It is labeled organic because it is made from organic soy beans. But processes - that is a different story.  

As long as they removed the toxic material to levels acceptable enough they can call it "zero" then it is all game. 

Organic used to mean a lot.  They agency changed what can be called organic. 

Plus - it is still made from non fermented soy.  Even if I was not allergic - I would not used that daily or even once a week... 

You can try to make your own soy milk from beans... See if you get anything like the drinkable thing. 

I honestly don't know.  Every company have their own processes... 

Thanks, Hala.  That was helpful.  xo

A lot of scientists look at genistein, ONE chemical in soy, as a potential anti-cancer/cancer protective/chemotherapy adjuvant based upon research which noted that asians have less colorectal cancer than europeans [notably, they have a higher incidence of gastric cancer but that is a different story].

The thing is..soy has a LOT of other chemicals in it...like phytoestrogens. In the past, Asian women used to feed their cheating husbands lots of mizo soup, thinking it decreased his sex drive. Did it?  If so, was it because of the phytoestrogens?

Things that toxicologists think about....

Note:  What follows is all just for philosophical discussion.  After writing it, I worried that it might somehow be taken as an argument about sources or rightness or wrongness.  Honest, I am not that person!  I value everyone's opinion and am not an antagonist or someone who must be right.  I really am just interested in a discussion about depending on studies found on the internet, and how to approach these sources, and am just using soy as a springboard for that discussion.

Skinny, I agree with you that it is hard to find scientific studies regarding soy.  I do feel that with many food products, the internet creates a situation where we have trouble knowing what is reliable information.  And so, it has evolved to where people treat many foods as they would religion.  That is, "I believe this, and if you believe differently, then you are wrong.  And, not only are you wrong, but you are not enlightened.  And you are not disciplined.  And you are misled.  And, by the way, you are also bad."  Think of the Paleo movement vs vegetarianism.  So many web sites that get cited as "evidence" are really people's opinions written up as an article.  There is anecdotal evidence, or questionable studies.  I think the current discussion around childhood immunizations is one such problem.

One thing I  like is the idea of a study where n=1, and I am n.  That is, the only really important thing is how food affects me.  The problem, of course, is that with some things, the effects are immediate, or within weeks.  While with other foods, we might not realize there is a problem for decades.  So aggregate studies, over the long term, are very helpful.  Also, the n=1 study idea becomes a problem when anyone interpolates their own personal n results assuming they are right for the entire population.

Skinny, I would like your scientist opinion about the sources below.  I have considered these two articles, that seemed more reliable than some.  NYTimes is not a woo-woo site, but not a hard scientific site.  The articles do cite some studies that seem reliable, but no one study can answer the whole soy question.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9802E1DB113BF 935A15755C0A9649D8B63

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/27/ask-well-is-it-safe -to-eat-soy/

I have also long liked the science-to-layman newsletter "Nutrition Action Newsletter" by the Center for Science in the Public Interest.  This group has been very forward looking at studies, advising nutrition action that goes beyond what is held by the general public.  For example, they have published summaries of studies about food dyes and how they affect children's attention and behavior, and have advocated for rules like many in Europe.  Here are a few links to their soy articles.  I feel that this group summarizes recent scientific studies, but it does not necessarily draw hard conclusions.  Just provides summaries and lets you decide what to do.

http://www.nutritionaction.com/daily/how-to-diet/how-to-diet -does-soy-affect-thyroid-function/

http://www.nutritionaction.com/daily/how-to-diet/how-to-diet -does-soy-impact-masculinity/

http://www.nutritionaction.com/daily/how-to-diet/how-to-diet -what-are-the-benefits-of-soy/

Anyway, as always, interested in your thoughts, Skinny.  Again, mostly interested a discussion about relying on various sources, with soy as a springboard for that discussion.

OMG!  I love you!

I am at work right now. Will look at these between 9pm-10pm tonight EST.

I will give you my thoughts around 11 pmish.

At a knee jerk, I would consider all of these WOO-WOO because they aren't from science journals.

However, the reality is: a) how are the concepts from science journals conveyed to the layman (i.e in newsletters blogs, etc...things that Skinny knee-jerkedly are woohoo...you see the inherent problem with this..right?) and b) where does science get the idea to ask the big questions (e.g. does soy cause bloat). Being a scientist and working around scientists...we are a pretty obtuse group that is kinda inept and may not notice our friends/spouses getting fat and bloated on soy...hence we need SOMEONE or something to give us the "bright idea").

Thank you for the discussion!  I haven't enjoyed science this much since grad school (about 15 years ago!). Now I feel part of a community rather than some bureucrat...

:)

Captains of our own ships discussing the sea conditions!!!

Hey, no rush!  And no need to do a thorough response--just a knee-jerk response is interesting too.  This is all just for fun and learning.  :-)

Along the lines of the discussion, though, one thing I thought of last night:  Like you said, science only has studies on the things it decides to study.  And money does affect what gets studied--that is why we often depend on anecdotal evidence, especially with things like food and the general supplement industry.

I used to sit on the IRB of a large regional hospital, and at one point, we had some local people--parents and a university professor, if I remember right--seeking approval for a simple study about a common supplement or food thought to help with the symptoms of cystic fibrosis.  There was only anecdotal evidence.  No pharmaceutical company was going to fund such a study.  I do not remember how this group got funding to do the study, but it was a simple study--with a large enough sample group to make it statistically significant, at least for a starter study--but it was small enough to be manageable.  And, there were motivated people with the needed skills to donate their time.  University professors and students will often do this kind of thing, if they have a personal interest, right?  So at the time, in the IRB, we had quite a discussion about the realities of what gets studied and what does not.

Anyhow, I do think that kind of situation is common. 

Also, on the internet, I see a lot of efforts by bloggers to reference their opinions--to credit their sources.  You click on the link, though, and it takes you to just another site that is not scientific, even though some sites may be foundations, or call themselves something cool, or have a neat design that makes them seem big and believable.  Then what happens is that all these sites start referencing each other, and everyone believes each other because they are all saying the same thing.  The lack of dates on many web sites--and the lack of people paying attention to dates--also is problematic.

Silly useful example:  recently, neighbor 1 told me that her dog was friends with another, new neighborhood dog who roams wild.  I mentioned this to another neighbor, neighbor 2, just in passing conversation.  A couple of weeks later, I was talking with neighbor 2.  She said, "I heard that those 2 dogs are great friends!"  I said, "Really?  I heard that too!  I guess it's really so!"  And then 3 seconds later, I realized that I was the source of her information.  So that was not proof of anything, right?  But that kind of thing happens on the internet all the time as people attempt to cite their sources.

Anyhow, all that said, I do think it is good to consider  long-standing folk wisdom, and traditional practices for health, and then do the n=1 thing.  And to tell people what we have observed in ourselves and those around us, or what we have learned through our reading--that is all good.  But to say it is so for everyone as a hard fact--we should not.

This is why we talk to, give knowledge and testament to one another.

Thoughtful consideration on the things we put on and in are body are needed, especially since our society is very much into "Better living through chemistry"!

I love science, medicine, sunscreen and pesticides on some level. But on another, I became educated and recognize that when abused or used incorrectly (not even meaning to be abused!) they can cause some unforeseen consequences.

We are captains of our own ships, but even captains get on the radio and talk to each other about storms, pirates, and other sea conditions.

I used regular old milk. Mmmmm.

I used regular non-fat cow's milk.  If you are adding unflavored protein you will need some kind of flavoring to hide the taste.  It is not flavored, but it not tasteless.  Right after surgery I used Carnation Instant Breakfast with non-fat milk and added enough unflavored protein powder to achieve my protein goals.

There are many unsweetened syrups you can use to make the drink drinkable.

I made almond milk by soaking natural almonds overnight in a Nutribullet cup and Nutribulleting the soaked almonds and water in the morning. My favorite milk is Fairlife whole milk--more protein and less sugar than regular whole milk.  A good website for shake recipes:   theworldingaccordingtoeggface.