Soy Politics
The
soy industry's influence over the media, research institutions and
government agencies is strong.
The
goal of soy research is to boost industry profits and the US
economy.
We
uncover soy industry politics.
"Soya: The Quiet Conquest"
Follow this link to a 1994 revelation
on the way soy has infiltrated your food, your government and has
captured well wishers in food safety regulatory agencies
everywhere.
Who Funds Soy Research and Why?
$4
Million in Research Grants to Examine Soy Health Benefits. The
soybean checkoff's Soy Health Research Program solicits research
proposals to study soy consumption and its impact on the prevention of
osteoporosis, breast cancer, prostate cancer and the health benefits of
isoflavones, a component of soy protein. Scientists submit research
proposal applications to USB and, if their applications are selected,
USB awards a $10,000 grant to scientists to help defray the cost of
preparing the proposal submission to the NIH. In 2000, the very first
year of the program, it yielded a $1.2 million NIH grant. Since then,
an additional $4 million has been secured.
Multiple millions of dollars are spent on soy research each year.
Most State Soybean Boards fund their own research programmes (e.g., Arkansas Soybean Board
which spent US$1.1 Million in research in 1998-1999) but the grants
offered are insignificant when compared with that of the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA).
The USDA Soybean Promotion and Research Program was established by
the Soybean Promotion and Research Order and is authorised by the
Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act [7 U.S.C.
6301-6311]. The Act was passed as part of the 1990 Farm Bill. It
authorized the establishment of a national soybean promotion, research,
and consumer information program. The program became effective on July
9, 1991, when the Order was published. Assessments began September 1,
1991.
As required by the Act, USDA conducted a referendum among soybean
producers on February 9, 1994, to determine whether the program should
continue. Of the 85,606 valid ballots cast, 53.8 percent of soybean
producers voting favoured the program. As required by the Act, USDA
conducted a producer poll on July 26, 1995, to determine whether
producers supported conducting a referendum to determine if refunds
should continue. Only 48,782 producers participated in the poll--less
than the 76,200 required to cause a refund referendum to be conducted.
Refunds were discontinued on October 1, 1995.
The program's goal is to strengthen the position of soybeans in the
marketplace and to maintain and expand domestic and foreign markets and
uses for soybeans and soybean products. It is funded by a mandatory
assessment of 0.5 of 1 percent of the net market price of soybeans. All
producers marketing soybeans must pay the assessment. Assessments under
this program total approximately $80 million annually and are used to
fund promotional and informational campaigns and to conduct research
with the objective of expanding and improving the use of soybeans and
soybean products.
You can read more about the USDA Soybean Promotion and Research
Program at the United Soybean Board
Site.
Of course there's nothing wrong with research, but Soy Online
Service think that the motivation for research should be the honest
search for scientific truth (remember the good old days!!). The vast
majority of current USDA and industry funded soy research is obscenely
slanted toward the benefits of soy. And, what do you know? Soy cures
cancer! Little surprise soy consumption is up, the soy magnates are
laughing all the way to the bank and the US economy also gets a nice
little boost.
Well the facts are that if you believe the industry message about
how great soy is then you are just another sucker. Soy Online Service
views the soy industry as the worst type of scum on the face of the
earth; happy to promote dubious health claims and take your money,
while at the same time endangering more than a million soy formula fed
babies each year.
Don't upset the Soybean Cart
Soy Online Service first encountered the politics of soy when we
addressed the New Zealand Ministry of Health over concerns about the
phytoestrogen content of soy formulas for infants. An internal memo
from the Chief Toxicologist to the Minister of Health (and ex Prime
Minister, Jenny Shipley) indicated a high level of concern for the
health of infants fed soy formulas but stating that:
'if the dose was high enough over a sufficient length of time, such
toxicants could cause significant adverse health effects including
growth depression, immunosuppression, abnormal responses to hormonal
stimulation and cancer'.
However, the memo also noted that the concerns we had raised had
potential for 'mischief, especially in the media' and that 'soybeans
are big business, especially in the United States and is a traded item
on international commodity markets''. An earlier memo clearly stated
the New Zealand government's desire to 'regain control' of the
situation.
This was in 1994 and rather than 'risk damaging an industry' the New
Zealand Ministry of Health lied to the public about the risks
associated with feeding soy formulas. Despite mounting evidence to the
contrary, and continual questioning in Parliament, the Ministry of
Health maintained the lies by continuing to state that there 'was no
evidence of harm' and 'no substance to our concerns'. But in November
1998 came a dramatic about-face. One
can only wonder at the power of multi-national interests when Ministers
of the New Zealand government would condone the breaking of consumer
protection laws that they in their oaths of office swore to uphold."
Quote from "The Cholesterol Conspiracy" by Dr Russell L. Smith.
Both the public and clinical physicians have simultaneously been
swamped by an ever-growing tidal wave of exaggerations, distortions and
even fabrications of the facts. The media blitz has been so successful
that nearly everyone is now thoroughly brainwashed.
In fact, it is nothing less than astonishing that this juggernaut
has grown larger, richer and more powerful as the mountainous negative
findings accumulated. How can this happen? If you control the money and
the media, negative findings are little more than irritants because the
public will never hear about them. It is a version of George Orwell's
Newspeak.
The reader should be aware that such a state-of-affairs is by no
means unique. It has occurred in every branch of science for as long as
anyone cares to remember. But it is particularly devastating in
medicine where billions of dollars are spent worthlessly and millions
of lives are lost prematurely because research funding agencies have
disregarded masses of scientific findings and fraudulently used public
monies to disseminate dogma and propaganda.
Hitler did it. He was not the first but he did it quite
successfully. It being the big lie. He and his cohorts told it often
enough, and with official state backing, so that just about everyone
involved believed it. And if you thought it could never happen again -
outside of politicians, that is - you were mistaken. What is even
worse, the big lie may well kill millions of people without ever
interfering with their rights, their beliefs or their backgrounds.
|
HOME
