Talk:Soybean/Archive 2

Reference cleanup
The references in this article are a disaster. They need to be verified and expanded into full cite templates where needed, plus check that they actually corroborate the material referencing them. I did the first 10 and 8 of them needed major work. That leaves 69 to go. Help! UncleDouggie (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This was a pretty confusing sentence, under the Classification header... are these references? "The genus Glycine Willd. is divided into two subgenera, Glycine and Soja. The subgenus Soja (Moench) F.J. Herm. includes the cultivated soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr., and the wild soybean, Glycine soja Sieb. & Zucc."  or are these the researchers who originally named these plant species?  In either case, this is an example of bad copy (bad text).  If I could figure out what it was trying to say I'd fix it.  Any botonists wanna see what this means??  80.101.162.155 (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's all correct as explained in references 1, 2 and 3. These are the standard abbreviations for the classifications. Some portions are names of the researchers that discovered them, such as F.J. Herm. I started spelling it all out once and it looked even more confusing. We could probably simplify to make it more understandable by the average reader. UncleDouggie (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Processed Soybean
Many Soy products have been discussed but i have not been able to find sufficient information from other sources as well regarding a Soy bean which has been puffed up like a sponge ball (it maybe semi-processed) and is about 2cm in diameter. It doesnt need to be soaked for hours like the soy bean from the pod or other pulses but is directly boiled to soften it. Being processed, are certain chemicals like the trypsin inhibitors destroyed? Im sorry if this may seem more like a question rather than some info contribution but i am trying to shed some light on it as i read above about ways to promote its consumption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.11.97 (talk) 08:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Quite right. It's called puffed soybeans, and forget about "semi-"!  They're made, like puffed cereal, by cooking them well in water at quite high temperature and pressure, and then releasing the pressure suddenly, instantly converting the water to steam, literally exploding them.  Similar cereals were promoted as "shot from guns".  You don't have to soften them, just eat them like nuts.  It'll build up your jaw!  But don't overdo it, and chew them up well for digestion's sake.  The trypsin inhibitors, I suspect, are blown to smithereens.  They're a bit dense compared to most "puffy" American snacks, but popular in Japan.  Unfree (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Comparison to other legumes
"Soy protein is essentially identical to that of other legume seeds." That's hard to believe; I've often heard about the superiority of soy protein. Other legumes are loaded with leucine and lysine. Soy protein, unlike them, has healthy levels of methionine and tryptophan. I don't know how it can be considered "essentially" similar, but more significant is how it is differs. The article on soy protein points out differences in the opening paragraph. Unfree (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Ignorant Statements
"The popular fear that soybeans might cause reduced libido and even feminine characteristics in men has not been indicated by any study; the popularity of the notion seems to be based on the simplistic misapprehension that estrogen and testosterone have a simple, inverse relationship in sexual hormone systems and sex-related behaviour."

It's a fairly ingorant statement to make that there is no proof soymilk may cause feminine characteristics in men. It's been proven that soy will react like estrogen to the body, and it's also been proven that estrogen will cause feminine features to develop when given to pre-natal rats. It's just basic biological fact that testosterone will cause masculine characteristics in growing organisms, and estrogen will cause feminine characteristics; so I really have no idea what this "simplistic misapprehension" that all biologists must have is.

Alright, lets throw an example out there. If I make a picture of the sun and someone comments that it's a nice shade of yellow, I could say,"That's not yellow! That's a very complicated mixture of Red and Green!" It doesn't matter how complicated the underlying elements are; the colour is still yellow. As is the case with hormones; men have estrogen, and women have testosterone; but it would be a silly statement to say that because of this hormones have absolutely no effect on gender specific features.

There is no hard evidence that this will cause the same effect on post-natal humans, but conversly, there is abosolutely no evidence that soy will not cause any effects on men.

I believe this statement simply declaring something as fact without evidence, and should be speedily removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.243.32.106 (talk) 05:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * While I see your point, there is also no hard evidence that we are not actually just brains in jars seeing an induced mass hallucination either (Reductio ad absurdum). I suggest you read the really wonderful series of WP articles on fallacious arguments, they are quite interesting. Colincbn (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, soy protein is not converted into estrogen, it is converted into phytoestrogens, which have been shown to have little to no negative effect in men, and are certainly not "proven to act like estrogen" in the human body. Although I think more research should be performed on phytoestrogens and soy in particular I don't see the article as doing anything but representing the current majority scientific opinion. Colincbn (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It is an unsupported statement in at least one way: the "simplistic misapprehension" comment. This is somebody's opinion. How did this person come to this opinion? It seems to be pure speculation by some un-noteworthy individual. And it's nonsensical. Even asserting what the speaker claims, that testosterone and estrogen have a complex relationship, the potential estrogenizing effects of soy need not have any impact at all on testosterone. Whatever the case may be for soy, this is embarrassingly bad reasoning. I have deleted this line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.165.8 (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Genetic modification
The GM section has been attracting some dubious editing. This set is particularly dubious since it actually removes the USDA report. The USDA is a reliable source on this sort of information, and should be given heavy weight. At best the non-USDA report could be mentioned, however since it actively contradicts the USDA report itself, I am not in favour of this. The New York Times, though a reliable source for certain items, lacks credibility when going head to head against a government scientific organization specializing in agricultural matters. The publisher of the report appears to be the Organic Center, which does not appear to be notable. Though funded by the Union of Concerned Scientists in part, it is not authored by them, and the link used was not a direct link to the report itself - it was to a press release about the report. The UCS itself has also been criticized for rejecting scientific advances in agriculture specifically, and supporting a left-wing agenda (not enough to get it removed in and of itself, but enough to question if its bias prevents it from giving genetic modification a fair hearing). The report itself seems to cite the USDA authors only once. It may be worth mentioning, if the OC can be demonstrated as a valid reliable source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would question the USDA report, which is not peer-reviewed either. Is it valid to conclude that because GM requires less land, that this leads to soil conservation?  Or does it lead to increased production and/or farmland being turned into suburban lots?  It would be better to rely more on academic studies.  TFD 21:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's still a substantial piece of literature produced by a major government body, writing about their nation, in their area of oversight, accountability and expertise, based on an extensive list of references. It's gray literature but I would say still reliable.  All the criticisms that could be applied to the USDA report could also be applied to the UCS report, and more so since it is not a government agency.  See also this comment on the RSN (which I agree with in a later edit - there may be more discussion but I used a diff to avoid link rot).  If there's no peer-reviewed literature that says the same thing (or contradicts it) I'd say it is OK.  I don't mind using the UCS for an attributed, brief statement but I certainly don't want the UCS statement sitting alone as if it were not contradicted by the very USDA report it purports to comment on.  If there's peer-reviewed literature that makes one or both irrelevant, then we should certainly use that, but I haven't seen it yet.
 * The comment about farmland being turned into suburban lots is a non sequiter - GM crops reduce the amount of farmland that needs to be used to produce the same amount of crops, but what happens to that extra land is irrelevant (if it even creates extra land, no-till farming is more about reducing erosion than reducing surface area of land farmed). The point of the USDA report is that GMO crops have allowed a lesser amount of land to be tilled.  I don't think it's up to us to be commenting on or dismissing the sources on the basis of whether we agree with them or not (that's too WP:OR for my tastes), I think it's a matter of whether the reports are reliable, and how much weight to give them.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I only mentioned the possibility of farmland being used for suburban development because the USDA report made the claim that using less land for farming led to soil conservation. Did the USDA track what happened to this freed farmland or is it speculation?  Government agencies are good sources for data, but their conclusions are no more authoritative than any others, especially when they are not backed up by evidence.  They are usually supportive of government policy, just as the Organic Center is probably supportive of organic farming.  TFD 22:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

How dare you remove material without a reasonable explanation...The latest report from Union of Concerned Scientists gives new information: weeds are becoming resistant to Roundup herbicide.

The Silk soy milk problem/controversy is very significant because it has an element of "fraud" in it and Silk has  3/4 of the market for refrigerated  soy milk sales... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.21.111 (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please watch your tone. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on reliable sources, it is not a place to promote a viewpoint, right great wrongs or otherwise advocate.  Your own repeated edit warring to include information of dubious merit without discussing is extremely problematic and is the primary reason your edits keep getting removed.  That weeds have evolved to be resistant to roundup is both unsurprising and a complex problem.
 * That the soy milk was changed from "organic" to "natural" is of dubious merit. For one thing, it is primarily an American issue, and it is debatable whether it should be represented on all articles related to soy.  It is reasonable to include it on the Silk (soy milk) page.  Doing so here is not reasonable or appropriate.  In addition, the news story link is dead making it impossible to verify the content.  I also can't find anything on google news about it, regular google turns up only blogs and other unreliable sources.  Wikipedia is meant to be a neutral encyclopedia containing verifiable text reported in reliable sources.  That is the basis for my edits.  As far as the "reasonableness of my explanations", I provided them.  As far as fraud, that's buyer beware, not a deliberate deception.  A deliberate deception would be labelling the milk as organic when it was not.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Meat substitute section
I removed the section on E. coli in ground beef. The section appeared to be a synthesis attempting to promote the viewpoint that soy is better than beef. Specifically, the syllogism:
 * 1) Ground beef has been contaminated with dangerous bacteria
 * 2) Soy is as nutritional as ground beef but is not contaminated with bacteria
 * 3) Therefore soy should be eaten instead of ground beef

Though it may be true (ignoring the fact that soy itself could become similarly contaminated) it is inappropriate for this section as it makes it look like wikipedia is taking a position or advocating. I appreciate that the anonymous editor who continues to insert this information (as well as the above information about genetically-engineered soy) is concerned and believes there is a wrong to be righted, but the way they are doing it is inappropriate. If this continues, I will request page protection to halt this ongoing edit war. Given the appropriate sources and wording, it is very possible this information can be included but this is not the way to do it and will ultimately result in wikipedia never including information of this sort. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The NYTimes investigative article on cheap adulteration of hamburger  won a Pulitzer Prize..I am simply pointing out that using soy TVP is a great benefit to decrease cost of hamburger..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.21.111 (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The NYT article doesn't mention soy at all, making it a synthesis at best or a coatrack at worst. You can not simply "point out" something like that - it is original research.  If you can find reliable sources that make this point, those can be used to verify the text they accompany.  The overall problem is that the section is being used to promote an idea that soy is better than ground hamburger.  That may be true but it is inappropriate for wikipedia to make that case.  Find sources that explicitly make the point, without requiring editors to interject, interpret or provide opinion, and it will be appropriate.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding this diff, which I obviously support. There are several issues.


 * 1) Three sources are used to support the fact that ground beef was contaminated in 2009. No-one is disputing this fact, and adding more sources will not help.  The issue is, the sources are all about beef, with no information about soy, and this is a page about the soy bean.
 * 2) The next three references are problematic. For one thing, they all justify a section that is repeating itself (search for "50 year" and you will see it appear twice, in reference to the safety record of textured vegetable protein).  There is no issue with the safety record of TVP, it is included and heavily referenced.  The issue is first that it comes after the section on ground beef.  The second, even worse issue, is the words "By comparison", making it a direct, unambiguous non-neutral synthesis using several sources to arrive at a conclusion that is not found in the sources themselves.  This is the issue I raised initially in this section.  This is unacceptable as it is unambiguous advocacy for the use of TVP over ground beef.  This will never be acceptable and should not be replaced even if page protection is removed.
 * The issue is not the amount or quality of the sources, the issue is the use of sources to inappropriately push a conclusion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Please, revise
It is said in article that "A study on elderly Indonesian men and women found that tempeh consumption was independently related to better memory". It should be "tofu intake is associated with worse memory in elderly Indonesian men and women", just like in the name of reference article. I suppose, there might be other "mistakes" of this kind Точки над Е (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

 * "The English word "soy" is derived from the Japanese pronunciation of shōyu (醤油, しょうゆ), the Japanese word for soya sauce; "soya" comes from the Dutch adaptation of the same word."

The above line is incorrect, as the term "soy" doesn't derive from the standard Japanese word shōyu (醤油, しょうゆ), but rather originates from the Satsuma Dialect word そい~しょい. While the two forms are cognates, it makes a big difference as to which form was borrowed into English. —  Io Katai  ᵀᵃˡᵏ  02:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Black or wild soybeans
I recently learned that "black soybeans" (kedelai hitam) are used in Indonesian soy sauce... at least in some kinds of sweet soy sauce. Some other bottles of soy sauce I've looked at just say "soybeans") (kedelai). I looked up the Indonesian article on soybeans, kedelai, and the black soybean is Glycine soja, which is described in the English articles as the wild soybean. Relevant questions:
 * Is this classification correct, i.e. is the Indonesia black soybean the same as the "wild soybean"?
 * Is the Chinese black bean (fermented to make black bean sauce) actually Glycine soja?

And worth noting - whatever species the "black soybean" (kedelai hitam) is, it's used commercially. --Chriswaterguy talk 18:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Edamame
The article first says "edamame refers only to a specific dish", and then continues with "Raw soybeans, including edamame, are toxic to humans", implying that the dish is toxic. Naturally this is not the case, since edamame the dish are cooked, so I've changed the second line to say "immature green soybeans". Jpatokal (talk) 06:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Saponin source?
I have heard on a program that this chemical substance is found in soybeans, but I would like to know if saponin is extracted commercially and if this is true- the beans are used in making soap, and saponin is one of the primary ingredients in making it. If found with more research, can this study be incorporated in uses in the subsection, "other products"? 130.65.109.104 (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Production of protein per acre
Contributor 173.12.164.66 added on 12 April 2011 "except for hemp, which can produce 293 lbs of protein per acre" after "Soybeans can produce at least twice as much protein per acre as any other major vegetable or grain crop.." I was unable to find the 293 figure in the reference cited. Maybe the 293 lbs/acre was calculated using the "..best seed-producing varieties of Russian hemp can yield.. 892.5 lb. (seed) per acre." from the reference and assuming a 33% protein content in the hemp seed.

The average soybean yield/year in the US in 2009 was 42.3 bushels/acre or 2538 lbs/acre. Assuming 32% protein content in the soybeans and 25% protein in hemp seeds, I calculate:

Protein per acre of soybeans = 810 lbs

Protein per acre of hemp    = 220 lbs

Unless my calculations are wrong somewhere, I think the section added by 173.12.164.66 should be deleted.SylviaStanley (talk) 09:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Names Correction
In the names section, I added "the" before "immature edamame..." For the purposes of proper sentence structure. Please correct me if I am wrong and provide reasoning. Ninjie (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

USDA "recognition" of Percy Julian
I removed the following inappropriate WP:OR sentence added to the "Chemical composition of the seed" section by anonymous editor 71.123.31.25 (aka 141.149.208.54 / 71.123.29.191 / 71.182.123.65 / 71.123.17.215 / 71.182.107.102 / 70.16.52.193 / 70.16.61.75 / 71.182.122.21 / 71.182.100.111 / 71.240.244.35):"It took the USDA until June 13, 2008 to recognize Dr. Julian; 'Giants of the past': Percy Lavon Julian, a forgotten pioneer in soy; and this is what, in part, it said: 'He is most noted for his synthesis of cortisone from soybean sterols used to treat inflammatory conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis which laid the foundation for the steroid drug industry's production of corticosteroids and birth control pills.'[ http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?seq_no_115=215771 ][ http://lipidlibrary.aocs.org/history/Julian/index.htm ]" The "USDA" did not "recognize" Dr. Julian on June 13, 2008. The "USDA" did not say "He is most noted for his synthesis of cortisone from soybean sterols used to treat inflammatory conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis which laid the foundation for the steroid drug industry's production of corticosteroids and birth control pills."
 * James Kenar, a research chemist in the Functional Foods Unit of the USDA Agricultural Research Service National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research (NCAUR) laboratory in Peoria, Illinois, wrote an article about Percy Lavon Julian that appeared in the June 2008 issue of  inform , the business and scientific magazine of the American Oil Chemists' Society (AOCS):
 * Kenar, James (June 2008). Giants of the past: Percy Lavon Julian (1899–1975) a forgotten pioneer in soy. inform 19(6):411–414.
 * James Kenar's article about Percy Julian was cited on a page of the USDA Agriculture Research Service's website as one of 51 publications (30 abstracts, 15 peer reviewed journal articles, 3 popular publication articles, 1 trade journal article, 1 literature review article, 1 proceedings/symposium article) produced by members of a five-person project team during a five-year (2004–2009) research project 3620-41000-111-00 Preparation, properties, and commercial applications for starch-lipid compositions prepared by steam jet cooking.
 * A " technical abstract " of James Kenar's article about Percy Julian on a page of the USDA Agriculture Research Service's website contained an inaccurate sentence: "He is most noted for his synthesis of cortisone from soybean sterols used to treat inflammatory conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis which laid the foundation for the steroid drug industry's  production of corticosteroids and birth control pills."
 * James Kenar's article about Percy Julian does not mention birth control pills.
 * Percy Julian played no role in the history of the birth control pill. See: Talk:Combined oral contraceptive pill and Talk:Combined oral contraceptive pill.

I also removed the following sentences—that are not about the chemical composition of the seed—which were added to the "Chemical composition of the seed" section by same anonymous editor:"Beginning in 1940, natural products chemist Dr. Percy Lavon Julian at the Glidden Co. produced female sex hormones in kilogram quantities from stigmasterol and sitosterol. Julian was known as 'Soybean Chemist Extraordinaire' and as 'The Soybean Chemist.'" Lynn4 (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent analysis of this. I did get the impression the the IP editor was pushing the P. Julian slant.512bits (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

http://lipidlibrary.aocs.org/history/authors/kenar.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.247.110 (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

ITC external link to trade data
Hello everyone, I am working for the International Trade Centre (ITC). In the abesence of any link towards official figures for soya beans trade, I would like to propose the addition of an external link that could lead directly to the specific product trade data held by ITC. I would like you to consider this link under the WP:ELYES #3 prescriptions. Moreover, the reliability and the pertinence of this link can be supported by the following facts 1) ITC is part of the United Nations 2) No registration is required 3) Trade data (imports/exports) are regularly updated 4) The link gives direct access to the trade database referring to the specific product 5) The addition of a link to reliable data could provide an appropriate contribution to the article. Thank you for your attention.Divoc (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Health risks - Phytoestrogen - Women
The section reads:

A 2011 analysis of the literature concluded that:- "Our study suggests soy isoflavone intake is associated with a significant increased risk of breast cancer incidence in Asian populations, as well as in Western populations."[113 ] But, also note that the study says that the extremely detrimental effects on women was only studied in the Asian populations, not in the Western populations. (emphasis added)

In addition to contradicting itself with the statements regarding Western populations (both of which are inaccurate), the Wiki article states the opposite of what the study actually says:

Our study suggests soy isoflavones intake is associated with a significant reduced risk of breast cancer incidence in Asian populations, but not in Western populations. (emphasis added)

If I understand the article correctly, both Asian and Western populations were studied (contrary to the Wiki article's second statement), but a significantly reduced risk was only found in Asian populations.

NickdeClaw (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out, I corrected the statement, which may need to be moved to the "health benefits" section. As an aside, the both health sections probably need to be combined, as they have overlapping and contradictory information. Yobol (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yobol - I concur with NickdeClaw. You may want to re-write other parts of the article as well. This section was okay before 29 January 2012. Someone with ID 71.217.43.40 systematically vandalized it with three serial edits; see revisions around 05:36, 29 January 2012. Those edits will show other inconsistent info (prevent breast cancer was changed to Increase chances for breast cancer etc - the capitalized Increase is still in the article; for ease of location). All those vandalism serial edits of 29 January 2012 need to be addressed, even after your good faith edits of today. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed everything that needs to be fixed. Please feel free to adjust anything else you find to be inconsistent with the sources. Yobol (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, you got them all. I fixed the section on Men. I left section on Brain intact, because the current version is the result of edits since 29 January, and more importantly it reads like a decent summary of the sources. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Oxalic Acid
Why is there no mention of oxalic acid at all in the article? Yes, it is present in a number of foods, but is particularly high in soy and can cause a variety of health problems, most especially via unfermented soy products (which make up most of what's used in North America). I don't claim that it will cause problems for everyone who ever eats soy, but it does pose risks for people who eat a lot of soy, and/or have pre-existing conditions that make them susceptible to the effects of oxalic acid. I just find it odd that there's no mention whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.54.134 (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if you have any credible references to show that it is high in soy — being more specific, too, about what “high” means — and that that is a health issue, it could be interesting to include the information. David Olivier (talk) 09:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I may have been mistaken in saying "particularly high", as the actual amount according to this database (search on "oxalic acid") is 770ppm, which in that database seems to be about the middle. But I suppose it still bears mentioning in the article, given the controversy over oxalic acid content one can find by Googling on it and soy. It appears that the oxalic acid may actually be higher in refined soy products. At least, when you look at the Oxalosis and Hyperoxaluria Foundation's list of foods, various soy-based products show up in the "high" section on their foods page. Apparently this can be a real problem for people... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.54.134 (talk) 12:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oxalic acid is a poison, but poisoning by oxalic acid in ordinary foods isn't a significant issue. (If I recall correctly, over-ripe cherries can develop high levels.)  What's usually more worrisome is that it can, in excess, lead to the formation of kidney stones, and unlike the rounded (calcium?) ones, they're crystalline and spiky.  It can also interfere with the absorption of minerals (divalent anions, I think, like calcium), but that, too, is a minor problem unless you get into the habit of eating spinach at every meal.  Some "wild" foods (and rhubarb) with lots of oxalic acid should be prepared at high heat or by boiling in water, changing it once or twice, to alter or rinse away most of it.  I hope this helps you find some good source material! Unfree (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, and it might be the stuff that forms crystals in the joints, in gout. Somewhere I read that vitamin B-6 helped prevent that.  Unfree (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's a handy source which refers to Oxalic acid levels in Soya based foodstuffs.
 * American Chemical Society (2001, August 29). Too Much Soy Could Lead To Kidney Stones. ScienceDaily. Retrieved May 22, 2012, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2001/08/010829083130.htm EatYerGreens (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 June 2012
Spelling error "Derivatives"

CDEX: National Commodity and Derivaties(SP) Exchange, India.

Fix to: CDEX: National Commodity and Derivatives Exchange, India.

Gzrecoil (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you for catching the error and reporting it here.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Tofu - fermented soy or not?
In this article tofu is listed as an example of non-fermented soy, whereas in the Tofu article, it is clamed be fermented.

Dflyer (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Dubious, outdated, poorly sourced cut-and-pasted trivia by disruptive IP-hopping anonymous editor
I reverted this dubious, outdated, poorly sourced cut-and-pasted trivia added to the "Chemical composition of the seed" section by longtime persistently disruptive IP-hopping anonymous editor 209.150.249.21 / 132.236.120.83 / 71.240.253.202 (aka 71.182.111.225 / 71.123.25.175 141.149.208.54 / 71.123.29.191 / 71.182.123.65 / 71.123.17.215 / 71.182.107.102 / 70.16.52.193 / 70.16.61.75 / 71.182.100.111 / 71.240.244.35 / 71.123.31.25 / 71.240.247.110 / 70.16.49.248 / 71.182.108.43 / 71.182.98.194): According to James A. Duke , " The family of the yam Dioscoreaceae triggered North America's second revolution, the Sexual Revolution, by serving as the source for the steroid contraceptive. " Today, it is the ( yambean ) legume family Fabaceae that has replaced Dioscorea sp. as the starting material for steroids. The days are over when Mexican barbasco fueled the steroid contraceptive industry. All commercial ly available steroids start with soy sterols. The soybean is now the prime source of steroidal drugs, including contraceptives and steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. from: 955. Duke, James A. 1990. Introduction to food legumes. In S.R. Singh, ed. 1990. Insect Pests of Tropical Food Legumes. New York, NY. John Wiley & Sons. xvi + 451 p. See p. 1–42 [20+ Ref] • Summary: ... " The family of the yambean ( Dioscoreacae ) triggered North America's second revolution, the Sexual Revolution, by serving as the source for the steroid contraceptive.   Today it is the yambean family (Fabaceae) that continues what Dioscorea sp. began.  ' The days are over regarding production of steroid s from Mexican barbasaco ... all commercial available steroids start with soya sterols ' (E.W. McCloskey, Berlichem, personal communication, 31 March 1989).  The soybean is now the prime source of steroidal drugs, including contraceptives and steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.  Other genera of legumes are also sources for drugs." from: Using outdated (a 22-year-old source citing a 23-year-old personal communication) parochial (U.S. only) sources to produce undue emphasis on soya sterols as THE replacement to Mexican diosgenin in the commercial production of steroids. Current and better sources (like Soto Laveaga's 2009 Jungle Laboratories and Evans' 2009 Pharmacognosy, 16th ed.) list soya sterols as merely one of many replacements for Mexican diosgenin in the commercial production of steroids (with others including Chinese diosgenin, hecogenin, total synthesis, etc.). All of the bulk steroids distributed by the U.S. company Berlichem in the 1980s may have been produced from soya sterols, but other reliable sources do not support the contention that the soybean was, or is currently, the prime source of steroidal drugs worldwide. A current pharmacognosy textbook: Lynn4 (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Shurtleff, William; Aoyagi, Akiko (2009).  History of soybeans and soyfoods in Mexico and Central America (1877-2009): extensively annotated bibliography and sourcebook . Lafayette, Calif.: SoyInfo Center, ISBN 9781928914211, p. 261:
 * Duke, James A. (1990). "Introduction to food legumes". in Singh, S.R. (ed.) (1990). Insect pests of tropical food. New York: John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 9780471923909,  p. 4.
 * Evans, William Charles (2009). Pharmacognosy, 16th ed. Edinburgh: Saunders Elsevier, ISBN 9780702029332, p. 308, says:"Until 1970 diosgenin isolated from the Mexican yam was the sole source for steroidal contraceptive manufacture. With the nationalization of the Mexican industry, however, prices were increased to such an extent that manufacturers switched to hecongenin for corticosteroids, to other sources of diosgenin and to the use of steroidal alkaloids of Solanum species. Total synthesis also became economically feasible and is now much used. More recently, the economics of steroid production have again changed in that China is now exporting large quantities of diosgenin; it is of high quality, being free of the 25β-isomer yamogenin, although this is of no commercial significance, and is reasonably priced. Three of the many Dioscorea spp. found in China and used commercially are given in Table 23.2; the tubers yield 2% diosgenin, with the average content of diosgenin for the main areas of production (Yunnan Province and south of the Yangtze River) being 1%."

Edit request on 21 August 2012
Please change the section Men to the below because all the studies currently cited are funded, at least in part, by the Soy industry. I have included these studies while pointing out who funded them and included another independent study. I believe that by doing this users are getting a more balanced view of the current controversy. I'm not sure if you want to remove the studies done by the Soy industry under your guideline "all information in Wikipedia articles should be verifiable from reliable sources which are independent of the subject" but I left them in just in case. I've only made minor edits in Wikipedia before and this is my first time using "Talk" so I hope I haven't said/done anything against the pages etiquette.

Men A study in 2008 showed that there was an inverse correlation between soy food intake and sperm concentration. Men who consumed high quantities of Soy products had 41 million sperm/ml less than men who did not consume soy food. . In 2009, six researches, three of whom receive funding from or are employed by the soy industry, conducted a meta-analysis of 15 placebo controlled studies which showed that neither soy foods nor isoflavone supplements alter measures of bioavailable testosterone or estrogen concentrations in men.[119]. An evaluation of clinical studies, conducted by Edward E. Wallach, executive director of the Soy Nutrition Institute, found that soy consumption has been shown to have no effect on the levels and quality of sperm.[121] A 2009 meta-analysis of the research on the association between soy consumption and prostate cancer risk in men concluded that "consumption of soy foods is associated with a reduction in prostate cancer risk in men."[122]

Terrip.t1 (talk) 11:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The first two sentences are okay by me after some copy editing. However, you need to provide a reliable source to substantiate your claim that three of the six researchers in the Hamilton-Reeves et.al. study (source 119) "receive funding from or are employed by the soy industry." Without such sourcing this is a BLP violation. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 21:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi KuyaBriBri, The study itself (Source 119 - http://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282%2809%2900966-2/abstract) states that 3 of the 6 researchers receive funding etc... if you scroll right down to the bottom, there is a section that says "J.H.-R while a doctoral student at the University of Minnesota received some minor funding from the Soy Nutrition Institute for work on this manuscript. G.V. has nothing to disclose. S.J.D. has nothing to disclose. W.R.P. has nothing to disclose. M.S.K. occasionally consults for the Solae Company. M.J.M. regularly consults for companies in the soy food industry." I looked up the Solae Company and they are part of the Soy industry http://www.solae.com/Soy-Ingredients/Solae-Ingredients.aspx.

I hope this clarifies the statement.

Terrip.t1 (talk) 09:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that "three...receive funding from or are employed by the soy industry" when one of those "received some minor funding...for work on this manuscript" (emphasis mine) and one "occasionally consults for the Solae Company" (emphasis mine). Your proposed wording carries the implication that half of the authors of this publication were bought by the soy industry.
 * I propose wording as follows:
 * A 2008 study showed that men who consumed soy products had 41 million less sperm per milliliter than men who did not consume soy products [insert source here]. In 2009, six researchers, three of whom disclosed that they have previously received funding from or been employed by organizations in the soy industry, conducted a meta-analysis...[same wording as existing text]
 * I had missed your statement about Edward E. Wallach the first time I responded, but as far as I can tell Mr. Wallach was only an associate editor on that study and not the author. To say that he "conducted" the study is quite a stretch, bordering on completely false. I also see nothing to show that he is "executive director of the Soy Nutrition Institute" as you claim. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi KuyaBriBri, Your rewording sounds fine. Thank you. You are correct in saying I misread the part about Edward E Wallach - he is the editor. I should have referenced Mark Messina, Ph.D. So it should read: An evaluation of clinical studies, conducted by Mark Messina, Ph.D, executive director of the Soy Nutrition Institute, found that soy consumption has been shown to have no effect on the levels and quality of sperm.[121] His details - again at the bottom of the article states: "M.M. regularly consults for companies that manufacture and/or sell soyfoods and/or isoflavone supplements, and he is the executive director of the Soy Nutrition Institute, a science-based organization that is funded in part by the soy industry and the United Soybean Board."

Terrip.t1 (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I propose wording that statement as follows:
 * Furthermore, a 2010 study – conducted by a researcher who disclosed involvement with the soy industry – showed that soy consumption has no effect on the levels and quality of sperm.[insert same source here]
 * I believe that that wording is supported by the source, acknowledges Mr. Messina's COI without giving it undue weight, and doesn't use his name in the article text, which is my preference in cases where use of a living person's name is not critical to a reader's understanding of the subject. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Comparison of Soybean to other major staple foods
wrong values for soyabean — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.119.230 (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

George Washington Carver
I don't understand how any article on soy beans can be done without any mention of George Washington Carver. You mentioned Ford but as I understand it, it was Carver who introduced Ford to many soy products and uses. Carver was probably as active with soy bean discovery and development as he was with peanuts.

Just sayin. 67.180.187.168 (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Books on the history of soybean production published by the Soyinfo center
William J. Morse - History of His Work with Soybeans and Soyfoods (1884-1959)

http://books.google.com/books?id=XgvCZIFpLSIC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=XgvCZIFpLSIC&pg=PA238#v=onepage&q&f=false

History of Miso, Soybean Jiang (China), Jang (Korea) and Tauco (Indonesia) (200 BC-2009)

By William Shurtleff, Akiko Aoyagi

http://books.google.com/books?id=ahgFlXnDZ54C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=ahgFlXnDZ54C&pg=PA392#v=onepage&q&f=false

History of Soy Sauce (160 CE To 2012)

By William Shurtleff

http://books.google.com/books?id=-M5t2nXIXi4C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=-M5t2nXIXi4C&pg=PA1036#v=onepage&q&f=false

History of Koji - Grains And/or Soybeans Enrobed with a Mold Culture (300 BCE To 2012): Extensively Annotated Bibliography and Sourcebook

http://books.google.com/books?id=0BPI_SyC8VQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

History of Soy Yogurt, Soy Acidophilus Milk and Other Cultured Soymilks (1918-2012)

By William Shurtleff

http://books.google.com/books?id=a4u_bJntZoEC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

History of Natto and Its Relatives (1405-2012)

By William Shurtleff

http://books.google.com/books?id=53cqYOK4l98C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

History of Fermented Tofu - A Healthy Nondairy / Vegan Cheese (1610-2011)

By William Shurtleff

http://books.google.com/books?id=ltqO3LrvaE0C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

History of Soybeans and Soyfoods in Mexico and Central America (1877-2009): Extensively Annotated Bibliography and Sourcebook

http://books.google.com/books?id=MIcpYJgcnzoC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

History of Soybeans and Soyfoods in Canada (1831-2010): Extensively Annotated Bibliography and Sourcebook

http://books.google.com/books?id=MAmHuKj_Z3kC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Soyinfocenter website

http://www.soyinfocenter.com/

List of free books by soyinfocenter

http://www.soyinfocenter.com/free-online-books.php

Rajmaan (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Why considered an oilseed not a pulse?
There's a note at the top of the article saying "The plant is classed as an oilseed rather than a pulse by the UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)." but I couldn't figure out what the UN FAO used as their rational for the distinction, is it because so much of it is used for oil production or is it based on some genetic property of soybeans? Mr. Snow (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

History of soy bean cultivation
I cleaned up the history section, removing the "5000 years in China bla bla " nonsense and adding fact from scientic publication.(Roeschter (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC))

Soyabean has highest protein
I think, this should be added in the lead paragraph.


 * A few sources confirms it,,,. OccultZone (talk) 03:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Funny
~A study published in April 2008 concluded that soy food intake has an inverse association with sperm concentration in fertility-deficient men. The same study found that soy intake does not affect sperm motility, morphology, or ejaculate volume. The study acknowledges further broader replication is required as it focused predominantly on overweight Caucasian men. LOl overweight caucasian? I tried finding the exact sentence or a sentence that has Caucasian in it, using the reference link it provided and it I found none. Typo? lol Really a study that focuses overweight Caucasian men, I find that funny. :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.75.148.25 (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Overweight Caucasian men have more money on average than underweight non-Caucasian men, therefore are of more interest to the pharmaceutical industry. --Chriswaterguy talk 18:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

soybeans can kill animals they have teeth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.28.99.93 (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

10.7 Cattle feed / source says: "it's being fed almost exclusively to the animals we slaughter"
The article states: "Cattle are often fed soy." In this source (press release of the Meat Atlas) I read: "After China, Europe is the biggest importer of soya. Argentina and Brazil are dramatically increasing their soya cultivation, and it's being fed almost exclusively to the animals we slaughter. Rising meat consumption is forcing up land prices. This has devastating consequences: Nearly a third of the world's land is being used to grow animal feed."

We should quantify the use of soy for human and animal consumption.NewJohn (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The near universality of soy protein
I am removing this section. It is poorly written and painfully punctuated, hard to follow, and it is not clear that it even belongs in the article. If the proteins mentioned are so universal then they should be in an article about protein not an article about soy. I am deleting the section but will gladly consent to a revert if a compelling argument for keeping it can be made and if someone can help clean it up. (I would be willing to fix the puncuation but I cannot figure out what point the text is trying to make so I cannot fix that more fundemental problem.) Dusty |&#x1f4ac;|You can help! 18:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Traditional Consumption in Asia: Condimentary, Fermented/Unfermented
The types and amounts of soybased foods consumed in Asia seem to have come to great interest to many recently, as it has become a popular claim that nearly only fermented soy was/is consumed in condimentary amounts.

In this article I have found only one rather meager line about that:

"Many people have claimed soybeans in Asia were historically only used after a fermentation process, which lowers the high phytoestrogens content found in the raw plant. However, terms similar to "soy milk" have been in use since 82 CE,[63] and there is evidence of tofu consumption that dates to 220.[64]"

Can any helpful person provide more informations from wikipediable sources that could be added to this?

So far, I've only found the following (on this veganism-advocating-site: http://www.veganhealth.org/articles/soy_wth ):

"Asian Intakes

''Japan and China have lower rates of heart disease and many cancers than do Westerners. People have suggested this could be due to the soy in their diet. In response, soy opponents have often argued that the traditional Asian intake of soy is much lower than is commonly thought. Typical Asian intakes of soy vary among countries and areas. In Japan and Shanghai, China, average intakes are about 1.5 servings per day, but many people consume an average of two or more servings per day. About half the soy eaten in Asia is not fermented. ''

''Below is a review of soy intakes in various Asian countries as described in the 2006 paper by Messina et al, Estimated Asian adult soy protein and isoflavone intakes (116). ''

Japan

''Food disappearance data from the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) show that daily per capita soy protein intake for Japan between 1961 and 2002 remained constant, and ranged from a high of 9.7 g/day in 1961 to a low of 8.4 g/day in 1977.  The Japanese National Nutrition Survey (NNS) showed that soy intake remained fairly constant after 1960 at about 65 g/day. However, 65 g/day provides approximately 6.5 g of soy protein, which is about 25% lower than the FAO estimate. The total soy food intake of Japanese adults aged 60–69 years is 91.7 g/day, approximately 50% higher than the mean intake of the overall Japanese population.''

''In recently conducted surveys of individuals in Japan that reported soy protein intake, daily adult female soy protein intake ranged from 6.0 to 10.5 g/day; the male range was 8.0 to 11.3 g/day. Average isoflavone intake ranged from 22 to 54 mg per day among food frequency surveys, and two studies from Japan suggest that approximately 5% of adults consume as much as 100 mg of isoflavones per day. Three studies show that the upper range (rather than the average) of soy protein intake is 16 to 18 g/day.  One study reported that isoflavone intake among subjects from a rural village was similar to that reported for urban Japanese.''

China

''Women from the Chinese city of Shanghai have soy intakes about the same as Japan – about 9-10 g/day of soy protein. Isoflavone intake ranged from 33 to 41 mg/day in three studies.''

''Studies from Hong Kong reported adult female daily soy protein intakes to be 4.9 g/day (2000) and 7.9 g/day (2003). Isoflavone intake ranged from 6 to 30 mg/day in four studies. One study found the upper quartile of women to be consuming 19 g of soy protein per day.''

There is evidence to suggest that people in other areas of China may have considerably lower soy intakes, since the national average for total soy food intake in China for 1990 to 1998 was only 17.8 g/day, which represents an isoflavone intake of ≤ 10 mg/day.

''Among Chinese women one study found that soymilk, tofu, and processed soy products other than tofu accounted for 81% of total soy protein intake consumed. ''

Singapore

''Two studies from Singapore, from 2000 and 2002, show relatively low (≤ 5.1 g/day) soy protein intakes. One of those studies showed isoflavone intake to be 16 mg/day; the other didn't report isoflavone intake. ''

Korea

''A 2000 study found average daily isoflavone intake among Korean women aged 35 to 60 years to be 24.4 ± 25.1 mg/day. Intake among pre- and post-menopausal women was 21.8 and 30.1 mg/day, respectively. According to the Korean National Household Survey, the mean daily isoflavone intake (15.1 mg) of individuals living in large cities was almost identical to the isoflavone intake (15.2 mg) of individuals living in rural areas. ''

Fermentation

''In both Japan and China, non-fermented foods provide approximately half of the total soy intake. In Shanghai, nearly all soy is non-fermented.''

(...)

''116. Messina M, Nagata C, Wu AH. Estimated Asian adult soy protein and isoflavone intakes. Nutr Cancer. 2006;55(1):1-12'' " ( Source Article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16965235 )

Please note that soy-protein-intake (in the cited text above) is not equal to soy-intake. E.g. about 6 g/day protein from soy could not be described as condimentary, as most "RDAs" seem to recommend about 50g of total protein per day for adults (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_Daily_Intake). About 6 g per day would mean a weekly consumption of roughly about half a kilo of soyabeans per week (when I base the quick estimate on the 8%-protein content at the top of this article). If half of that were unfermented, as above source states, then many Asians would consume very roughly about 250g of unfermented soyaproducts such as tofu per week on average, if I'm not grossly mistaken. 41.189.161.43 (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

USA-centricity
Whilst the article starts by stating 'soya' is UK English, the body text uses 'soy' and refers to 'the English word soy' when the English language word is 'soya', as is the Norwegian word, the Malay word, the Turkish word, and so on. The USA/American dialect word is 'soy', as is the Swedish language word.

In Italian it's soia, in French soja, in Dutch, Spanish, Catalan, German, Estonian, Czech, Danish, and Croation and Slovak it's soja, in Finnish it's soija, in other languages coya, in some soje.

The majority of languages put the 'a' on the end, some an 'e', but rarely is it omitted as it is in the USA. This article makes it look like 'soy' is the de facto standard, when it's not, it's a later derivation. 'soya' and its similar-sounding variations is the standard word and is most widespread. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.80.28 (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is fine. See WP:ENGVAR. As long as it's consistent throughout, the differences between the two varieties of spelling are largely superficial. (same as Grey vs. Gray). --Yankees 76 Talk 22:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's actually soja in Swedish aswell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.33.25 (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The title of the article is Soybean so shouldn't soybean be used throughout? Rwalker (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Shurtleff and Soyinfo references
A couple folks have noticed references by William Shurtleff, et al. being added by BillShurts. There are some COI issues that have come to light, with that. Leaving editor behavior issues out of this conversation, we're left a bit of a content that has been added over time from a self-published source by a user who claims to be the author of that very source. Some content and reference info seems a bit promotional too. What should we do with that content? I was tempted to delete the content at first, and later I instead almost replaced the the references with citation needed tags to come back this weekend to see what I could find sources for and maybe delete what I couldn't find. This would be a couple larger edits, so I thought it'd be better to see what other folks thought. WP:SPS is pretty clear: "'Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.'" So, I'm more of a fan of finding other sources that match the content currently associated with the sources in question, while removing the remaining content in the spirit of the very last sentence I quoted. That should hopefully be a good approach to reverse the COI issue while using the content in question as suggested content to see what sources can be found. Any thoughts on moving forward with this approach? Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * To ensure quality of information: For portions of the article dealing with possible health risks or benefits of soy, sources should be subject to conflict-of-interest background checks. Pro-soy studies may be funded by the soy industry; anti-soy studies may be funded by the meat and dairy industries. As I said on my User-page, sources with conflicts of interest are not reliable, so finding and rejecting them should be considered an essential part of Verifiability. This is significant to me because I have a friend who believes “soy is poison for men” (apparently largely because of the phytoestrogens), a view with which I strongly disagree; so information on this article showing that soy is okay will be believed better if people trust that said information is from impartial sources.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Soybean. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120208134100/http://www.fas.usda.gov/oilseeds/circular/2011/March/oilseeds.pdf to http://www.fas.usda.gov/oilseeds/circular/2011/March/oilseeds.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130905234839/http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/21109/1/sp06so03.pdf to http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/21109/1/sp06so03.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111025115150/http://westonaprice.org/soy/FDASoyHeartLetterFinal.pdf to http://westonaprice.org/soy/FDASoyHeartLetterFinal.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Soybeans and Osteoporosis
Is it worth updating the sections on "Health" and Health risks" to include a recent study that shows soybean foods may reduce the risk of osteoporosis in women? Here's the reference: Society for Endocrinology. "Soybean foods may protect menopausal women against osteoporosis." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 2 November 2015. .

Currently on this article, the only mention of osteoporosis or bone loss is in the "Health risks" section. It cites a 2011 trial that found soy isoflavone tablets did not prevent bone loss. This new study seems to refute that. I realize there is a difference between a supplement and an actual soy-based diet, however, in the face of objectivity, I don't think one study should be included and the other excluded. I suggest this article be updated to include the recent study. I'm willing to discuss it. Thanks.Kerdooskis (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. The concept has been in the literature for several years, e.g., possibly in a positive interaction with vitamin D, an established anti-osteoporosis factor. I agree the new ScienceDaily report adds emphasis that should be included in the article.--Zefr (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I will wait a little longer, but if no editors disagree, then I will add this to the "Health" section.Kerdooskis (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should be added at this time per WP:MEDRS. The study itself is a primary source, and is even noted by the Science Daily source that it's very preliminary too. That doesn't quite meet weight for inclusion in terms of health content. Best to stick to what secondary sources such as reviews say. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Kerdooskis: Reconsidering, I agree with Kingofaces43. Having checked Pubmed, I see no recent synthetic reviews or meta-analyses updating the status of clinical trials on the relationship between soy intake, osteoporosis and menopause symptoms. There is this one from 2011, but the authors caution about over-interpretation without additional, more substantial clinical studies. Fyi, there are 35 current or recently completed clinical studies of the soy-osteoporosis-menopause relationship posted on the NIH registry, but we would have to wait for the expert report under peer-review for the synthesis of these studies. --Zefr (talk) 18:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Health section confusing
Hi, I'm sorry if I'm doing this wrong, I have read a lot of wiki articles, but never participated. Anyway, the health section of this article is really confusing, particularly when talking about cancer and carcinogens. In almost every example of a type of cancer, the article says (paraphrasing) 'a study found no evidence of soy causing this cancer. A study found soy may inhibit this cancer's growth.' Which is it?

Normally I would just assume that a study has found that soy inhibits its growth, but why doesn't the article just say 'studies have found no evidence of soy increasing the chance of this cancer forming, in fact a study by * has found soy may in inhibit the cancer's growth.'? I might just be being paranoid, in which case just consider this a suggestion for some edits, primarily my paranoia was sparked by the last example -

''The Cancer Council of New South Wales, Australia has released a statement saying scientific research suggests that overall the moderate consumption of soy products does not appear to present a risk to women with breast cancer, and there is equivocal evidence that consuming large amounts of soy products may have a protective effect against developing breast and prostate cancer. However, the Council does not recommend taking soy dietary supplements as there is no evidence they are either effective or safe at preventing or treating cancers.'' Why would the council not recommend taking soy dietary supplements 'as there is no evidence they are either effective or safe at preventing or treating cancers' if they found equivocal evidence that soy may have a protective effect? The whole thing smacks of double talk to me,

Sorry if I messed something up. 106.70.72.206 (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It's easy to understand confusion about the relationship between soy consumption and cancer risk or improved health, as is the case for any food and its chemical constituents. For soy, interacting variables exist for such factors as amount consumed, duration of consumption (lifelong vs. acute), women vs. men (different baseline hormone levels), age, stage of research, design of clinical trial, etc. Particularly regarding "stage of research", much of the research done is preliminary in animals or small human studies, so systematic reviews or meta-analyses are not available yet. Specifically, if the article says (your quote) 'a study found no evidence of soy causing this cancer. A study found soy may inhibit this cancer's growth': the first sentence would require a major clinical review and meta-analysis which meet WP:MEDRS for sourcing, whereas the second sentence is likely from animal studies which are considered here too preliminary to discuss anti-disease effects per WP:PRIMARY.
 * I made a few edits today to help somewhat, and reviewed two summaries that might be helpful for you to browse here and here. Perhaps you could re-read the article's health sections and point out vague areas specifically here on Talk so editors can attempt to clarify them. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 02:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Kilocalories
Hi. I don't see the advantage in implying rather than been accurate. It is clearly confusing. I propose to keep my change. Greetings! --Jbaranao (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Jbaranao, I moved this from my talk page since content discussions belong on article talk pages. You changed some content here and at wheat on kilocalories. The common measurement used to represent food energy is "calories" even though it is implied to mean kilocalories. In the US, kilocalorie is a confusing term to many because they don't know that calories is actually substituted for the scientific term. That's why we generally use the term calorie in most English articles and wikilink it to the explanation that food energy depicted is calories is actually kcals. This guideline (bottom of the table) also describes this.


 * Most people in regions that use kcal know that calories is often used as a short hand in other countries. Yes it's an annoyance for how the naming confuses things, but we're not here as editors to right great wrongs that are a product of the real world rather than our doings at Wikipedia, but give due weight to how the world is described by sources for better or worse. It can also be considered a WP:ENGVAR variant where we stick with the version of English that the article was primarily written. This and most crop articles (and most references to food calories on Wikipedia) use the term calorie unless you are getting into highly scientific articles where you'd probably just use joules anyways. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thyroid discussion: Don't delete negative findings
I totally believe that the section on hypothyroidism and soy food should stay. We have increased our consumption of soy, and some differential effects between Asian and European population have already been referenced. Why would someone delete an entire section, that includes valuable references? Even if this topic would be of popular nature, it needs a section in here. There are so many studies that are at least looking at such effects on thyroid function, that it is just an expansion of the soy monograph itself. We want to keep this fluent, inclusive and up-to-date. (Osterluzei (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC))
 * This source is not WP:MEDRS nor confirmed by any other literature, so I removed it again. The 2006 study by Messina and Redmond is not only 11 years old (and unconfirmed), but is also too vague in its conclusions to offer clear information to the typical WP user; see WP:NOTJOURNAL, #7. As one can see from this Messina 2016 review, part 17, there is confirmation that soy does not affect thyroid function in healthy people, and it remains vague about whether soy affects people with hypothyroidism. You may wish to review the 2016 Messina article for further information, as it does not seem to be referenced in the article. I added an EFSA review for further content. --Zefr (talk) 05:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

protein content of mature soybean seeds
The protein content of mature soybean seed (16 percent) listed in the table (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean#Nutrition) appears to be incorrect. Add up the individual percentages for the amino acids and you get more than double (about 40 percent) what is listed as the total protein content (16 percent). I have seen many sources saying dry soybeans are about 30 percent protein. The total protein content value given in the mature seed table is closer to protein content of green soybeans listed in the table (Nutrient content of major staple foods) farther down the page. Green soybean seeds are mostly water, and so the protein content is much diluted. Alandetwiler (talk) 08:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Samuel Bowen
The claim that Bowen introduced soybeans to the US (rather than Ben Franklin) is a novel assertion and IMO very likely to be wrong. As far as I can tell, this claim may be rooted in a paper by T. Hymowitz, which in turn references Bowen's own account in Gentleman's Magazine. In Bowen's own words, the crop was the Chinese "Luk Taw", which, as noted in the footnotes of another paper is mostly likely a transliteration for what the Chinese call "green bean" (luk dao) i.e. the mung bean. Bowen also described the Chinese as boiling or stewing the beans, which is commonly done with the mung bean but not soybeans. The paper I linked goes on to further note that Bowen's production of goods from the beans are more consistent with the mung bean than the soybean, e.g. he made "vermicelli" (cellophane noodles) from them, which is common with mung bean thread but not soybean; he did not make soy sauce, which would have been the most well known application in the colonies at the time. In short, the "Luk Taw" has been mistaken to mean soybeans by secondary references. Ham Pastrami (talk) 10:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Reading further, it seems Bowen did experiment with soybean in addition to the mung bean. He advertised his own make of soy sauce in 1766 and so he did precede Franklin's introduction, but the issue remains that his writing in Gentleman's Magazine was about the mung bean and this has been conflated with his soybean crop in several sources. As a side note, does this mean Bowen was also the first to introduce a mung bean crop to the US? This missed possibility might have been a consequence of not recognizing the difference in the original research. Ham Pastrami (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The Chinese characters for Soysauce
They are wrong. The kanji for soysauce listed under Japanese is for Chinese as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.69.122.15 (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Soybean. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120225130049/http://www.harbay.net/henryford.html to http://www.harbay.net/henryford.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120218072716/http://kanex.or.jp/english/index-eng.htm to http://www.kanex.or.jp/english/index-eng.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120220091625/http://www.tge.or.jp/english/index.shtml to http://www.tge.or.jp/english/index.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality question
I was just passing through and this article struck me as extremely positively pro-soybean. Possibly to an extent that would violate neutrality. Although it spills over into the rest of the article, my main concern is the Health risks section where almost every "health risk" is ruled debunked, and not always by citing sources. I'm not absolutely sure it's a violation of neutrality as I know relatively little about this subject. However, I would like to see a third-party opinion, which I get the impression is what adding the tag does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.192.28 (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I just tweaked the health section a bit to be more "just the facts." It is more useful and encyclopedic to indicated what information is out there than attempt to, against Wiki policy, interepret the evidence when a scientific consensus does not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.128.232 (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed as well. Some of the sources in the article are questionable too - for example the paragraph: "Many people have claimed that soybeans in Asia were historically only used after a fermentation process, which lowers the high phytoestrogens content found in the raw plant. However, terms similar to "soy milk" have been in use since 82 AD,[33] and there is evidence of tofu consumption that dates to 220." The "source" is the Soy Info Center/Soy Foods Center, Lafayette, CA. and no historical articles, books, etc are linked from there at all. -98.149.25.150 (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I came here expecting much worse. Thanks to whoever did the tweaking. There is much more that should be added to the health concerns section. Wiki's GMO page mentioned that 89% of soy is GMO (This number is now 91% and needs to be updated) The GMO soy has built-in weedkiller that attacks and destroys the organs in lab rats in many studies. It also has "higher oil yield" which means higher estrogen load. That should be mentioned somewhere. -Phylates (anti-nutrients) are of note. -Goitrogens (iodine inhibitor) and other thyroid deregulating properties are ALL over the internet (Oprah Winfrey scandal). Doctors advise against soy intake for this reason alone. The omega 3 section is in the wrong place (it's under "Health Benefits" heading) since the omega 3's are severely deficient in ratio to the omega 6's, and are so short-chain they'll practically spontaneously ignite. Further mention should be made of the extremely high ratio of polyunsaturated fat to other types. When this oil is heated, it forms trans fat. It need not be hydrogenated beforehand. Also of note is the prevalence of soy in USA. I've seen several reports that show soy, and soy alone, accounts for 30% of the typical American diet by calories. Astounding! A McDonald's hamburger is made out of soy, about 60% of the "meat", the bun (soy flour) and soy cooking oil. Soy is used as Prison food (lawsuits against this now), hospital food (hospital "feed tubes" are nutrients suspended in a soy oil solution), schools (high school, university, anything) etc... Everything in moderation? Not a chance. Add this in wiki-speak someone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.165.8 (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have time to address all the claims here, but just want to add this in reply to the last poster: GMO soy does not have built in weedkiller. It is genetically modified to be resistant to weedkiller. Consuming GMO soy is risky on two grounds: 1 - you're consuming herbicides, and 2 - you're consuming genetically modified food. These risks are not associated with non-GMO soy; consuming organic is the way to avoid these risks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.161.159 (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I'm both concerned and puzzled. I've been studying soy for a few days now. I'm not supposed to consume it due to taking medicine for a thyroid disorder, but my husband and I are both supposed to be consuming it to bring our cholesterol down. We have six kids and don't need any more, so the sexual development concerns I've found don't apply to us. I obviously want healthy grandchildren though, so I'm concerned for our children. The only three online sources I've come across that are positive about soy are this one, the mayo clinic, and the USDA. From you I've learned that all soy isn't the same. I know I saw several British sites that were extremely against soy. Has any agency known to be legitimate actually run experiments on both/either soys? I haven't found any experiments that point away from the mass accusations, but a lot that point to them. I've also noticed that almost everything we eat has soy in it. The more I alter our diet to lower fat foods, the more soy I see on the labels. I'd love the links to some legitimate experiments. Thanks so much! Elizabeth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.79.51 (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Soybean. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304045912/http://www.meduniwien.ac.at/allergens/allfam/factsheet.php?allfam_id=AF050 to http://www.meduniwien.ac.at/allergens/allfam/factsheet.php?allfam_id=AF050

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Soybean. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203144038/http://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/bitstream/doc/880533/1/Comparativeproteomical.pdf to http://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/bitstream/doc/880533/1/Comparativeproteomical.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150605195117/http://cropsci.illinois.edu/news/scientists-create-new-low-allergen-soybean to http://cropsci.illinois.edu/news/scientists-create-new-low-allergen-soybean

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

2018 lacking basic info
Adding the POV tag. This article is of poor qualify and lacks basic information about soybeans. Like why they can't be eaten raw. what antitrypsin protease inhibitors are. How soy beans must be treated for consumption. This is a mix of an industry trade publication mixed with just the right amount of crazy for balance or something. Please clean out the cruft and unsubstantiated health claims and make an article about real soybeans. ‎ [ 2601:401:4403:e630:18ba:ccbb:506:62f4 06:15, 26 January 2018 ]


 * It would appear you added the POV tag because the article didn't agree with your POV so I removed it. As far as citation needed tag the ref was in the next sentence.Jackfork (talk) 06:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree - It seems excessively pro-soybean. lectin mentions Soybean agglutinin, soy allergy etc but this article does not mention lectins. - Rod57 (talk) 09:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)