network, Brazil has 24 million ha planted to
soybean, 78 percent of which are GM [3]. Apart from mad soy disease, Brazil’s soybean is
simultaneously afflicted by soybean Asian rust that first appeared in 2001-2002. Producer groups are
requesting the Brazilian Government Agency to speed up approval of more effective fungicide to
combat the disease, which would have significant cost implications. But for mad soy disease, no cure is
forthcoming. Mato Grosso, which alone produces nearly 30 percent of Brazil’s soybean crop, is among
the states that have brought the issue of mad soy disease “to the forefront”.

US SCIENTISTS IDENTIFIED MORE THAN 40 DISEASES ASSOCIATED WITH

GLYPHOSATE AND GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT CROPS
Disease of GM soybean is no longer a surprise. Senior scientists in the United States, who have studied
glyphosate and glyphosate-tolerant GM crops for decades, identified more than 40 diseases linked to
glyphosate, and the list is growing [7] (Scientists Reveal Glyphosate Poisons Crops and Soil, SiS 47).
Glyphosate tolerant crops play a pivotal role in causing and spreading diseases, not only to the crops
themselves, but also to other crops grown nearby or planted subsequently [8] (Glyphosate Tolerant
Crops Bring Diseases and Death, SiS 47).

The scientists warned of “dire consequences for agriculture.” Don Huber, recently retired from Purdue
University, stated that the widespread use of glyphosate in the US can [7] “significantly increase the
severity of various plant diseases, impair plant defense to pathogens and diseases and immobilize soils
plant nutrients rendering them unavailable for plant use.”

REFERENCES
1. “Brazil battles spread of ‘mad soy disease”, Agrimoney.com, 5 October 2010,
http://www.agrimoney.com/news/brazil-battles-spread-of-mad-soy-disease–2316.html
2. “Mad soy disease hits Brazil farmers”, Kieran Gartlan, DTN Progressive Farmer
19 August 2010, http://bit.ly/ajSdRA

3. Brazil, oilseeds and products update, record soybean planted area forecast for 2010-11 crop. GAIN
/report, 9/29/2010, USDA foreign Agricultural Service, Global Agriculture Information Network,
http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Oilseeds%20and%20Products%20Update_
Brasilia_Brazil_9-29-2010.pdf

4. Ho MW. GM crops facing meltdown in the USA. Science in Society 46

5. Saunders PT and Ho MW. From the Editors: GM spin meltdown in China. Science in Society 47, 2-
3, 2010.

6. Robinson C. Argentina’s Roundup human tragedy. Science in Society 48 (to appear).

7. Ho MW. Scientists reveal glyphosate poisons crops and soil. GM meltdown continues. Science in
Society 47, 10-11, 2010.

8. Ho MW. Glyphosate tolerant crops bring diseases and death. Science in Society 47, 12-15, 2010.

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE:

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/madSoyDieaseStrikesBrazil.php

Industrial Agriculture and Human Survival: The Road Beyond

10/10/10
October 11, 2010
This article was published on CommonDreams.org from the Organic Consumers Association.

http://www.indypendent.org/2010/10/11/the-road-beyond-10-10-10/

Despite decades of deception and mystification, a critical mass at the grassroots is waking up. A new
generation of food and climate activists understands that greenhouse gas-belching fossil fuels,
industrial food and farming, and our entire global economy pose a mortal threat, not just to our present
health and well being, but also to human survival. Given the severity of the Crisis, we have little choice
but to step up our efforts. As 35,000 climate activists at the historic global climate summit in April of
2010 in Cochabamba, Bolivia shouted, “We must change the System, not the climate.”

“Changing the System,” means defending our selves, the future generations, and the biological carrying
capacity of the planet from the ravages of “profit at any cost” capitalism. “Changing the System,”
means safeguarding our delicately balanced climate, soils, oceans, and atmosphere from the fatal
consequences of fossil fuel-induced climate change. “Changing the System” means exposing,
dismantling, and replacing, not just individual out-of-control corporations like Monsanto, Halliburton,
and British Petroleum, and out-of-control technologies like gene-altered crops and mountaintop
removal; but our entire chemical and energy-intensive industrial economy, starting, at least for many of
us, with Food Inc.’s destructive system of industrial food and farming. “Changing the system,” means
going on the offensive and dismantling the most controversial and vulnerable flanks of our suicide
economy: coal plants, gas guzzlers, the military-industrial complex, and industrial agriculture’s
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and factory farms.

Frankenfoods and Industrial Agriculture

Highly subsidized GM crops - comprising 40% of U.S. cropland, and 10% of global crops - and the
junk food and unhealthy processed foods and beverages derived from them, are the most profitable and
strategically important components of industrial agriculture. Taxpayer subsidized GMOs and factory
farms allow Food Inc. (corporate agribusiness) to poison the public and pollute the atmosphere and
environment. Subsidized GM and monoculture crops - along with cheap soy, corn, and chemical
additives - allow the McDonald’s, Cargills and Wal-Marts of the world to sell junk food, meat, and
beverages at much lower prices than healthy, non-chemical foods. GMO crops and their companion
pesticides and chemical fertilizers are the cash cows and vanguard of a global farming and food
distribution system that consumes prodigious amounts of fossil fuels and emits tremendous amount of
climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases. GMOs provide the ideological and technological foundation
for the factory farms and mono-crop plantations that are destroying the climate, the soils, and the
planet. Either we bring them down, or they will bring us down.

According to Monsanto and the global war on bugs, war on biodiversity, chemical farming lobby,
patented GMO seeds, crops, biofuels, animals, and trees can miraculously kill pests, reduce pesticide
use, boost yields, alleviate world hunger, reduce petroleum use, and help farmers adapt to drought,
pestilence, and global warming. As a growing “Millions Against Monsanto” corps understand, the
Biotech Bullies are dangerous liars. Industrial agriculture, GMOs, and so-called cheap food have
destroyed public health and wrecked the environment. Genetically Modified (GM) crops have neither
reduced pesticide use, nor chemical fertilizer use. They kill pests, but they also give rise to superweeds
and superpests. GM crops, like all industrial monoculture crops, use vast amounts of fossil fuel and
water. GMO and their companion chemicals (pesticides and chemical fertilizers) destroy the
greenhouse gas sequestering capacity of living soils and kill off non-patented plants, trees, and animals.
Most GM crops, 90% of which are derived from Monsanto’s patented seeds, are genetically engineered
to boost the sales of toxic pesticides such as Roundup, and thereby increase toxic pesticide residues in
foods. GM crops do not produce higher yields, nor provide more nutritious foods. GM soybeans, the
most important industrial agriculture crop, along with corn, consistently have lower yields, while
chemical-intensive GM food crops contain far fewer vitamins and essential trace minerals than organic
foods. Nor has gene-splicing (unlike organic farming) produced plant or tree varieties that can adapt to
global warming. Nonetheless GM crops remain Food Inc.’s propaganda “poster child.”

The unfortunate bottom line is that 65 years of chemical and GM agriculture, a literal World War Three
on public health, rural communities, and the environment, have nearly killed us. Humans and our living
environment have been poisoned, not only by pesticides, nitrate fertilizers, greenhouse gas pollution,
and contaminated factory-farmed food, but also by the mutant organisms and patented chemical
residues that accompany these genetically modified foods and crops. Either we make the Great
Transition to a relocalized economy whose foundation is renewable energy and solar-based (as opposed
to GMO and petroleum-based) organic food and fiber production, or else we are destined to burn up the
planet and destroy ourselves.

Despite mass media brainwashing (“Better living through chemistry… Monsanto can feed the world…
GMO crops and trees can reduce fossil fuel use and climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases…”),
consumers and farmers are seeing through the lies. Defying the efforts of the powerful industrial
agriculture/biotech lobby, a growing number of activists and concerned citizens are connecting the dots
and taking action. As a consequence Monsanto has become one of the most hated corporations on earth.

A critical mass of research reveals that genetically engineered crops, now covering almost 40% of U.S.
cropland (173 million acres of GM crops) and 10% of global farm acreage (321 million acres), pollute
the environment, kill essential soil micro-organisms, generate superweeds and pests, decrease
biodiversity, aid and abet seed monopolization, encourage massive use of toxic pesticides and chemical
fertilizer, spew out massive amounts of climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases, and seriously damage
animal and human health.

Injecting genetically engineered hormones into dairy cows to force them to give more milk is reckless
and dangerous. Monsanto’s genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone rBGH, now marketed by
Eli Lilly, increases the risks of breast, prostate, and colon cancer for those who consume the milk. It
also severely damages the health of the cows. Residue levels of Monsanto’s toxic herbicide, Roundup,
found routinely in non-organic foods, destroy animal and human reproductive systems.

Haphazardly ramming indeterminate amounts of patented foreign DNA, bacteria, and antibiotic-
resistant genes into the genomes of already non-sustainable energy and pesticide-intensive crops and
foods (corn, soy, cotton, canola, sugar beets, alfalfa) in order to increase the sales of Monsanto or
Bayer’s GMO companion herbicides or to facilitate monopoly control over seeds by the Gene Giants is
not only non-sustainable, but criminal.
Rejection of this out-of-control GM technology is a major driving force in the rapid growth of organic
food and farming, as well as the growing demand for mandatory safety testing and labeling of GMOs.
In the EU, where GM-tainted foods must be labeled, GMO crops are almost non-existent (although
large quantities of GM animal feed are still being imported into the EU from the U.S., Canada, Brazil,
and Argentina).

Local and organic food production is now growing faster than GMO/industrial food and farming;
improving public health and nutrition, reducing fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas pollution,
sequestering billions of tons of CO2 in the soil (up to seven tons of CO2 per acre per year), and
providing economic survival for a growing number of the world’s 2.8 billion small farmers and rural
villagers. The growth of organic agriculture and relocalized food and farming systems are encouraging,
but obviously organics are still the alternative, rather than the norm.

As we enter into the Brave New World of global warming and climate chaos, many organic advocates
are starting to realize that we need to put more emphasis, not just on the health and pollution hazards of
GMOs; but rather we need to broaden our efforts and mobilize to abolish the entire system of industrial
food and farming. As we are now learning, industrial agriculture and factory farming are in fact a
primary (if not the primary) cause of global warming and deforestation. Even if were able to rip up all
of Monsanto’s GMO crops tomorrow, business as usual, chemical-intensive, energy-intensive industrial
agriculture is enough to kill us all. On the other hand, if we’re going to take down industrial agriculture,
one of the best ways to leverage our efforts is to target the most hated corporation in the world,
Monsanto.

Besides contaminating our food, destroying the environment and moving, by any means necessary, to
gain monopoly control over seeds and biodiversity, Monsanto and their Food Inc. collaborators are
guilty of major “climate crimes.” These crimes include: confusing the public about the real causes of
(and solutions to) global warming; killing the soil’s ability to sequester greenhouse gases; releasing
massive amounts of greenhouse gases (CO2, methane and nitrous oxide) into the atmosphere;
promoting bogus industrial corn and soy-derived biofuels (which use just as many fossil fuel, and
release just as many greenhouse gases as conventional fuels); monopolizing seed stocks and taking
climate-friendly varieties off the market; promoting genetically engineered trees; and last but not least,
advocating dangerous geoengineering schemes such as massive GM plantations of trees or plants than
reflect sunlight.

The negotiators and heads of state at the December 2009 Copenhagen Climate negotiations abandoned
the summit with literally no binding agreement on meaningful greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide, nitrous
oxide, methane, and black carbon) reduction, and little or no acknowledgement of the major role that
industrial food and farming practices play in global warming. Lulled by the world’s leaders vague
promises to reduce global warming, and still believing that new technological breakthroughs can save
us, the average citizen has no idea how serious the present climate crisis actually is. A close look at
present (non-legally binding) pledges by the Obama Administration and other governments to reduce
GHG pollution shows that their proposed, slightly modified “business as usual” practices will still
result in a disastrous global average temperature increase of 3.5 to 3.9 C by 2100, according to recent
studies. This will not only burn up the Amazon, the lungs of the planet, but also transform the Arctic
into a region that is 10 to 16 degrees C warmer, releasing most of the region’s permafrost carbon and
methane and unknown quantities of methane hydrates, in the process basically putting an end to human
beings’ ability to live on the planet.

We are literally staring disaster in the face. In the follow up to the Copenhagen Climate Summit this
year, which is to be held in Cancun, Mexico (Nov. 29-Dec. 10) we, as members of global civil society,
must raise our voices loud and clear. We must make it clear that we are years, not decades away, from
detonating runaway feedback mechanisms (heating up and burning up the Amazon and melting the
Arctic permafrost) that can doom us all.

Industrial Food and Farming: A Deadly Root of Global Warming

Although transportation, industry, and energy producers are obviously major fossil fuel users and
greenhouse gas polluters, not enough people understand that the worst U.S. and global greenhouse gas
emitter is “Food Incorporated,” transnational industrial food and farming, of which Monsanto and
GMOs constitute a major part. Industrial farming, including 173 million acres of GE soybeans, corn,
cotton, canola, and sugar beets, accounts for at least 35% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (EPA’s
ridiculously low estimates range from 7% to 12%, while some climate scientists feel the figure could be
as high as 50% or more).

Industrial agriculture, biofuels, and non-sustainable cattle grazing - including cutting down the last
remaining tropical rainforests in Latin America and Asia for GMO and chemical-intensive animal feed
and biofuels - are also the main driving forces in global deforestation and wetlands destruction, which
generate an additional 20% of all climate destabilizing GHGs.

In other words the direct (food, fiber, and biofuels production, food processing, food distribution) and
indirect damage (deforestation and destruction of wetlands) of industrial agriculture, GMOs, and the
food industry are the major cause of global warming. Unless we take down Monsanto and Food Inc.
and make the Great Transition to a relocalized system of organic food and farming, we and our children
are doomed to reside in Climate Hell.

Overall 78% of climate destabilizing greenhouse gases come from CO2, while the remainder come
from methane, nitrous oxide, and black carbon or soot. To stabilize the climate we will need to
drastically reduce all of these greenhouse gas emissions, not just CO2, and sequester twice as much
carbon matter in the soil (through organic farming and ranching, and forest and wetlands restoration) as
we are doing presently.

Currently GMO and industrial/factory farms (energy and chemical-intensive) farms emit at least 25%
of the carbon dioxide (mostly from tractors, trucks, combines, transportation, cooling, freezing, and
heating); 40% of the methane (mostly from massive herds of animals belching and farting, and manure
ponds); and 96% of nitrous oxide (mostly from synthetic fertilizer manufacture and use, the millions of
tons of animal manure from factory-farmed cattle herds, pig and poultry flocks, and millions of tons of
sewage sludge spread on farms). Black carbon or soot comes primarily from older diesel engines, slash
and burn agriculture, and wood cook stoves.

Per ton, methane is 21 times more damaging, and nitrous oxide 310 times more damaging, as a
greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, when measured over a one hundred year period. Damage is even
worse if you look at the impact on global warming over the next crucial 20-year period. Many climate
scientists admit that they have previously drastically underestimated the dangers of the non-CO2
GHGs, including methane, soot, and nitrous oxide, which are responsible for at least 22% of global
warming.

Almost all U.S. food and farm-derived methane comes from factory farms, huge herds of confined
cows, hogs, and poultry operations, in turn made possible by heavily subsidized ($15 billion per year)
GMO soybeans, corn, cottonseed, and canola; as well as rotting food waste thrown into landfills instead
of being separated out of the solid waste stream and properly composted. To drastically reduce C02,
methane, and nitrous oxide releases we need an immediate consumer boycott, followed by a
government ban on factory farms, dairies, and feedlots. To reduce black carbon or soot emissions we
will need to upgrade old diesel engines, and provide farmers and rural villagers in the developing world
with alternatives to slash and burn agriculture (compost, compost tea, biochar) and non-polluting cook
stoves and home heating.

We also need to implement mandatory separation and recycling of food wastes and “green garbage”
(yard waste, tree branches, etc.) at the municipal level, so that that we can reduce methane emissions
from landfills. Mandatory composting will also enable us to produce large quantities of high quality
organic compost to replace the billions of pounds of chemical fertilizer and sewage sludge, which are
releasing GHGs, destroying soil fertility, polluting our waters, and undermining public health.

…Because government officials deliberately fail to evaluate the real farm and food-derived greenhouse
gas emissions, they are free to act as if the emissions coming from GMO crops and industrial food and
farming are not significant compared to the U.S. total, even though they represent more than one-third
of the total pollutants. Consequently, most lawmakers and the public don’t realize how urgent it is to
regulate and drastically curtail factory farm and Food Inc.’s emissions.

But for those of us who do understand all this, it’s time to move beyond polite discussion and say it out
loud: we must take down and dismantle Monsanto and Food Inc. We must get political and get
organized. We must declare our independence from the Food-Biotech-Industrial Complex and build a
new, relocalized, organic, and sustainable society.

Ronnie Cummins is an organizer, writer, and activist. He is the International Director of the Organic Consumers
Association and co-author of the book, Genetically Engineered Food: A Self-Defense Guide for Consumers. His
organization’s website is www.OrganicConsumers.org
Conform

See: http://www.scribd.com/doc/11565176/Who-Owns-the-Environmentalist-Movement

From: 21st Century, Fall 1992

Who pulls the strings of environmental groups? The establishment figures who fund and control it --
from England's Prince Phillip and the Netherlands' Prince Bernhard, to U.S. corporate funders like
Robert O. Anderson.

Who Owns the Environmentalist Movement?

Far from a grass roots movement, envronmentalism is a big business, funded
and directed by the leading families of the U.S. and European establishments

Beware the New “ Doubly Green Revolution”

The fake moral crusade to feed the world with genetically modified crops promoted as the second
“Doubly Green Revolution” is doing even more damage than the first. The bad genetics involved in has
failed the test in science and in the real world.

See: http://www.scribd.com/doc/13881836/Beware-the-New-Doubly-Green-Revolution

'Greens' movement may have darker agenda

2007 11 12

By Frank Malloy | courierpostonline.com

http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=2236

Some environmentalists, such as Britain's Prince Phillip, formerly the president of the World Wildlife
Fund,are showing us the hidden hand behind the eco-environmental movement.

When asked what he would be were he to be reincarnated, he said he would wish to return as "a
killer virus to lower human population levels."

Unfortunately, as a longtime proponent of population control, he was not kidding.

Mikhail Gorbachev, former Russian president, founder of the Gorbachev Foundation and head of
Green Cross International,claims the environment crisis is the cornerstone of the new world order.

Consider oceanographer Jacques Costeau's article in a United Nations 1991 UNESCO Courier,
whereby he called for the elimination of 350,000 people per day in order to "stabilize world
population."

Soy and Reproduction: Breeding Discontent

Scientists have known since the mid-1940s that phytoestrogens can impair fertility. Fertility problems
in cows, sheep, rabbits, cheetahs, guinea pigs, birds, and mice have all been reported. Although
scientists discovered only recently that soy lowers testosterone levels, tofu has traditionally been used
in Buddhist monasteries to decrease the libido, and by Japanese women to punish straying husbands.

Is This the Most Dangerous Food for Men? Soy’s Negative

Effects

The unassuming soybean has silently infiltrated the American diet as what might just be the perfect
protein source: It’s cheap and vegetarian, and could even unclog our hearts. But there may be a hidden
dark side to soy, one that has the power to undermine everything it means to be male.
James Price’s breasts had been painful and swollen. It looked as if gum balls were implanted
underneath each nipple. The slightest touch triggered throbs.

For Price, a retired U.S. Army intelligence officer who once flew attack helicopters in Vietnam, these
changes were more than just physically uncomfortable. “Men aren’t supposed to have breasts,” he says
today in a quiet Texas drawl. “It was like my body was feminizing.”

A lean and wiry man, the breast development stood in stark contrast to the rest of his body. But it was
not Price’s only symptom. His beard growth had slowed, he’d lost hair from his arms, chest, and legs,
and he’d stopped waking up with morning erections. “My sexual desire disappeared,” he says. “My
penis — I won’t say it atrophied, but it was so flaccid that it looked very small in comparison with the
way it used to be. Even my emotions changed.”

The first three doctors Price consulted diagnosed him with gynecomastia, or the abnormal enlargement
of the mammary glands in men. Tests further revealed that estrogen levels in his bloodstream were
eight times higher than the normal limits for men, higher even than the levels typically seen in healthy
women. Price’s estrogen was so high, in fact, that the doctors were at a loss to explain it. One physician
became so frustrated he eventually accused Price of secretly taking estrogen. “He thought I was a
mental case,” says Price, still angry as he recalls the experience.

Dispirited and in pain, he decided to try one more doctor, this time a fellow military man. He made an
appointment with Lieutenant Colonel Jack E. Lewi, M.D., chief of endocrinology at the San Antonio
Military Medical Center. During that first meeting, neither doctor nor patient had any inkling of just
how long and complex this medical mystery would prove to be. Dr. Lewi initially checked for “usual
suspect” lifestyle factors known to trigger gynecomastia, from alcoholism to certain herbal ingredients,
like tea-tree oils and lavender. With those ruled out, Dr. Lewi was left with a more dreaded suspect: an
estrogen-secreting tumor.

Over the next few months, Dr. Lewi ran multiple tests, checking Price for cancer of the testicles,
adrenal glands, chest, and lungs. The good news: When the final test came back negative, Price was in
the clear on all fronts. The not-so-good news: Dr. Lewi still had no clue what was causing his patient’s
hormones to go haywire. But he was determined not to be the fourth doctor to leave James Price in
limbo.

In the classes that Dr. Lewi teaches to medical students and residents, he has long offered this advice: If
you’re not finding the right answers, you’re not asking the right questions. Though he’d asked Price
about his lifestyle and habits innumerable times, he decided to go back once again, and this time to
make his questions as specific as possible. “I said, ‘Let’s go over your diet, meal by meal, and you tell
me every single thing you eat and drink.’ He said, ‘Sure, Dr. Lewi. I get up and usually have some
cereal.’ I said, ‘Do you put anything on it?’ He said ‘Soy milk.’ ”
Price explained that he’d developed lactose intolerance in recent years and had switched to soy milk
exclusively. It had, in fact, become one of his favorite drinks, a great thirst quencher in the Texas heat.

Dr. Lewi suddenly felt his excitement building. He asked Price how much soy milk, on average, he
drank each day.

“He told me, ‘Probably about 3 quarts,’ ” recalls Dr. Lewi about the moment that changed everything.

Over the past decade, soy foods and good health have become inextricably linked in the national
consciousness. According to annual U.S. consumer attitude surveys by the United Soybean Board, 85
percent of those polled in 2008 rated soy products as “healthy,” a significant increase from the 59
percent who in 1997 thought this was the case. Many men, to be sure, are hard pressed to explain why
soy is supposed to be so healthy, but they take it on faith that they should embrace the bean.

“It’s something you need to train yourself to like, you know, for the health benefits,” my friend Larry, a
distance runner, opined recently. “Tofu’s the modern equivalent of cod liver oil,” added another buddy,
Bill. Three times a week, his wife stir-fries tofu with chard. “It’s this gunk she calls superfood. I call it
soylent green.” He pauses a beat before adding, “I guess I’m grateful she gets me to eat it.”

The dark side of soy…

Long the foundation of a vegetarian diet, tofu provides protein with little of the saturated fat and none
of the moral indigestion that comes with meat. Moreover, in the past decade, research has emerged
suggesting that scarfing down soy may also play an active role in extending our lives. In 1999, soy
protein earned a highly coveted FDA-allowed health claim: Diets that include 25 grams — about a
pound of tofu — a day may reduce the risk of heart disease. Add to this the number of studies showing
that soy protein might also help protect against prostate cancer, and suddenly the stuff starts looking
like powerful medicine for men.

Of course, most medicines have side effects. And when you consume soy protein, you’re actually
courting the Mr. Hyde side of two natural drugs: genistein and daidzein. Both act so similarly to
estrogen that they’re known as phytoestrogens (plant-produced estrogens). Soybeans couldn’t care less
about human sex characteristics — genistein and daidzein may have evolved to act as chemical
defenses against fungi and grazing animals. (They aren’t very effective deterrents, apparently, since soy
meal is widely used to feed livestock.) But when humans consume these compounds in high enough
quantities, they may experience gender-bending nightmares like James Price’s. What’s more, studies of
these phytoestrogens in leading peer-reviewed medical journals suggest that even lower doses — such
as the amount in the 25-gram soy protein target cited by the FDA — have the potential to wreak
hormonal havoc.
Here are a few of the recent findings across the life stages of men.

Babies: Weaned On the Bean

A whopping 35 percent of bottle-fed babies in the United States receive at least some of their protein
from soy. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is taking steps to change this: It recommends
that all infants who cannot be breastfed be given cow’s-milk formulas as the first preferred alternative.
Healthy full-term infants should be given soy formula only when medically necessary, the AAP’s 2008
report states. Babies with an extreme form of lactose intolerance fall into this category, but many others
who suffer from colic and excessive crying are switched to soy formula despite a lack of proven
benefits.

Paul Cooke, Ph.D., a reproductive biologist at the University of Illinois, has studied mice raised on
enough genistein to make their blood levels comparable to those of human infants fed soy formula.
Among other worrisome findings, he discovered significant shrinkage of the thymus gland, a key part
of the immune system. “The thymus,” says Cooke, “is like a finishing school for white blood cells —
it’s where they go to mature.”

Whether the same effect occurs in human infants is difficult to say, but a 2001 study in the Journal of
the American Medical Association surveyed over 800 adults, ages 20 to 34, who were fed either soy-
based or cow’s-milk formulas during their infancy. One of the few differences to emerge was that the
group raised on soy formula regularly used more asthma and allergy medications in adulthood. Was
this just a quirk of the sampling — or could it represent a subtle impairment of immune function?

“I don’t know the answer,” says Cooke. “But the point is I don’t think anyone knows. There are 20
million people in the United States alone who have consumed soy formula as infants. When people ask
me about doing experiments, I tell them we already are — with a large chunk of the country’s
population.”

For now, at least, the United States is gambling that widespread use of soy formula won’t lead to long-
term consequences. In 2005, Israel’s health ministry recommended that soy products be limited in
young children and, if possible, avoided altogether in infants. In issuing such a caution, Israel joined
France, New Zealand, and Australia in officially embracing a better-safe-than-sorry approach for the
next generation.

Teens to 20s: Faux Muscle Fuel

Most weightlifters, whether they’re dedicated competitors or occasional gym rats, understand the
importance of protein in muscle building and repair. And research has shown that the timing of when
you swallow that protein is just as critical — a fact that’s created a market for easy-to-consume protein
supplements.
“It’s kind of hard to throw a steak down right before or after a strength workout,” says William
Kraemer, Ph.D., a professor of kinesiology and a preeminent researcher of strength training and human
performance at the University of Connecticut. Protein supplements allow an athlete to dump a scoop of
powder in with some juice and chug what he needs, when he needs it.

Giant canisters of the stuff line the shelves at GNC and similar health-food stores nationwide, each
brand touting its unique muscle-building properties. The most common sources of protein used in them
are soy, whey, and casein. But the latter two, which come from animal sources, are more expensive to
produce than soy. The question currently being debated by strength trainers and researchers is this:
Does soy’s relative affordability come at a cost to muscle gains?

In a 2005 study in the Journal of Nutrition, researchers comparing soy to casein concluded that “the
biological value of soy protein must be considered inferior to that of casein protein in humans.” Among
other disadvantages, the researchers found, a significantly larger portion of soy is degraded to the waste
product urea. Moreover, it contributes to less protein synthesis in the body.

“A protein like whey has much more robust biological effects than soy,” acknowledges Kraemer. In
terms of strength gains, however, he says more research is needed before he can provide definitive
guidelines. “But my personal opinion is that soy protein is cheaper and whey protein is higher quality,”
he says. “There are also concerns that soy might decrease a man’s testosterone production and increase
his estradiol production, which we tend to associate with female hormone production.”

After retiring from military service, James Price and his wife, Donna, moved to a small farm in Texas.
He had a commercial pilot’s license and split his time between flying and working the land. His passion
was raising and training quarter horses that he broke himself. Price lived the kind of cowboy lifestyle
that few of his friends, even those decades younger, had the stamina to sustain.

Donna cooked well-balanced meals, nothing fancy, just standard American fare. It was a good life.

Then Donna developed glioblastoma multi-forme, a lethal type of brain cancer. When she died, Price,
then 55, was left to cope not only with his grief but a radical change in his daily routine. Not
surprisingly, the diet of the new widower took a hit.

“All of a sudden,” he says, “I was living on not-so-healthy meals I’d make for myself.” He saw a
product advertised on TV called Ensure; it was supposed to provide adults all the vitamins and minerals
and other vital nutrients necessary for health. He also started drinking milk, a favorite from his
childhood that he figured would supply protein and other nutrients.
Unfortunately, Price soon discovered he was lactose intolerant. “I switched to soy milk because it’s
lactose-free,” he says, “and I had heard that soy milk is supposed to be good for you.” He tried it and
liked it. Soon soy milk became a regular item on his shopping list, something he bought on autopilot.

In the wake of Donna’s death, Price’s body as well as his emotions began to change, often in ways that
were hard to separate from normal grief. Mood swings and a decrease in libido are not unusual
companions to bereavement. But Price had a nagging sense that something was off. “I was becoming
much more sentimental,” he recalls, describing his emotions as almost feminine. “I’d break out and cry
at a sad movie, that kind of thing. It just wasn’t like me.”

When Price began dating again, it was as if the sexual aspect had evaporated. “I enjoyed the company
of women,” he says, “but it was just like they were my friends. Even if I had wanted to do anything
physical, I couldn’t have.”

The gynecomastia that eventually developed became deeply humiliating for Price. He stopped wearing
T-shirts even on the hottest days, fearing his friends and neighbors might see the telltale bumps beneath
the fabric. His breasts by this point resembled the buds of a pubescent girl.

Never once in the subsequent yearlong ordeal of medical testing did it cross his mind that soy milk
might be the cause. “I had no idea,” he says. “I never gave it a second thought.”

The day Dr. Lewi asked him to stop drinking the stuff, he immediately complied. He also began
checking the ingredient labels on all other items he regularly consumed. If Dr. Lewi was right, going
cold turkey on soy just might begin to reverse the symptoms.

Over the next several months, blood tests revealed Price’s estrogen levels were, indeed, dropping
steadily back toward normal. Even better, the extreme nipple tenderness began abating. Eventually, his
breasts stopped hurting completely and he gradually began feeling a little more like his old self.

Dr. Lewi, who had searched the medical literature extensively when trying to solve Price’s case, had
come across no papers linking soy to gynecomastia. Realizing his obligation to warn other doctors
about the possibility, he told Price he wanted to follow him for several more months and eventually
write up his case for a medical journal.

Price readily agreed, grateful for the chance to spare others from his ordeal.

20s to 40s: Privates in Peril

In a Harvard study published last year in the journal Human Reproduction, Jorge E. Chavarro, M.D.,
Sc.D., and his colleagues found a strong association between men’s consumption of soy foods and
decreased sperm counts. Ninety-nine men reported their intake of 15 different soy-based foods, then
underwent semen analysis. Those in the highest category of daily soy intake averaged 32 percent fewer
sperm per milliliter of ejaculate than those who went sans soy.

Dr. Chavarro cautions that this doesn’t prove cause and effect, and that it’s too early to counsel men to
avoid soy foods in the hope of boosting fertility. “But clearly, this story is just starting,” he says. “More
studies need to be conducted.”

If shooting blanks is worrisome, how about being unable to shoot at all? Two other recently published
papers reveal that at least one soy component clearly impairs erectile function in animals — and may
do so in men as well.

The studies, published in the Journal of Andrology and Urology respectively, looked at the effect of
daidzein on the sexual function of male rats. Moderate doses of the phyto-estrogen administered either
in youth or adulthood significantly affected the quality of their erections. Among other changes, the
daidzein-exposed males produced less testosterone, had softer erections, and experienced biochemical
changes to their penile tissues that left these tissues less elastic and less capable of complete blood
engorgement.

While acknowledging that rat results do not always directly translate to humans, the authors of the first
study suggest that this time there’s reason to believe they will. They cite, among other things, a 10
percent higher incidence of erectile dysfunction in Chinese men known to consume high amounts of
soy compared with Americans who avoid it. The authors of the Urology study sound a similar warning.
They argue that it’s reasonable to believe that men who consume lots of daidzein could experience
tissue changes similar to those seen in another mammal.

Yufeng Huang, M.D., a coauthor on both papers, says that the “moderate” dose used in the animal
studies leads to approximately the same blood level of daidzein in men who eat soy every day, a
common practice in Asia. He believes soy represents a novel and previously overlooked risk factor for
ED.

“We are now recommending that soy be avoided by patients with erectile dysfunction,” Dr. Huang
says. And because erectile dysfunction increases with age, he also suggests that men ages 40 and above
limit their soy intake.

50s and Beyond: Brain Drain

Last summer, Eef Hogervorst, Ph.D., of England’s Loughborough University, and other researchers
published a study on soy products and dementia risk. The researchers focused their attention on older
Indonesians, members of a culture in which tofu has long been a dietary staple. Hogervorst says her
team began the study confident of finding a benefit from tofu’s phytoestrogens. “Almost everything
we’d learned from animal and cell-culture work indicated that estrogenlike compounds protect the
brain,” she says.

In older men and older women alike, however, they found exactly the opposite indication: Participants
over age 68 who were regularly eating the most tofu had double the risk of dementia and memory
impairment as those consuming a more moderate amount. “We were very surprised by this at the time,”
says Hogervorst, “but a new consensus is starting to form now. Hormones and hormonelike products
are not very good for people over 65.”

In terms of soy itself, Hogervorst suspects its reputation is changing. “For a long time now,” she says,
“people have been finding only good things about phytoestrogens. Gradually, as some contrasting
information accumulates, the paradigm changes 180 degrees and you see people arguing that
phytoestrogens are all bad. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.”

Dr. Lewi’s case report on James Price’s condition was published in the May/June 2008 edition of
Endocrine Practice, a journal read by many of the nation’s in-the-trenches endocrinologists. Thanks to
this, doctors now have a newly documented agent to consider when evaluating gynecomastia.

For his part, Dr. Lewi believes that soy products in moderation can still be a healthy part of a man’s
diet. “The problem,” he says, “is when a thing like soy is touted as this wonderful panacea for health,
and people end up going overboard on it.”

A final twist in the Price case, however, shows how difficult it can be to avoid soy. During the follow-
up blood testing Price agreed to undergo, his estrogen levels continued to drop, in a virtually linear
fashion, back toward normal. Then, several months later, and seemingly for no reason, the positive
trend reversed. As soon as he saw that Price’s estrogen was once again climbing, Dr. Lewi called his
patient.

Before Dr. Lewi could even announce the results, Price said, “I already know what you’re going to tell
me, Dr. Lewi. You’re going to say my estrogen level is coming up.”

Dumbfounded, Dr. Lewi asked Price how he knew that without seeing the test results.

Price explained that after switching from soy milk to lactose-free milk, he was in the grocery store one
day and bought some more Ensure. Though he’d followed Dr. Lewi’s advice and checked the labels on
virtually every product he purchased, he’d neglected to check Ensure. “It’s advertised as having
vitamins and minerals and all the stuff you need to stay healthy,” he says.
Only after his breasts started hurting and growing again did it occur to Price that Ensure might also
contain the last thing his body needed. He checked the label: Ensure contained soy protein. He told Dr.
Lewi that he threw out the rest and was no longer drinking it.

Subsequent blood tests showed that this was enough to send Price’s estrogen back in the healthy
direction. Several months later, his estrogen levels — once higher than those of most women — were
in the low-to-normal range for healthy men. They’ve remained in that range ever since, but the physical
changes to his penis, his loss of sexual desire, and his heightened emotions have persisted.

And while all pain associated with his breasts has disappeared, the tissue unfortunately remains
swollen, a consequence of fibrotic tissue changes that take place with long-term gynecomastia.
Although Price remains self-conscious about it, he’s reluctant to try the only cure — cosmetic surgical
reduction. There are too many risks, he says — bleeding, infection, problems with anesthesia — to
justify going under the knife at this point in his life.

As for other men who might one day develop a similar problem, Price’s advice is unequivocal: Go to
your doctor at the first sign of pain or swelling. Symptoms caught and treated early are often reversible.

Price also acknowledges that his body may have an above-average sensitivity to soy’s phytoestrogens.
Still, his experiences have taught him that the foods we eat are not always what we think they are. Soy
protein today is an ubiquitous, profitable, and often buried ingredient in a bewildering number of
packaged foods. More than most people, Price was doing his best to avoid it. But he was still tripped
up.

“In today’s supermarkets,” he says, his voice weary, “you can’t hardly get anything without at least
some soy in it.”

For a slideshow of sneaky sources of soy protein, go to MensHealth.com/soy.

Why Soy Is No Statin

A closer look at the cholesterol connection…While there may be serious cons to consuming soy, there
is something in the pro column: Soy protein is edible heart medicine. At least that’s what the FDA
suggests. But in 2006, a study review in the American Heart Association journal Circulation cast doubt
on the research finding that eating soy daily can significantly lower LDL cholesterol: The study found
that the average LDL reduction was actually just 3 percent. What’s more, you would need to eat the
equivalent of 2 pounds of tofu a day to realize even that slight benefit. Last year, the AHA withdrew its
support for the original claim. And the FDA’s reaction? Guarded. “The agency is reevaluating scientific
data for the soy-protein and heart-disease claim,” says spokeswoman Susan Cruzan.

http://www.menshealth.com

C o nfused Abo utSo y ?–So y Dang ers Sum m ariz ed

[excerpt]

High levels of phytic acid in soy reduce assimilation of calcium, magnesium, copper, iron and zinc.
Phytic acid in soy is not neutralized by ordinary preparation methods such as soaking, sprouting and
long, slow cooking. High phytate diets have caused growth problems in children.

Trypsin inhibitors in soy interfere with protein digestion and may cause pancreatic disorders. In test
animals soy containing trypsin inhibitors caused stunted growth.

Soy phytoestrogens disrupt endocrine function and have the potential to cause infertility and to promote
breast cancer in adult women.

Soy phytoestrogens are potent antithyroid agents that cause hypothyroidism and may cause thyroid
cancer. In infants, consumption of soy formula has been linked to autoimmune thyroid disease.

Vitamin B12 analogs in soy are not absorbed and actually increase the body’s requirement for B12.

Soy foods increase the body’s requirement for vitamin D.

Fragile proteins are denatured during high temperature processing to make soy protein isolate and
textured vegetable protein.

Processing of soy protein results in the formation of toxic lysinoalanine and highly carcinogenic
nitrosamines.

Free glutamic acid or MSG, a potent neurotoxin, is formed during soy food processing and additional
amounts are added to many soy foods.
Soy foods contain high levels of aluminum which is toxic to the nervous system and the kidneys.

More here…The Weston A. Price Foundation

For a list of 288 studies showing the toxicity of soy, see

http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~djw/pltx.cgi?QUERY=soy

Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food

By Kaayla T. Daniel
Issue 124: May/June 2004

Over the past decade, soy foods have become America’s favorite health food. Newspapers, magazines,
and best-selling health writers have proclaimed the “joy of soy” and promoted the belief that soy food
is the key to disease prevention and maximum longevity.

The possibility that an inexpensive plant food could prevent heart disease, fight cancer, fan away hot
flashes, and build strong bodies in far more than 12 ways is seductive. The truth, unfortunately, is far
more complex. Soy foods come in a variety of forms, including many heavily processed modern
products. Even good forms of soy foods must be eaten sparingly-the way they have been eaten
traditionally in Asia. Most important, many respected scientists have issued warnings stating that the
possible benefits of eating soy should be weighed against the proven risks. Indeed, thousands of studies
link soy to malnutrition, digestive distress, immune-system breakdown, thyroid dysfunction, cognitive
decline, reproductive disorders and infertility-even cancer and heart disease.

Americans rarely hear anything negative about soy. Thanks to the shrewd public relations campaigns
waged by Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), Protein Technologies International (PTI), the American
Soybean Association, and other soy interests, as well as the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA)
1999 approval of the health claim that soy protein lowers cholesterol, soy maintains a “healthy” image.

This article is written for parents who need to know the risks of feeding soy formula to infants, or soy
milk and other soy foods to growing children. It’s designed for prospective mothers and fathers who
need to know the links between soy foods, infertility, and birth defects. Finally, it will serve anyone
considering soy as a preventive for menopausal symptoms, osteoporosis, cancer, heart disease, or other
ills.

How Much Soy Do Asians Really Eat?

Those who dare to question the benefits of soy tend to receive one stock answer: Soy foods couldn’t
possibly have a downside because Asians eat large quantities of soy every day and consequently remain
free of most western diseases. In fact, the people of China, Japan, and other countries in Asia eat very
little soy. The soy industry’s own figures show that soy consumption in China, Indonesia, Korea, Japan,
and Taiwan ranges from 9.3 to 36 grams per day.1 That’s grams of soy food, not grams of soy protein
alone. Compare this with a cup of tofu (252 grams) or soy milk (240 grams).2 Many Americans today
think nothing of consuming a cup of tofu, a couple glasses of soy milk, handfuls of soy nuts, soy
“energy bars,” and veggie burgers. Infants on soy formula receive the most of all, both in quantity and
in proportion to body weight.

In short, there is no historical precedent for eating the large amounts of soy food now being consumed
by infants fed soy formula and vegetarians who favor soy as their main source of protein, or for the
large amounts of soy being recommended by Dr. Andrew Weil, Dr. Christiane Northrup, and many
other popular health experts.

What’s more, the rural poor in China have never seen-let alone feasted on-soy sausages, chili made
with Textured Vegetable Protein (TVP), tofu cheesecake, packaged soy milk, soy “energy bars,” or
other newfangled soy products that have infiltrated the American marketplace.

The Right Stuff

The ancient Chinese honored the soybean with the name “the yellow jewel” but used it as “green
manure”-a cover crop plowed under to enrich the soil. Soy did not become human food until late in the
Chou Dynasty (1134-246 B.C.), when the Chinese developed a fermentation process to make soybean
paste, best known today by its Japanese name, miso.3 Soy sauce-the natural type sold under the
Japanese name shoyu-began as the liquid poured off during the production of miso. Two other popular
fermented soy foods, natto and tempeh, entered the food supply around 1000 A.D. or later in Japan and
Indonesia, respectively.

Tofu came after miso. Legend has it that, in 164 B.C., Lord Liu An of Huai-nan, China-a renowned
alchemist, meditator, and ruler-discovered that a purée of cooked soybeans could be precipitated with
nigari (a form of magnesium chloride found in seawater) into solid cakes, called tofu. In Japan, as in
China, tofu was rarely served as a main course anywhere except in monasteries. Its most popular use
was-and is-as a few bland little blocks in miso soup or fish stock.

The Chinese almost never ate boiled or baked soybeans or cooked with soy flour except in times of
famine. Modern soy products such as soy protein isolate (SPI), TVP, soy-protein concentrate, and other
soy-protein products made using high-tech industrial processes, were unknown in Asia until after
World War II.4

Contrary to popular belief, neither soy milk nor soy infant formula is traditional in Asia. Soy milk
originated as a byproduct of the process of making tofu; the earliest reference to it as a beverage
appeared in 1866.5 By the 1920s and 1930s, it was popular in Asia as an occasional drink served to the
elderly.6-8 The first person to manufacture soy milk in China was actually an American-Harry Miller, a
Seventh Day Adventist physician and missionary.9

The first soy infant formulas in China were developed in the 1930s and have never been widely
used.10-14 Today, babies in Asia are almost always breastfed for at least the first six months, then
switched to a dairy-based infant formula. Orphans and others who cannot be breastfed by a wet nurse
are fed from birth on dairy formulas.15

Claims that soybeans have been a major part of the Asian diet for more than 3,000 years, or from “time
immemorial,” are simply not true.

Processing Matters
Soy in the West has been a product of the industrial revolution-an opportunity for technologists to
develop cheap meat substitutes, to find clever new ways to hide soy in familiar food products, to
formulate soy-based pharmaceuticals, and to develop a renewable, plant-based resource that could
replace petroleum-based plastics and fuels.

For years, the soy protein left over from soy-oil extraction went to animals and poultry. Now that food
scientists have discovered inexpensive ways to improve or disguise the color, flavor, “bite
characteristics,” and “mouth feel” of soy protein-based products, soy is being aggressively marketed as
a “people feed.” Although the newer refining techniques yield blander, purer soy proteins than the
“beany,” hard-to-cover-up flavors of the past, the main reason that soy foods now taste and look better
is the lavish use of unhealthy additives such as sugar and other sweeteners, salt, artificial flavorings,
colors, and monosodium glutamate (MSG).

Soy now lurks in nearly 60 percent of the foods sold in supermarkets and natural food stores.
Much of this is “hidden” in products where it wouldn’t ordinarily be expected, such as fast-food
burgers and Bumblebee canned tuna. Soy is also a key ingredient in ersatz products with names like
Soysage, Not Dogs, Fakin Bakin, Sham Ham, and TofuRella, which have been named after and made
to look like the familiar meat and diary products they are intended to replace.

There’s nothing natural about these modern soy protein products. Textured soy protein, for example, is
made by forcing defatted soy flour through a machine called an extruder under conditions of such
extreme heat and pressure that the very structure of the soy protein is changed. Production differs little
from the extrusion technology used to produce starch-based packing materials, fiber-based industrial
products, and plastic toy parts, bowls, and plates.16

The process of making soy protein isolate (SPI) begins with defatted soybean meal, which is mixed
with a caustic alkaline solution to remove the fiber, then washed in an acid solution to precipitate out
the protein. The protein curds are then dipped into another alkaline solution and spray-dried at
extremely high temperatures. SPI is then often spun into protein fibers using technology borrowed from
the textile industry. These refining processes remove “off flavors,” “beany” tastes, and some of the
worst flatulence-producing components. They improve digestibility, but vitamin, mineral, and protein
quality are sacrificed, and levels of carcinogens such as nitrosamines are increased.17-22 SPIs appear
in so many products that consumers would never guess that the Federation of American Societies for
Experimental Biology (FASEB) decreed in 1979 that the only safe use for SPIs was for sealers for
cardboard packages.23

Antinutrients and Toxins in Soy

Scientists who have studied the use of soy protein in animal feeds over the years have discovered a
number of components in soy that cause poor growth, digestive distress, and other health problems.24-
27 To list just a few of these: Protease inhibitors interfere with protein digestion and have caused
malnutrition, poor growth, digestive distress, and pancreatitis.28 Phytates block mineral absorption,
causing zinc, iron, and calcium deficiencies.29-34 Lectins and saponins have caused leaky gut and
other gastrointestinal and immune problems.35-36 Oxalates-surprisingly high in soy-may cause
problems for people prone to kidney stones and women suffering from vulvodynia, a painful condition
marked by burning, stinging, and itching of the external genitalia.37, 38 Finally, oligosaccharides give
soy its notorious reputation as a gas producer. Although these are present in all beans, soy is such a
powerful “musical fruit” that the soy industry has identified “the flatulence factor” as a major obstacle
that must be overcome for soy to achieve full consumer acceptance.39, 40

Apologists for soy dismiss such claims, saying that food processing and home cooking remove most of
these antinutrients. In fact, modern processing removes most of them, but not all. The levels of heat and
pressure needed to remove all protease inhibitors, for example, severely damage soy protein and make
it harder to digest. The trick is to eliminate the most antinutrients while doing the least damage to the
soy protein. Success varies widely from batch to batch.41-44

For years, the soy industry tried to improve the quality of animal feeds by finding better ways to get rid
of these undesirable antinutrients. Having failed, they routinely supplement animal feeds heavily with
vitamins, minerals, and methionine, a sulfur-containing amino acid that is low in soy. Even so, makers
of animal chows are still limited in the amount of soy they can add without causing growth and fertility
problems. Food processors making soy-protein products for people may or may not add these
supplements. Generally, calcium and vitamin D are added to soy milk so it can compete with dairy
products.
Today, the soy industry has switched tactics-from trying to remove unwanted antinutrients to trying to
convince people that they are actually a good thing. Protease inhibitors, saponins, and lectins are being
touted as curers of cancer or lowerers of cholesterol, while phytates are being recommended for their
ability to remove toxic minerals such as cadmium and excess iron from the body.45-51 Although some
of these uses look promising, it is important to note that researchers are not achieving these successes
using regular soy foods. Most take carefully extracted components and administer them in carefully
measured and monitored pharmaceutical doses. News headlines to the contrary, there is no reason to
think that just eating a lot of soy foods will do the trick.

Soy Allergens
Soy is one of the top eight allergens that cause immediate hypersensitivity reactions such as coughing,
sneezing, runny nose, hives, diarrhea, difficulty swallowing, and anaphylactic shock. Delayed allergic
responses are even more common and occur anywhere from several hours to several days after the food
is eaten. These have been linked to sleep disturbances, bedwetting, sinus and ear infections, crankiness,
joint paint, chronic fatigue, gastrointestinal woes, and other mysterious symptoms.52, 53

Soy allergies are on the rise for three reasons: the growing use of soy infant formula (now 20 to 25
percent of the formula market), the increase in soy-containing foods in grocery stores, the possibility of
the greater allergenicity of genetically modified soybeans.54 Although severe reactions to soy are rare
compared to reactions to peanuts, tree nuts, fish, and shellfish, soy has been underestimated as a cause
of food anaphylaxis. Recently, after a young girl in Sweden suffered an asthma attack and died after
eating a hamburger that contained only 2.2 percent soy protein, Swedish researchers looked into a
possible soybean connection. They concluded that the soy-in-the-hamburger case was not a fluke, and
that minute amounts of soy “hidden” in regular food had caused four of the total of five deaths caused
by allergic reactions in Sweden between 1993 and 1996. Of the children who suffered fatal attacks, all
had been able to eat soy without any adverse reactions right up until the dinner that caused their
deaths.55 According to the Swedish Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, children at highest risk are
those who suffer from peanut allergies and asthma; parents of such children should make every effort to
eliminate all soy from their children’s diets.56

Soy and the Thyroid: A Pain in the Neck

More than 70 years of human, animal, and laboratory studies show that soybeans put the thyroid at risk.
The chief culprits are the plant hormones in soy known as phytoestrogens or isoflavones.57-59 The
United Kingdom’s Committee on Toxicology has identified several populations at special risk: infants
on soy formula, vegans who use soy as their principal meat and dairy replacements, and men and
women who self-medicate with soy foods and/or isoflavone supplements in an attempt to prevent or
reverse menopausal symptoms, cancer, or heart disease.60

Infants with congenital hypothyroidism need 18 to 25 percent higher doses of thyroxine drug than usual
if they are bottle-fed with soy formula.61 Likewise, adults who boost their thyroid with drugs such as
Synthroid while also eating thyroid-inhibiting foods such as soy put extreme stress on their thyroids.
Toxicologist Michael Fitzpatrick, PhD, points out that this is the way that researchers induce thyroid
cancers in laboratory animals.62
Soy and Reproduction: Breeding Discontent
Scientists have known since the mid-1940s that phytoestrogens can impair fertility. Fertility
problems in cows, sheep, rabbits, cheetahs, guinea pigs, birds, and mice have all been
reported.63, 64 Although scientists discovered only recently that soy lowers testosterone levels,65
tofu has traditionally been used in Buddhist monasteries to decrease the libido, and by Japanese
women to punish straying husbands. Humans and animals appear to be the most vulnerable to the
effects of soy estrogens prenatally, during infancy and puberty, during pregnancy and lactation, and
during the hormonal shifts of menopause. Of all these groups, infants on soy formula are at the highest
risk because of their small size and developmental phase, and because formula is their main source of
nutrient.66, 67

A crucial time for the programming of the human reproduction system is right after birth-the very time
when bottles of soy formula are given to many non-breastfed babies. Normally during this period, the
body surges with natural estrogens, testosterones, and other hormones that are meant to program the
baby’s reproductive development from infancy through puberty and into adulthood. For infants on soy
formula, this programming may be interrupted.68-70

Male infants experience a testosterone surge during the first few months of life and produce androgens
in amounts equal to those of adult men. So much testosterone at such a tender age is needed to program
the body for puberty, the time when a male’s sex organs should develop and he should begin to express
male characteristics such as facial and pubic hair and a deep voice. If receptor sites intended for the
hormone testosterone are occupied by soy estrogens, however, appropriate development may never take
place.71-74 To date, most of the evidence damning soy formula can be found only in animal studies,
because investigations in which humans’ sex hormone levels are lowered experimentally cannot
ethically be done. However, in the years since soy formula has been in the marketplace, parents and
pediatricians have reported growing numbers of boys whose physical maturation is either delayed or
does not occur at all. Breasts, underdeveloped gonads, undescended testicles (cryptorchidism), and
steroid insufficiencies are increasingly common. Sperm counts are also falling.75-79

Soy formula is bad news for girls as well. Natural estrogen levels approximately double during the first
month of life, then decline and remain at low levels until puberty. With increased estrogens in the
environment in the diet, an alarming number of girls are entering puberty much earlier than normal.80-
82 One percent of girls now show signs of puberty, such as breast development or pubic hair, before the
age of three. By the age of eight, 14.7 percent of Caucasian girls and 48.3 percent of African American
girls had one or both of these characteristics.83 The fact that blacks experience earlier puberties than
whites is not a racial difference but a recent phenomenon.84, 85

Most experts blame this epidemic of “precocious puberty” on environmental estrogens from plastics,
pesticides, commercial meats, etc., but some pediatric endocrinologists believe that soy is a
contributor.86 Of all the estrogens found in the environment, soy is the likeliest explanation of why
African American girls reach puberty so quickly. Since its establishment in 1974, the federal
government’s Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program has provided free infant formula to
teenage and other low-income mothers while failing to encourage breastfeeding. Because of perceived
or real lactose intolerance, black babies are much more likely to receive soy formula than Caucasian
babies.

Early maturation in girls heralds reproductive problems later in life, including amenorrhea (failure to
menstruate), anovulatory cycles (cycles in which no egg is released), impaired follicular development
(follicles failing to mature and develop into healthy eggs), erratic hormonal surges, and other problems
associated with infertility. Because the mammary glands depend on estrogen for their development and
functioning, the presence of soy estrogens at a susceptible time might predispose girls to breast cancer,
another condition that is on the rise and definitively linked to early puberty.87

Recently, a team of researchers headed by Brian L. Strom, MD, studied the use of soy formula and its
long-term impact on reproductive health. They announced only one adverse finding: longer, more
painful menstrual periods among women who’d been fed soy formula in infancy.88 Dr. Strom’s
conclusion that the results were “reassuring” made newspaper headlines all over the world, though the
data in the body of the report were anything but. Indeed, data left out of the headlines and buried in the
report revealed higher incidences of allergies and asthma, and higher rates of cervical cancer,
polycystic ovarian syndrome, blocked fallopian tubes, and pelvic inflammatory disease.89 Although
thyroid damage from soy formula has been the principal concern of critics for decades, the researchers
excluded thyroid function as a subject for study. Not surprisingly, this study was funded in part by the
infant-formula industry.

Most of the fears concerning soy formula have focused on estrogens. There are other problems as well,
notably much higher levels of aluminum, fluoride, and manganese than are found in either breastmilk
or dairy formulas.90-96 All three metals have the potential to adversely affect brain development.
Although trace amounts of manganese are vital to the development of the brain, toxic levels accrued
from ingestion of soy formula during infancy have been found in children suffering from attention-
deficit disorders, dyslexia, and other learning problems.97, 98

Soy apologists sometimes argue that the plant hormones in soy formula could not possibly be harmful
because Japanese women eat a lot of soy products and so must have high levels of phytoestrogens in
their breastmilk. Researchers, however, have measured the soy isoflavones in breastmilk and found
them low even in vegetarian women who consume copious quantities of tofu, soy milk, soy protein
shakes, and other soy foods.99-101

Limited evidence, however, suggests that vegetarian women who eat a lot of soy foods during
pregnancy may put their infants at risk in terms of their future reproductive health, fertility, and
possibly increased risk of breast cancer. All of the problems that have befallen infants on soy formula,
as well as estrogen-related birth defects, have occurred (in animal studies, at least) to the offspring of
mothers who were given high doses of soy during pregnancy.102 One of these birth defects that has
been linked to vegetarian diets in humans is hypospadias, a developmental disorder in which the
opening of the penis is located on the underside of the shaft.103
Until soy estrogens are definitely linked to reproductive-tract abnormalities, infertility, and other health
problems in humans, most health authorities recommend that we “wait and see.” This could be a
terrible mistake.

In the 1940s and 1950s, another estrogen, diethylstilbestrol (DES), was widely given to Western
women early in their pregnancies in a misguided attempt to prevent miscarriage. That fact is relevant
not only because DES bears a striking structural similarity to some plant estrogens-including soy
isoflavones-but because it took more than 20 years before the full spectrum of harmful effects was
observed.104, 105

DES is 100,000 times more potent than soy phytoestrogens. However, the large quantities of
phytoestrogens in soy products are more than enough to counteract their lower potency. When the
effects of isoflavones in fetal and neonatal animals have been studied, they have paralleled those
observed in human infants exposed to DES.106, 107 Recent studies indicate that the soy isoflavone
known as genistein may be even more carcinogenic than DES.108

Yet the belief persists that soy hormones are “safe” because they are “weak” and “natural.” Although
the soy industry has claimed that soy estrogens are anywhere from 10,000 to 1,000,000 times weaker
than the human estrogen estradiol, the correct figure is only 1,200 times as weak.109 Though this still
sounds quite weak, it is not-because of the quantity of these estrogens ingested by infants on soy
formula, and by children and adults who eat soy every day. These individuals consume far more soy
estrogens than were ever part of a traditional diet in Asia. The average isoflavones intake in China is 3
milligrams, or 0.05 mg per kilogram of body weight. In Japan, the figures range from 10 to 28 mg, or
0.17 to 0.47 isoflavones per kg of body weight. In contrast, infants receiving soy formula average 38
mg of isoflavones, which comes to a shocking 6.25 mg/kg of body weight. Compare that dose to the
0.47 mg/kg per day fed to healthy Japanese adult men and women who experienced thyroid suppression
after just three months-or to the 0.75 mg/kg of isoflavones fed to American women who experienced
hormonal changes sufficient to skew their menstrual cycles after just one month.110 Although children
and teenagers are less vulnerable than infants, their young bodies are still developing, and highly
vulnerable to endocrine-system disruption by soy. And soy has been shown to pass through the
placentas of pregnant women to their unborn babies.

Meanwhile, the jury is still out on whether soy might help alleviate menopausal symptoms or prevent
osteoporosis and breast cancer. The soy industry’s top scientists, convened at the Fifth International
Symposium on the Role of Soy in the Preventing and Reversing Chronic Disease (held in Orlando,
Florida, September 21-24, 2003), conceded that the data are confusing and contradictory, with some
studies suggesting that soy might be helpful, and others showing that soy contributes to osteoporosis
and promotes breast cancer.

What’s certain is that the levels of soy estrogens that might possibly have a beneficial effect on
hormonally related diseases have been proven to jeopardize the health of the thyroid. Likewise, the 25
grams of soy protein per day touted by the FDA to lower cholesterol (see sidebar, “Boon to the
Industry: The FDA’s Soy Protein Health Claim”) is very likely to harm the thyroid, and thus increase
one of the risk factors for heart disease.

The bottom line is that the safety of soy foods has yet to be proven, and that human beings have
become guinea pigs in what Daniel M. Sheehan, formerly senior toxicologist with the FDA’s National
Center for Toxicological Research, has called a “large, uncontrolled and basically unmonitored human
experiment.”111

http://www.mothering.com

Click HERE for full notes and references.

More Seeds for ‘Doomsday Vault’

February 27th, 2009
Via:BBC:

Almost 90,000 food crop seed samples have arrived at the “doomsday vault” in the
Arctic Circle, as part of its first anniversary celebrations.

The four-tonne shipment takes the number of seeds stored in the frozen repository to
more than 20 million.

The Svalbard Global Seed Vault, built 130m (426ft) inside a mountain, aims to protect

the world’s food crop species against natural and human disasters.

The £5m ($7m) facility took 12 months to build and opened in February 2008.

“The vault was opened last year to ensure that, one day, all of humanity’s existing food
crop varieties would be safely protected,” explained Cary Fowler, executive director of

the Global Crop Diversity Trust (GCDT).

“It’s amazing how far we have come towards accomplishing that goal.”

The arrival of the latest consignment of seed samples means that the vault, deep inside a
mountain on Norway’s Svalbard archipelago, is now storing a third of the planet’s most
important food crop varieties.
Among the anniversary arrivals are 32 varieties of potatoes from Ireland’s national gene
banks.

It is thought the lack of diversity in Ireland’s potato crops played a major part in the
spread of blight through the nation’s harvests in the mid-1800s, contributing to the Great
Famine.

The vault, operated by a partnership between the GCDT and the Norwegian government,

stores duplicates of seeds held in national collections.

It acts as a fail-safe backup if the original collections are lost or damaged.

“We are especially proud to see such a large number of countries working quickly to
provide samples from their collections for safekeeping in the vault,” said Norway’s
Agriculture Minister Lars Peder Brekk.

“It shows that there are situations in the world today capable of transcending politics
and inspiring a strong unity of purpose among a diverse community of nations.”

As well as the consignment of seeds, experts on climate change and food production have
gathered in Longyearbyen for a three-day anniversary conference.

They will examine how climate change threatens global food production, and how crop
diversity will improve food security for people in regions that are going to be worst
affected.

Frank Loy, an environment adviser to President Obama, said: “When we see research
indicating that global warming could diminish maize production by 30% in southern
Africa in only 20 years’ time, it shows that crop diversity is needed to adapt agriculture
to climate change right now.”

They will examine how climate change threatens global food production, and how crop
diversity will improve food security for people in regions that are going to be worst
affected.

Frank Loy, an environment adviser to President Obama, said: “When we see research
indicating that global warming could diminish maize production by 30% in southern
Africa in only 20 years’ time, it shows that crop diversity is needed to adapt agriculture
to climate change right now.”
"Doomsday Seed Vault" in the Arctic
Bill Gates, Rockefeller and the GMO giants know
something we don’t
by F. William Engdahl

More here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/12880485/Doomsday-Seed-Vault

Bill Gates is investing tens of his millions along with the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto
Corporation, Syngenta Foundation and the Government of Norway, among others, in what is called the
‘doomsday seed bank.’

Officially the project is named the Svalbard Global Seed Vault on the Norwegian island
of Spitsbergen, part of the Svalbard island group.

A must read at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/12880485/Doomsday-Seed-Vault

1. 'DOOMSDAY' SEED VAULT STORES 500000 CROPS | LIVESCIENCE
Mar 10, 2010 ... A global seed vault dug out of an arctic mountainside has just reached its half-million
mark of seed varieties.

2. International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources.

http://www.planttreaty.org/

…Institutions send their seed collections to the Seed Vault in order to benefit from the safety and
insurance this provides - storing seeds in the Vault is entirely free to them, and voluntary. The
depositing institution signs a contract with NordGen, the genetic resource centre of the Nordic
countries, which is responsible for the management of the Vault. Neither the managers of the Seed
Vault, Norway, the Trust, nor anyone else has any right even to open the boxes in which the seeds
arrive and are stored. Information about which countries have sent seeds, and the seeds which are
already stored in the Vault, is all public.

Svalbard Global Seed Vault is the ultimate security net for the world's crop diversity. The Seed Vault
aims at safeguarding the world’s most important plant genetic resources for food and agriculture with a
maximum level of security. The Seed Vault offers free-of-charge back-up for the seed collections held
in seedbanks around the world.
Svalbard represent a remote and secure yet accessible location. The safety of the seed samples is
ensured by the thick sandstone rock surrounding them and their long-term survival is ensured by the
permafrost conditions that maintain the airtight seed samples well below freezing even in the unlikely
event that the mechanical cooling (-18°C ) should fail.
NordGen’s operative responsibility for the Seed Vault is done according to an agreement with our
partners in the funding, management and operation; the Norwegian Ministry of Food and Agriculture
and the Global Crop Diversity Trust.

Important collections of crop diversity face urgent and chronic funding shortages. These shortages can
lead to loss of diversity, the very building blocks on which adaptive and productive agriculture
depends. The sole global response to this threat is the Global Crop Diversity Trust.

http://www.croptrust.org/main/laboutus.php

The Trust is a unique public-private partnership raising funds from individual, corporate and
government donors to establish an endowment fund that will provide complete and continuous funding
for key crop collections, in eternity.

In line with the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources and the Global Plan of Action for the
Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, our goal
is to advance an efficient and sustainable global system of ex situ conservation by promoting the
rescue, understanding, use and long-term conservation of valuable plant genetic resources.

The Global Crop Diversity Trust was founded by the United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organisation (FAO) and Bioversity International, acting on behalf of the foremost international
research organizations in this field (CGIAR). The Trust is currently hosted in Rome by FAO.

Visit their websites:

1. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations leads international efforts to
defeat hunger. Serving both developed and developing countries, FAO acts as a neutral forum where all
nations meet as equals to negotiate agreements and debate policy. FAO is also a source of knowledge
and information. We help developing countries and countries in transition modernize and improve
agriculture, forestry and fisheries practices and ensure good nutrition for all. Since our founding in
1945, we have focused special attention on developing rural areas, home to 70 percent of the world's
poor and hungry people.

2. Bioversity International is the world's leading organization dedicated to researching agricultural

biodiversity to improve people's lives.

Our research, carried out with partners around the world, seeks sustainable solutions to meet three
important challenges:

• Malnutrition and hidden hunger of missing micronutrients

• Sustainability and resilience in food supplies and farming systems
 • Conservation and Use, ensuring that agricultural biodiversity remains accessible to all.
We also provide policy information and analysis to improve the legal framework -- global, regional and
national -- needed to ensure that agricultural biodiversity can be put to work to deliver sustainable
solutions for economic development.

Funding for Bioversity comes from statutory donors and foundations, who support us directly and
through their contributions to the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research.
Bioversity is also supported by a registered charity in the United Kingdom, and in the United States by
a Foundation that has 501(c)(3) status.

Bioversity's headquarters are in Maccarese, Italy, just outside Rome, where we work closely with UN
Agencies such as FAO, IFAD and WFP. However, the vast majority of our staff work from 20 offices
that cover the regions of the world. In addition, we are pleased to host some system-wide activities on
behalf of the CGIAR.

Find out more about the history of Bioversity.

Top 20 Donors in 2009

The following donors were the top contributors to Bioversity in 2009 (unrestricted and restricted
contributions).

1. Netherlands

2. World Bank

3. United Nations Environment Programme/Global Environment Facility (UNEP/GEF)

4. Belgium
5. Italy
6. European Union
7. United Kingdom
8. Switzerland
9. Germany
10. Canada
 11. Global Crop Diversity Trust
12. Norway
13. Sweden
14. USAID
15. Ireland
16. IFAD
17. Common Fund for Commodities (CFC)
18. Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Programme (SSA CP)
19. France
20. Austria

3. With the institution of the new CGIAR business model in 2010, Members become Fund donors who
participate in the biennial Funders Forum. Between forums, the Fund Council — which comprises eight
representatives of donor countries, eight representatives of developing countries and regional
organizations, and six representatives of multilateral and global organizations and foundations — meets
face-to-face at least twice a year to make decisions on behalf of all Fund donors, who may participate in
meetings as observers.

The first meeting of the Fund Council on 22-23 February 2010 was held in Brussels, Belgium. The
membership of the Fund Council is as follows, as of September 14, 2010:
C hair Ing er Andersen
Interim Ex ec utive F io nna Do ug las
Sec retary
Do no r c o untries:
Europe European Commission (Marc Debois), Norway (Ruth
Haug), Sweden (Philip Chiverton), United Kingdom
(Jonathan Wadsworth)
North America Canada (Catherine Coleman), USA (Robert Bertram)
Asia
Japan (Keiichi Sugita)

Pacific Australia (Nick Austin)

Develo ping c o untries and reg io nalo rg aniz atio ns

Sub-Saharan Africa Kenya (Romano Kiome), Nigeria (B.Y. Abubakar)

Asia China (Huajun Tang), India (S. Ayyappan)
Pacific Papua New Guinea (Raghunath Ghodake)
 Central and West Asia and Iran (Jahangir Porhemmat)
North Africa
Latin America and the Brazil (Luciano Nass)
Caribbean
Regional Fora Fondo Regional de Tecnologia Agropecuaria (Mario Allegri)
M ultilateraland g lo balo rg aniz atio ns and fo undatio ns
World Bank Juergen Voegele
International Fund for Rodney Cooke
Agricultural Development
Food and Agriculture Anton Mangstl
Organization
F o undatio ns
Bill and Melinda Gates Prabhu Pingali
Foundation
International Development Jean Lebel
Research Centre
Global Forum on Monty Jones
Agricultural Research

The following countries have signed, or acceded to, the Trust's Establishment Agreement.
Egypt 1 April 2004
Cape Verde (1 April 2004)
Jordan (15 April 2004)
Togo (4 May 2004)
Morocco (21 June 2004)
Syria (25 June 2004)
Samoa (29 June 2004)
Ethiopia (15 July 2004)
Tonga (23 August 2004)
Peru (23 August 2004)
Mali (6 October 2004)
Ecuador (7 October 2004)
Colombia (21 October 2004)
Sweden (21 October 2004)
Mauritius (24 November 2004)
Serbia and Montenegro (24 November 2004)
Cameroon (14 February 2005)
 Cambodia (6 May 2005)
Pakistan (23 May 2005)
Romania (22 June 2005)
Uganda (14 September 2005)
Kenya (15 February 2006)
Australia (1 August 2006)
Ghana (29 August 2006)
India (9 January 2007)
Switzerland (29 October 2007)

The Trust welcomes further accessions by countries as a visible symbol of support. Accession to the
Trust's Establishment Agreement brings no financial responsibility, and it is also not necessary to
accede to the Agreement in order to donate to the Trust or receive funds from the Trust.

The Establishment Agreement remains open for accession, and points that can be used for drafting a
cabinet submission and instrument of accession can be downloaded here: In English

***********

Catherine Bertini, the head of the UN food programs in 1995, paraphrased the
famous Kissinger statement, “Food is power. We use it to change behavior.”

What is Codex Alimentarius?

The Codex Alimentarius Commission, Latin for 'food code', is an inter-governmental body that sets guidelines
and standards to ensure ‘fair trade practices’ and consumer protection in relation to the global trade of food. It
was established for this purpose in 1963 so has more than 40 years’ experience controlling food in an ever-
more globalized world. It has over 170 member countries within the framework of the Joint FAO/WHO Food
Standards Programme established by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and
the World Health Organization (WHO).
Its primary stated purpose is “protecting the health of consumers and ensuring fair practices in the food trade.”
The Commission also promotes coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international
governmental and non-governmental organizations (INGO’s).

The guidelines and standards are used as a benchmark for regional/national legislation and in World Trade
Orgaization (WTO) diputes. Work is conducted through nearly 30 committees, each dealing with specific areas
of food, and decisions are based on consensus voting by member countries. INGO’s do not have voting rights,
but may influence proceedings. Most INGO’s present at Codex meetings represent transnational corporation
interests.

Agribusiness Giants seek to gain Worldwide Control over our

Food Supply

See also: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7735