Talk:Soybean

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)

Where should alternative names go

I think these alternative names belong in the lead. Anon believes they belong in the Classification section. I don't see this is part of the classification. Apparently they do, but they've used no edit summaries. Requesting a 3PO. NJGW (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

They should go in the first sentence, per Wikipedia:Lead#Usage_in_first_sentence, in parentheses. But you need to have a source for each and every one of them. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved... it turns out the anon was moving them down because they were names for a different plant... see how much edit summaries help! NJGW (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2009 (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)

Phytic acid

I created an expanded section on phytic acid from the out of place stub dangling at the end of the reference section. The original stub claimed that phytic acid is all bad, but the reference it cited didn't actually say that. So I moved it under health benefits section as the article on phytic acid claims there are more pros than cons. I also expanded out the references from phytic acid to link to the best individual articles. UncleDouggie (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Promotion as a health food

I eliminated this section because most of text and references were redundant with other sections in the article. I moved the one substantial reference questioning the health benefits to the end of the isoflavones section beside the claims that it was questioning. UncleDouggie (talk) 11:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Low phytoestrogen claim

I question if this claim is correct:

Soybeans and processed soy foods do not contain the highest "total phytoestrogen" content of foods. A study in which data were presented on an as-is (wet) basis per 100 g and per serving found that food groups from highest to lowest levels of total phytoestrogens per 100 g are nuts and oilseeds, soy products, cereals and breads, legumes, meat products, various processed foods that may contain soy, vegetables, and fruits.

As the article states, soybean is an oilseed, which is listed as the highest phytoestrogen content! Perhaps the listing of "soy products" refers to soy flour? The referenced article costs money. Does someone have the article or another source to backup or refute this claim? UncleDouggie (talk) 09:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been resolved. User Clovis Sangrail has access to the reference and made the correction. I think the original editor may not have realized that soybeans are oilseeds. UncleDouggie (talk) 05:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [soj~ɕoj]. 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)

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). --Yankees76 ^Talk 22:51, 29 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, id: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 [1]. Assuming 32% protein content in the soybeans and 25% protein in hemp seeds [2], 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)

File:Korean.beverages-02 II.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Korean.beverages-02 II.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Soybean oil.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Soybean oil.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:34, 19 October 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#Percy Julian again and Talk:Combined oral contraceptive pill#Percy Julian yet again.

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)