From: Steinn Sigurdsson <steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Estrogen Synergy
Date: 31 Jul 1997 12:27:50 +0100

This is of relevance to a number of past threads
(and likely a number of future threads...)

In Science, 25 July 1997, v 277
McLachlan has a letter formally withdrawing
the results on synergistic activation of estrogen receptors...
(Arnold et al Science 272, 1489, 1996).
The results were not reproducible and the authors are
formally withdrawing the findings.

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.agriculture.misc,alt.sustainable.agriculture,sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Genetically engineered food
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 13:40:47 +0100

In article <344B418E.9938033E@erols.com>, Rex Harrill
<brixman@erols.com> writes
>Oz wrote [stating GE AND regular soybeans are high in estrogen]:
>
>> So far as I am aware, they aren't.
>> Both have plenty.
>
>I would like to see foods with *built-in* hormones

I think 'naturally contain' would be better words.

>conspicuously
>labeled.  Seriously---I don't want to be spiked with female hormones and
>labeling could help prevent that.  Are you aware of a list of common
>foods containing female hormones?

No, but it would be a very long list. Sesame oil is particulary bad but
all legumes (and even cabbage) contains detectable amounts.

I explained to you before that plants are packed with natural toxins and
one that stops mammals breeding is a pretty neat method. It is well
known that sheep grazing pastures containing high levels of legumes have
reduced fertility and in extreme cases they simply don't cycle at all.

--
'Oz     "Is it better to seem ignorant and learn,
         - or seem wise and stay ignorant?"

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.bio.food-science
Subject: Re: Genetically Modified Foods Safe?
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 20:30:06 +0000

In article <878756093.23842@dejanews.com>, bmanges md
<qlambert2@northernway.net> writes

>on soy/baby/hormone problems.
>U. of Cincinnati replicated the NZ blood level studies in July
> there has been another conference at the NIH on phytoestrogens
> and more and more babies are being switched to soy
> (the formula co. direct market to parents now in the US)
>  Am I off my head to be concerned about these infants!

Well, I am pleased to say that the UK government did send out a serious
health warning about soy milk replacements.

You should be very concerned about these babies, the estrogen levels are
not just traces of traces, as with pesticides, they are right bang at
the levels that cause physiological effects. We don't yet know what the
effects (if any) will be but I for one would not *dream* of feeding
estrogen laced soy replacemnts to any of my kids. I am personally rather
confident that in a few years time significant effects on some of these
kids will become apparent. I hope they are not serious.

Anyhow, why use a vegetable when formulated cow's milk is as close to
the designer product as you could wish? Milk has been designed for
mammalian babies for several tens of millions of years at least, why
change?

--
'Oz     "Is it better to seem ignorant and learn,
         - or seem wise and stay ignorant?"