New book in Dutch

Eet vet word slank

Eet vet word slank gepubliceerd januari 2013

In dit boek lees je o.a.: * heel veel informatie ter bevordering van je gezondheid; * hoe je door de juiste vetten te eten en te drinken kan afvallen; * hoe de overheid en de voedingsindustrie ons, uit financieel belang, verkeerd voorlichten; * dat je van bewerkte vetten ziek kan worden.

Trick and Treat:
How 'healthy eating' is making us ill
Trick and Treat cover

"A great book that shatters so many of the nutritional fantasies and fads of the last twenty years. Read it and prolong your life."
Clarissa Dickson Wright

Natural Health & Weight Loss cover

"NH&WL may be the best non-technical book on diet ever written"
Joel Kauffman, PhD, Professor Emeritus, University of the Sciences, Philadelphia, PA

Soy Online Service

GRAS Status of Soy

A key argument in PTI's recently approved health claim was that soy protein was a GRAS foodstuff and that were no risks associated with the daily consumption of between 25 g and 100g of soy protein.
In fact, the FDA has never granted soy protein GRAS status and the very real risks associated with consuming soy protein have largely been ignored, firstly by PTI and, now, by the FDA.  These risks relate to exposures to isoflavones and nitrosamines that will occur on daily exposure to soy protein.
PTI describe soy protein as a safe and lawful food and claim GRAS status by self-determination based on common use in food before January 1 1958. PTI also claim that the "FDA has recognised soy protein products as having GRAS status" and argue that the reason soy protein is not listed as GRAS is because "it is impractical for FDA to list all substances that are GRAS for their intended use".
Firstly, one must note that the self-determination of GRAS status of soy protein by the soy industry is meaningless and such self determinations should not be given any credence. In order to protect consumers only independent bodies, or those with recognised legal status, can perform legitimate determinations on the safety of consumer products.
Secondly, PTI's claim that products such as soy protein isolate were in common use in food before January 1 1958 is incorrect. The Select Committee of GRAS Substances (SCOGS) provided an independent evaluation of soy protein in the form of isolated soy protein in its ‘Evaluation of the Health Aspects of Soy Protein Isolates as Food Ingredients' (1). The SCOGS committee found that at the time of their review (some 20 years after 1958) the use of soy protein was uncommon. In their determination of the likely average dietary exposure to soy protein isolate, the SCOGS committee reported a maximum per capita daily intake of soy protein isolate of about 150 mg from food items and a negligible amount due to migration from packaging.
Thirdly, and quite simply, soy protein is not legally a GRAS foodstuff, as the FDA has never codified it as such. In their review of soy protein isolates the SCOGS committee noted that such products were initially developed as binders in paper coatings. Soy protein isolates were GRAS under the provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations as substances migrating from paper and paperboard products used in food packaging because it was assumed that only very small amounts would be subject to human ingestion.
The SCOGS committee concluded that there was no evidence that soy protein isolates were a hazard when consumed at levels typical at that time (or levels that might reasonably be expected to be in future use) provided acceptable levels of lysinoalanine, nitrite and nitrosamines were established. To this end the committee recommended that food-grade soy protein isolates have specified acceptable levels of lysinoalanine, nitrite and nitrosamines.  To date, acceptable levels of lysinoalanine, nitrite and nitrosamines have not been established for food-grade soy protein isolates and one might conclude that soy protein isolates have not been granted GRAS status for this reason.
To claim, as PTI had done, that the FDA has not codified soy protein isolate as GRAS because it is impractical to list all substances that are GRAS for their intended is inconsistent with the fact that other food items that the SCOGS committee found were GRAS have subsequently been codified as such. Had the SCOGS committee been satisfied that soy protein isolate was safe for intended use, there is little reason to suggest that GRAS status would not have been codified. Quite simply, soy protein was not granted GRAS status because the SCOGS committee was not convinced it was GRAS.
The findings of the SCOGS committee still have particular relevance to the PTI health claim petition. The PTI petition recommends a daily intake of 25 to 100 g of soy protein and it is quite evident that at this level of intake is far greater than the SCOGS committee ever anticipated when they were conducting their GRAS review. Hence, the concerns expressed by the SCOGS committee relating to exposure to lysinoalanine, nitrite and nitrosamines take on additional significance. For example, a daily consumption of 25 to 100 g of isolated soy protein may result in nitrosamine exposures that exceed established No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL's).
Until such safety issues are adequately addressed soy protein still cannot, and should not, be viewed as GRAS.

So what is soy protein isolate safe for?






I have removed the COMMENT facility, with regret, as I seem to be the only person who cannot leave a comment!