Nevertheless, Americans as a whole still consume very little soy protein. Based on 2003 data from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, per-capita soy protein consumption is less than 1 gram (g) per day in most European and North American countries, although certain subpopulations such as vegetarians, Asian immigrants, and infants fed soy-based formula consume more. The Japanese, on the other hand, consume an average 8.7 g of soy protein per day; Koreans, 6.2–9.6 g; Indonesians, 7.4 g; and the Chinese, 3.4 g.
Source: Barrett JR 2006. The Science of Soy: What Do We Really Know? Environ Health Perspect 114:A352-A358.
Link: The Science of Soy: What Do We Really Know?
The paragraph above is the second to the last of the introduction.
> “Nevertheless, Americans as a whole still consume very little soy protein.”
.
That statement is just plain hogwash!
Anyone that frequents any coffee shop (Starpukes, Peets, etc) and eaten their baked goods such as muffins, bagels, biscuits, danish, etc is consuming dangerous levels of soy, as well as anyone that eats vegeburgers, chicken or turkey sausages, and many lunch meats.
NIH: Julia R. Barrett, 1 June 2006, The Science of Soy: What Do We Really Know?
A stroll through nearly any American grocery store or pharmacy yields ample proof of the soybean’s increasing role in the U.S. diet. Food packaging offers statements about products’ soy content and the purported associated health benefits. Products such as tofu, soy milk, soy-based infant formula, and meatless “texturized vegetable protein” burgers are widely available. Shelves of dietary supplements and nutraceuticals are stocked with isoflavones, naturally occurring estrogenic compounds found in soy. The general impression is one of certainty that both soy and soy isoflavones deliver many health benefits, including prevention of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and osteoporosis, as well as treatment of menopausal symptoms. The science is less absolute, however, and still evolving.
Basically, the first paragraph of this 2006 article confirms all that has been established in [unfavourable] 2007 findings and 2010 findings, as in posted review, including the disconnect between the perception of "healthy" food versus then-unclear science. And the soy protein in NIH article is derived from the products that are not fermented and processed. Basically like the difference between the proteins in beef steak and processed meat like bologna, hot dog or beef sausage.
And here the confirmation : Soy research is complicated because there’s considerable variation in isoflavone exposure among people classified as soy consumers. Agronomic factors (such as the soybean cultivar and the environmental conditions under which the crop grew) affect a food’s isoflavone profile, as does the way a soy food is processed. For example, soy protein concentrate produced by alcohol extraction may have only 12.5 milligrams (mg) total isoflavones per 100 g, in contrast to the nearly 199.0 mg total isoflavones per 100 g of full-fat roasted soy flour. Additionally, the fact that most of the isoflavones in food occur bound to sugar affects how they are digested.
Differently processed and consumed soy protein in Asia and the West, really different diet.
An April 2006 report from the USDA Economic Research Service indicates that only a small amount of whole soybeans are used to produce soy foods, and just 2% of soy protein meal is used for human consumption; the rest is used for animal feed.
Not exactly encouraging juxtaposition. Sounds like "natural" demand is not huge but the push was designed to increase the market by broadening the product's appeal by touting its "healthy" properties as a substitute to meat, first for a specific market (vegs / vegans) and then as a "health food".
The Soyfoods Association of North America reports that U.S. sales of soy foods reached $3.9 billion in 2003, continuing an 11-year trend of 15% average annual increases. According to the United Soybean Board’s 2004–2005 Consumer Attitudes About Nutrition report, 25% of Americans consume soy foods or beverages at least once per week, and 74% view soy products as healthy.
Admittedly, great marketing, but little science behind it. Greater availability of the product in the stores combined with "healthy" fashionable "buzz" in the media and word of mouth leads to greater consumption. After all, by now "everybody knows" that "soy is a healthy alternative" to meat or milk.
Soy isoflavones have been linked with numerous health effects, but the strength of the relationships and whether the effects are beneficial are strongly debated.
Even at that time debate among scientists, but there was no "debate" in promotion campaign.
Concerns about genistein’s effects on reproduction and development are due in part to her extensive research in mice. Newbold believes caution is warranted, because her studies, as well as others, have shown that genistein has such effects as inducing uterine adenocarcinoma in mice and premature puberty in rats. A recent study led by biologist Wendy Jefferson in Newbold’s laboratory and published in the October 2005 issue of Biology of Reproduction linked genistein with effects such as abnormal estrous cycle, altered ovarian function, and infertility in mice.
Not encouraging. As they point out in the article, in vivo may be very different from in vitro.
The original interest in soy was fueled by geographic epidemiology — the observation that populations that consume a lot of soy, particularly those in eastern Asia, have less breast cancer, prostate cancer, and cardiovascular disease, and fewer bone fractures. Additionally, women in these populations report fewer menopausal symptoms, such as hot flashes, and both men and women have a lower incidence of aging-related brain diseases. Since lifestyle can affect chronic disease development, and diet is a major lifestyle factor, traditional Asian diets drew considerable attention.
Although initial research overestimated the amount of soy consumed by Asians, the cumulative evidence of numerous biomarker studies has confirmed that their diets are significantly higher in both isoflavones and lignans (another phytoestrogen) compared to the typical Western diet. Studies have further shown that when Asians emigrate to Western nations such as the United States and adopt the prevailing diet, their disease rates change.
Again, a single element ("soy") in a single factor (Asian diet) was isolated in an attempt to make a sweeping decision about health benefits of the bean. Great for late-night marketing of various "cures" but hardly scientific.
“People need to know that as it occurs in soy and other plant products, genistin is the compound that’s there. The amount of actual genistein is very low, one percent or less probably,” says Michael Shelby, director of the National Toxicology Program’s Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR). Key exceptions are fermented products, such as miso and tempeh, which may contain up to 40% free genistein.
See the notes on miso and Natto up the thread. These happen to be the fermented soy products that are consumed most in traditional Japanese cuisine, not tofu and soy "milk". Back to steak vs bologna and sausage.
Further controversy surrounds the fact that most of the epidemiologic studies of Asian populations involved whole soy foods, but animal and human intervention studies have generally used soy concentrates or isolated isoflavones; some animal studies used pure genistein. This difference may have obscured what the health effects of soy actually are. ... There’s something about the intact product that seems to be bioactive that is not able to be replicated when you begin chopping it up.”
Again, back to steak vs... Great "health" studies they had in 1990s. 'Nuf said?
Americans as a whole still consume very little soy protein.
That's probably true, relative to all the food products on the market, but that number was reported in 2006 (with a high growth of product penetration) and certain subpopulations like vegs / vegans, lactose intolerant and "health conscious" (particularly women) have much higher consumption rates of "healthy" soy products marketed to non-Asian population.
On balance it does not seem that soy and its constituent isoflavones have met original expectations. Clinical results with regard to soy’s ability to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease have been inconsistent; a review in the 21 February 2006 issue of Circulation indicated there was little to no effect. The only apparent impact of soy and soy isoflavones on cardiovascular disease risks seems to be a slight reduction in low-density lipoproteins in individuals who had very high levels of cholesterol. An August 2005 report from the DHHS Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Effects of Soy on Health Outcomes, also concluded that there was little evidence to support a beneficial role of soy and soy isoflavones in bone health, cancer, reproductive health, neurocognitive function, and other health parameters.
This was in 2005-2006, yet all we've heard since was how good and healthy soy products are and how much more available they are.
Hm. “Biological effects are plausible but not necessarily detrimental ... More human data are clearly needed”
Okay, the evidence isn’t conclusive that soy is the root of all evil. However, as one who has to read every label, and has to avoid chocolate because of the soy lecithin, IT’S STILL EVIL!!! I’ll admit my view may be biased because of my allergy, but I can’t even go to a frickin’ newsstand because I can’t breathe in the soy ink fumes.