Talk:Soybean/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Misconception

"...contrary to common misconception."

References

I think this source is sufficient for supporting the claim that there is a common misconception. It is important to differentiate between the fact that a misconception exists in people's minds, and the underlying medical facts themselves. I think only the underlying medical facts themselves needs MEDRS, and they seem to be already well sourced in the article. Benjamin (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Zefr: I'm also slightly bothered that you called my edit "unsourced" and "fringe". It is clearly neither. Benjamin (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The Independent article was a non-expert review of isolated outdated preliminary studies, perpetuating a "flat earth" (WP:FLAT) fringe concept – an urban myth – that was dismissed in the scientific literature a decade or more ago, such as in the content and sources (refs #185, 187} in the section on prostate cancer. Consequently, this edit was reverted twice as both uncommon and unscientific. --Zefr (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you might be misunderstanding. It said that say does NOT cause hormonal imbalance. Isn't that in alignment with what is stated in the article: "normal consumption of foods that contain these phytoestrogens should not provide sufficient amounts to elicit a physiological response in humans."? Benjamin (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see now that perhaps it would be a better fit in the section you mention, but that's somewhat trivial. Anyway, I think you're misreading it. It does not at all conflict with what the article says: "a 2010 meta-analysis of 15 placebo controlled studies showed that neither soy foods nor isoflavone supplements alter measures of bioavailable testosterone or estrogen concentrations in men." What I'm saying is that there is a common misconception about it. Saying that some people hold an incorrect belief about something isn't in any way validating it; quite the contrary, it is pointing out that it is wrong. That's why we have a whole list of common misconceptions! I do hope this is all a misunderstanding. Perhaps I am not expressing myself well. Benjamin (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Back to my original revert and edit comment: the "common misconception" is an outdated fringe idea with no reliable MEDRS source saying it is still discussed or being evaluated in science. An encyclopedia doesn't write for fringe science, WP:FRINGE: "For mainstream scientists, attributes of fringe science include being highly speculative or relying on premises already refuted." --Zefr (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'm pretty sure you're misunderstanding me. Do you understand the difference between saying "The Earth is flat." and "Some people incorrectly think the Earth is flat."? Benjamin (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

See WP:PROFRINGE: "A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position... [these are] ideas supported only by a tiny minority". --Zefr (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, you are misunderstanding me. I am not presenting it as an alternate position. Benjamin (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Stop reverting me. My edit is sourced. Benjamin (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Zefr: I think you are misunderstanding that I'm stating *that* is it a common misconception, rather than stating the misconception itself. Benjamin (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Zefr, for their already stated reasons, that this should not be mentioned. -- ferret (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I found another source.

https://ucdintegrativemedicine.com/2015/06/the-startling-truth-about-soy/

"Another prevalent misconception is that soy decreases testosterone levels in men and can lead to prostate cancer. Neither assertion is valid."

Benjamin (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Plenty more, from just a quick search! Benjamin (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Here's another, that seems to be particularly scholarly. Benjamin (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

And another. Benjamin (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

New York Times: "“Everybody thinks there’s a soy link,” he said." Benjamin (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it's clear now that there are plenty of sources to support this. Benjamin (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Are there any sources at all that say it's not a common misconception? Benjamin (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

It seems to be clear now that there is consensus among reliable sources that it is a common misconception. Is there any other reason it shouldn't be mentioned? Benjamin (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Neutrality of health risks section

Hello, I attempted to make some amendments to the health risks section, specifically under prostate cancer. The reason is I believe that as it is written, it isn't neutral and tends to describe a scientific and medical consensus (that soy-based diet has no detrimental effects on hormone levels) that doesn't actually exist. If reviews concluding that soy diet is harmless in this regard are included in this article, I can't understand why evidence contrasting these reviews with others such as this one which discuss evidence that soy isoflavones may, in fact, have an effect on hormones and conclude that higher quality research is needed on this topic to make firm statements, can't be included. I am just a lay person but I feel that readers should be to read a more balanced summary than what is provided on this page. Thank you AShalhoub (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The reverted edit here cites preliminary research rather than a reputable review using a WP:MEDRS-quality source. The sources in your edit don't meet MEDRS-quality which would evaluate high-quality clinical research on the possible effects of soy isoflavones. Dietary intake effects, such as with soy products, are notoriously difficult - if not impossible - to study and define rigorously in clinical research due to subject compliance, interacting and confounding dietary factors, age, gender, disease or genetic differences, design and duration of intake in the study, etc. Consequently, there are few high-quality MEDRS reviews in the literature. The one you cite above is 9 years old, was derived from numerous weak, preliminary human studies and lab research (unreliable for human interpretation). Here is a trusted 2016 source stating the clinical research is insufficient to prove or disprove a soy food hormonal effect. Concerning prostate cancer where you provided an edit, the Oregon State source says "Current evidence from observational studies and small clinical trials is not robust enough to understand whether soy protein/isoflavone supplements may help prevent or inhibit the progression of prostate cancer." The 2010 source you used above concluded: "To date, there has been a lack of consistency in human and animal studies examining the effects of soy and phyto‐oestrogens on reproductive parameters. These discrepancies certainly reflect the variety of experimental designs, the differences between the specific endpoints measured but also inadequate descriptions or insufficient sample size to permit confidence in the observed results." That 2010 conclusion still applies today - there is insufficient evidence to indicate if soy food or supplements affect prostate cancer mechanisms. We cannot provide an alternative view or "balance" when none exists. --Zefr (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Why is this conclusion, "A 2010 review showed that neither soy foods nor isoflavone supplements alter measures of bioavailable testosterone or estrogen concentrations in men.", favored over the review I cited, also from 2010, which stated that more intricate research is necessary to draw specific conclusions on this issue? How many WP:MEDRS compatible sources are necessary for this aspect of the debate to be included in the article?AShalhoub (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Part of it is also WP:DUE where we look at the totality of sources since it's easy for someone to WP:CHERRYPICK, even entirely accidentally, a study that has a minority view. Just being published doesn't mean an idea is readily accepted by the scientific community. In this case though, that kind of language is pretty standard for research basically saying, "X,Y,Z has been found, but more work and refinement is needed." Otherwise, Zefr, more or less answered your question already. You're using much older reviews, and more recent ones share the viewpoint that there isn't evidence for major concern. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

This doesn't answer my question; which was how many sources are necessary to mention any medical conclusion that differs what what is stated in the article? I don't believe there is an actual proven consensus about this issue, and if there isn't, why shouldn't the article reflect this? In addition, the 2010 review I added to confirm with Zefr's request is the same age as the one now included, this response mentions dated research again as if it hadn't been addressed. We started off with the multiple sources aren't WE:MEDRS and it has become an issue of WP:CHERRYPICK, but it's starting to seem like WP:MOVING THE GOAL POSTS. There is an argument from the literature that could be made against what is actually in the article that is facing an ever-increasing burden of requirements.AShalhoub (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not a question of number really, but what the highest quality sources say as well as how they put into context the studies saying there is an effect (things like poor study design, data, etc.). WP:MEDRS gives guidance on how we weigh medical sources, so that's a good place to start. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Reversion of 15 July 2019 edits

For user: Zefr ( @Zefr: ), you just reversed my two edits totaling ~13.5k chars: 20:03, 15 July 2019‎ Xavdeman talk contribs‎ 145,241 bytes +3,511‎ →‎Soy infant formula: Added later studies already mentioned in the Dutch Wikipedia article on soybeans. undo Tags: Visual edit, PHP7

and

19:22, 15 July 2019‎ Xavdeman talk contribs‎ 141,730 bytes +10,123‎ →‎Health: Added Soy infant formula, added the 2017 literature review under Isoflavones. undo Tags: Visual edit, PHP7

for the following reason:

Extract information inappropriate for this article; discuss at Talk page first if you disagree

I disagree with the reversion and also with the manner in which it was done.

Not all the sources I added were 'abstracts'. For the Soy infant formula section I referred to the

American Academy of Pediatrics (strongly recommends breastfeeding and for mothers who prefer giving formula, the AAP does not recommend soy formula for preterm infants (unless where hereditary disorders make infants unable to properly digest milk, such as galactosemia).

the European Food Safety Authority Panel (recommended in 2014 that concentrations of isoflavones, trypsin inhibitors, lectins and phytic acid in IF (infant formula) and FOF (follow on formula) should be kept as low as is feasible).

And the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences article on Soy Infant Formula https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/sya-soy-formula/index.cfm .

Instead of removing the studies whose inclusion you disagreed with your reverted the entire 13.5k edit, which is overkill. You could have also taken it up with me first.

My current position: Please restore both of my edits, removing only what you feel is inappropriate, thank you.--Xavdeman (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Xavdeman: New talk page topics go to the bottom of the page; WP:TALK. I didn't say "abstract", I said extract. Isoflavones have their own article, so we do not need to replicate so much content in the Soybean article. There are already up-to-date content and sources under the Health and Soy-based infant formula sections; you can add newer sources there, if they exist. --Zefr (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I doubt anyone looking for information of soy based baby formula is going to look at the Isoflavones article without at least some sort of signpost to guide them there. EDIT: I would also like to point to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_forking#Related_articles "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork." EDIT 2: I took a look at the Isoflavones article and it's just 2 paragraphs under Research. What you probably meant is this section in the Phyoestrogen article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoestrogen#Effects_on_Humans but that section is 1. very short compared to the sizeable amount of literature on this subject, and 2. quite outdated (footnotes for males at the latest 2010, same for women (2013) and infants (2009)). So my proposal would be that I would update both articles in that case.

Also, if we were to remove the information I added to the Isoflavone section of the soybean article, the only information remaining there will be

"Soybeans contain the isoflavones, genistein and daidzein, which are phytoestrogen compounds[155] implicated as potentially beneficial factors in cardiovascular diseases[157] and numerous other conditions.[155] No beneficial effects, however, have been shown in clinical research to lower the risk of cardiovascular diseases, including high blood cholesterol levels,[157][158] prostate cancer or respiratory infections.[159]" (emphasis mine)

So, only beneficial effects, but not a word about any adverse effect on the specific population where the adverse effects likely to occur (infants during the developmental stage). This is contrary to WP_NPOV. How would you proceed? --Xavdeman (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I made some revisions here. I checked the recent review literature, but didn't find evidence of soy isoflavone consumption causing harm to any population segment. A WP:MEDRS review would be needed to support that. --Zefr (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS states: "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies." - which are generally the kind of sources I used and you removed. I will gradually re-add my edits when I have time, taking care that they are based on reviews (like the Dutch one, the Swiss one etc.) or guidelines etc. from expert bodies (like AAP, EFSA, NIEHS). --Xavdeman (talk) 10:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Conflicting info on protein content

I'm confused about what explains the difference between 36g of protein per 100g of raw soybeans, quoted on the Nutritional Value sidebar, and 13g per 100g of raw soybeans, quoted in the 'Comparison to other major staple foods' section. What explains this difference? It might help to have some clarification in the article. 2601:193:8200:FE40:314D:AA40:D04:68F6 (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

'Health' and 'Health impact' tabs should merge into one tab

In my opinion, the information from the 'Health impact' tab should merge with the information that is already contained within the 'Health' tab as the 'Health' tab is talking about the same topic as the 'Health impact' tab as it is relating to health (the 'Health impact' tab should be removed once the information has been transferred to the 'Health' tab). Xboxsponge15 (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Environmental issues section

The entire section has been wiped out and the justification by two different IP accounts for doing so is that apparently one WP:SPA created the section and added all the content. I can tell you that this is is not accurate, because I myself added content back in August of 2019. I can't speak for the rest of the material in the section, but I am restoring the section with my additions and it can be expanded from there, unless other editors wish to restore the entire section.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Brazil only uses 8% of the arable land to plant, there is no savanna deforestation because the savanna is not a forest. This is anti-Brazil propaganda, according to this article, Brazil cannot plant anywhere, right? The article is so ridiculous that it says: "oh, Brazil does not plant soy in the Amazon, but we will criticize it for planting soy anywhere, Cerrado, Desert, after all, we hate plantations" Friend, this is anti-Brazil propaganda, it is not a serious report. European countries have only 30% of the territory preserved, Brazil has more than 60% and is criticized madly. They don't want the country to grow, they can't plant anything, they can't raise cattle, the Brazilian has to stand still and starve to death, right?!?!?!? Star Fiver (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Our World in Data is not a forum for "Anti-Brazil propaganda". This is an absurd accusation. Your justifications for deleting sourced materials do not hold water, unless you can prove some sort of bias from the sources cited. It smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Socialist sources of private interest are partial. Only the Brazilian knows how they are attacked madly by several angry countries in the world who hate and envy the country's SUSTAINABLE growth. From your profile, you are a socialist, so you can understand that your contribution is PARTIAL.Star Fiver (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Spewing ad hominem is not a good way to make your case, and simply being a member of Wikiproject: Socialism does not necessarily make one a socialist. Are you saying that Our World in Data is a "socialist source"? What evidence do you have for this? Not much I imagine. And given your own comments, your contributions here are blatantly biased. You are clearly deleting reliably-sourced material because you don't agree with it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I am waiting for some smart document, because I do not see these communist sites complaining about the soy plantation in the USA or Europe that ended up with all their forests to plant wheat and sugar beet. Brazil has only 8% of the country's area used for agriculture and 60% is an untouched area, it is one of the countries with one of the most severe environmental laws in the world and these idiots are going to criticize soy plantation in the cerrado, which barely has plants? These people don't even work, go to sleep, friend. Star Fiver (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Still waiting for evidence that Vice media or Our World in Data, the cited sources, are "communist sites".--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I want to know, little friend, where Brazil can plant something without being criticized by anti-Brazil sites run by people from other countries who want to sell agricultural products in their place. If Brazil plants soybeans on a concrete floor, these freaks will criticize too. In other words, this source is worthless, it is absurdly partial. 14:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Star Fiver (talk • contribs)

Given the ridiculous comments from user above, I'm thinking that the section should be restored it its entirety, along with my recent additions, as there have been no legitimate reasons given for removal presented on this talk page, just nationalist rhetoric.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia is not a Greenpeace blog for you to vent your frustrations. Socialists like to criticize without ever doing anything, I am waiting for a logical explanation of where a country can plant soybeans without showing up an eco-Shiite socialist and try to stop everything to see if the country gets poor and only his country gets rich by planting the same thing. Want to "criticize", create a blog. 2804:14D:5C8F:832B:30DB:C5C6:E313:80DF (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Additional Details for Section 8 (Genetic Modification)

This page needs more context on the impacts of genetic modification and Monsanto soybean products. The only ramification discussed in this section is a general mentioning of biodiversity loss. By adding this suggested paragraph, between the article's current first and second paragraph, understanding of the implications of genetic modifications, specifically as it pertains to Monsanto seeds and herbicides, will be enhanced =

In other words, weeds that grow in soybean fields compete with soybean plants for sunlight, water, and soil, reducing overall soy crop yield. However, spraying harsh chemicals to kill weeds can also kill the soybean crops a farmer is trying to grow. Therefore, Monsanto’s herbicide “Round-Up” is meant to be applied on their brand of genetically modified soybean such that weeds are killed without killing the soybeans. Unfortunately, one of the types of weeds killed by Monsanto’s herbicide is milkweed, the only plant that Monarch caterpillars eat and that Monarch butterflies lay their eggs on. In fact, since 1999, the Midwest United States has lost 99% of its milkweed and the Monarch butterfly’s population has fallen by 90% across the US [1]. Another ethical issue with the use of Monsanto herbicides is that before commercial sale, these herbicides are tested in Puerto Rico, where testing regulation is loose. This has led to Puerto Rican residents near Monsanto’s soybean testing plants to develop skin irritations, migraines, and increased susceptibility to cancer [2]. Some farmers who developed cancer after using Round-Up have taken legal action against Monsanto, since Round-Up contains glyphosate, a group 2a carcinogen [3]. Recently, another herbicide Monsanto has been promoting, Dicamba, which has also been associated with increased cancer rate ratios [4], was ruled illegal within the U.S. given the pesticide’s high propensity to evaporate and drift to nearby crops [5].

• 1 = http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/monarchs-in-peril-one-pager--copy_82788.pdf?_ga=2.33986785.131460174.1618570923-547327032.1618570923
• 2 = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wXw_P7iugw
• 3 = https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/gp-opinion/exploring-the-issue-of-roundup-and-cancer-risk
• 4 = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dicamba
• 5 = https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/federal-court-holds-dicamba-pesticide-unlawful-citing-unprecedented-drift-damage-millions-acres-2020-06-03/

KerenHerran (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• As above, your proposed section goes too much into other subjects (this is the Soybean article, specifically) and your cite #4 is to another WP article, which we aren't supposed to cite. If you can write some text that talks about the environmental harm of soybeans then that would be fine here. Invasive Spices (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Additional Details for Section 5 (Cultivation) Part 3 (Soils)

This page needs more context on how tillage and no-till methods involved in soybean farming impacts soil health. Conservation tillage is only briefly mentioned in the "Genetic Modification" section, but that one quick reference neither defines nor contextualizes tillage in relation to soybean cultivation. I suggest adding the following paragraph below the current paragraph in Section 5.3 =

Soybeans can either be “drilled” into the ground, also known as the “no-till method,” or they can be planted after tillage of soil. Tillage involves using agriculture machinery to overturn a field’s first upper layer of soil in order to improve soil fertility for seedbeds. Tillage is beneficial for weed control yet harmful for soil health since it leads to erosion and depletion of organic matter in the soil. In no-till farming, drilling seeds involves agriculture machinery directly releasing seeds at uniform speed, depth, and spacing into soil that has not been agitated. Instead of tilling the soil, drilling releases seeds into soil that contains crop residue from the prior harvest. This crop residue may be from a grass crop, such as corn or wheat, that soybean is often grown in rotation with [1]. For instance, in the Midwest US, it is common for farmers to alternate a year of cultivating soybeans with a year of cultivating corn so that crops grown after soybeans can benefit from the nitrogen-enriched soil left behind by soybeans [2]. Legumes’ ability to enrich the soil they are grown in is a financial asset for farmers since it reduces the amount of nitrogen fertilizer farmers need to buy for the next crop grown in that soil. However, since the no-till method does not eliminate weeds, it does require more use of herbicides [3].

1 = https://ncsoy.org/media-resources/growing-soybeans/ 2 = https://www2.kenyon.edu/projects/farmschool/nature/soy.htm 3 = https://iowaagliteracy.wordpress.com/2015/04/27/why-do-they-do-that-plowing-or-tilling-fields/

KerenHerran (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Your proposed section goes too much into other subjects (this is the Soybean article, specifically). If you can write some text that talks about the environmental harm of soybeans then that would be fine here. Invasive Spices (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Additional Details for Section 6 (Production) Part 1 (Environmental issues)

This page needs more context on how changes in global economy impacts soy production, thereby also influencing environmental issues. Although the paragraph for "Environmental issues" elaborates on how the soybean industry has impacted deforestation, the discussion is disconnected from recognizing how global economies drive this. Therefore, I suggest adding the following paragraph below the current paragraph in Section 6.1 =

The US-China trade war has driven China to avoid negotiating with the US for soybean trade and turn to Brazil, investing in Brazilian infrastructure (like roads and railways) and agricultural development (such as destroying rainforests to start soy farms) for access to soy in order to bypass US tariff conflict. For instance, whereas in 2017 China imported approximately $8 billion of soybeans, in 2019, China imported only about $2 billion worth of soybeans from the US [1, 2].

• 1 = https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/china-evolving-demand-world-s-largest-agricultural-import-market
• 2 = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksrc7eI3IMY

KerenHerran (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Seems ok to me. Invasive Spices (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Additional Details for Section 7 (History) Intro

This article lacks details on which countries are the major importers of soy. The introduction paragraph in this section describes which countries are the major producers, but does not provide readers with an understanding of which countries are the main consumers. Therefore, the page needs additional details to complete a balanced overview of key stakeholders in soy trade. The following sentences should be added to Sections 7's introduction paragraph =

According to the Observatory of Economic Complexity’s 2019 data, China imports more than half of all traded soy, about 58.2%. The second and third greatest importer countries would be Mexico and the Netherlands respectively. At a continent level, Asia imported $2.75 billion soybeans in 2019, Europe imported $6.97 billion, North America imported $2.78 billion, South America imported $1.38 billion, and Africa imported $1.73 billion [1].

1 = https://oec.world/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/import/show/all/21201/2019/

KerenHerran (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Seems ok to me. Invasive Spices (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Additional information in Environmental Issues (under Production)

This section needs clarification on how soybean cultivation for human uses compares to cultivation for livestock feed. It also needs information on other human uses besides oils, as it isn't only used for oils. My proposed changes are making deforestation its own subsection and an addition to the end of that paragraph. It would read:

Deforestation In spite of the Amazon "Soy Moratorium", soy production continues to play a significant role in deforestation when its indirect impacts are taken into account, as land used to grow soy continues to increase. This land either comes from pasture land (which increasingly supplants forested areas), or areas outside the Amazon not covered by the moratorium, such as the Cerrado region. In Brazil, Roughly one-fifth of deforestation can be attributed to expanding land use to produce oilseeds, primarily for soy and palm oil, whereas the expansion of beef production accounts for 41%. The main driver of deforestation is the global demand for meat, which in turn requires huge tracts of land to grow feed crops for livestock.[68] Around 80% of the global soybean crop is used to feed livestock.[69] Human consumption of soy products is much more sustainable and uses fewer natural resources than consumption of meat. For a given amount of protein, meat production takes 6 to 17 times more land, 4.4 to 26 times more water, and 6 to 20 times more fossil fuel use to produce than a soy-based product.¹

1 = https://www.ecologic.eu/16618

RachelK2022 (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Staple crop comparison table

Please see Template_talk:Comparison_of_major_staple_foods#Fresh/dry_comparisons regarding a proposed change to the template transcluded in this article. SmartSE (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Possible plagiarism

Some of this article looks to have plagiarized from the following.

https://www.vqronline.org/essay/soy-amazon

Dolorite (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Dolorite: Thanks for reporting this. I've confirmed that this is a copyright violation and removed the offending content. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

This copyright violation was added by an IP in 2015! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I was wondering when someone would finally take a look.Dolorite (talk) 08:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)