Confused About Soy?

• 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.

Between 1984-1991, our science editor Mary Enig served as an expert witness in several suits involving two brands of chloride-deficient soy formula, Neo-Mul-Soy and CHOFree, produced by a company called Syntex. The plaintiffs argued that by removing chloride (in the form of sodium chloride) from the formula, their children did not achieve their full intellectual potential. Mary testified that chloride was essential for the growth and development of the brain. Syntex went out of the infant formula business because of adverse publicity about their products.

A news article appearing after the trial quoted a juror who worked for a pet food company. “There is more quality control for pet food,” she said, “than for infant formula.”

At no time is quality control more important than during infancy, when the body is built, the endocrine system activated, and the brain and nervous system being formed. Yet our medical system assures us that the diet of a nursing mother does not affect the quality of her milk, and the formula makers warn us that only they can put a sanitary and scientific formula together for our babies.

Most practitioners are horrified at the thought of mothers making formula for their babies, citing the possibility of mistakes and contamination. But any mother who cares enough to make a whole foods baby formula will do so with far more care than the most reputable formula maker. Today’s cost-cutting measures and black market in formula put babies more at risk than ever.

There is no better example of the callousness of the formula industry than their promotion of soy-based formula, which is totally unsuitable for babies. In fact, during the Neo-Mul-Soy case, the defendants insisted that the Neo-Mul-Soy-fed babies be compared only with other soy-fed babies. They knew that a comparison with babies fed milk-based formula would make the whole soy product line look bad.

In the aftermath of the tragedy of September 11, Americans are reexamining their values. What better place to start than to take a clear-eyed look at the way we feed our young. Perhaps our new sensibilities will help parents realize that unhealthy foods and the desire for convenience place a terrible burden of poor health on the next generation. If we are to make the world a better place in which to live, we will need a generation of healthy, clear-thinking individuals. This can only be accomplished by quality control in our diets from the very beginning—before conception, during pregnancy, while breastfeeding and in the food choices we make for our children as they mature and grow.

An estimated 25% of North American babies receive infant formula made from processed soybeans. Parents use soy formula in the belief that is it healthier than formula based on cows’ milk. Soy promotional material claims that soy provides complete protein that is less allergenic than cows’ milk protein. When soy infant formula first became commercially available, manufacturers even promised that soy formula was "better than breast milk."

Parents have a right to know how these extravagant claims compare to scientific findings related to soy infant formula.

While soybeans are relatively high in protein compared to other legumes, scientists have long recognized them as a poor source of protein because other proteins found in soybeans act as potent enzyme inhibitors. These "antinutrients" block the action of trypsin and other enzymes needed for protein digestion. In test animals, diets high in trypsin inhibitors depress growth and cause enlargement and pathological conditions of the pancreas, including cancer.

The soy industry recognizes that trypsin inhibitors are a problem in infant formula and have spent millions of dollars to determine the best way to remove them. Trypsin inhibitors are large, tightly folded proteins that are only deactivated after a considerable period of heat treatment. This process removes most—but not all—of the trypsin inhibitors, but has the unfortunate side effect of over-denaturing the other proteins in soy, particularly lysine, rendering them difficult to digest and possibly toxic. Even in low amounts, trypsin inhibitors prevented normal growth in rats.

The main ingredient in soy infant formula is soy protein isolate, a powder extracted from soybeans through a process that involves not only high temperatures but also caustic chemicals. The alkaline soaking solution produces a carcinogen, lysinealine, and reduces the cystine content, which is already low in the soybean. Other carcinogens called nitrosamines are formed during high temperature spray drying.

Soybeans also contain high levels of phytic acid or phytates. This is an organic acid, present in the outer portion of all seeds, which blocks the uptake of essential minerals-calcium, magnesium, iron and especially zinc-in the intestinal tract. Soybeans have very high levels of a form of phytic acid that is particularly difficult to neutralize. As early as 1967, researchers testing soy formula found that it caused negative zinc balance in every infant to whom it was given. Scientists have found a strong correlation between phytate content in formula and poor growth, even when the diets were additionally supplemented with zinc. High amounts of phytic acid in soy foods and grains have caused retarded growth in children on macrobiotic diets. A reduced rate of growth is especially serious in the infant as it causes a delay in the accumulation of lipids in the myelin, and hence jeopardizes the development of the brain and nervous system.

Soy formula can also cause vitamin deficiencies. Soy increases the body’s requirements for vitamin B12, a nutrient that is absolutely vital for good health. Early studies with soy formula indicated that soy blocks the uptake of fats. This may explain why soy seems to increase the body’s requirements for fat-soluble vitamin D.

Aluminum content of soy formula is 10 times greater than milk based formula, and 100 times greater than unprocessed milk. Aluminum has a toxic effect on the kidneys of infants, and has been implicated as causing Alzheimer’s in adults. Soy formulas lack cholesterol, another nutrient that is absolutely essential for the development of the brain and nervous system; they also lack lactose and galactose, which play an equally important role in the development of the nervous system. A number of other substances, which are unnecessary and of questionable safety, are added to soy formulas including carrageenan, guar gum, sodium hydroxide (caustic soda), potassium citrate monohydrate, tricalcium phosphate, dibasic magnesium phosphate trihydrate, BHA and BHT.

What about the claim that soy formula is less allergenic than cows milk formula? Studies indicate that allergies to soy are almost as common as those to milk. Use of soy formula to treat infant diarrhea has had mixed results, some studies showing improvement with soy formula while others show none at all.

The most serious problem with soy formula is the presence of phytoestrogens or isoflavones. While many claims have been made about the health benefits of these estrogen-like compounds, animal studies indicate that they are powerful endocrine disrupters that alter growth patterns and cause sterility. Toxicologists estimate that an infant exclusively fed soy formula receives the estrogenic equivalent of at least five birth control pills per day. By contrast, almost no phytoestrogens have been detected in dairy-based infant formula or in human milk, even when the mother consumes soy products. A recent study found that babies fed soy-based formula had 13,000 to 22,0000 times more isoflavones in their blood than babies fed milk-based formula. Scientists have known for years that isoflavones in soy products can depress thyroid function, causing autoimmune thyroid disease and even cancer of the thyroid. But what are the effects of soy products on the hormonal development of the infant, both male and female?

Male infants undergo a "testosterone surge" during the first few months of life, when testosterone levels may be as high as those of an adult male. During this period, the infant is programed to express male characteristics after puberty, not only in the development of his sexual organs and other masculine physical traits, but also in setting patterns in the brain characteristic of male behavior. In monkeys, deficiency of male hormones impairs learning and the ability to perform visual discrimination tasks-such as would be required for reading-and retards the development of spatial perception, which is normally more acute in men than in women.

It goes without saying that future patterns of sexual orientation may also be influenced by the early hormonal environment. Pediatricians are noticing greater numbers of boys whose physical maturation is delayed, or does not occur at all, including lack of development of the sexual organs. Learning disabilities, especially in male children, have reached epidemic proportions. Soy infant feeding-which floods the bloodstream with female hormones that could inhibit the effects of male hormones-cannot be ignored as a possible cause for these tragic developments.

As for girls, an alarming number are entering puberty much earlier than normal, according to a recent study reported in the journal Pediatrics. Investigators found that one percent of all girls now show signs of puberty, such as breast development or pubic hair, before the age of three; by age eight, 14.7 percent of white girls and a whopping 48.3 percent of African-American girls had one or both of these characteristics. New data indicate that environmental estrogens such as PCBs and DDE (a breakdown product of DDT) may cause early sexual development in girls and a study in Puerto Rico implicated soy feeding as a cause of early menarche. The use of soy formula in the WIC program, which supplies free formula to welfare mothers, may explain the astronomical rates of early menarche in African American girls.

The consequences are tragic. Young girls with mature bodies must cope with feelings and urges that most children are not well-equipped to handle. And early maturation in girls is frequently a harbinger for problems with the reproductive system later in life including failure to menstruate, infertility and breast cancer.

Other problems that have been anecdotally associated with children of both sexes who were fed soy-based formula include extreme emotional behavior, asthma, immune system problems, pituitary insufficiency, thyroid disorders and irritable bowel syndrome.

Concerns about the dangers of soy have prompted consumer groups in New Zealand and Canada to call for a ban on the sale of soy infant formula. Milk-based formula contains a better protein profile and does not flood the infant with antinutrients and female hormones. Breast feeding is best IF the mother has consumed a healthy diet, one that is rich in animal proteins and fats, throughout her pregnancy and continues to do so while nursing her infant. Mothers who cannot breast feed, for whatever reason, should prepare homemade formula based on whole milk for their babies. The rare child allergic to whole milk formula should be given a whole foods meat-based formula, not one made of soy protein isolate. Parents who invest time in preparing homemade formula will be well rewarded with the joys of conferring robust good health on their children.

Infant Formulas

By Jack Samuels

From time to time, we are asked whether infant formulas contain processed free glutamic acid (MSG) and processed free aspartic acid – both neurotoxins, particularly toxic to the vulnerable nervous system of the infant.

Results of analyses of five formulas purchased in Canada are shown in Table 1. Brands are listed in alphabetical order. Ingredients of products sold in the United States and other countries may vary. The manufacturer of Enfalac sold in Canada uses the product name Enfamil in the United States.

TABLE 1

In a brochure for their Enfalac formula line, Mead Johnson Nutritionals states that infant formula requirements are as follows:

1-week-old infant — 6 to 10 bottles of 2 to 4 oz. formula
3-month-old infant — 4 to 5 bottles of 6 to 8 oz. formula

Taking an average of the formula requirements given by Mead Johnson Nutritionals we find that the average requirements would be:

1-week-old—8 bottles of 3 oz. formula = 24 oz. formula per day
3-month-old—4.5 bottles of 7 oz. formula = 31.5 oz. formula per day

Tables 2 and 3 show the amounts of neurotoxic glutamic acid and neurotoxic aspartic acid that would be ingested daily by an average infant on each of the analyzed formulas for ages 1 week and 3 months.

TABLE 2

TABLE 3

FORMULA SOLD IN THE USA

In so far as we know, there has been no study of quantities of neurotoxic amino acids (glutamic acid, aspartic acid, and L-cysteine) present in infant formula sold in the USA. So we picked two cans of formula off our grocer’s shelves to illustrate the fact that formula sold in the USA has its share of MSG-containing ingredients. The ingredients are shown in Table 4. Those known to contain MSG or create MSG during processing are shown in bold. L-cysteine is noted in italics because it, like glutamic acid and aspartic acid, is a neurotoxic amino acid.

TABLE 4

Ingredients in infant formula sold in the USA

Nestlé Carnation Good Start (Easy to Digest Comfort proteins): Water, enzymatically hydrolyzed reduced minerals whey protein concentrate (from cows’s milk), vegetable oils (palm olein, soy, coconut, high-oleic safflower), lactose, corn maltodextrin. . .

Enfamil Nutramigen Hypoallergenic Formula: Water, corn syrup solids. . . casein hydrolysate, modified corn starch. . . carrageenan, L-cysteine. . .

SUMMARY

The Canadian Study leaves no room for doubt that ingredients that contain processed free glutamic acid (MSG) and free aspartic acid — known neurotoxins— are used in baby formula. The fact that neurotoxins are present in baby formula is of particular concern since the blood brain barrier is not fully developed in infants, allowing neurotoxins to be more accessible to the brain than is the case in healthy adults.

The amounts of aspartic acid and glutamic acid found in the formulas analyzed in the Canadian Study have been listed separately in the tables. However, in studies using experimental animals, neuroscientists have found that glutamic acid and aspartic acid load on the same receptors in the brain, cause identical brain lesions and neuroendocrine disorders, and act in an additive fashion.

You will note that the level of neurotoxins found in the hypoallergenic formula was far greater than the level of neurotoxins found in the other formulas. In reviewing the literature on hypoallergenic formulas, we have found short-term studies that concluded that hypoallergenic formulas are safe because babies tolerated them and gained weight. However, we have not seen any long-term studies on the safety of hypoallergenic formulas. We believe that well designed long term studies would demonstrate that infants raised on hypoallergenic formulas, as compared to infants who are breastfed or fed on non-hypoallergenic formulas, will exhibit more learning disabilities at school age, and/or more endocrine disorders, such as obesity and reproductive disorders, later in life. Long-term studies on the effects of hypoallergenic formulas need to be done.

To put these figures in perspective, consider that in an FDA-sponsored study dated July, 1992 entitled “Safety of Amino Acids Used in Dietary Supplements,” the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology concluded, in part, that “...it is prudent to avoid the use of dietary supplements of L-glutamic acid by pregnant women, infants, and children. . . and. . . by women of childbearing age and individuals with affective disorders.” (MSG is called glutamic acid or L-glutamic acid when used in supplements.)

Consider also, that a press release dated May 27, 1999, which discussed the European Commission marketing authorization for RotaShield(R) Rotavirus Vaccine (since removed from the market) stated, in part, “RotaShield(R) should not be given to infants who are hypersensitive to latex or. . . monosodium glutamate.”

During the 1960s, the food ingredient “monosodium glutamate” was routinely added to baby foods. The industry “voluntarily” ceased the practice after Congressional hearings in which concerned researchers warned of serious adverse effects. However, for some years following the elimination of “monosodium glutamate,” hydrolyzed proteins were used in place of “monosodium glutamate.” Hydrolyzed proteins always contain MSG.

Many consumers now know to avoid baby foods with hydrolyzed proteins. Yet how many parents realize that MSG lurks in every bottle of formula given to their infants? Babies on hypoallergenic formulas receive about 1 gram of total neurotoxins per day, a level at which many MSG-sensitive individuals experience adverse reactions.

We wish to express our appreciation to Baby Love Products Inc. of Camrose, Alberta, Canada for obtaining some of the above information. For further information on MSG, see http://www.truthinlabeling.org/.