TDG: The Billion-Dollar Myth: Soy

[Pan]

Can you give an example of fish or mammalian genes inserted into plants?

The "Mamster Lily."

I have a serious question to ask: Does anybody here, besides Trillum, think that I should have rejected Nina Planck's article? Or do most believe that, on balance, despite what I do consider to be some flaws in the way the argument is presented, it was something that deserved to be published? Did everybody catch the part in the bio at the end about how HarperCollins is publishing a book-length version of much the same thesis that Nina Planck has been presenting (and will continue to present) in the pieces we're publishing in The Daily Gullet? Also, is anybody under the impression that it represents the viewpoint of anybody but its author?

I think it's below the level of other things I've read on The Daily Gullet, so I question whether you should have published it. I think the best thing you could have done is - like a peer-reviewed journal - request revisions and publish the article only if suitable revisions had been made. Planck has admitted that she's made accusations she lacks enough information to back up. That makes them, in a scholarly sense, junk.

As for the fact that a book is being published, so what? Lots of trash is published, and some of it sells well. If that's your standard for The Daily Gullet, I think that's problematic, too.

On your last question, I'm under the impression that you share much of Planck's viewpoint, but only because you said you did. I don't assume that the articles represent the viewpoints of the eGullet staff, but I do suggest that you try to keep propaganda masquerading as facts out. Because Planck's article was so harsh and purple, I was shocked to read it.

[sonnykilstein]

I thought it was a good article. Actually one of the better articles in tdg.

[Pan]

I thought it was a good article.  Actually one of the better articles in tdg.

Perhaps it would be helpful if you said why you thought it was one of the better articles in TDG.

[Fat Guy]

I think the best thing you could have done is - like a peer-reviewed journal - request revisions and publish the article only if suitable revisions had been made. Planck has admitted that she's made accusations she lacks enough information to back up. That makes them, in a scholarly sense, junk.

But our Webzine is neither a peer-reviewed, scholarly, nor scientific journal. In my mind it fits into a similar category (albeit not identical and of course with less distribution) to something like Salon or Slate. What I'd be most likely to do, in my role as editorial director, is entertain a request from someone who disagrees with Planck to write a piece presenting the arguments for the other side. And it bears repeating that TDG's authors and editors don't walk away after a piece is published: they appear in this public forum to defend themselves (or modify their views), unedited, uncut, in marked contrast to the contrived, scripted, ultimately safe approach of a letters-to-the-editor page. So we can have a conversation here -- as we have before with respect to other observations published in TDG -- that not only examines any and all of the author's claims, but also clarifies the TDG mission, purpose, and medium.

TDG pieces are beginnings of conversations, a natural extension of what we do here on eGullet all the time. Now, of course, it would be unethical of us to publish information we knew to be wrong just to provoke a conversation. But when there is a range of legitimate opinion (and to me that is a very, very broad range) I have no problem publishing controversial statements under a writer's byline. We're trying to create something unique here: TDG isn't supposed to be quite like anything that has come before it. It's an outgrowth of eGullet, which itself is an unusual phenomenon.

I'll give you an example, based on one of the many pieces I've rejected for publication in TDG. I recently had a guy approach us about writing book reviews. He was a very strong writer. As you are no doubt aware, we have very few book reviews in TDG -- though the few we've published have been to my liking -- and so we could really use a self-sufficient, competent book reviewer. But when I explained the whole eGullet concept to this guy, he simply couldn't grasp the why of it. I think he was under the impression that we do what most newspaper and magazine sites do when they implement message-board software: nothing. He couldn't buy into our system, where the "magazine" part of the site is ultimately intended as a means of enhancing the message boards. It didn't compute. So we turned down some content that, on a standalone basis, was of good quality -- because it didn't fit into our mission.

Nina, on the other hand, immediately came across as someone who could intuitively grasp the spirit of eGullet. We could tell from the outset, based on her writing and her personal and professional history, that she'd fit right in here. And I hope she writes for us every week forever, though I know she's going to be very busy writing her next book, running New York's Greenmarket organization, and making a living (an endeavor to which we, unfortunately, do not contribute).

[Pan]

But our Webzine is neither a peer-reviewed, scholarly, nor scientific journal. In my mind it fits into a similar category (albeit not identical and of course with less distribution) to something like Salon or Slate. What I'd be most likely to do, in my role as editorial director, is entertain a request from someone who disagrees with Planck to write a piece presenting the arguments for the other side. And it bears repeating that TDG's authors and editors don't walk away after a piece is published: they appear in this public forum to defend themselves (or modify their views), unedited, uncut, in marked contrast to the contrived, scripted, ultimately safe approach of a letters-to-the-editor page. So we can have a conversation here -- as we have before with respect to other observations published in TDG -- that not only examines any and all of the author's claims, but also clarifies the TDG mission, purpose, and medium.

TDG pieces are beginnings of conversations, a natural extension of what we do here on eGullet all the time.

I see your points here, FG.

So let's look at this one:

Now, of course, it would be unethical of us to publish information we knew to be wrong just to provoke a conversation.

How far along the "know to be wrong" continuum does "MSG is a brain toxin" go?

See, I don't think that the piece is objectionable because I think everything soy is good for people in mass quantities. I frankly don't know about that one way or another and could use some evidence, whether pro or con, to help guide me. The problem is that Planck presents her case in a less-than-credible way. If I say the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was good because Saddam was evil and had 50 hydrogen bombs at his disposal, is the alternative that Saddam was good and didn't have 50 hydrogen bombs at his disposal? Could it be that Saddam was bad but you disagree with the reasons given for launching an invasion that deposed him because you think they're untruthful? To me, it becomes a problem when the dispute is with the credibility of the messenger rather than the key point, which might have been that soy is best used sparingly, fermented, or combined with animal products. But given the way Planck presented her case, I don't know whether she established any of it to my satisfaction. Suppose I tell you that I'm against the Bush Administration because it cuts funding for education and takes orders from Martians. Have I presented a strong case or exposed myself to ridicule and cast doubt on the credibility of everything I say? And is it useful, then, to start a conversation that, on the evidence of this thread, seems to divide into those who are already anti-soy and the rest of us, who as far as I can tell are without exception not soy promoters but reject the extreme and unsupported propaganda that went along with Planck's anti-soy message? Do you see my point? (Note: Political points made purely for analogy, not to open off-topic discussions which concentrate exclusively on the reasons for the invasion of Iraq or the domestic policies of the Bush Administration.)

Edited May 25, 2003 by Pan (log)

[WHT]

Can you give an example of fish or mammalian genes inserted into plants?

Can you other than that tomato that is still not in production? That is not the point. man will change things to suite him.

[jackal10]

I'm pleased you published it. No one expects everything in TDG to be the absolute truth, and it leads to a healthy debate. If they disagree, they can post a reply.

Not publishing something because some may disagree leads to the worse kind of censorship, and thought police.

As better people have said, I may not agree with you, but I defend your right to speak.

The thing is self-policing. Let authors make ridiculous statements if they wish: they will be seen for what they are. I have severe difficulty with someone denying publication because the view is unpopular, or cannot be objectively proved.

Edited May 25, 2003 by jackal10 (log)

[Beachfan]

I'm not sure the context that F-G outlines above is clear. I didn't care for the article. I thought it was ok to publish, but it didn't feel like it was a guest op-ed piece. Maybe they are all guest op-ed pieces but that's a new way of thinking about it for me.

[Fat Guy]

How far along the "know to be wrong" continuum does "MSG is a brain toxin" go?

If you're asking do I think it's a bullshit argument, the answer is a resounding yes. But "know to be wrong"? Well, I'd rather hear the arguments on both sides than preempt one side by claiming to know the absolute truth one way or the other. When I got this story after editing I did some Googling and one of the first things that came up was this page. There are literally hundreds of such collections of data out there -- it certainly crosses the threshold of what I'm willing to let one of our authors say. Indeed, you will find that out there in the world of fact-checking the claim that MSG is harmless seems to be a minority view -- one I happen to think is right, but a minority view nonetheless.

I happen to think all sorts of stuff that is published on the front page of the New York Times is more demonstrably false than the claim that MSG is a brain toxin. The greenhouse effect, mad-cow disease, and all this other barely understood stuff that is the basis for expensive and destructive regulatory action -- those to me are far more wacky than the MSG claim. But those views are mainstream, so nobody would be posting, "How could you so much as publish that crap about global warming?" When I wrote an article a couple of years ago making the simple point that the whole mad-cow disease scare was totally overblown, do you have any idea how many people called me insane? If anybody pipes up and questions whether we need to reduce industrial capacity and thwart economic growth based on speculative and contradictory computer models that may or may not establish a link between emissions and global warming, that person is shouted down in the mainstream media. (Same disclaimer as Pan.) Mere quantity of information doesn't prove anything, but if you look around the Internet and in the published literature, you will find a gazillion reams of supporting data for anti-MSG claims. Whole organizations devoted to it, with well-credentialed scientists on staff. Do I happen to think they're nuts? Yes. Can they publish their opinions in TDG? Sure, why not?

[Fat Guy]

I'm not sure the context that F-G outlines above is clear.  I didn't care for the article.  I thought it was ok to publish, but it didn't feel like it was a guest op-ed piece.  Maybe they are all guest op-ed pieces but that's a new way of thinking about it for me.

To clarify: Are you saying you thought it came across as the official editorial position of eGullet.com? Or are you saying you thought it came across as non-editorial in nature, i.e., a reported news story? (And, if so, do you think that distinction makes sense or do you think it's mostly used by traditional media as a cover for editorializing in news stories?)

We publish articles most every weekday, and they pretty much all contain statements of opinion. Mamster says chicken breasts are good. I assume that everybody reading Mamster's article knows that's his opinion and not news-reporting or the official position of the publication. I don't feel the need to attach various disclaimers and labels to get that point across.

[=Mark]

What many people can't seem to work past is that with all the hand wringing there has yet to be, in 20 years of genetic manipulation, a single example to point at where GM has resulted in harm to anything except the starvation of those in 3rd world countries denied their benefits.

Its been shown, for example, that the pollen of GM but not ordinary oil seed is poisonous to various species of butterflies that use it as a seed plant. However the stuff has just not been around long enough to say with any certainty that it is safe to indiscriminately release into the wild. Thats why various governments are still conducting tests, so far without definite conclusion.

I, for one, will not knowingly eat GM foods where I can avoid it.

This is an examplle of the type of distortions that make it into the public record. The actual study was to see if pollen from BT corn, engineered to produce the toxin BT (Widely used in organic farming by the way) could be toxic if ingested by Monarch butterfly larvae. To test this the researchers picked leaves from milkweed plants, the only food for monarch larvae, and placed them in containers. The leaves were then coated with pollen from BT corn. Monarch larvae were then put in the containers with the BT tainted leaves. Surprise! 80% of the larvae died!

Nobody addressed the fact that the larvae had no choice but to eat the tainted milkweed leaves. Nobody addressed the fact that corn pollen is too heavy to drift any distance on the wind. There was never any evidence that pollen from the BT corn was actually harming any insects other than the borers that were targeted by the GM in the first place. Certainly none of the anti GM folks will acknowledge the effects on the environment resulting from the fact that these crops no longer need to be sprayed with toxic pestacides.

[macrosan]

What many people can't seem to work past is that with all the hand wringing there has yet to be, in 20 years of genetic manipulation, a single example to point at where GM has resulted in harm to anything except the starvation of those in 3rd world countries denied their benefits.

.

If they don't look, they won't find.

I'm not saying you're implied all-clear for genetic engineering is wrong, Mark. My instinct does, but I'm aware there is no proof either way. Of course your side of the argument is on safe ground, because when I ask you for proof you'll just say "You can't prove a negative". Well then, if you can't prove the negative, at least accept that it might exist, and acknowledge that in principle any human intervention with nature must carry risks.

So the argument is not based on science, but on pure logic and common sense.

Now if you'd like some examples from history of scientists claiming that they fully understood their science, and its social implications, was safe, followed by proof of the opposite, then we'd better set up a new thread on a different website. That is a long, long list

[Pan]

How far along the "know to be wrong" continuum does "MSG is a brain toxin" go?

If you're asking do I think it's a bullshit argument, the answer is a resounding yes. But "know to be wrong"? Well, I'd rather hear the arguments on both sides than preempt one side by claiming to know the absolute truth one way or the other. When I got this story after editing I did some Googling and one of the first things that came up was this page.

I looked at it.

You know, the thing is, maybe it might even be true that MSG is harmful. But the problem is that Planck simply asserted that it's a "brain poison," and then, when confronted with why she also said that glutamates in their unprocessed form were OK, begged off, saying she wasn't an expert. So for me, the problem is that she is talking through her hat and doesn't have evidence to provide when confronted, even if such evidence exists. So, as I tried to post last night when for whatever reason, I was able to either post twice or not at all, there's a comparison to be made between Planck and the NY Times reporter who made up unsubtantiated "news" stories.

I do get your points, though.

[Pan]

I'm pleased you published it. No one expects everything in TDG to be the absolute truth, and it leads to a healthy debate. If they disagree, they can post a reply.

Not publishing something because some may disagree leads to the worse kind of censorship, and thought police.

As better people have said, I may not agree with you, but I defend your right to speak.

The thing is self-policing. Let authors make ridiculous statements if they wish: they will be seen for what they are. I have severe difficulty with someone denying publication because the view is unpopular, or cannot be objectively proved.

I'll try to reconstruct the post I tried to post last night:

Not publishing something because the writer can't substantiate her words - especially if they contain accusations - is not "censorship." It's arguable whether people have the unfettered right to post unsubstantiated accusations: Such accusations could open them up to legal action from, say, Aji-No-Moto. But there is no question that The Daily Gullet does not have to take all comers, so the issue of "censorship" is a complete red herring. Furthermore, the issue is not that "some may disagree"; it's that Planck, when challenged, couldn't offer evidence to support her apparently idle speculation that MSG is poisonous but unprocessed glutamates are OK. You are right that people are free to ridicule the messenger for talking through her hat, but wouldn't it be better if we were discussing a well-presented argument that cited actual supporting evidence, rather than engaging in ridicule? I think so.

Edited May 26, 2003 by Pan (log)

[macrosan]

I understand your argument, Pan, but in what substantial way is the Planck article different from me asserting that the production of foie gras involves cruelty to animals, or that GM food manufacture is dangerous to mankind, or that alcohol is a poison ? All of those are simply assertions, and are liable to generate opposing views, and that creates the debate that eGullet is (I assume) here for.

Surely your strictures on Planck could only be valid if she was purporting to deliver a scientific paper, which she clearly is not. I repeat what I said earlier, that given some of the excessive claims of the GM/soy lobby, perhaps some equivalent liberties with presentation of science on the other side are in order, to redress the balance.

[Pan]

I understand your argument, Pan, but in what substantial way is the Planck article different from me asserting that the production of foie gras involves cruelty to animals, or that GM food manufacture is dangerous to mankind, or that alcohol is a poison ? All of those are simply assertions, and are liable to generate opposing views, and that creates the debate that eGullet is (I assume) here for.

I guess I have a different standard for TDG than for an ordinary post.

Surely your strictures on Planck could only be valid if she was purporting to deliver a scientific paper, which she clearly is not.

I think of it as more like a newspaper article. Are you thinking of it as totally analogous to an ordinary post on any of the eGullet discussion boards? Fat Guy: Is that how you think of TDG?

I repeat what I said earlier, that given some of the excessive claims of the GM/soy lobby, perhaps some equivalent liberties with presentation of science on the other side are in order, to redress the balance.

Two wrongs don't make a right. If the bullshit is slung from right and left, the people in the center and confused bystanders will simply get the shit piled on them. We wouldn't want that, now, would we? The solution, as I said before, is to argue using evidence, not to bullshit from one side or the other. The propaganda will just have the effect of causing the uncommitted people to turn off, whereas evidence may cause them to think about the issues.

[Fat Guy]

Pan, I don't buy the censorship argument either, nor do I buy that we should intentionally allow misinformation to be distributed in the service of countering misinformation, and of course we have a higher standard for TDG than for message-board posts. In fact, we have no standard for message-board posts at all other than very basic rules of decorum, copyright law, defamation law, etc., which I wouldn't even call standards but for the failure of so many message-board sites to adhere to even those basic guidelines. Whereas, with TDG, there is both a literary standard (totally inapplicable to the boards) and a standard of research, conformation to style guides, contributor guidelines, etc. -- they are quite detailed and annoying, I'm sure, to the contributors.

I think it's an entirely reasonable point -- in fact I think I was the first to make it -- that the article would have been more effective if stripped of some of what I consider to be both ancillary and political points. So I'm in agreement with you, when I put on my reader hat. But from a publication-wide standpoint, my opinions are not terribly relevant -- at least I make a good-faith effort to keep it that way. So we put this article through our process and what came out is what you see. I would publish it again without reservation. Having seen the reactions here, though, next time something like this comes up I would probably be inclined (as would, I'm sure, the other TDG editorial people reading along) to 1) push harder for richer sourcing -- like putting a link to that page of references behind the MSG claims, and 2) argue for a more matter-of-fact presentation.

A couple of things I want to add to put this in context: Nina has actually written five pieces for us, so from my perspective she's a "regular." For our regulars -- people like Mamster and Dave the Cook and JAZ -- I generally give them a wide berth, the way a newspaper would treat a columnist. You folks out here, however, have only seen one previous piece by Planck -- the rest are forthcoming. So this reads much more like a one-off to you than it does to me. Not an excuse, just context: if a stranger sent me this piece I'd treat it differently than if it came from one of our crew. The other thing, and this is not an excuse either, is that I did give some deference to HarperCollins's commitment to publish a book containing similar arguments to what we published here. It's not so much that I think, "if it's good enough for them it's good enough for us," but, rather, that I took that decision as one of several indications that these views are not so beyond the pale as to require us to do a serious investigation before publishing them.

As for Nina defending herself, well, let's wait and see what happens here. I doubt she's finished.

[Pan]

Thanks for that cogent reply, Steven.

[KNorthrup]

of course we have a higher standard for TDG than for message-board posts..... Whereas, with TDG, there is both a literary standard (totally inapplicable to the boards) and a standard of research, conformation to style guides, contributor guidelines, etc

When I first read the 'should we have posted this article?' part of the post, my reaction was 'sure, why not?' But that was without being aware of the policy that TDG articles are held to a higher-than-board standard. (Which is not to say I don't consider the articles higher quality than the board posts.) Nevertheless, it's still a worthwhile article. It's one the first things I've read that counteracts the Super Soy The Wonder Food trend. Does some of it seem over the top and activist? Sure. But that's how all countermovements get started -- by the more extreme elements. Fast Food Nation guy, I can't believe I'm blanking on his name, is an obvious example. Railing against Evil Capitalism does turn some people off, and it is overly simplistic, but he still made a lot of valid points and in the long run will probably have quite an impact. It can be as useful to just make people stop and think once in a while as it is to change their minds.

[docsconz]

I believe that when a person embellishes and exaggerates to make a point that person begins to lose credibility and the truly valid points begin to pale and are taken less seriously. I believe that the majority of Ms. Plancks points have some degree of validity, however, I have learned that I can't necessarily take what she says at face value.

What scientific journals do to try to assure relevance and accuracy is to peer-review articles prior to publication. I am not advocating that for eGullet, but as with anything published anywhere (even a scientific journal), one should approach what one reads with a healthy dose of scepticism, even when written by the "experts".

[mamster]

For our regulars -- people like Mamster and Dave the Cook and JAZ -- I generally give them a wide berth

Oh boy oh boy oh boy.

[haide]

Hello, this is the first time I've posted, and I haven't really had time to read all the preceding posts yet... but here's my take:

I'm Chinese and I live in Hong Kong. For most of my life our family has had soya milk as a regular drink. My Shanghainese grandparents have it for breakfast either sweetened or savoury (as a warm soup with pork and fried dough bits).

Some people have expressed a dislike for soya milk (soy milk? same thing?). I think it's probably because you're having processed/heat treated stuff with preservatives and other additives. Even here in HK, there must be thousands of shops, as well as supermarket and diary companies, which produce soya milk (fresh, in cans, in cartons, in powder form etc.) we definitely try and go to the few stores which are famed for their daily home-made milk or do it at home (time consuming, but some moms do everything at home). Really good, real soya milk is rich, smooth and has a subtle bean-ish aroma.

On tofu. It definitely is not tasteless stuff. Good tofu must be made fresh. We all get it from the wet markets here, where usually an old lady, starts working at 3 or 4am to have the product ready by market opening. The best tofu has the same aroma as good soya milk, the texture should be silky soft and extremely fragile (none of that weird, crumbly blocky stuff that's being put into salads). That's why it takes the best chefs to be able to stir-fry tofu. Because it could easily turn into a pan of milk if you're not skillful with your spatula.

There are also many other tofu-based products e.g. deep fried hollow cubes (in which we stuff pork and other vege to make dumplings), dried tofu sticks (for ancient times when there was no refridgeration), tofu knots (different texture, good for heavy pork stews), tofu sheets (for spring roll-type items and to put into soups) etc. etc. etc.

Anyway, I'll stop now... need to get back to work!

Interested to know what you guys think.

[Pan]

Welcome to eGullet, Haide, and thanks for posting. Among other things, I think you'll find the China and Chinese Cuisine board interesting and you might be able to offer valuable contributions to a discussion that's been taking place there on "Real Chinese Food."

By the way, does your family use MSG, and how are their brains.

[Fat Guy]

I believe that when a person embellishes and exaggerates to make a point that person begins to lose credibility and  the truly valid points begin to pale and are taken less seriously. I believe that the majority of Ms. Plancks points have some degree of validity, however, I have learned that I can't necessarily take what she says at face value.

What scientific journals do to try to assure relevance and accuracy is to peer-review articles prior to publication. I am not advocating that for eGullet, but as with anything published anywhere (even a scientific journal), one should approach what one reads with a healthy dose of scepticism, even when written by the "experts".

Doc, if you want to get from point B (second paragraph) to point A (first paragraph), don't you have to make the argument that peer-reviewed scientific journals are not supporting what Planck says? I'm not saying we chased down references on everything she said -- we simply don't have the staffing for that, and so we rely on our authors to do their homework -- but she's not making this stuff up. She's getting it from scientific sources. Those sources may very well be wrong, but they are most likely peer-reviewed. At least, when I did some checking, I was able to find tons of references to scientific journals. Peer-review is overrated anyway: it's only as good as one's peers.

[Beachfan]

I'm not sure the context that F-G outlines above is clear.  I didn't care for the article.  I thought it was ok to publish, but it didn't feel like it was a guest op-ed piece.  Maybe they are all guest op-ed pieces but that's a new way of thinking about it for me.

To clarify: Are you saying you thought it came across as the official editorial position of eGullet.com? Or are you saying you thought it came across as non-editorial in nature, i.e., a reported news story? (And, if so, do you think that distinction makes sense or do you think it's mostly used by traditional media as a cover for editorializing in news stories?)

We publish articles most every weekday, and they pretty much all contain statements of opinion. Mamster says chicken breasts are good. I assume that everybody reading Mamster's article knows that's his opinion and not news-reporting or the official position of the publication. I don't feel the need to attach various disclaimers and labels to get that point across.

I thought it came off as non-editorial in nature. I do think the distinction makes sense. It allows for ranting in the editorial pages; I see it as giving more license there than in the main section.

Certainly TDG doesn't need to be constricted by what others do. But if you don't want to have to clarify that it isn't a news story (a news story which the editors then should be standing by), then something different may need to be done. Not anything drastic, but the lead in

"New in the Daily Gullet"

get's blurred with the

"Daily Gullet News"

in the casual readers mind. Maybe all that needs to change is

"New {insert appropriate noun} in the Daily Gullet"

Does this help?

Edited May 26, 2003 by Beachfan (log)