The sacred cow behind the elephant

Last week, I saw the same headlines again and again: “Dietary soy reduces pain, inflammation.” “A Diet Rich in Soy Products May Help Soothe Pain from Inflammation.” Soy has been big news in the health press lately – and all of the coverage I’ve seen has been positive.

You could see this as a good thing: the media finally covering non-mainstream issues in a positive light. But unfortunately, I think it’s more an example of how deep industry influences run – and how much spin influences everything.

I’ve written before about the controversy over soy (9/17/2001 e-Alert). But in this case, the pros and cons of soy aren’t really the issue. The real issue is the OTHER substance tested in this study – and why it’s not making any headlines.
No one told the rats milk does a body good

You see, in this study, researchers at Johns Hopkins University compared the effects of soy protein to those of a specific milk protein called casein. They studied two groups of 10 rats for two weeks; one group was fed a diet based on casein, while the other group ate a diet based on soy protein. Then rats from both groups randomly received injections of a placebo or a solution that induced inflammatory pain in one of the rat’s hind paws.

The researchers assessed the thickness of the rats’ paws both before and after the injections, to assess inflammation caused by the shot. They also tested the rats’ tolerance for pain caused by heat stimulus and pressure on the affected paws both before and after. They found that rats on the soy diet had “significantly less swelling” and a “higher tolerance to heat” than the rats who ate the milk protein.

Based on this finding, they proclaimed to the annual meeting of the American Pain Society last week that soy protein can reduce pain and inflammation – and managed to draw a connection to the chronic pain suffered by patients with advanced cancer.
What’s thata sacred cow behind the elephant?

Am I the only one who sees a problem with this study – and this conclusion?

The elephant in the corner? What about the milk? After all, haven’t milk proteins been associated with auto-immune inflammatory responses for decades? Couldn’t it be that the milk protein caused MORE inflammation, exacerbating the effects of the injections, and not that soy actually has a healing effect? Why wasn’t that possibility even addressed in the coverage? Why is everyone ignoring the elephant?

You’ll note that the headlines didn’t say, “Soy better than milk for chronic pain,” or the like. Funny that when the “loser” is a sacred cow, it gets hidden in the fine print.

I guess the media has learned not to be critical of the dairy industry; in the past, negative mentions have been met with howls of protest and a flurry of counter-spin.

But there’s a second question: How does such a marginal study – the same type the mainstream is quick to disregard in relation to some “unproven” CAM therapy – get such prominent coverage, with such pro-soy headlines?

The simple answer? Soy is not the product of the peace/love, granola-chomping, tree-hugging “hippies” that the marketing geniuses would like us to believe. It is a multi-billion dollar industry – with people wearing suits and ties, contributing to political campaigns and to research, and buying a lot of advertising.

When it comes to the debates over dairy and soy (and dairy vs. soy), opinions run high on both sides. And, as you can see, you can read the same results very different ways. As I read it though, this study isn’t about the dairy/soy debate. It’s about the interests that influence what information is disseminated to us and how. In this case, we don’t have enough information to know if this study truly supports one side and/or negates another. And that’s precisely the point.

Source: Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions http:www.hopkinsmedicine.org