Thank you for visiting our website and for your nice letter. There has been
renewed concern in the veg community over this issue since Mothering
Magazine recently printed an article on the negative impact of soy. I have
to admit that after reading it myself, I had some new concerns, whereas most
of the online sources have been widely criticized for their lack of good
research and connections to the meat and dairy industries. I was worried
because I love Mothering Magazine, have always trusted them, and I know they
are careful about research. So I contacted the one person I can always trust
on issues of nutrition. I received a very comforting response on the soy
issue from Reed Mangels, RD PhD of the Vegetarian Resource Group. Please
read her and another reader's letters to the editor of Mothering below and,
if you have time, the attached article. I don't think we are anywhere near
to resolving this issue, but I will continue to do my best to stay abreast
of the issues concerning soy.

Melanie Wilson
Senior Editor, VegNews
www.vegnews.com
* * * * * * * *
Vegetarian Baby & Child Online Magazine
www.vegetarianbaby.com
* * * * * * * *
Vegetarianteen.com Online Magazine
www.vegetarianteen.com
www.rawveganteen.com

-----Original Message-----
From: reed mangels [mailto:reedmangels@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 9:52 PM
To: Melanie Wilson melanie@vegetarianbaby.com
Subject: Re: Vegetarianbaby.com | Feedback
 

Hi Melanie -
I got a pre-print of the article and did write both a personal response to
Peggy O'Meara and a letter which may be published.  I still feel safe
limiting soy to 2 or maybe 3 servings a day for my kids (a cup of soymilk
and a serving of soy most days).
Thanks for your note.  This is an issue that concerns me a great deal.  I
hope you'll read what I've sent and let me know what you think.
Reed

Letter for possible publication:
Dear Editor:
I am writing to express my concern with The Whole Soy Story (May/June,
2004).  This article does not reflect the willingness to present several
sides of a complex issue that I expect from Mothering magazine.  It does
your readers a disservice by over-simplifying a complex issue.
The article contains statements that are alarmist and are not well
documented, for example, "thousands of studies link soy to malnutrition,
digestive distress...".  A search of the scientific literature does not
support this statement.  In other cases, study results are twisted to
support the author's stance.  For example, "soy has been shown to pass
through the placenta of pregnant women to their unborn babies" is true but
the author implies this is something to be concerned about.  Is there
evidence that it is?  In several instances, the author makes sweeping
conclusions based on very limited data.  For example, her conclusions about
soy fomula use as a  cause of early puberty, especially in African American
girls, are not supported by any research and require a number of leaps of
faith.
Space constraints do not allow me to address every point that this article
makes.  Readers should be aware that scientists from several countries
recently examined more than 200 studies on soy safety and concluded "the
available scientific evidence supports the safety of isoflavones as
typically consumed in diets based on soy, or containing soy products"(1).  I
hope that you will consider publishing a more balanced article on soy in the
future that will truly allow your readers to make their own decision about
the role of soy in their diets.
Sincerely,
Reed Mangels, PhD, RD
Nutrition Advisor, The Vegetarian Resource Group
Baltimore, MD
www.vrg.org
1.  Munro IC, Harwood M, Hlywka JJ, et al. Soy isoflavones: a safety review.
Nutr Rev 2003;61:1-33

Note from listserv:
From:  Doh! <dohdriver@y...>
Date:  Mon May 10, 2004  8:25 am
Subject:  Soy "article" in Mothering magazine

Dear Peggy,
I have loved Mothering magazine since I first became pregnant in 1999. I
love it for its peaceful tone, its supportive approach, and its gentle
advice. I am accustomed to the information being an alternative to the
mainstream, and I expect and appreciate that aspect.
However, I was really dismayed to read the "article" (actually, an unpaid
advertisement) against soy by Kaayla T. Daniel in your magazine. It was a
scare piece, an alarmist rant by someone who has an agenda. Ms. Daniel
works for the Weston A. Price foundation, which has a mission to smear soy
as much as it possibly can by using false information, skewed readings of
research, and bad scientific practices to support its anti-soy position.
Who funds the Weston A. Price foundation? I wonder if it's the meat or
dairy industry, considering that the foundation appears to do nothing but
pay authors to write books against soy (actually, alongside it's "soy
alert!" campaign it has a milk and farming campaign). The fact that all
anti-soy information can be traced to this one source is suspicious enough
(aside from Ms. Daniel, Sally Fallon and Mary Enig's names are on all other
similar articles, and they, too, are supported by the same foundation). The
fact that the anti-soy information goes against a tower of peer-reviewed and
respected research that shows the benefit of soy calls into question what
little correct information may be in the "article".
I realize Mothering need not be guided by the standards of journalism, but
publishing this lopsided promotional opinion piece is the real danger here,
as your readers give you considerable trust, and have better ways to spend
their time than to research the other half of the story. Please, find a
respected doctor to write the other half of the soy story, and publish it
promptly.
With love,
Doh Driver
Orlando, FL