It’s no wonder we’re rife with hormone deficiencies &
gender angst. Soy is highly estrogenic & who knows what
else. Plus other additives & chemicals in our food.
“Soy is highly estrogenic & who knows what
else. Plus other additives & chemicals in our food.”
I’ll probably get flamed for this, but you’re absolutely right. As was pointed out in post #12, as of 2014, 90% of all soy grown has been genetically modified to be resistant to herbicides and pesticides, primarily to Roundup. It really is amazing how scientists managed to create a plant that grows after being continuously doused in Roundup, while every other living thing in that soybean field, plants, insects, and microbes, is killed.
It has been known for a long time that soy has estrogen mimicking properties, but many pesticides and herbicides, such as Roundup, have estrogen like compounds far more powerful than soy. I am thankful that there still are some rules in our country about labeling what’s in our food, and to a lesser degree, how and where it is grown/raised, so if I don’t want to eat genetically modified soy products that have been grown in a substance that kills everything else, I can still find those products to a limited degree. However, such isn’t the case when it comes to foods at a restaurant. It takes pesky third party researchers, like the one this article is based upon, to find out what is being passed off as food.
It’s kind of a silly question, but I have to wonder, at what point (or percentage) can somebody still call a food something that it is not? In the case of the “chicken” that Subway serves, it may be more appropriate to label it 42.8% real chicken and 57.2% imitation, (or there about), as well as what the imitation part is made of. Or since it’s more imitation than chicken, can it still be called chicken? In which case it may be more appropriate to call it 57.2% soy with 42.8% chicken as filler.