I have had up to 5 delis at one point over the 9 years, and hundreds of employees. I am starting to trim down and will just have our two best locations soon. I am selling my coffee cart in Mission Valley to a couple that wants to make the break from corporate America. I feel their passion and I am really excited to help them get started. I don’t look at life as a competition, maybe if I did I wouldn’t have come in 5th at the Olympics (bitter side bar sorry)……..But I do honestly feel if we support each other and do what we can to make our personal world a little better we will all benefit. I say bring on the other nutrition bars that are as good as ours, it will create more awareness and we will do better. Let Subway bring on organic meat; imagine what that would do for the world! The prices would come down, we could afford to offer it to our customers and again…… we all benefit.
Ok, I am getting off topic. Why am I “like” a proud mom? Well, I use to tell my staff that I wanted kids until I opened the delis. But they drove me so crazy that it took all my maternal instinct way. I was 99% kidding, but after I read a paper written by my bar maker Emma Grace, I think the percentage went up to 100%. I am older, and the boss, so I naturally fall into the mom category at times. So as a friend, boss, co-worker, citizen, and human I would like to share Emma’s paper with you because I am so darn proud!
Kris Fillat
Founder - GoodOnYa
Emma Grace Fairchild
Eng 100 Kheen
Research Paper Essay 5
Soybeans are eaten regularly in the United States, after gaining popularity through farming, the medical industry and food production. Originally grown in Asia to replenish soil, soy has a long, debatable history, which includes use as an inexpensive protein source when meat was unavailable, and a salty condiment. Our modern health perspective hosts a great number of believers of soy serving as the ‘miracle food.’ Many demographics in the United States regularly encounter soy; parents, children, doctors, and athletes are all directly affected, but the entire population has significant exposure to soy in the everyday foods we eat. Regardless of form, soy and its extracts are marketed to these demographics for numerous health benefits, ranging from menopausal remedies to nutritional supplements; however, contrary opinions have surfaced regarding how beneficial soy really is. Parents tend to value the health of their families, while conscientious doctors and medical professionals need accurate information to help patients make healthful nutritional decisions, and many athletes desire a complete understanding of the affects foods have on their bodies. The American public deserves truthful, well-researched facts concerning the foods they consume. I chose to research this topic because I work in the organic food and wellness industries, and wish to address the growing controversy. I want to be well versed in the positives and negatives of soy in order to converse with a wide variety of individuals about this topic and have a valid, informed argument.
Many Americans believe soy products are a valuable addition to their diet. In the American Family Physician article titled “Soy: A Complete Source of Protein,” Michelfelder mentions the prevalence of soy foods in the United States and claims significant health benefits. According to Michelfelder, “populations with diets high in soy protein and low in animal protein have lower risks of prostate and breast cancers than other populations” (Michelfelder. Cancer of many types is a growing threat to many Americans, whether because of family history or environmental conditions; naturally, a product suggested to reduce cancer risk is highly sought after by a wide range of consumers. Michelfelder attributes “lower risks of prostate and breast cancers” to soy products, insisting soy is safe and in fact should be consumed in significant portions. From young adults wanting to prevent cancer, and older citizens hoping to minimize or reverse risk, the implication that soybeans benefit health convinces many consumers to include soy frequently in meals. The food and medical industries have embraced the fear of cancer and succeeded in convincing Americans to eat soy as a part of a healthy diet.
Although research shows reduced cancer rates in populations which regularly consume soy proteins, independent research claims processing soy for consumption leaves unhealthy by-products, which inhibit digestion. Detrimental compounds found naturally in foods are also known as anti-nutrients, or mal-nutritious, and serve the opposite effect of a standard beneficial nutrient. In the article “Increased in Vitro and In Vivo Digestibility of Soy Proteins by Chemical Modifications of Disulfide Bonds” Wang, et al suggest that the typical method of destroying mal-nutritious aspects in soy, high heat and chemical solvents, is not effective in eliminating anti-nutrients. “High temperature heating is the most common method to treat soy proteins in animal feed to denature the anti-nutritional factors… However, heat treatment alone is not sufficient to fully inactivate the anti-nutritional factors” (Wang, et al). According to the authors, the current practice of processing soy proves to be inadequate to eliminate unhealthy compounds present in unprocessed soybeans, specifically protein inhibitors. When the authors admit the necessity to “denature the anti-nutritional factors,” they imply that soy foods are not safe to eat without significant processing, and negative qualities remain in soy after initial treatment. The study suggests alternate treatments may prove more effective; however, all practices, even historic methods such as fermenting, may still leave mal-nutritious components. If researchers investigate various means of processing soy, the scientific community may further understand more effective treatments. This in turn may lead doctors to conclude that soybeans may not be beneficial and excessive soy in processed foods may be reconsidered.
The digestibility of soy causes concern for parents feeding their children an enriched soy milk infant formula. Morrel, MA, challenges general assumptions by parents and doctors that exclusive use of soy formula is safe for infants. Morrel states “the American Dietetic Association recommends no more than two servings of soy per day. Yet we are feeding our infants six or more servings of soy per day” (Morrel). Morrel implies feeding a baby “six or more servings of soy per day” holds potential for unknown adverse affects. She suggests extensive studies are needed to provide concrete proof of safety before significantly changing children’s developmental diets. If Morrel convinces the public that soy formulas should not be fed to infants, more parents may make informed decisions about their babies’ nutritional needs, and seek alternate sources for nourishment.
New research connecting exposure to phytoestrogens, or isoflavones, in soy with thyroid disorders may concern parents who feed their children soy. In “Soy Isoflavones: Panacea or Poison”? Dr. Fitzpatrick argues against a claim submitted to the FDA by the Archer Daniels Midland Company regarding the safety of soy isoflavones in American diets. Dr. Fitzpatrick references several studies over the last fifty years which associate phytoestrogen compounds found in soy with an increase of thyroid disorders, in both babies and adults. When Fitzpatrick states “soy isoflavones can be the cause of thyroid disorders,” he emphasizes his belief that soy plays a serious role in thyroid health, ranging from hyperthyroidism to iodine deficiencies. If Fitzpatrick’s claim evokes exploration of the safety and side effects of soy consumption, consumers can access information to reach sound conclusions regarding dietary soy, and adjust personal diets appropriately.
Soybeans have not only been connected to thyroid function; studies suggest soy contributes to heart disease. Kayla Daniel, PhD, CCN refers to a University of Colorado study which suggests a soy diet fed to rats contributes to a heart condition that is a known killer of otherwise healthy athletes. Daniel presents “…Researchers reported in the January issue of the Journal of Clinical Investigation that soy worsens cardiomyopathy… the leading cause of death among young athletes” (Daniel, PhD, CCN). According to Daniel, athletes often supplement diets with protein powders, which tend to be soy based, and frequently eat energy bars with isolated soy ingredients. These habits increase exposure to any number of mal-nutritious compounds that are now being linked to serious risks, involving a weakening of heart walls. When Daniel emphasizes cardiomyopathy is “the leading cause of death among young athletes,” she illustrates how otherwise healthy people are capable of unwittingly doing damage upon themselves due to misinformation. If athletes are persuaded to move away from soy foods, and instead consume whole sources of protein, fats and carbohydrates, the best possible health may result without consequence from diet.
When I started this essay, I understood the controversy surrounding soy and the uncertainly of affects; however, now I am convinced that any concern regarding our food supply is worth scrutiny, and the entire issue deserves much more attention from the science, food and medical industries. I found reason to question both sides of the soy story because of minimal long term peer-reviewed studies, and political and financial agendas of both sides. Doctors and medical professionals reserve the authority to advise the public about health concerns, but without the availability of objective scientific evidence this cannot be accomplished. With a complete understanding of soy, parents, athletes, and every American would have the information to make sound decisions regarding diet. Our health care system could benefit from an invested interest of personal health, instead of being burdened with problems stemming from diet that are difficult to diagnose. If the general understanding of food and health moves toward whole, local and unprocessed foods with variety and moderation, everyone could benefit from greater health.
Works Cited:
Fitzpatrick, Mike. “Soy Isoflavones: Panacea or Poison?” Weston A. Price Foundation. 27 Feb. 2009. Web. 20 Apr. 2010.
Daniel, PhD, CCN, Kaayla T. “Not So Soy Healthy.” Weston A Price Foundation. Weston A Price Foundation, 13 Mar. 2009. Web. 8 May 2010.
Mead, M Nathaniel. ”From One Womb to Another: Early Estrogenic Exposures and Later Fibroid Risk.” Environmental Health Perspectives 118.3 (2010): 1. ProQuest. Web. 20 Apr. 2010.
Michelfelder, A. ”Soy: A Complete Source of Protein.” American Family Physician 79.1 (2009): 43-47. ProQuest. Web. 20 Apr. 2010.
Morell, Sally F. “Soy Formula Panel Caves to Industry Pressure.” Weston A Price Foundation. 29 Dec. 2009. Web. 20 Apr. 2010.
Wang, H., R. Faris, T. Wang, M. Spurlock, and N.Gabler. “Increased In Vitro and In Vivo Digestibility of Soy Proteins by Chemical Modification of Disulfide Bonds.” Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society 86.11 (2009): 1093-1099. ProQuest. Web. 19 Apr. 2010.