Newsgroup: it.salute.alimentazione
Titolo: germogli di soia

Ciao,
ultimamente ho scoperto i germogli di soia.Li mangio tutti i giorni
cotti in padella con la soia.Purtroppo non so nulla su questa
leguminosa (o va catalogata come verdura?):fa bene,fa male,che
proprietą ha etc etc
Qualcuno lo sa?
ciao
marta
ah dimenticavo...sono a dieta.

 proprietà ha etc etc


 potrebbe vanificare il vantaggio del legume.
Che vuol dire?
Io di solito i germogli li preparo cosě:faccio scaldare 2 cucchiai di
olio nel wok,ci buttto i germogli di soia e li faccio "appassire "per
qualche secondo poi ci butto la salsa di soi e facccio cuocere per 1
minuto circa.E poi me li mangio.Proverň senz'altro la ricetta che mi
hai consigliato e gli altri germogli
Grazie!
Marta

 ha scritto


 
Io i germogli di soia li mangio così come sono con la salsa di soia 
oppure alcune gocce di aceto balsamico (dipende dalle volte).
Non li ho mai cotti e sinceramente non mi era nemmeno mai venuto in 
mente, chissà perchè... mah!
ciao ciao
-- 
-Diego (Atos)-

 fa bene,fa male
Sulla soia il dibattito è ancora aperto. Un paio di anni fa due scienziati,
facenti parte dell'FDA (Food and Drug Administration), hanno pubblicato una
lettera aperta (che allego insieme alla risposta della FDA) per manifestare
il loro disaccordo sulla decisione, presa dalla stessa FDA, di permettere la
scrittura sui prodotti contenenti soia di una dicitura che ne canterebbe le
lodi riguardo le sue proprietà salutistiche sul sistema cardiocircolatorio.
Personalmente utilizzarei solo in maniera sporadica un alimento con queste
caratteristiche dubbie, e la cui vendita è sponsorizzata in gran parte da
lobby estremamente potenti. Senza contare che la quasi totalità è costituita
da OGM, e che si tratta (insieme ad altri prodotti quali ad esempio i legumi
ed i cereali) di alimenti decisamente poco adatti per l'alimentazione umana.
Se questa ti sembra un'affermazione "forte" pensa un po' ai nostri antenati
cacciatori-raccoglitori, e poi pensa a quello che bisogna fare per poter
rendere assimilabile dal nostro organismo l'amido contenuto in questi
prodotti non edibili naturalmente.
Ciao!!!
Massimo
---
Scientists Protest Soy Approval
In Unusual Letter,
FDA Experts Lay Out Concerns
Researchers Daniel Doerge and Daniel Sheehan, two of the Food and Drug
Administration's experts on soy, signed a letter of protest, which
points to studies that show a link between soy and health problems. The
two say they tried in vain to stop the FDA approval of soy because it
could be misinterpreted as a broader general endorsement beyond
benefits for the heart. The text of the letter follows.
Scientists Letter
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH and HUMAN SERVICES
Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration
National Center For Toxicological Research
Jefferson, Ark. 72079-9502
Daniel M. Sheehan, Ph.D.
Director, Estrogen Base Program
Division of Genetic and Reproductive Toxicology and
Daniel R. Doerge, Ph.D.
Division of Biochemical Toxicology
February 18, 1999
Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305)
Food and Drug Administration
Rockville, MD 20852
To whom it may concern,
We are writing in reference to Docket # 98P-0683; "Food Labeling:
Health Claims; Soy Protein and Coronary Heart Disease." We oppose this
health claim because there is abundant evidence that some of the
isoflavones found in soy, including genistein and equol, a metabolize
of daidzen, demonstrate toxicity in estrogen sensitive tissues and in
the thyroid. This is true for a number of species, including humans.
Additionally, the adverse effects in humans occur in several tissues
and, apparently, by several distinct mechanisms.
Genistein is clearly estrogenic; it possesses the chemical structural
features necessary for estrogenic activity (; Sheehan and Medlock,
1995; Tong, et al, 1997; Miksicek, 1998) and induces estrogenic
responses in developing and adult animals and in adult humans.
In rodents, equol is estrogenic and acts as an estrogenic endocrine
disruptor during development (Medlock, et al, 1995a,b). Faber and
Hughes (1993) showed alterations in LH regulation following this
developmental treatment with genistein. Thus, during pregnancy in
humans, isoflavones per se could be a risk factor for abnormal brain
and reproductive tract development.
Furthermore, pregnant Rhesus monkeys fed genistein had serum estradiol
levels 50- 100 percent higher than the controls in three different
areas of the maternal circulation (Harrison, et al, 1998). Given that
the Rhesus monkey is the best experimental model for humans, and that a
women's own estrogens are a very significant risk factor for breast
cancer, it is unreasonable to approve the health claim until complete
safety studies of soy protein are conducted. Of equally grave concern
is the finding that the fetuses of genistein fed monkeys had a 70
percent higher serum estradiol level than did the controls (Harrison,
et al, 1998). Development is recognized as the most sensitive life
stage for estrogen toxicity because of the indisputable evidence of a
very wide variety of frank malformations and serious functional
deficits in experimental animals and humans. In the human population,
DES exposure stands as a prime example of adverse estrogenic effects
during development. About 50 percent of the female offspring and a
smaller fraction of male offspring displayed one or more malformations
in the reproductive tract, as well as a lower prevalence (about 1 in a
thousand) of malignancies. In adults, genistein could be a risk factor
for a number of estrogen-associated diseases.
Even without the evidence of elevated serum estradiol levels in Rhesus
fetuses, potency and dose differences between DES and the soy
isoflavones do not provide any assurance that the soy protein
isoflavones per se will be without adverse effects. First,
calculations, based on the literature, show that doses of soy protein
isoflavones used in clinical trials which demonstrated estrogenic
effects were as potent as low but active doses of DES in Rhesus monkeys
(Sheehan, unpublished data). Second, we have recently shown that
estradiol shows no threshold in an extremely large dose-response
experiment (Sheehan, et al, 1999), and we subsequently have found 31
dose-response curves for hormone-mimicking chemicals that also fail to
show a threshold (Sheehan, 1998a). Our conclusions are that no dose is
without risk; the extent of risk is simply a function of dose. These
two features support and extend the conclusion that it is inappropriate
to allow health claims for soy protein isolate.
Additionally, isoflavones are inhibitors of the thyroid peroxidase
which makes T3 and T4. Inhibition can be expected to generate thyroid
abnormalities, including goiter and autoimmune thyroiditis.
There exists a significant body of animal data that demonstrates
goitrogenic and even carcinogenic effects of soy products (cf., Kimura
et al., 1976). Moreover, there are significant reports of goitrogenic
effects from soy consumption in human infants (cf., Van Wyk et al.,
1959; Hydovitz, 1960; Shepard et al., 1960; Pinchers et al., 1965;
Chorazy et al., 1995) and adults (McCarrison, 1933; Ishizuki, et al.,
1991). Recently, we have identified genistein and daidzein as the
goitrogenic isoflavonoid components of soy and defined the mechanisms
for inhibition of thyroid peroxidase (TPO)- catalyzed thyroid hormone
synthesis in vitro (Divi et al., 1997; Divi et al., 1996). The
observed suicide inactivation of TPO by isoflavones, through covalent
binding to TPO, raises the possibility of neoantigen formation and
because anti-TPO is the principal autoantibody present in auto immune
thyroid disease. This hypothetical mechanism is consistent with the
reports of Fort et al. (1986, 1990) of a doubling of risk for
autoimmune thyroiditis in children who had received soy formulas as
infants compared to infants receiving other forms of milk.
The serum levels of isoflavones in infants receiving soy formula that
are about five times higher than in women receiving soy supplements who
show menstrual cycle disturbances, including an increased estradiol
level in the follicular phase (Setchell, et al, 1997). Assuming a
dose-dependent risk, it is unreasonable to assert that the infant
findings are irrelevant to adults who may consume smaller amounts of
isoflavones. Additionally, while there is an unambiguous biological
effect on menstrual cycle length (Cassidy, et al, 1994), it is unclear
whether the soy effects are beneficial or adverse. Furthermore, we
need to be concerned about transplacental passage of isoflavones as the
DES case has shown us that estrogens can pass the placenta. No such
studies have been conducted with genistein in humans or primates. As
all estrogens which have been studied carefully in human populations
are two-edged swords in humans (Sheehan and Medlock, 1995; Sheehan,
1997), with both beneficial and adverse effects resulting from the
administration of the same estrogen, it is likely that the same
characteristic is shared by the isoflavones. The animal data is also
consistent with adverse effects in humans.
Finally, initial data fi-om a robust (7,000 men) long-term (30+ years)
prospective epidemiological study in Hawaii showed that Alzheimer's
disease prevalence in Hawaiian men was similar to European-ancestry
Americans and to Japanese (White, et al, 1996a). In contrast, vascular
dementia prevalence is similar in Hawaii and Japan and both are higher
than in European-ancestry Americans. This suggests that common
ancestry or environmental factors in Japan and Hawaii are responsible
for the higher prevalence of vascular dementia in these locations.
Subsequently, this same group showed a significant dose-dependent risk
(up to 2.4 fold) for development of vascular dementia and brain atrophy
from consumption of tofu, a soy product rich in isoflavones (White, et
al, 1996b). This finding is consistent with the environmental
causation suggested from the earlier analysis, and provides evidence
that soy (tofu) phytoestrogens causes vascular dementia. Given that
estrogens are important for maintenance of brain function in women;
that the male brain contains aromatase, the enzyme that converts
testosterone to estradiol; and that isoflavones inhibit this enzymatic
activity (Irvine, 1998), there is a mechanistic basis for the human
findings. Given the great difficulty in discerning the relationship
between exposures and long latency adverse effects in the human
population (Sheehan, 1998b), and the potential mechanistic explanation
for the epidemiological findings, this is an important study. It is
one of the more robust, well-designed prospective epidemiological
studies generally available. We rarely have such power in human
studies, as well as a potential mechanism, and thus the results should
be interpreted in this context.
Does the Asian experience provide us with reassurance that the
isoflavones are safe? A review of several examples lead to the
conclusion,--"Given the parallels with herbal medicines with respect to
attitudes, monitoring deficiencies, and the general difficulty of
detecting toxicities with long Iatencies, I am unconvinced that the
long history of apparent safe use of soy products can provide
confidence that they are indeed without risk." (Sheehan, 1998b).
It should also be noted that the claim on p. 62978 that soy protein
foods are GRAS is in conflict with the recent return by CFSAN to Archer
Daniels Midland of a petition for GRAS status for soy protein because
of deficiencies in reporting adverse effects in the petition. Thus GRAS
status has not been granted. Linda Kahl can provide you with details.
It would seem appropriate for FDA to speak with a single voice
regarding soy protein isolate.
Taken together, the findings presented here are self-consistent and
demonstrate that genistein and other isoflavones can have adverse
effects in a variety of species, including humans. Animal studies are
the front line in evaluating toxicity, as they predict, with good
accuracy, adverse effects in humans. For the isoflavones, we
additionally have evidence of two types of adverse effects in humans,
despite the very few studies that have addressed this subject. While
isoflavones may have beneficial effects at some ages or circumstances,
this cannot be assumed to be true at all ages. Isoflavones are like
other estrogens in that they are two-edged swords, conferring both
benefits and risk (Sheehan and Medlock, 1995; Sheehan, 1997). The
health labeling of soy protein isolate for foods needs to considered
just as would the addition of any estrogen or goitrogen to foods, which
are bad ideas.
Estrogenic and goitrogenic drugs are regulated by FDA, and are taken
under a physician's care. Patients are informed of risks, amd are
monitored by their physicians for evidence of toxicity. There are no
similar safeguards in place for foods, so the public will be put at
potential risk from soy isoflavones in soy protein isolate without
adequate warning and information.
Finally, NCTR is currently conducting a long-term multigeneration study
of genistein administered in feed to rats. The analysis of the dose
range-finding studies are nearlycomplete now. As preliminary data,
which is still confidential, may be relevant to your decision, I
suggest you contact Dr. Barry Delclos at the address on the letterhead,
or email him.
Sincerely,
Daniel M. Sheehan
Daniel R. Doerge
FDA Weighs Soy Benefits Versus Concerns
10:07 a.m. ET (1407 GMT) August 15, 2000
WASHINGTON (Reuters) — US health regulators weighed concerns that soy
products might be harmful but decided soy's positive effects justified
touting its benefits to consumers, a Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) official said on Monday.
The agency comment came in response to published remarks from two
FDA scientists that eating soy might cause health problems,
particularly if given daily to infants in soy milk formulas. Drs.
Daniel Doerge and Daniel Sheehan, the FDA scientists, have spoken to
media organizations to warn that infants given soy formula might grow
up to develop fertility problems.
They also worry that eating soy regularly might increase the risk of
breast cancer in women and brain damage in men. Their most recent
comments were published in Britain's Observer newspaper on Sunday.
FDA officials considered the scientists' views and those of other
critics before announcing last October that they would permit
manufacturers to advertise that eating soy could help adults cut their
risk of heart disease.
"We are well aware of the concerns, but we did balance those concerns
with the other positive effects,'' an FDA official said in an interview
on Monday.
The FDA reviewed scientific studies on soy before concluding that
adults who consume 25 grams of soy protein per day could see a
"significant'' lowering of cholesterol, which would lower their risk of
heart disease. High cholesterol is a major risk factor for heart
disease, the leading killer of Americans.
Critics told the FDA soy could cause harm because it contains a
chemical similar to the female hormone, estrogen, that might disrupt
normal hormone levels and impair development. Some warned about the
possibility of cancer, impaired fertility or thyroid problems.
The FDA said the concerns were not supported by conclusive scientific
research. While chemicals in soy do exert hormonal effects, the impact
is "very limited'' and much lower than that of natural or synthetic
estrogens, the FDA said when it announced it would permit the soy
health claim.
Concerns that soy infant formula could be harmful were ''speculative''
pending the outcome of definitive research, the agency said. Critics
who worry about the effects of soy infant formula recommend that it be
used only when no alternatives exist.
A farmer-supported group said on Monday concerns about soy's health
effects were not new but were not widely held.
"The overwhelming body of published peer-reviewed scientific evidence
shows soy has numerous health benefits,'' said Michael Orso, a
spokesman for the United Soybean Board.
--------------------------------
Inviato via 
http://usenet.libero.it