New book in Dutch

Eet vet word slank

Eet vet word slank gepubliceerd januari 2013

In dit boek lees je o.a.: * heel veel informatie ter bevordering van je gezondheid; * hoe je door de juiste vetten te eten en te drinken kan afvallen; * hoe de overheid en de voedingsindustrie ons, uit financieel belang, verkeerd voorlichten; * dat je van bewerkte vetten ziek kan worden.

Trick and Treat:
How 'healthy eating' is making us ill
Trick and Treat cover

"A great book that shatters so many of the nutritional fantasies and fads of the last twenty years. Read it and prolong your life."
Clarissa Dickson Wright

Natural Health & Weight Loss cover

"NH&WL may be the best non-technical book on diet ever written"
Joel Kauffman, PhD, Professor Emeritus, University of the Sciences, Philadelphia, PA

Soy Online Service


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.

AG00044_1.gif (4851 bytes)

The winners of the Soy Online Service Big Ugly Bull Award:


May 2006

The allegedly independent expert panel appointed by the US Federal Government's Center for Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction

... 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

New Zealand Ministry of Health

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

Unilever and Goodman Fielder (Meadowlea)

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

U.S. Department of Agriculture

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

Dr Brian Strom

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 (



June-August 2000

Abbott Laboratories

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".

Isomil.TIF (52558 bytes)


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

Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition
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

The Sanitarium Health Food Company

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.





I have removed the COMMENT facility, with regret, as I seem to be the only person who cannot leave a comment!