THE SOS BIG UGLY BULL AWARD
- The Soy Online Service Award for
excellence in the fields of:
- Dishonesty
(just plain bull)
- Shonky
research (bull in white-coats),
- Bullying,bull-necked
stubbornness, deceit (trying to pull the bull
over our eyes),
- Bull-headed
ignorance and actions
that smell like a big ugly bull.
May 2006
... who reported
that the quantities of genistein in soy infant formulas are
"negligible'
This is contrary to many peer-reviewed
and published studies, including the advice of the UK Department
of Health's Chief Medical Officer to doctors that the levels are
"high", and to similar findings of the Swiss, Israeli
and French Health departments.
How did they reach such a bizarre
conclusion?
They reached it by only considering
the aglycone moiety of genistein, which is only ONE PER
CENT of the total amount of genistein. Thus the "neglible"
quantity they allege is actually only a hundredth part of the true
amount. This is inexcusable fraud in view of the considerable volumes
of published quantities, by analysis, published by UK US and New
Zealand laboratories...... for instance Proc Soc Exp Biol Med.
1998 Mar;217(3):247-53. "Phytoestrogens in soy-based
infant foods: concentrations, daily intake, and possible biological
effects" Irvine CH, Fitzpatrick MG, Alexander SL.
. and Am J Clin Nutr. 1998 Dec;68(6 Suppl):1462S-1465S. Urinary
excretion of genistein and daidzein by infants fed soy- or dairy-based
infant formulas.Irvine CH, Shand N, Fitzpatrick MG, Alexander SL.
Furthermore, the "expert panel" failed to consider the
other phytoestrogens in soy protein infant formulas, such as daidzein
and daidzin,. in pronouncing the quantities, and thus the potential
effects, as "negligible" This is smoke and mirrors medical
"science" and the US Federal government is shameful for
permitting it.
September-November 2001
For just
plain bull and trying to pull the bull over our eyes
The Big Ugly Bull Award for September-November
2001 goes to the New Zealand Ministry of Health for failing to protect
consumers against the presence of the carcinogen 3-MCPD found to
be present in products such as vegetarian sausages and vegetarian
mince made from hydrolysed soy protein. More info on this
issue can be found in this pdf.
The Ministry's fatuous reasoning for this neglect
of consumers' rights to their legal protection is that the "quantities"
of 3-MCPD are less than in the withdrawn soy sauces. This
so-called "Health" Ministry seems unable to understand
that it is the "amount" eaten that creates the risk, and
that a soy sausage eaten by a child is a far greater exposure compared
to a dash of soy sauce eaten as a condiment.
July - August 2001
For just
plain bull and trying to pull the bull over our eyes
The Big Ugly Bull Award for June-August 2001 goes
to Unilever and Goodman Fielder (Meadowlea), for defying the Directive
of the Australia New Zealand Food Authority, the Council of Ministers
of all Australian States, and the national government Ministers
of Australia and New Zeanand, that the sale and display of margarines
with added sterols should carry health warning labels. Read
this for more information.
This is a gross example of the malign way in which
multinational behemoths of the food industry ride roughshod over
the regulatory requirements of national regulatory agencies.
As of November 30 2001 the mandatory warning labels are still not
on the packaging of these products.
June - July 2001
For just
plain bull and trying to pull the bull over our eyes
This
article from the house magazine of Carotec Inc., the Florida
health food company, says it better than we could. The effect
of the U.S. Department of Agricultures action is that school children
are being fed anti-thyroid and infertility chemicals in their food.
What happened to the legal principles of "Informed
Choice" and "Informed Consent"?
It was reported that this was a $6 billion windfall
for the industrial soy processors.
May - June 2001
For just
plain bull and trying to pull the bull over our eyes
The Big Ugly Bull Award for May-June 2001 goes
to Dr Brian Strom of the University of Pennsylvania for a sad example
of cheque book research funded by infant formula manufacturers,
and for blasting an untrue Press Release across the planet declaring
soy formulas "safe". Dr Strom did only a phone survey,
did not arrange physical examinations of his subjects, did not ask
about thyroid function, and misrepresented his results.
His research actually uncovered a significant
level of reproductive system abnormalities. For an expert
assessment of these abnormalities, see the Journal
of the American Medical Association (http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v286n19/ffull/jlt1121-3.html).
June-August 2000
For just plain bull
and trying to pull the bull over our eyes
Infant health is something we take pretty seriously.
That's why we have awarded Abbott Laboratories the June-August
2000 Big Ugly Bull Award for just plain bull (dishonesty) and trying
to pull the bull over our eyes (deceit).
Abbott Laboratories are the manufacturers of a
ready-to-feed (RTF) soy formula called Isomil. And how is
Isomil marketed? Why as the "1st choice of doctors for
common feeding problems such as fussiness, gas and spit-up".
As shown above, the label on Isomil
RTF features a blue ribbon with the words "1st Choice of Doctors*"
in a prominent position. The text the asterix refers to also features
prominently on the front of the can and states "For common
feeding problems such as fussiness, gas and spit- up".
We are not certain which doctors Abbott Laboratories, the manufacturers
of Isomil, are referring to, but the advice on the label of their
product is contrary to that currently given by the New Zealand Ministry
of Health (MOH), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the Swiss
Federal Commission on Food, the Australian College of Paediatrics
and the UK Department of Health.
For instance, the MOH position
statement on soy formulas (see attachment 2) clearly states that:
"The indiscriminate
use of soy formulae for vague symptoms and signs not proven
to be due to cow’s milk protein intolerance is to be avoided.
Casual treatment in this manner is undesirable because it leads
to over-diagnosis of food intolerance with potential long-term
effects on child health and behaviour".
According to the MOH conditions
in infancy for which soy formula may be appropriately prescribed
are galactosemia and lactose intolerance.
The Isomil ready to feed soy formula
available in New Zealand appears to be imported directly from the
USA. It is noteworthy that the advice given on the label of the
product also falls short when assessed against the recommendations
of the USA's foremost infant health organisation, the American Academy
of Pediatrics. The AAP have also noted that soy formulas are appropriate
for use in infants with galactosemia and hereditary lactase deficiency
and for those infants with documented IgE-mediated allergy to cows
milk protein. However, the AAP state that soy formulas have no proven
value in the prevention or management of infantile colic or the
prevention of atopic disease.
To discover that certain soy formulas
are being promoted with the aid of unsubstantiated and untruthful
claims under the banner of legitimate medical advice defies the
consumer protection codes that are applicable in New Zealand and
is also at odds with the directives of agencies responsible for
regulating food and health in New Zealand.
In this instance Soy Online Service
finds the use of false claims on a soy formula is particularly insidious
because of the concerns expressed by the scientific community regarding
the safety of such products.
Help us out here! Find out if Isomil RTF
sold in your location has the same label as the one shown above.
If so, e-mail us. You may also want
to consider writing to your national/local consumer protection agency
to lay a formal complaint about the product's labelling and to ask
that it removed from sale until the inappropriate labelling is removed.
March-May 2000
For bull in a white
coat
Australian pharmaceutical company Novogen market
two isoflavone supplements. For women there is Promensil,
which Novogen claim will bring relief from menopausal symptoms and
reduce the risk of hormone dependent cancers. For men there
is Trinovin, which Novogen claim will help men with prostate problems.
Those seeking help through difficult life stages
frequently feel weak and vulnerable. Novogen have exploited
these individuals and have conned them with their bull in white
coats. Novogen have amassed
millions, but consumers have been been defrauded; the isoflavone
extracts do not work the way Novogen claim. Worse though,
isoflavone supplements pose a significant health risk but Novogen
have lied by claiming there are no negative side-effects of their
products.
Novogen's rise has been on back of a world-wide
advertising campaign that has been found to breach of advertising
standards in both Australia and New Zealand. A joint government-industry
tribunal in Australia found Novogen's Promensil advertising guilty
of misrepresenting scientific evidence. And in a recent
ruling Novogen have also been found guilty of breaching the Australian
Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code. Professor Alastair MacLennan,
Associate Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the University
of Adelaide, had complained that advertisements for Promensil misrepresented
the published data on its safety and efficacy; the
panel investigating the complaint agreed. They concluded
that the complaint was:
"justified as a breach of sections 52
of the Trade Practices Act (misleading conduct) and section 53(c)
representing that goods have performance characteristics they do
not have) and thus a breach of the Therapeutic Goods Advertising
Code, paragraph 2.1. It is also a breach of Code paragraphs 3.1.1
(incorrect statements and unverifiable claims), 3.1.2 (designed
to arouse unwarranted expectations of product effectiveness) and
3.1.3 (misleading with regard to usage)."
The New Zealand Advertising Standards Authority
also found Novogen breached their therapeutics
code in its advertising for Trinovin. Perhaps the most
damning aspect of Novogen's submission during the investigation
by the New Zealand Advertising Standards Authority was a testimonial
from a Trinovin consumer who experienced side-effects after using
Trinovin.
Read the testimonies
of people who have suffered thyroid problems isoflavone supplements,
including that of Dr
Larrian Gillespie's who induced hypothyroidism in herself by
taking an isoflavone supplement.
September-November 1999
- Department of Health & Human Services, USFDA
For actions that smell
like a big ugly bull
The US Food & Drug Administration
tell us that they are 'The Nation's Foremost Consumer Protection
Agency'. That means consumer protection comes first, right?
Wrong! Soy Online Service think the FDA should change their
motto to 'The Nation's Foremost Business Promotion Agency'.
Here's why:
The approval of Protein
Technologies Health Claim Petition.
In November 1999 CFSAN recommended the approval
of a health claim which will allow soy foods
to be labelled 'diets low in saturated fat and cholesterol that
include 25 grams of soy protein a day may reduce the risk of heart
disease'. But wouldn't you like to know if 25 grams of soy
protein per day increased the risk of thyroid disease?
And thyroid disease will be exactly what 25 g
per day soy protein will do for some consumers; tragically, because
of the health claim labelling, they are likely to be people who
are trying to improve their health. Most at risk are peri-
and post-menopausal women. Research has shown that less than
25 g of soy protein per day can result in hypothyroidism
and goitre. 25 g of soy protein may also contain up to
150 mg isoflavones; read this alarming report of how Dr Larrian
Gillespie became hypothyroid in ten days after consuming
40 mg isoflavones per day. Younger women will also risk
a reduction
in their thyroid hormone levels. In the long term this
can result in elevated thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) levels
and an increased risk of hypothyroidism and thyroid cancer.
To allow the advertisement of a health benefits
without giving equal time to well established risks strikes right
to the core of consumer rights. How can the FDA claim they
are in the consumer protection business? And it's not like
the thyroid research is new, or that the FDA weren't aware of it.
The goitrogenic properties of soy have been known about for more
than 50 years and the FDA's action was against the advice of their
own toxicologists and their
most recent findings.
And what reasons did FDA give for ignoring their advice?
"Several comments cited the study of Ishizuki
et al. as evidence for goitrogenic effects of soy in adults. This
study is published in Japanese and the available English abstract
is poorly translated. As described in that abstract, the design
and findings are unclear: goiters were said to occur in half the
subjects eating 30 g soybeans daily for 3 months, 'though various
parameters of serum thyroid hormones remained unchanged by taking
soybeans.'"
One would have imagined that the FDA would have
had adequate resources to obtain an accurate translation of the
paper, or perhaps have been able to find an employee that could
read Japanese. Or perhaps, had the FDA been serious about assessing
the claims that soy can cause thyroid disorders, they may have contacted
the researchers directly. But an out of hand dismissal of work by
prominent thyroid researchers from a country where soy is consumed
by much of the population is evidence in itself that the FDA had
no intention of giving the submissions a fair hearing; FDA had predetermined
to grant PTI's health claim come hell or high water.
FDA's last comment about thyroid hormones remaining
unchanged is hard to fathom; FDA consider the translation poor and
yet they are happy to cite it in support of their argument.
If FDA had looked beyond the poor translation they would have found
that thyroid hormones underwent a quantifiable and statistically
significant change after feeding soy. Most notable was the increase
in mean TSH levels in older subjects, which rose from 2.0 U/L to
3.3 U/L. In two individuals TSH rose from around 1.5 U/L to approximately
7 U/L. Mean TSH levels also increased in younger subjects and although
the increase was not as great numerically, it was also statistically
significant. As it is FDA blatantly misrepresent Ishizuki's
research.
FDA also appeared to take comments that there
was a "lack of evidence for consequential effects of TPO inhibition
(i.e., high prevalence of goiter) in populations with high soy consumption"
on face-value, without considering that PTI's health claim related
to consumption of 25g of soy protein per day. But this amount is
more than twice the average daily amount eaten in Japan, where soy
consumption is not great enough to result in the manifestation of
endemic goitre. Had the FDA taken the trouble to examine thyroid
disease statistics they would have noted some interesting facts
and some disturbing trends.
The Japanese are far from immune to thyroid problems.
1990 WHO statistics indicated that the thyroid cancer rate among
Japanese women (5.3 per 100,000) was among the highest in the world.
It was, however, only marginally higher than that of US women (5.0
per 100,000). Incidentally Hawaiian Chinese males, known consumers
of very high levels of soy, have the highest incidence of thyroid
cancer. Since 1990 SEER cancer statistics show that the overall
thyroid cancer incidence, across all ages and races in the United
States, has been subject to a statistically significant annual increase
(1.4 % per annum). That increase was highest amongst females
(1.6 % per annum). Also worth note is the fact that between
1975 and 1996 the incidence of thyroid cancer has risen 42.1% in
the United States. This increase was particularly notable
in women and most recent figures (1996) show that the incidence
of thyroid cancer has climbed to 8.0 per 100,000. Could this change
be due, in part, to the concomitant increase in soy use? We
think so.
And what about children? The incidence of soy-formula
feeding is greater in the United States than anywhere else in the
world. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) publication 'Cancer Incidence
and Survival among Children and Adolescents: United States SEER
Program' 1975-1995 has reported that the most prevalent carcinomas
in US children and adolescents younger than 20 years were thyroid
carcinomas (35.5%); more prevalent than the more publicised melanomas
(30.9%). Approximately 75% of the thyroid carcinomas occurred in
adolescents aged 15-19 years of age, and NCI note that "the
preponderance of thyroid cancer in females suggest that hormonal
factors may mediate disease occurrence". Hormonal factors;
does that include agents that affect thyroid hormone status? Could
soy-formula use in infancy be a hitherto unrecognised risk factor?
Look here for more on the thyroid.
June-August 1999
For excellence in just
plain bull and trying to pull the bull over our
eyes
Sanitarium is an Australasian food
company that is owned by the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
In New Zealand the company trades as Sanitarium Health Food Company
but is operated by the New Zealand Conference Association, a trust
registered under the Charitable Trust Act 1957. The main business
of the company is cereals, beverages and spreads, but the darling
of Sanitarium is So Good soy milk which is worth AUS$65 million
per annum to the company.
However, the company's actions during
the last few years has prompted Soy Online Service to bestow on
Sanitarium its first Big Ugly Bull Award, particularly for excellence
in the fields of just plain bull and trying
to pull the bull over our eyes. Since 1996 Sanitarium
has been found to have:
| |
- Breached New Zealand's Advertising Standards.
Complaints about Sanitarium's So Good advertising
on television, which claimed that So Good lowered cholesterol,
were challenged. The challenge was upheld
by the New Zealand Advertising Standards Authority.
Sanitarium appealed the decision but lost.
|
 |
Breached
Section 10 of New Zealand's Fair Trading Act. The New
Zealand Commerce Commission found that Sanitarium's So Good
advertising was inaccurate and misleading in its cholesterol
lowering claims. The Commerce Commission filed criminal
prosecution proceedings in the Auckland District Court and
ultimately resolved the prosecution according to the terms
of the following deed of settlement.
According to this settlement Sanitarium agreed to publish
corrective advertising and that all of its future advertising
and promotion of So Good would comply with the Fair Trading
Act 1986. You can read the Commerce Commission media
release here.
|
Those two decisions alone would make
most companies think more carefully about their future behaviour.
Not so Sanitarium! They even ignored the New Zealand Ministry
of Health's direct requests to modify the So Good cholesterol lowering
claims because they were in breach of the New Zealand Medicines
Act!
Subsequent to, and in breach of,
that settlement, in May 1999 an apparently independent consultant
to the International Soy Advisory Board appeared on a Television
New Zealand programme in which various health benefits of soy products
(including claims that Sanitarium So Good lowered cholesterol) were
cited. However, the International Soy Advisory Board was found
to be just a marketing arm of Sanitarium and the so-called independent
consultant worked for Sanitarium! A complaint over a programme
to the New Zealand Broadcasting Standards
Authority was upheld. The Authority found that:
| |
- "the nutritionist was closely aligned
to Sanitarium, the makers of So Good" and that "By
failing to disclose this relationship in a programme where
she spoke positively of So Good, apparently as an 'independent'
nutritionist" that the "broadcast, through this
omission, breached the requirement in standard G1 to be
truthful and accurate on points of fact".
|
| |
- With respect to standard G6, the Authority
noted that "no effort was made on the programme to
point out that there is significant disagreement among the
experts about the claimed health benefits of soy. As these
criticisms were not raised or discussed" it was concluded
"that the programme lacked impartiality and balance
and that the standard was breached".
|
Hence, not only was a Sanitarium consultant involved
in a breach of the broadcasting standards but this action contravened
the earlier deed of settlement with the Commerce Commission that
stipulated that all its advertising and promotion of So Good would
comply with the Fair Trading Act 1986.
Sanitarium claim it has been their
leading edge business strategies that have built the Company’s
market position. Soy Online Service conclude that false advertising
appears to be a business strategy that Sanitarium have utilised.
Sanitarium claim that their 'Nutrition
Education Service (NES) provides a free service to health professionals
and consumers providing accurate, easy to understand nutrition facts
and information on all aspects of healthy eating, cooking and diets'.
Based on the material presented above, Soy Online Service conclude
that Sanitarium has proven themselves to be a provider of inaccurate
information to the consumer.
Sanitarium's company trademark is
a self-proclaimed 'commitment to the consumer, combined with honesty,
service and excellence'. Soy Online Service suggest that Sanitarium
has lost sight of the principles of honesty that the company was
founded on.
Soy Online Service also finds Sanitarium's
behaviour totally inconsistent with its own Business
Statement and we are certain the Seventh Day Adventist church
will find the company's behaviour totally malodorous; just like
a big ugly bull.
Sanitarium also threatened Legal
Action against Auckland University radio station 95bFM over
comments made by Dr Mike Fitzpatrick on the Mkey Havoc breakfast
show.
|
HOME
