Talk:Soybean/Archive 1

Taxonomy

I thought we decided to keep the taxonomy simple in the table with only unsing sub and super taxons to organize children lists? --maveric149, Friday, July 19, 2002

There are *so* many genera in Fabaceae that I'm putting them on subpages, and therefore anyone who follows the Fabaceae link has to know the subfamily to find it. Of course all beans are Faboideae except the coffee bean, the castor bean, and the human bean, but for the other two I'm sure there's a tree not many people know whether is a Caesalpinioidea or a Mimosoidea. -PierreAbbat —Preceding undated comment added 23:01, 19 July 2002 (UTC).

Ah, I see there is logic to your madness. :) Although I don't think we should bother writing articles on sub and super taxa when there are so many non-sub/super taxon articles to write. Having these might seem confusing for visitors too (however sub and super taxa are a great way to organize lists -- as you have done). Even without the Faboideae a visitor will still find everything needed in Fabaceae. This will keep the table clean, predictable and easy to use. --maveric149 —Preceding undated comment added 23:20, 19 July 2002 (UTC).

The Prophet Hates Soy

The entire "caveat" section is highly reminicent of this: The Dangers of Soy: Advertising and Your Health Call me skeptical, but I doubt islamonline.net does the world's best research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.98.78 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 13 April 2005 (UTC)

I agree - this seems to violate NPOV. One of the most negative articles about soybeans I've ever read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tharionwind (talk • contribs) 06:17, 15 April 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The poor grammar alone made me suspicious before I read the talk page. Any obvious refutations of the "caveat" in biological or agricultural literature? --150.135.183.15 03:17, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The claim that MSG is a potent neurotoxin is pretty laughable. Other than that I'm not sure but I will try to check it out. PubMed ought to give us some answers. The main argument that soy milk is not appropriate for infants I have definitely heard before, but I actually dunno if it's right or not. The stuff about cancer rates in Asia is also at least partly correct... --Chinasaur 07:42, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The islamonline site has this as one of its references. But this article makes it pretty clear that soy is not the problem with this infant formula. Hmmm, I'm not sure that discrediting islamonline will clear up the caveats section of this article. Unless we're sure that's where these caveats came from? --Chinasaur 07:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here's a recent study that appears to debunk the claims in the caveats section. I will comment out the caveats section now. But we should add a sectio to the article addressing the history of sensationalism around infant soy formulae. PMID 15113975 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinasaur (talk • contribs) 09:53, 16 April 2005 (UTC)

Another study with no negative effects of soy: PMID 15294661. But here is a review claiming more studies are needed: PMID 15189112 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinasaur (talk • contribs) 10:03, 16 April 2005 (UTC)

This article looks like it has been cleaned up, so I'm going to remove the POV tag. --CVaneg 21:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Poor Grammar

Having just read the soybean article I don't find poor grammar or much that would be considered unobjective. What does the soy article have to do with MSG? It makes no claims about MSG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.191.138 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 27 April 2005 (UTC)

Then what the hell is meant by: It is never correct to say "bean" when you mean to say, soybean, just as it is never correct to say "dirt" when you mean to say soil. [unsigned]

Being new here, I'm sure there are better phrases than "what the hell", but nonetheless, I'm in more sure that the original sentence must be contrary some documented wiki explantion (that someone whose been here longer can quote), ie what wikipedia is and isn't. I'm pretty sure we're not what you can and cannot call a soybean, and using analogies in encyclopedic entries. So I took the sentence out. JamieJones 02:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Origin of the word "Soy"

This article claims soy comes from Japanese shoyu, but which in turn comes from Chinese "Soy yu". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.167.219 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 13 June 2005 (UTC)

What are the sources of these two claims? I find it unlikely that the Japanese word would be the source because it would not be pronounced much like 'soy' is in English, while the Chinese might be (I don't know any Chinese, only some Japanese). Perhaps I'll try to track them down, but if anyone else cares to... --Starsapphire 03:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

from the American Heritage Dictionary online (for purposes of this discussion only and not to be directly pasted into an article since it would be copyvio):

"ETYMOLOGY: Dutch soja, soya, from Japanese shyu, from Chinese (Mandarin) jiàngyóu, soy sauce : jiàng, soy paste + yóu, sauce."

-- WormRunner | Talk 03:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you so much! That makes much more sense to me. --Starsapphire 02:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I just modified the paragraph on the etymology including a source to reflect that soya came from Dutch, but soy came straight from Japanese. To quote the OED (which I reference but which others might not be able to access):

soy¹. adopted from Japanese soy (also shoy), colloquial form of shōyu or siyau-yu, adaptation of Chinese shi-yu, shi-yau, etc., from shi salted beans, or the like, used as condiments + yu oil. The Japanese form is also the source of Malay soi, Dutch soya, soja.

That last bit that I bolded is where the British English form soya comes from. Also worth noting that according to the OED, in colloquial Japanese at least, soy was indeed pronounced without the h. --Severinus (talk) 08:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The Cantonese name of soy sauce should be considered as an origin of the word: 豉油 (si6 yau4) --Kvasir 20:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

America still largest producer?

I think I heard on the news the other day that Brazil surpassed America in soy production last year, which contradicts this article. Has anyone else seen data on this? TastyCakes 22:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

According to link The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the United States produced 85,740,952 MT of soybeans while Brazil only produced 49,205,268 MT in 2004. That satisfies me that the article has it right. --Starsapphire 04:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I think what you (tastycakes) think about is export. Brazil is closing in on the US as the worlds largest exporter of soybeans. According to FAO, the USA export in 2004 was 25 602 609 metric tonnes, while Brazil exported 19 247 690 MT. -Veldho

could be... TastyCakes 00:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

When did this become an anti soybean article? It needs some serious reworking, the negative information about soy needs to be moved to an article called "Critcism of soybeans Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll assume it's some new hip joke to find a boring article and claim it's controversial.. yes yes, very funny. Let me know if this humour thing pans out for you. In the mean time, I have de-disputed the article. TastyCakes 16:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The anti-soybean material has been made so it doesnt display with "<!==", yet it is still in the body of the article. Its no joke. Maybe its time to move ir to its own page

Ah, I see. Is that stuff all bunk or is some of it legitimate? Criticism of soybeans seems like a pretty specialized subject to have it's own entry.. Couldn't we just remove all the stuff that isn't backed up with reasonable sources? TastyCakes 21:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The dramatic increase is largely credited to the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) approval of health claims for soy which very likely is unfounded (see below: #Reduce Cholesterol?).[3] Since the bulk of the soy grown in the US is GMO variety the chief beneficiaries of the increase are the biotech seed companies. Dr. Jane E. Henney who was the FDA commissioner at the time, now sits on the board of biotech giant Astra Zeneca. Many top agency officials from the Bush Administration, have been under criticism for close ties to industry and possible financial conflicts of interest. The former USDA Secretary of Agriculture, Daniel Robert Glickman, also left to accept seats on the boards of soy related companies including Hain Foods.

Does this belong in the article? Does it matter to the general world of soybeans who sits on what board? Does unsubstantiated charges of "close ties" or "possible financial conflict of interest" have any sort of bearing on soybeans in general? It seems to me the answers should be "no". I read this section and I was thinking "So what?" after each sentence (except for the first). ScottMo 16:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. I'm sorely tempted to delete that paragraph outright; it's quite POV ans misplaced. If kept, it needs to be toned down/balanced, and moved to a "Controversy" section, not left lurking in the "Uses" section. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand soy is a hormone inhibitor. It can cause women to stop menstruating. It can cause digestion problems, and more. I am not anti-soy (I am eating Soy Crisps right now), that is just some of the things I have run across. I think it is mostly damaging if it is your only protein intake. This article talks about one woman's experience: http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/56087/ 170.104.115.26 22:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Question: Can someone explain why an omega3:omega6 ratio of 3:1 in flax seed oil would decrease omega 3(aLNA) conversion to DHA and EPA? That is stated within the article in comparison with soy's 1:7 content. I would think that this should increase the conversion rate by increasing the substrate of the reaction. Is there feedback inhibition here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.63.205 (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Soy complete protein?

So I lift weights on a regular basis. I get a lot of advice from fellow artisans of holding heavy things aloft but I also get advice from people with nutrition and biochemistry degrees who also lift weights; none of them seem to take steroids. They insist that soy is not a complete proten and swear by whey protein supplements. The whey weight lifters do have results to show by where as the vegan/vegetarian weightlifters, while also in excellent shape, are often of the very lean and toned variety and not of the large muscular variety.

So who's right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.123.85.201 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Something else occurs to me, too. One of the possible reasons for the difference between vegan and non-vegan weightlifters is perhaps it is an artifact of the two very different subcultures. Most vegans I know are very active outside the gym, enaging in rockclimbing, cycling, etc whereas most weightlifters, myself included, are more sedentary in home life, focusing more on the challenge of weightlifting and bodybuilding or staring at the wall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.123.85.201 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Here is an answer to the question of soy being a complete protein from http://web.aces.uiuc.edu/faq/faq.pdl?project_id=5&faq_id=74 :

"Soy protein is a complete source of protein containing adequate quantities of all 9 essential amino acids which are necessary for the building and maintenance of human body tissues (Erdman & Fordyce, 1989). The soybean does not lack sulfur-containing amino acids cysteine and methionine, as some people think. Soybeans are limiting in methionine and cysteine, not lacking. In addition, cysteine is not an essential amino acid. Several years ago the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the World Health Organization (WHO) adapted a new method for evaluating protein quality which is not based on the growth of young rats (as was the old method, the Protein Efficiency Ratio). The new method, called the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS), compares the amino acids in a protein with human requirements and adjusts for digestibility. Using this new method of evaluating protein quality, soy was given a score of one (the highest possible) and is now considered to be equivalent to animal protein (Sarwar & McDonough, 1990). Soy protein isolates and concentrates are complete proteins which are well-tolerated and can easily serve as the sole source of protein intake for adults as well as children. (Young, 1994)."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.165.173.166 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be assuming that soy is the only source of protein for Vegans. The various amino acids are contained in a variety of vegetables (broccoli is 45% amino acids). The human body is perfectly capable of putting these together to create complete proteins, so even if Soy isn't quite as good a source of protein as whey, healthy vegans will create enough protein to meet their needs. Animal proteins seem to develop muscle faster but I believe the jury is still out on whether it's the healthiest way to bulk up. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 06:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Nutrition and health effects

"Infants fed normal adult soy milk for any length of time, have become extremely malnourished and even died. This is so because undiluted soy milk contains about the same proportion of protein as cow's milk~ ***around 30% ***which is way too much for a human infant--***human milk is about 6% protein.*** THIS IS VANDALISM..a little common sense please: 30% protein in cow's milk is laughable as is 6% for human milk....

I came across a great review on soy's benefits at http://www.revivalsoy.com/benefits - the FDA has stated there is NOT any statistically-signifcant evidence that soy causes harm to any patient group. What is funny is that the anti-soy sites don't have any of the recent safety studies posted. With billions being lost by the beef and dairy industry, you would have to be naive to think that these groups aren't being funded by the cow lovers! So eat your soy and become smart enough to learn the truth! :)

From what I've seen, quite a few "anti-soy" sites have lots of other "out there" claims about other safe foods as well, and also other unsubstantiated and biased bits of health "advice". Ralphael 02:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I came across a recently added sentence in this part of the article yesterday. "In fact, scientists are in general agreement that grain and legume based diets high in phytates contribute to widespread mineral deficiencies in third world countries". While it doesn't seem completely implausible that this is the case, does anyone have any actual reports or evidence that backs this up? Ralphael 22:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Since I couldn't find any evidence for this sentence, I removed it for now. Ralphael 02:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC) soy started in germany

I'd like to know where the scientific evidence to support the claim isoflavones can prevent cancer is. Surely this isn't NPOV or factual. Also mentioning *EARLY* research showing the *POTENTIAL* for phytic acid to combat colon cancer is highly misleading. How about sticking to completed research that has reached a conclusion? Conversely research into the effects of soy on thyroid functionality is well documented. I personally know scientists strongly opposed to soy infant formulas that have no connection at all with Weston Price or Mercola. The negative effects of soy are not new "loud" claims. There have been studies since the 1930's raising concerns about soy consumption. If someone could point to a *CONCLUSIVE*, *NON-BIASED*, *INDEPENDANT* study supporting ANY positive health claims in relation to soy I'd be very interested. With 85% of the edible oils consumed in the US being from soy it is little wonder there is an obesity epidemic (As anyone with more than a primary school education should know, estrogens cause laying down of fat). What about decreasing fertility? Isn't anyone even remotely conecerned about the effects estrogens could have on male sexual and more importantly cognitive function??? I'd be very surprised if those responsible for the edits don't have industry connections.

Dear Anonymous Poster, I wish I had industry connections, I could use a better job at the moment. I was going to post a listing of some research for you, but I wouldn't know where to start. The beneficial effects of isoflavones are supported by an overwhelming set of studies (some will be rightly disputed, but a great chunk of it is good). Run a search at your local library in an academic database or a local university. If you are in New York state, you can also use the NOVEL databases with your driver's license as password. Go to the New York State Library's website to access them. It should more than satisfy you. I haven't found any studies that actually produced results that hold up under scrutiny in terms of health problems in those not allergic. I tried very hard for a friend who *is* a member of the Weston A. Price Foundation while I was employed at an academic library. Phytoestrogens are not estrogens. They are chemically similar and marketed by unregulated supplement manufacturers for menopausal women...often with no real effects there either. Read the research on the topic. Again, there is a huge amount out there. The only conclusive biological research is that which rules out a claim, not that which supports it. Non-biased is very easy. Any double blind is very tricky to bias without some very odd conclusions that are usually caught in the next issue of the journal by the scientific community. Independent? From who, universities? doctors? soy farmers? Research is research. If the study is well contrived, it will float. If it isn't, the community will balk at it, and it will likely not be published. It is very convenient to dismiss any research you see because you imagine that it must have been funded by some special interest. That just isn't how evidence works. It either exists or it doesn't (statistical errors and rehashing via careful manipulation of numbers aside..thus the need for double blinds and the rest of the scientific community). As anyone with a college education in anatomy and physiology would know, estrogens lay down a subcutaneous layer of fat and spur the development of secondary sexual characteristics of women--they are not going to cause male obesity without first making his skin buttery-soft, taking off his body hair and producing breasts! Fertility is not a problem in the US in the levels that it would be if what you say is accurate (my son was conceived on the first try and born on the due date--he'd have been a miscarriage if my wife had taken estrogens). Cognitive function? Read the studies--only one suggested anything there, and it was awfully speculative and produced a rather spurious correlation. Soy oil has been the number one fat in the US since 1953 according to Food Review, Sept-Dec, 1998. I think we'd all be dead, transgendered or idiots if what you say is true. The best test of long term safety is long term use (unfortunately). We live longer than we did then. We have had declining heart disease mortality (deaths from heart disease peaked in the 1950s...when lard was number one over soy until '53). I, personally, don't need a study to interpret that. I don't think I need to mention Japan, do I? They are some of the longest lived people in the world, and they eat far more soy than Americans. I would be out there screaming to any official I could get my hands on if this were all true. I assure you of that! I write letters to politicians and go to demonstrations at the very least when there is a problem. This isn't one of those problems. --Starsapphire 22:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC) Raphael's reply follows--sorry to stick mine in between.

>>>Industry connections? Really, I'm just interested in Wikipedia having a factually accurate article about a commonly eaten, nutrient-rich bean that's been a part of the human diet in many countries for centuries now.

Phytoestrogens are found in other legumes as well, peanuts included. Do you really think that those who consume peanuts are going to become mentally challenged, obese, and infertile? Please, if you have any neutrally-oriented, accurate references with studies that show a significant co-relation between legume consumption and obesity or other health problems in humans, show them.

Granted, if one consumes excessive amounts of fat, like that in soybean oil, one very well could become overweight. It's well-established that overconsumption of calorie-rich foods can cause obesity. The phytoestrogen content of the food does not matter in this respect.

As for studies which show that soybeans can be a healthful addition to one's diet...

"[Dr. Alice] Lichtenstein reported that scientists at FDA, the agency that regulates the health claims that US food manufacturers use to advertise their products, considered more than 20 years' worth of research on soy protein and its effect on blood cholesterol levels. In these studies the effectiveness of soy varied from none to beneficial. However, the most consistent finding was that when people with elevated cholesterol level replaced some of the animal protein in their diet (from meat and dairy foods) with about 25 grams of soy protein (a plant-derived protein), their total and LDL cholesterol levels declined.

In addition to its protein, soy contains compounds called isoflavones that may contribute to heart health as well. The research into these compounds is not yet conclusive, but some studies have suggested that isoflavones help to decrease both total and LDL cholesterol and possibly increase "good" HDL cholesterol levels."

Source: healthandage.com

While as the excerpt states, research into the effect of isoflavones on heart health are not "conclusive", much nutritional research is not. Still, one would be much more hard-pressed to find definitive evidence that moderate consumption of soybeans carries any health risks whatsoever for non-allergic individuals. Ralphael 18:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't this section seem relatively biased (and in some parts, almost ridiculous)? I have some doubts that the soybean can be legitimately considered a "highly toxic" legume, considering millions of people consume it daily without adverse health effects; if I'm not mistaken, highly toxic implies consumption could be very dangerous, or even fatal. Ralphael 20:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I have encountered much of this language before. None of it has ever panned out. It is largely the sort of nonsense peddled by the Weston Price Foundation (www.westonaprice.org) and Dr. Joseph Mercola (mercola.com). I've been trying to substantiate their rather loud claims for six months with literature reviews. They vastly distort research to (in the case of Mercola) sell competing products. Their ideas are becoming very popular in holistic health circles right now. I imagine it will flood wikipedia in the coming months. Watch the articles on refined sugar, pasteurized milk, fatty acids and anything about flour. I can't even find the 'research' source of the claims in the health warnings section. They are pretty far out there. I am not sure what the most appropriate response is within wikipedia, being new. I could write a new section with some actual citations. Note that the only cited reference in this section denies the author credibility (possibly inserted by someone else). The folks I've confronted who believe this sort of stuff have justified this sort of reinterpreting of evidence to me by way of channeled writings about aliens enslaving us through grains...I'm not kidding. It isn't impartial nor is it going to go away, in my opinion. On the other hand, it is an opinion some people hold. --Starsapphire 03:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and edited the section in question; hopefully now it's more NPOV and factual. If you can see any way to improve it though, definitely go ahead. Ralphael 19:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

It is much better, thank you. On the other hand, the aluminum in soy issue apparently is related to the production of soy infant formula. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. July 2003 v103 i7 pS4(2) is a Q&A format article intended to describe recent consensus on the issue. Apparently, aluminum is constantly all around us, but it is in higher concentrations in certain drugs (like antacids) and soy infant formula because of the processing it undergoes. The amount in the formula is only 25% of the the upper tolerances of aluminum for humans. That means that it is not considered a contraindication for use in infants whose parents are unable to breast feed and are vegan or for truely lactose intolerant infants. I noted that the citation at the bottom for dangers of soy is Sally Fallon and Mary Enig...both Weston A. Price Foundation members who advocate radical changes to the diet such as consuming nearly 50% of one's energy as saturated fats (from their cookbook..have to check the title). We are talking about opinions that are so far outside normal science and medicine that it is astonishing (Mary Enig's research is almost entirely on coconut oils for some reason...usually trying to make it sound like a panacea). They want a ban on soy infant formula (I suppose that lactose intolerant infants can find alternatives or die). They refer to sugar as a poison (again, fear mongering with overly strong words). They are also getting lots of voice because they are a noisy, tiny fringe. Chiropractors and others are now starting to get on that bandwagon. Funny, nutritionists aren't. Only one article in the Lancet from 1985 supports their ideas on soy infant formula (all over the internet now), and it was admitted to be mistaken by the authors of the study. Apparently, also from the same ADA article above, the Hawaii study sounds terribly flawed. It only showed that congnitive function was more likely to be impared in men who ate tofu regularly than those who did not. This really doesn't demonstrate a thing other than the exact previous sentence. In fact, the same may not be true of another country or even town. It certainly is not a causal connection. Also, apparently soy milk (precursor to tofu) is only twice as high in aluminum as cow milk. That wouldn't be a significant amount, nor all that likely to cause an effect because of aluminum (compared to the huge dose in antacids--which may have had some health effect after prolonged usage). What I'm saying is that all this is VERY speculative and perhaps should be framed as such. I certainly can't say if it is wrong. It just isn't all supported by the facts. Aluminum is considered scary because of very speculative research in 2000 that linked it to congnitive problems--but it is in most of your food naturally no matter what it is cooked in. BTW, the Bowman-Birk soy protease inhibitor is being evaluated as a potential cancer preventative. Do you see why I say it's all speculative? Maybe I'll toy with the wording this weekend. I want to give respect to the opinions of others while pointing out that this is a very unusual set of conclusions. --Starsapphire 03:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, someone altered the recent edits only hours after I made them, adding a >lot< of dubious claims; once again, I'll try and fix them, and I'll start watching the article from now on. I certainly agree with respecting the opinions of others and providing a fair, accurate article, but altering this section with hypotheses that have little verifiable evidence is pushing it, especially ones that basically say the soybean is "dangerous" or unfit for human consumption. Ralphael 19:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I did post some PubMed links to research on soy dangers a long time ago, see below. Some are reviews, I think one relatively positive and one more tentative, so that should be helpful. I still haven't gotten to reading them myself (sorry!), but you might check them out if you haven't. It would be nice to incorporate some specific citations into contentious points of the main article as this might make it more immune to outlandish vandalism. --Chinasaur 21:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I also draw your attention to Fermented soy products, where someone has apparently tried to create an article solely to bash soy. I "fixed" it, by blanking most of the page, but I didn't list it on VfD yet as it seems like it is actually kind of a useful list to have going. "Fermented soy products" was originally redlinked from the Macrobiotics page, so there is some interest in having this article. I assume the soy basher found the redlink and decided to write his own version and that's where things got ugly. --Chinasaur 21:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hashimoto's Thyroiditis and Soy

recently my sister has been diagnosed with Hashimoto's Thyroiditis which is an autoimmune diesase which results in the inflamation of the thyroid gland (which in turn causes goitre)and hypothyroidism. after doing some reasearch on this we found a link between consuming soy products and this diesease. if anybody has any information on this could you please post it on this page. [unsigned]

Category

From WP:CG:

An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, for example Microsoft Office is in Category:Microsoft software, so should not also be in Category:Software. An article with the same name as a category should usually belong only to that category, for instance, Deism belongs only in Category:Deism.

Thus, if this article is in category "soy", and category "soy" is in "food crops" and "beans", then this article should not be in the food crops and beans categories. If you think about it, it does make sense. --DannyWilde 01:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

FDA's comments on soy's safety

US FDA says it weighed soy concerns versus benefits By Lisa Richwine

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. health regulators weighed concerns that soy products might be harmful but decided soy's positive effects justified touting its benefits to consumers, a Food and Drug Administration official said Monday.

The agency comment came in response to published remarks from two FDA scientists that eating soy might cause health problems, particularly if given daily to infants in soy milk formulas.

Drs. Daniel Doerge and Daniel Sheehan, the FDA scientists, have spoken to media organizations to warn that infants given soy formula might grow up to develop fertility problems.

They also worry that eating soy regularly might increase the risk of breast cancer in women and brain damage in men. Their most recent comments were published in Britain's Observer newspaper Sunday.

FDA officials considered the scientists' views and those of other critics before announcing last October that they would permit manufacturers to advertise that eating soy could help adults cut their risk of heart disease.

``We are well aware of the concerns, but we did balance those concerns with the other positive effects, an FDA official said in an interview Monday.

The FDA reviewed scientific studies on soy before concluding that adults who consume 25 grams of soy protein per day could see a ``significant lowering of cholesterol, which would lower their risk of heart disease. High cholesterol is a major risk factor for heart disease, the leading killer of Americans.

Critics told the FDA soy could cause harm because it contains a chemical similar to the female hormone, estrogen, that might disrupt normal hormone levels and impair development. Some warned about the possibility of cancer, impaired fertility or thyroid problems.

The FDA said the concerns were not supported by conclusive scientific research. While chemicals in soy do exert hormonal effects, the impact is ``very limited and much lower than that of natural or synthetic estrogens, the FDA said when it announced it would permit the soy health claim.

Concerns that soy infant formula could be harmful were speculative pending the outcome of definitive research, the agency said.

Critics who worry about the effects of soy infant formula recommend that it be used only when no alternatives exist.

A farmer-supported group said Monday concerns about soy's health effects were not new but were not widely held.

``The overwhelming body of published peer-reviewed scientific evidence shows soy has numerous health benefits, said Michael Orso, a spokesman for the United Soybean Board. ^ REUTERS@

17:23 08-14-00

Copyright 2000 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. [unsigned]

Major cleanup

Did major cleanup. Had some "conflict" with another edit - I hope i preserved the integrity. Didn't change content, just rearranged and organized. JamieJones 15:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Done some more cleanup and tidying; removed this quote, which seems rather pointless - MPF:

"It is never correct to say bean when you mean to say, soybean", just as it is never correct to say "dirt" when you mean to say soil (Smith and Circle, 1972).

1999 Honolulu Heart Program study: soy has brain atrophy link?

In recent years there has been some concern that consumption of certain soy products may lead to higher likelihood of dementia in the elderly. Primarily this issue was raised by the Honolulu Heart Program, which studied food consumption in Japanese-Americans and isolated a neurological degenerative aging of up to five years to the regular consumption of tofu, with some statistically insignificant suggestion that miso might also be implicated. The results of the study came out in 1999 or 2000.

I don't know where the right place is for a discussion of the above effect, but at the time of the release it was considered quite a bombshell and as such I think it would be negligent to avoid a mention that soy may have adverse cognitive effects, particularly in men. This is not a fluff issue, nor is it a scare of the Mercola or Weston A. Price ilk.

If there's someone who knows where to appropriately cover adverse cognitive effects of soy consumption, I encourage you to add a paragraph or two on the above-mentioned study. The best summary discussion I've found so far is here: Soy: Brain Atrophy Link?. The page is reference-heavy and contains abundant links to journal articles and other discussions. [unsigned]

I'd suggest you take a good, critical look at the rest of Ian Goddard's site before you grow too concerned about soy rotting your brain (in particular, see this). Moreover, the page to which you linked is largely a reposting of a number of Usenet threads, and, as far as I can tell, most of the citations are questionable at best. [unsigned]

I havent a clue

"Soy based infant formulas with no more than 2.3% protein, from isolated soy protein as the sole source of protein, fortified with vitamins, minerals, lipids, and the amino acid methionine is the equivalent of formulas derived from either cow's milk or soybean flour. Formulas based on isolated protein produce a lower incidence of anal irritation than ones made from soy flour due to the absence of fiber in the former." [1]

If you can tell me in a sentence or two what this was supposed to mean, it can be put back. It looks like it was just a cut and paste from an article. I thinks its trying to tell me what the eqivalent of sot to cow or human milk is and maybe its just worded poorly. [unsigned]

Soy and health

Sorry if i missed it, but can someone with expertise put up a section about soy and health? Specifically, i'm reading things like Soy Alert and I'm confused/unsure of who to believe. JamieJones ^talk 12:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Health risks

The part commenting on Phytoestrogen in men has two sources, however these sources both require logging in to a password protected site to view them, making them worthless. Other sources need to be found.

I updated the links to more easily accessible sites for both the men and infant formula sources. The NIH sites may require the creation of some sort of profile, however. --Mego2005 14:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I found this interesting article (from the UK) and had no idea what Soya was being american. Of course wp's article already had this info. Good job guys! -Ravedave 21:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Calories

It would be nice to know how many calories are in a bushel or ton of soybeans - to gain some perspective on its impact on the world. [unsigned]

It's going to vary, according to cultivar, weather, and soil. Typically, the soybeans grown in the great lakes states range from 30-40% protein and 15-20% oil. A decent yield is 40 60-pound bushel per acre, although that can vary a lot, too. Figuring 35% protein at 4 Calories per gram and 17.5% oil at 9 Calories per gram, you get about 81,000 Calories per bushel. (You know a Calorie is 1000 calories, don't you?) While this might be a hungry world, the real problem is not calories, but protein: kwashiorkor is more of a threat than general starvation.

While soybeans are a high quality protein, meat is far superior to any vegetable product - and soybeans are not well digested by humans. If you toast the soy meal and feed it to chickens, you end up with eggs and chicken meat which IS well digested by humans, and you get lots of fertilizer which helps raise more soybeans. Soybeans are hard on the soil. Yes, they are a legume, and they can fix nitrogen, but only if nitrogen can get at the roots. There's not much fiber produced by raising a crop of soybeans, unlike raising corn or wheat, so the soil keeps getting tougher and tougher. Soil needs a high-fiber diet, too, not just people! There's a lot good that can be said about soybeans, but it's not quite the wonder crop that Henry Ford and Roger Drackett and Harold MacMillan had predicted back in the 1930s. Anyone that is strongly pro-soy or strongly anti-soy just isn't looking at all the facts. ClairSamoht 21:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Reduce Cholesterol

The article misrepresents the findings of the research it cites in an attempt to debunk the soybean's effectiveness to improve cardiovascular health.

From the Circulation article[2]

First, we summarize studies that tested soy protein that contained a substantial amount of isoflavones. Because it was recognized that isoflavones could be the bioactive component attributed to soy protein, studies published in the late 1990s and beyond generally stated the amount and type of isoflavones in the soy protein. In 22 randomized trials, isolated soy protein with isoflavones was compared with casein or milk protein,20,30–46 wheat protein,47 or mixed animal proteins.48–50 The range of soy protein was 25 to 135 g/d; the range for isoflavones was 40 to 318 mg. LDL or non-HDL cholesterol concentrations decreased in most studies, statistically significantly in 8, with an overall effect of &3% (weighted average). A recent meta-analysis that included 10 studies published from 1995 to 2002 found a similar percentage reduction in LDL cholesterol with no dose effect.51 Over all studies in Table 1, there is no apparent dose effect; the 8 studies with 50 g of soy protein showed a drop in LDL cholesterol concentration similar to those using a smaller amount of soy, &3% overall (Table 1). This cutpoint for daily soy protein intake, 50 g, defines a large amount, half or more of the daily average total protein intake in the United States. No significant effects were evident for HDL cholesterol or triglycerides in most of the studies; the weighted average effects were very small: 1.5% for HDL cholesterol and –5% for triglycerides.

...

In 7 trials, soy protein, washed with alcohol to remove isoflavones, was compared with casein or milk protein20,33,39,43,52 or various animal proteins (Table 2).49,50 Two studies showed small significant decreases in LDL cholesterol.49,50 These studies were very carefully controlled feeding studies, with all meals formulated according to strict nutritional specifications, and complete meals were provided to the participants.49,50 Specifically designed to sort out the effects of the protein from the effects of the isoflavones, the studies showed an effect of protein but not isoflavones on LDL cholesterol. The declines in LDL cholesterol were small, 2% to 7%, relative to the large amounts of soy protein eaten daily, 50 to 55 g. However, other well-controlled studies did not find significant effects of soy protein on LDL cholesterol,20,33,39,43,52 and the average change across all 7 studies was only a 1% to 2% decrease. Changes in HDL cholesterol and triglycerides were generally small and were nonsignificant in 6 of the 7 trials. No dose effect was evident.

Clearly this study fed subjects soy protein isolates and not whole soy foods. All of the nutrients in isolated protein are removed by heavy mechanical and chemical processing so the beneficial fats, vitamins, minerals, and other phytochemicals of soybeans are not present. This study does not show that whole soy food's benefit to cardiovascular health is in question as the article suggests. The study does show that soy protein alone like you would find as a filler in meat products or as powder in protein shakes has no benefit to cardiovascular health. This is a very important difference and it is irresponsible to misconstrue the findings!

From the conclusion[3]

Earlier research indicating that soy protein, as compared with other proteins, has clinically important favorable effects on LDL cholesterol and other CVD risk factors has not been confirmed by many studies reported during the past 10 years. A very large amount of soy protein, more than half the daily protein intake, may lower LDL cholesterol by a few percentage points when it replaces dairy protein or a mixture of animal proteins. The evidence favors soy protein rather than soy isoflavones as the responsible nutrient. However, at this time, the possibility cannot be ruled out that another component in soybeans could be the active factor. No benefit is evident on HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, lipoprotein(a), or blood pressure. Thus, the direct cardiovascular health benefit of soy protein or isoflavone supplements is minimal at best. Soy protein or isoflavones have not been shown to improve vasomotor symptoms of menopause, and results are mixed with regard to the slowing of postmenopausal bone loss. The efficacy and safety of soy isoflavones for preventing or treating cancer of the breast, endometrium, and prostate are not established; evidence from clinical trials is meager and cautionary with regard to a possible adverse effect. For this reason, use of isoflavone supplements in food or pills is not recommended. In contrast, soy products such as tofu, soy butter, soy nuts, or some soy burgers should be beneficial to cardiovascular and overall health because of their high content of polyunsaturated fats, fiber, vitamins, and minerals and low content of saturated fat118 (Table 4). Using these and other soy foods to replace foods high in animal protein that contain saturated fat and cholesterol may confer benefits to cardiovascular health.119 Soy protein also may be used to increase total dietary protein intake and to reduce carbohydrate or fat intake. However, much less is known about the potential impact of high-protein diets on risk factors for CVD. In the meantime, these remain dynamic areas for research. The AHA will continue to monitor the results and modify its advisory statement as needed.

Clearly the study does not deny that soy foods are beneficial to cardiovascular health. The question is what component of soy foods provides the benefit. In the past researchers have assumed it was only the protein that was beneficial. The Circulation study attempts to test that assumption. While the study failed to show it was the isolated soy protein that was the active nutrient, it did not fail to show that soy foods are beneficial. In fact they have processed and washed away the very soy nutrients they later cite in the conclusion as being beneficial!

The difference between isolated soy proteins and whole soy foods should be made absolutely clear. There is no harm in being more accurate especially when the topic, nutrition and health, is so poorly understood. [unsigned]

"However, rapeseed/Canola may actually even have a better amino acid profile"

Under Soybean#Nutrition I find the phrase above. Can someone explain why there is a qualification here -- why does it say "may actually"? I think the article could be improved by getting rid of this vaguery or at least putting in some type of clarification. If rapeseed/Canola is better in some ways but worse in others, or whatever case it is, that should be stated explicitly. Kaimiddleton 17:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have also heard that canola's AA profile is exceptional (and that soy's is over-hyped, for that matter). There must be an analysis or study online somewhere. Frankg 17:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Oils are fats, not proteins, and only have trace amounts of amino acids as a contaminant. The seed cake left over after processing rapeseed to oil may be fed to animals, but I don't know of anyone using it for human food. I suspect that the seed cake has amino acids. Pustelnik 16:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

npov

the "problems" section is very POV. rather than stating the potential problems, someone has come along and just stated why soybeans are perfectly healthy. Justforasecond 00:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Moving unreferenced material from WP:OR

The following section is almost pure OR and POV, and I've removed it to the talk page. Please cite sources. Captainktainer * Talk 16:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Soybeans are one of the "Biotech Food" crops that are being genetically modified, and GMO soybeans are being used in an increasing number of products. Monsanto is the world's leader in genetically modified soy for the commercial market. In 1995, Monsanto introduced "Roundup Ready" (RR) soybeans that have had a complete copy of a gene (plasmid) from the bacteria, Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4, inserted, by means of a gene gun, into its genome that allows the transgenic plant to survive being sprayed by this non-selective, glyphosate-based herbicide. Roundup kills conventional soybeans. RR soybeans allow a farmer to reduce tillage or even to sow the seed directly into an unplowed field, known as 'No Plow' tillage, greatly reducing the soil erosion.

Currently, 81% of all soybeans cultivated for the commercial market are genetically s that depend on them. Concern is also for the high amounts of residual toxin since the herbicide is sprayed on the soy crop repeatedly during growth.

Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) is among the of soybeans and soy products. ADM along with DOW, DuPont and Monsanto to industry and possible financial conflicts of interest. The former USDA Secretary of Agriculture, Daniel Robert Glickman, also

Response to above (that is not signed) Is Glyphosate really that bad for us? I think that it may be a generalization to just say that herbicides are all toxins to humans, also as far as crop treatment goes I would imagine that as soy beans are nearing the end of there maturation, weed growth is pretty heavily suppressed by the fairly dense foliage cover, also does anyone know how the plasmid from agrobacterium works? If it breaks down round up in the plant then the plants products will be safe to eat even if a little glyphosate is dangerous wont they? and anything not taken up by the plant will be taken off as the beans are shelled, and no glyphosate will make it through the cow that eats the majority of the soy. Opcnup 02:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

10/01/07 This

http://www.biotech-info.net/problem_with_soy.html

seems a pretty decent rebuttal to the pro-GM stuff in the Roundup-Ready area (which may deserve its own article instead of space in this article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.10.146 (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The External Links are all mixed up!

A)

The external links should be clear like this:

"External links"

Favorable

(put favorable links here)

Critical

(put critical links here)

B)

Please find a valid reference for the setences I wrote below and add to the validity of the article.

Soy contains phytoestrogens that mimic estrogen.

Many consumers shop at health food stores and consume high levels of hormone like plant estrogenics that could increase the risk of breast cancer and other types of cancers. (citation needed)

Thank You. --63.17.125.218 17:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Health food stores and soy

I am an organic consumer who ate large amounts of soy for many years. Now I have had both of my breasts removed. Soy is a very serious issue to me.

The increase in soy consumption has been popularized by natural food companies and the soy industry's aggrassive marketing campaign in various magazines, tv ads, and in the health food markets. However, it would be beneficial to have more research into the safety of consuming an increased diet in plant estrogenics due to the fact that soy acts more like a drug (hormone replacement estrogenic drugs) than a food.

Thanks, 63.17.97.20 20:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I know it is highly relevant to explain about the health food stores and soy for the critism section. 63.17.97.20 21:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree.

It is extremely relevant to explain about the agrassive marketing campaign of corporations and the soy industry.

Perhaps expanding the information about this important subjuct would be necessary.

Soy has been marketed by industry despite the fact that soy contains phytoestrogens that mimicks hormones. --MagicOracle 16:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Reference for reduction in risk of colon cancer

In updating the reference in the "Vitamins and minerals" section, the following page was not found: http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/133/11/3778S There is not a "Journal of Environmental Nutrition" and there are 34 results when searching on nutrition.org for "soy colon cancer" in 2004 - does anyone have the correct citation? I have removed the reference for now. Original text:

"The Journal of Environmental Nutrition (April 2004 volume 27 issue [4] also indicates that it may reduce the risk of colon cancer."

--apers0n 08:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Soy is NOT a complete source of Protein.

The article wrongly states soy is a complete protein source along with other POV sentences. >>> Soybeans are a source of complete protein. <<<

This sentence along with other sentences are misinformation propagated by the soy industry.

Here is yet another POV sentence below that is in the article right now. Yes, there is obfuscation here.

>>> However, rapeseed/canola may actually even have a better amino acid profile than soy protein. <<<

"63.17.51.115 22:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)"

This really doesn't have to be an edit war. Firstly, what is meant by the term 'complete protein'. Supposedly it means containing all 8/9 essential amino acids, but actually many (most?) foods do, what differs is the levels of the amino acids. So there is really no such line, in science, as 'complete/incomplete', it's more of a marketing term, or a simplistic description of 'very good', which is inherently POV.

The three ways of measuring are more useful. Unfortunately, the article is swinging between claiming that PDCAAS and Biological Value are the 'best'. How about some simple, neutrally stated descriptions of soys results in both tests, rather than the bashing going on here now. Greenman 10:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Greenman,

Whole eggs (BV 100) and Whey Isolate (BV 104) are complete proteins.

Soy is lacking in high levels essential branched chained amino acids.

That is why soy has a lower BV of 74. Saying soy is a complete protein is very misleading and inaccurate.

The BV is more accurate and most importantly relevant.

Biological Value of protein is a scientific term.

The PDCAAS and PER are not accurate especially when compared to the BV method.

The facts speak for themselves. Reference 1 Reference 2 Reference 3 --Messenger2010 19:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Soy is lacking in high levels essential branched chained amino acids. This does not show that soy is an incomplete protein. And in fact soy is a complete protein, according to these sources [5], [6]. Yankees76 01:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Greetings Great Greenman,

I agree with Greenman (even though Yankee76 completely disagrees with Greenman at every level.)

When Greenman wrote.....

So there is really no such line, in science, as 'complete/incomplete', it's more of a marketing term, or a simplistic description of 'very good', which is inherently POV. .....I completely agree.

I would really appreciate you, Greenman, adding your information to the article to fix the POV (non-scientific info which POV).

Complete protein is just a marketing term as noted by Greenman. It is not science saying soy is a complete protein. We are dealing with an encyclopedia. Those references by Yankees76 are about POV.

Greenman's great sentence and insight is on the ball despite Yankee76s objections! 63.17.78.66 01:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but you're posting Strawman arguments, because I've not said or insinuated anything of the sort. Stop Wikistalking me. Yankees76 01:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Soy is a complete protein according to this data: http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-C00001-01c20gH.html . --150.203.41.19 05:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Rules -- we must obey to the literal letter.

This sentence below is in the article. It must be verified or anyone can go right ahead and erase at anytime. Hopefully a reference can be found soon or it must be removed.

Consumption of soy may also reduce the risk of colon cancer. ('I really doubt it.')

The policy:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

Best Regards, 63.17.71.251 04:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Rewrites/Awkward Sentences, References

After reading through the article, I noticed a few odd things.

However, the phrase complete protein can be a bit misleading since proteins vary in their protein values. Whole eggs have a biological value of 100 versus a 74 for soy. Soy protein is similar to that of other legume seeds, but has the highest yield per square meter of growing area, and is the least expensive source of dietary protein.

Where does whole eggs and biological value fit in? The train of though goes from saying proteins vary in their protein values, then goes off on a tangent about eggs compared to soy, and then back to another unreleated sentenece about legume seeds and growing area. It appears some text was shoehorned in here. (rewrite suggested)

BV is likely the better formula used when calculating protein for muscle growth and synthesis in humans. The scientific method for measuring protein is the biological value methodology which is an accurate indicator of biological activity for protein quality and utilization in humans.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14]

Again it appears that text was shoehorned into the article - it seems out of context because there is no mention about muscle growth and synthesis anywhere esle in the article. I'll also contend that the scientific method for measuring protein is not just BV - many methods can be considered scientific - and BV isn't an official method used by any regulatory body. This whole paragraph belongs in a protein article - it doesn't really fit in. Also some of the references appear to be out of date, foreign language or missing information (the Hegsted citation is missing a publication, year and page #) . (major rewrite, reference verification and better segway into the BV table below is suggested)

The following three sentences contains a large amount of densely-packed information - I had to read them several times before I could take it all in.

'The genus Glycine Willd. is divided into two subgenera (species), Glycine and Soja. The subgenus Soja(Moench) includes the cultivated soybean, G. max (L.) Merrill, and the wild soybean, G. soja Sieb.& Zucc. Both species are annual. The soybean grows only under cultivation while G. soja grows wild in China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Russia.'

In particular the use of the word 'soybean' at the start of the third sentence threw me off since several subspecies of bean have previously been identified. I suspect that this sentence is intended to mean 'The cultivated soybean grows only under cultivation...' which seems to be otiose. The otiosity could be disguised by saying 'G. max (L.) Merrill grows only under cultivation...' but what is the point of saying this, since G. max (L.) Merrill has already been identified as the cultivated variety ? Would the author please make it clear what meaning the third sentence is intended to convey, and whether it is worth saying ? Andrew Smith

Suggestions? (from someone who isn't a sockpuppet please). Yankees76 14:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think that the first section should be rewritten to sound something more like this:

"The phrase 'complete protein' is not entirely agreed-upon in usage by the scientific community. One measure of a protein's use in nutrition is the Biological Value scale. Soy has a BV rating of 74, as compared to the rating of 100 for whole eggs, or XXXX for (other protein source with a lower BV rating) . Soy protein is similar to that of other legume seeds, but has the highest yield per square meter of growing area, and is the least expensive source of dietary protein."

As for the second paragraph, it makes a value judgement, which must be left out or sourced to a reliable source; for example, "According to Dr. Researcher, Biological Value is the better formula when calculating...". The article narrative voice is not allowed to make value statements, unsourced assertions that are not common knowledge, or anything like that, as prohibited by WP:OR. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Could someone elaborate on the following - how was it an unintended consequence of moving away from the p. hydrogenated oil. Is the new oil not as good a cooking oil?

"One unintended consequence of moving away from partially hydrogenated soybean oil (containing trans fatty acids) is the switch to partially saturated palm oil for frying, especially in China. This fact is resulting in a severe threat of deforestation to pristine forests in Indonesia followed by the planting of oil palm plantations.[9]"

The following sentences need to be clarified -

'The major unsaturated fatty acids in soybean oil triglycerides are 7% linolenic acid (C18:3); 51% linoleic acid (C-18:2); and 23% oleic acid(C-18:1). It also contains the saturated fatty acids 4% stearic acid and 10% palmitic acid.'

'it' in the second sentence has an unclear referent, and it is therefore not clear whether stearic acid and palmitic acid are esterified or are present as free acid. By using 'it' rather than 'they', the author appears to be saying that 'it' refers to 'soybean oil', rather than 'triglycerides', and therefore that these acids are not esterified. Is this the meaning that the author intends to convey ? I suspect not. Andrew Smith

Soy / Colon Cancer

I have been looking over the Wikipedia "Soy-Scandal," and as to the last comment relating to whether it is linked to reducing risks of Colon Cancer, and have found an article suggesting so. In no way do I know whether this source is even reliable,as I am not a scientist. However, I would urge someone to kindly examine the source and content, and see whether it would be a good citation or not. Please do examine this: [7], and I would be delighted if you would be kind enough to also leave a reply/link on my talk page. Thanks! User_talk:Bhaveer

In the section "Vitamins and minerals" please add the following text so that the sentence reads:

Consumption of soy may also reduce the risk of [[colon cancer]], possibly due to the presence of [[sphingolipid]]s.<ref>{{cite journal | author = Symolon H, Schmelz E, Dillehay D, Merrill A | title = Dietary soy sphingolipids suppress tumorigenesis and gene expression in 1,2-dimethylhydrazine-treated CF1 mice and ApcMin/+ mice. | journal = J Nutr | volume = 134 | issue = 5 | pages = 1157-61 | year = 2004 | id = PMID 15113963 | url = http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/134/5/1157 }}</ref>

--apers0n 09:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. NCurse _work 15:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

A minor point: This appears under the Cancer section: "...much higher rates of cancer related to dejection (italics mine) system and thyroid...". I suppose the writer meant "digestion"... Peytonbland (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Complete Proteins

As far as I can see, there is no unambiguous definition of "complete protein" that is agreed to by the scientific community. I think all references to claims of soy being "complete" or "incomplete" should be removed as it is a very subjective term which differs from one scientist to another. Instead of claiming that it is complete or incomplete, it's much better to simply state how much of each essential amino acid soy contains. The above link by 150.203.41.19 to http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-C00001-01c20gH.html clearly states how much methionine and cystine one cup (256 g) of raw green soybeans contains, namely, 402 mg of methionine and 302 mg of cystine. So just put easily measurable facts into the article, rather than subjective ideas of "completeness". Humanoid 07:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous verifiable sources that state soy protein is a complete protein - the strongest being the FDA [8][9][10] [11]. As a side note, the US National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health states that "If the protein in a food supplies enough of the essential amino acids, it is called a complete protein. If the protein of a food does not supply all the essential amino acids, it is called an incomplete protein." According to Protein Technologies International. Soy Protein and Health: Discovering a Role for Soy Protein in the Fight Against Coronary Heart Disease. Houston, Tex: Marimac Communications; 1996., "Soy protein contains all of the essential amino acids in sufficient quantities to support human life" The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth - please review WP:V. Thanks. Yankees76 17:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how anything in this paragraph contradicts what I said. I don't doubt that there are many scientists or organizations that will label soybean to be a source of "complete protein". What I'm saying is that "complete protein" is an ambiguous definition, which nobody can agree to. Your quote above says: "If the protein in a food supplies enough of the essential amino acids..."... the key word here is 'enough'. 'Enough' is an ambiguous word that needs to be disambiguated in order for the definition to be precise. Do you think 'enough' is unambiguous? Arguing about whether soybean is a source of "complete protein" or not is like arguing about whether or not Superman was a long movie. It's a pointless thing to do, some people will find that it is, and others will find that it is not. Just specify the length of the Superman movie, ie., the facts, rather than saying that "it's a long movie". In the same way, just specify the amount of each essential amino acid in soybeans, rather than saying that "it's a very good protein". If you do that, there will be no more pointless arguments. Humanoid 16:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is what I suggest should be put into the article:
A cup of raw green soybeans of 256g, has the following amount of amino acids:

Total protein	33.2 g
Tryptophan	402 mg
Threonine	1321 mg
...	...

Because of these values, most people call the soybean a complete protein. [12][13][14] [15].
You can fill in the rest of the values in the table. So instead of saying X, I'm saying that many people say X, include the references you gave above, and provided the raw numbers so that people can see for themselves why claiming X makes a lot of sense. Humanoid 16:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha - slight misunderstanding on my part of your first post. Your proposal sounds solid to me. Yankees76 18:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Gay Soybeans?

[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53327 Soybeans can make you gay?] (NOTE: NOT A JOKE, AT LEAST NOT BY ME, MAYBE BY THE GUY THAT WROTE THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE)

I have updated the page to reflect this article and references. Mcas 19:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is this being included? I read the article and he says that 'reports' back up his claims. Why should Wikipedia care about the somewhat absurd opinion of a non medical expert if there are actually such reports to back his claims. (I really doubt there are.) 159.91.148.34 00:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If no one objects, I am going to remove this from the article. It really isn't substantiated. N Vale 20:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend keeping it removed. --71.253.59.67 16:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

antiquity of...

There seems to be an error in the text. An uncited claim in the text states that

Soy was not actually used as a food item until they discovered fermentation techniques around 2000 years ago.

There are are number of finds that clearly indicate that soybean was grown, harvested, and used for nutrition long before the date indicated in the article text. Excavations of a Mumun Period village dating to 800-550 B.C. by the Foundation for the Preservation of Cultural Properties English website here Korean website here found plenty of evidence. Carbonized legumes, about 1,800 grains, were unearthed and found to be associated with the floor of a pit-house at the Won-dong III site (Kim et al. 2003:275-283). Among the grains several hundred were identified as Glycine max. Crawford and Lee also found soybeans and other legumes in the same circumstances dating to the same time period at a number of archaeological sites in Korea (Crawford and Lee 2003:89).

• Crawford, G.W. and G.-A. Lee. 2003. Agricultural origins in the Korean Peninsula. Antiquity 77(295):87-95.
• Kim, SN, JS Park, DH Bae, SW Kim, HJ Yun, M.T. Bale. 2003. Pohang Won-dong Je Sam Jigu [The Won-dong Site, Locality III]. Research Report of Antiquities Vol. 144. Foundation for the Preservation of Cultural Properties, Korea, Seoul.

There is other evidence from China too. I propose that we change the above sentence to reflect the reality of mainstream archaeological / palaethnobotanical research. What do you think? Mumun 15:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: Hello? (echo) (echo)...Uh, I added section on crop history. --Mumun 無文 13:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Phytic Acid

Hi, I've been looking into the claim of soy's protein benefits, and discovered a great deal of research that phytic acid, present in soy, blocks the uptake of minerals by the human digestive system. I think this should be definitely added to the article, but I'm not sure it still has scientific veracity, or if this claim has been disproved. I've even met a few dietics majors who agree with this claim. What do the experts think? Matthew 00:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Monocrops/monoculture

I recall there being a large (if not massive) increase in soybean growing recently. There should be mention of the danger of monocrops, plant disease being one of them (eg. the Irish Potato Famine). The results from some soy-specific disease would likely be less severe than thatfamine, but would likely devastate farms specializing in soybeans. I suppose these concerns would be similar to the ones of nearly ANY agribusiness/modern agriculture, considering the widespread status of monocultures... Any thoughts? Kennard2 10:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

that's a problem there , if there would be a shortage of soy , all the chemically castrated Nancy boys would be eating OUR food , not to mention nothing to feed them cows with........ [unsigned]

Is it actually possible to just pour cyan bacteria, nitrogen fixing bacteria and some other stuff in a big green pool and have chunks of food floating out? [unsigned]

Tell me something

with all the media fuss about steroids , and 60% of proceed foods containing soy , containing estrogen (phyto estrogen but it connect to the receptor and does the job , so it's just estrogen for me)

why for an example a report about trace amounts of estrogen in water makes so much noise while the fact that it is contained in soy which most people eat , and none cares?

the only thing I have in mind is the mouth shutting done by pseudo intellectual vegans who prefer men not being men and big corporations who want profits and invest in aggressive """research""" and marketing

also leave the disease prevention aside , quality of life is more important , I think (I'm not a yoga junkie who spends 5 hours a day in pubmed) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.81.215.52 (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

I can see that there are a number of editors who regularly contribute to the article and I would like to commend their contributions. It is clear that soy and soy research is a world unto itself! However, many of the major sections such as Uses, Nutrition, The role of soyfoods, etc are in need of their own articles. The time has come to create these sub-articles so that we can address this gigantic, unwieldy, and almost unreadable article. It would be wonderful if the frequent contributors to these and many other sections could start things off. In cases where sub-articles already exist -- why are we repeating information at such length and detail? We then need to address how to effectively summarise the former main article sections into a more conventional, sleek, and educational article. Please leave comments here. -- Mumun 無文 19:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

...and while we're at, before making an edit, please consider if it is beneficial to add more to this very large article. Mumun 無文 19:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: I trimmed some sections and attempted to remove superfluous and excessive material that is not related to soy and/or did not seem to meet the criteria of WP:Relevance. Some material that I removed is repeated in other articles. Mumun 無文 17:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop citing outright cranks!

Look, the article contains two references to the personal home page of Ian Goddard, who is clearly a total fringe crank: [16]. I don't give much scientific merit to an article sharing a site with a discussion of "Extraterrestrial microbes in the rain?" among other Art Bell fare. What's the policy on removing crap references? [unsigned]

If the source does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:RS, you can remove it explaining why in your edit summary. In this case you might claim that the source is not credible published material. Just my take on it. --Quartet 17:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I've updated it. 75.164.49.95 18:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Soy whey?

In the "Chemical composition of the seed" section, it mentions a whey part of soy, I think? But whey is a milk product... not soy. At least that's what the whey article says. Here's the quote: "Since soluble soy carbohydrates are found mainly in the whey and are broken down during fermentation, soy concentrate, soy protein isolates, tofu, soy sauce, and sprouted soybeans are without flatus activity." Am I reading this wrong or something? --Billyjoekini 21:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

"the whole soy story"

i'm not finding any reference to "the whole soy story" by kaayla daniel. here's the website: http://www.wholesoystory.com/ it includes quite a bit of info from all angles, probably enough to satisfy the nay-sayers who want research and proof. it was certainly enough for me. ya want protein, eat eggs 76.217.125.14 15:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like an incredibly poor source, not remotely close to the standards we should use here. --Ronz 19:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty short sighted; it does look like a book that's already made up its mind... indeed, judging it by its cover ;) it could be one of those books that goes against conventional wisdom to play into the fears of consumers. However, it's an entire book on the subject of soy! It surely must represent a large collation of various scientific research and studies. Regardless of how the author may or may not pick and choose results, its references and bibliography must contain a wealth of information. --Pipedreambomb 21:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No on merging soybean meal with soybean

There seems to be enough going on with soy protein values, edamane, colon cancer, etc. Soybean meal merged with soybean is like merging rope with marijuana because one can make rope from marijuana (hemp) or poultry by-product with chicken by-product (already done by deletionist adms) when there is very little in common. Noles1984 17:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Noles1984 that, given the current corpulent state of this article, Soybean meal shouldn't be merged with Soybean. I could be missing something, but it seems to me that Soybean meal makes the cut as per being interesting and notable.Mumun 無文 18:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Overcomplicated phytoestrogen section

I came to this page looking for information about soy's effects on hormones, especially testosterone, as it has been widely reported (http://www.google.com/search?q=soy+testosterone) that soy reduces testosterone levels. I can only assume the phytoestrogen section deals with this - I can only assume because, as a lay person, I can barely understand any of it! It is far too technical and jargon-based for a section within an encyclopedia entry on a foodstuff. Please could someone more expert than myself simplify the section, and if necessary (which I'm not sure it is), move the technical information to a separate article. In my opinion, external links to scientific journal articles etc. at the bottom of the page instead would be the best solution, though I concede there are many scientific articles that are inaccessible to a lay person too, so there may be a place on Wikipedia for the technical information... but this isn't it. --Pipedreambomb 21:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Trypsin Inhibitor

I agree this article is too long and disorganized. However in its entire lenth there is no mention of the Trypsin Inhibiting factor that is in soy beans. How bad is it? I've heard it called everything from a poison to an anti-nutrient. How is it removed, destroyed, bread out of the modern crop etc. I thought this was the one of the reasons it is processed into tofu instead of eaten plain. This was always one of the biggest issues with soy and it is completely absent from this page. This artical need a complete rework from the top down. Get rid of the stuff that belongs with fearies, leprecons and magic crystals and make sure the stuff that is real is covered. --AC 13:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I second this re: the trypsin inhibitors. I understood this to be the reason why soy was used as a soil fixer rather an edible crop in ancient times, and it seems like it should be addressed. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 06:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been in for awhile with the claim that cooking with wet heat destroys it. Correct? UncleDouggie (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

infant formula

in the section on infant formula there is a section on early maturation of girls. what in hell does this have to do with soybeans? 125.239.96.95 21:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right. It has nothing to do with preceeding copy. I've removed it. Perhaps the editor who inserted the study can place it in a more appropriate spot in the article? --Quartet 18:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Conversions to JPG

Can someone else please do the remaining conversions to JPG, of all the instances where now only ? and ?? show? I put back the one I did before, but now there are several bad-font characters in this English wikipedia article that need fixing, and I feel its time to ask for assistance from someone who can actually see and understand the contents of information in that font and language to do the conversion to a JPG, so that the order doesn't get messed up, and the beauty of it all can be properly appreciated. Thankyou very much. Zaphraud 06:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What's with the ???? characters in the lead?

It looks like these characters are actually present in the edit window as well, so I don't think it's a font rendering problem, and they've been there for a while. LotR 01:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind -- the computer must lack Chinese fonts. Sorry 'bout the unnecessary posting. LotR 17:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

More Information

I think this article needs to discuss more info on the possible negative aspects of soy. I understand that it's an ongoing controversy, but both sides should really be presented equally. Also, these are some things I've heard about soy that aren't even mentioned in the article. Soybeans throughout history have mainly been planted to replenish nutrients into the soil as opposed to being a food source. And there has to be a source for soy being a "popular" food item in Asia as I don't think that's true. Has there been a survey of how much soy people eat in a certain Asian country? If not, then I don't see how it can be called popular and linked to how healthy Asian people are. There are many other factors. One more thing. There should be some info on the soy industry, how they promote their product and where. I believe they are lobbying to get soy into public school cafeterias and I think that's important info to be out there. If this is true, it should be mentioned: raw soybeans were eaten by monks to lower their libido. KannD86 (talk) 00:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't have the time to search for detailed figures right now, but I can tell you right now from my own experience KannD86 that Soy products are very popular in Asia. I'm from Singapore, in South East Asia, and Soy foods are everywhere. Soy sauce is the equivalent here of cheese seasonings in the west, with many different grades and types. The japanese have their own type of soy sauce, and miso is also made with fermented soy beans. If you've watched the Japanese movie "Initial D", you'd notice the protagonist perfected his driving skills by delivering toufu. We use it in savoury dishes (doufu), as a desert (douhua), and even our Indian/Malay cuisine here incorporates soybean curds into their own cooking. Hong Kong is pretty famous for its smelly beancurd too. There's traditional soy drinks, more modern soy milk in cartons, even soy ice cream as well.

It's safe to say that Soy in Asia is as prevalent as Cheese is in the west.

-Derrick Heng —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.228 (talk) 08:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Edamame shouldn't redirect to Soybean

For most people edamame is the green soybean that's sold in grocery stores, which you eat after lightly salting and microwaving. Someone who's looking for information about edamame shouldn't be required to go through a treatise on the soybean. [unsigned]

The answer to that is to write an article on Edamame and post it. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone already wrote the article. I fixed the link to it. UncleDouggie (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed this POV forking

Diabolical example of a POV fork on a high importance article. Even now the article is not even 55kb. We NEVER need to worry before 60kb and articles up to 120kb are fine usually when the topic is a major one like this. Not only that, but the controversy section was not linked in properly. This was the edit [17]. No comment on talk at all. Just the removal of all negative info and forking it to another page which was then not linked in correctly. Lobojo (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Error in Soybean Production totals in table

The total amount of production in the Chart: Top Soybean Producers in 2005 is a figure that is LESS than the total of the individual producing nations. I would have searched further, but I cannot access the source of the claim due to restrictions on membership. Norcalal 19:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Compound Anual Growth Rate

From 1992 to 2003, sales have experienced a 15% compound annual growth rate, increasing from $300 million to $3.9 billion over 11 years

From Wikipedia:

A company may double its sales (an increase of 100%) over a period of four years (from year zero to year four). Applying the formula above, the CAGR is approximately 18.9% (not 25% per year):

eg.

{CAGR} = (200/100}^(1/4) - 1 = 0.1892 = 18.92%

From Edamame:

{CAGR} = (3.9/0.3}^(1/11) - 1 = POWER((3.9/0.3),(1/11))-1 = 0.262605211219653 , not 15%.

Am I wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.172.9 (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Seeming industry bias on this page

In looking at this page, I couldn't help but notice that there seems to be a lot of soy industry bias on it, especially as relates to the possible health benefits of soy consumption, versus the proven health risks of soy consumption. A lot of the article seems to be composed of explaining away suspected health risks, without actually discussing the suspected heath risks themselves or the evidence for them.

One of the most glaring examples of this is the section that suggests the soy reduces testosterone levels in men, and so may be protective against prostate cancer. This seems to me a very misleading statement, since lowering testosterone would possibly reduce prostate cancer risk in men with high testosterone, it could also cause feminization and problems with libido and fertility in other men. So to make such a broad heath claim, when no one knows what an appropriate dose is or who may benefit, seems extremely reckless. This was the most glaring example I noticed, although there were many other such areas which seemed to be more "soy is health food" propaganda than objective fact. The fact that there is nothing about the risk of nutrient deficiencies, thyroid problems, precocious puberty, and other very serious health problems in infants fed soy formula is especially disturbing.

I added a couple quick notes, but I don't have the time right now to look up the citations, so I'm hoping that someone else may step in. As a previous poster mentioned, the book The Whole Soy Story is a valuable resources as to the risks of soy consumption, especially in its modern, processed form. While the book is an obvious polemic and is not the most well-written book I've ever read, it does cite some impeccable research that show that, at the least, the popular image of soy as a health food should be very carefully considered.

I hope someone will add some of that research to this page, to balance out the soy industry representative(s) who is obviously one of the main contributers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.40.38 (talk) 05:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Nutrition

its really bad for you The data in {{nutritionalvalue}} on the page seems quite differ from the one which is displayed at original USDA link below the table. Perhaps, someone changed these values randomly. Could you check it once again? Gruzd (talk) 10:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC).

The current health risk section currently don't show a number of recent studies associating soy with disorders of the thyroid an alzheimers risk with soy milk:

http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/soyandbrain.html

Controversy

Not sure how to comment but the nutrial values in that side chart look like the data for soymilk not soybeans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.46.69 (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the article Soy Controversy that is linked to from several pages... now it just redirects to this main soybean article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.220.67.203 (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Look for soy controversy. See the redirect link? Click it, and then link at the history of that. You can see who moved it, and what was moved. It appears that some, but not all, of the information was put in the Health risks section. It would probably be good to make sure that all of it has been moved. I'm not sure I agree if it was a POV fork, as the person claimed. Here is what it looked like prior to deletion. ImpIn t - c) 04:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense to me that this article redirects here. 220.233.118.133 (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I changed the redirect so at least it jumps to the Health Risks section as it was originally supposed to do. UncleDouggie (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Pilgrms and Soybeans

Today I deleted the FALSE satement that the soybeans saved the pilgrims from starvation. The soybean was first introducted into the British colonies of North America by Samuel Bowen, NOT by the pilgrims. (See: Hymowitz, T.; Harlan, J.R. 1983. "Introduction of the soybean to North America by Samuel Bowen in 1765." Economic Botany 37(4):371-79. Dec.) I suspect this information was put into this Wikipedia page by a practical joker or by the "anti-soy faction" that does this sort of thing to confuse people. Our Soyinfo Center has been the leading source of information on the history of soybeans and soyfoods since 1976. We have a database of 80,000+ records on the subject. Prof. Hymowitz first alerted me to this false statement on this Wikipedia page.

...and who are you? -MrGuy

Hydrogenated Soybean Oil

The following two statements are in the article:

'Soybean oils, both liquid and partially hydrogenated, are exported abroad, sold as "vegetable oil," or end up in a wide variety of processed foods.'

'In the 2002–2003 growing season, 30.6 million tons of soybean oil were produced worldwide, constituting about half of worldwide edible vegetable oil production..."

My understanding is that these statements are true. That means Hydrogenated Soybean Oil is a very important subject. Shouldn't it have its own article? Miranda Meagan Keefe (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC).

Irrelevant opinion

I deleted the following paragraph from the end of the "Infant formula" section:

However, more recent clinical guidelines from the [[American Academy of Pediatrics]] state: "although isolated soy protein-based formulas may be used to provide nutrition for normal growth and development, there are few indications for their use in place of cow milk-based formula. These indications include (a) for infants with galactosemia and hereditary lactase deficiency (rare) and (b) in situations in which a vegetarian diet is preferred." <ref>{{cite journal |last=Bhatia |first=Jatinder |title=Use of Soy Protein-based Formulas in Infant Feeding PMID 18450914 |journal=[[Pediatrics (journal)|Pediatrics]] |volume=121 |issue=5 |pages=1062–1068 |year=2008 |doi=10.1542/peds.2008-0564 |pmid=18450914}}</ref>

Since this paragraph starts with "however", appears to contradict (or qualify) what comes before it. However, what comes before it is about there being no problem with soy-based infant formulas, and this paragraph does not contradict that at all; it says nothing about the suitability of soy-based infant formulas. All it does is state the non-medical opinion of its authors that the reasons in favour of soy-based formulas are insignifican; i.e. that veganism is only a marginal concern.

The wording ("more recent clinical guidelines") seems taylored to make it appear that the latest medical opinion is against soy-based formulas. There is no reason to accept an irrelevant, POV and misleading paragraph such as this one.

David Olivier (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Soybean/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Please check up and correct (if incorrect) the protein content (%) in Soyabean. dont merge oil and meat.... It's awkward.....

Last edited at 12:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Where should alternative names go

I think these alternative names belong in the lead. Anon believes they belong in the Classification section. I don't see this is part of the classification. Apparently they do, but they've used no edit summaries. Requesting a 3PO. NJGW (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

They should go in the first sentence, per Wikipedia:Lead#Usage_in_first_sentence, in parentheses. But you need to have a source for each and every one of them. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved... it turns out the anon was moving them down because they were names for a different plant... see how much edit summaries help! NJGW (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Phytic acid

I created an expanded section on phytic acid from the out of place stub dangling at the end of the reference section. The original stub claimed that phytic acid is all bad, but the reference it cited didn't actually say that. So I moved it under health benefits section as the article on phytic acid claims there are more pros than cons. I also expanded out the references from phytic acid to link to the best individual articles. UncleDouggie (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Promotion as a health food

I eliminated this section because most of text and references were redundant with other sections in the article. I moved the one substantial reference questioning the health benefits to the end of the isoflavones section beside the claims that it was questioning. UncleDouggie (talk) 11:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Low phytoestrogen claim

I question if this claim is correct:

Soybeans and processed soy foods do not contain the highest "total phytoestrogen" content of foods. A study in which data were presented on an as-is (wet) basis per 100 g and per serving found that food groups from highest to lowest levels of total phytoestrogens per 100 g are nuts and oilseeds, soy products, cereals and breads, legumes, meat products, various processed foods that may contain soy, vegetables, and fruits.

As the article states, soybean is an oilseed, which is listed as the highest phytoestrogen content! Perhaps the listing of "soy products" refers to soy flour? The referenced article costs money. Does someone have the article or another source to backup or refute this claim? UncleDouggie (talk) 09:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been resolved. User Clovis Sangrail has access to the reference and made the correction. I think the original editor may not have realized that soybeans are oilseeds. UncleDouggie (talk) 05:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)