Talk:Soy milk

Bias

1. The article seems biased. The part about the negative health effects all have things rebutting the facts without sources and nothing rebuts the facts about the positive health effects. Why is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.232.58 (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping to find more in depth information about non-fermented soy products. I'm amazed that nobody is doing any research about the negative health effects of non-fermented soy products. I drink soy milk because I like it and because it won't give me the shits but I can't seem to find anything but propaganda on both sides of the argument and no scientific proof either way. Just because it's 'natural' it doesn't mean it shouldn't be treated like any other substance that could be dangerous. Soy contains estrogen which have severely impacted my cycle and PMS symptoms in a negative way. I don't know if you consider these sources valid but at least the information can help those who can do better research find scientific proof. I would like this article to be accurate because I think we have the right to know what we are putting in our bodies. http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_5629.cfm http://www.quantumbalancing.com/news/soy%20dangers.htm http://www.organichealthblog.com/2008/soy-milk-benefits-vs-dangers/ Now, it seems that even in the vegan community people are weary of eating these soy products so that leads me to further believe it isn't completely safe especially for women, like me, with very high estrogen issues. Could we add (if it already hasn't) information about viable substitutions for soy milk like rice milk or hemp milk? Sigh, not to mention that the milk I'm addicted to is high in sugar and fat. Regardless of the fact that dairy companies seem to have funded studies against soy milk there are no unbiased studies that point out both positive and negative effects. I mean, if eating too many carrots can cause carotinosis then eating too much of anything can cause side effects. And how much soy is safe? So if someone can better this article to include much needed information about the side effects of soy I would be infinitely grateful. I'm afraid that the misconception of soy as being healthy puts seemingly health conscious people at risk. 66.214.98.212 (talk) 05:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)m0u5y

"I concur...this article doesn't even have anything about negative effects right now. This is a problem this article is biased." - The Carnivore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.225.21 (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarification needed under "soy milk is promoted as a healthy alternative..."

"Soy milk is promoted as a healthy alternative to cow's milk for reasons including: ...

• Polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats are good for the heart. (It should be noted that whole milk has just as much monounsaturated fat as soy milk; ..."

- by "whole milk", does it mean whole cow's/dairy milk?

Thanks.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that this article uses AD and BC to express a particular point in time? The proper usage of timeline would be BCE--before the common era and ACE--after common era. As these abbreviations do not assume that Christ is involved in a persons common understanding, as BC (before Christ) and AD (after death) insert this pre-conceived bias into the article that every reader will understand this time cycle. However, this I'd not always the case, especially for people unfamiliar with the Christian religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.132.142 (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Omega-3

It's not true that cow milk lacks omega-3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grzes (talk • contribs) 11:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Please help to verify Ref 24

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119485101/home --222.64.219.173 (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Pornographic Spam

I don't really know much about how to make changes but for anyone that does, the picture of a girl supposedly drinking soya milk is actually, apparently, a girl drinking sperm according to the picture's own description. Possibly not appropriate? --62.31.181.204 (talk) 10:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

New Picture of Woman consuming Soy Milk

This image was most likely placed here by a malicious editor. It's actually a woman preforming Gokkun, which is consuming semen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.67.63 (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction in paragraph on sperm count

The article reads: "While the study found a decreasing trend in sperm concentration with soy intake, it also notes that soy food and isoflavone intake were unrelated to total sperm count, ejaculate volume, sperm motility, or sperm morphology and that the clinical significance of the findings remains to be determined.[11]"

This obviously can't be true. If the sperm count remains constant, and the ejaculate volume remains constant, how can the sperm concentration decrease? - 208.123.162.2 (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Its bullshit. The dairy industry has put out a lot of false information on soy milk. The debunked urban legend that it contains estrogen, for example. --98.232.176.109 (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

USA-Centric

'soy' is US English.

'Soya' is used in other languages and cultures around the world, including UK English.

This article is biased towards the USA-centric view of the planet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.80.28 (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point you to WP:ENGVAR. I would love to change it to soya, but it is against the guidelines. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 06:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It's an english article, and 'other languages' don't matter here... the vast majority of english speaking people speak US English, which further invalidates your point and shows your bias. Not that it matters considering the wiki guidelines. LieAfterLie (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that is correct. Any source? 87.194.162.141 (talk) 08:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a common claim on Wikipedia - I have not seen any source to back it up. It seems to be based on the US population compared to the UK population. That doesn't take into account the people in the commonwealth who all speak British English. I am sure India on it's own more has more English speakers than anywhere else. Sue De Nimes (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Solubility

"which is insoluble in humans". I wasn't aware that humans were a known solvent. If the original author is reading, could you explain what you mean here? JonSenior (talk) 10:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Flavour preferences

In the article it says "...paint-like, off-flavors of traditional soy milk..." I think this isn't very correct or neutral. While some might prefer a more neutral soymilk, the "traditional" soymilk is what people prefer in most of asia, and it is what at least I prefer too. I think it would be better to write "the bean flavours of traditional soy milk..." /Kalle, 2 Oct 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.110.214 (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Soy milk/soymilk vs soy drink

The article includes inaccurate information according to which Australia does not use the term soy milk. In fact, most products you see on supermarket shelves as well as in Asian food stores are labelled soy milk or soymilk. Very few manufacturers (if any) use the term soy drink. This would need to be amendeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.5.61 (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Zokvok, 26 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The negatives of soy aren't really mentioned, see this: http://www.nmia.com/~galenvtp/WAPSoyP2.pdf

At least some mention of the phytoestrogen issue is necessary. Zokvok (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you type up a sample entry, and then I can add it? CTJF83 chat 18:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

 Not done for now: See above. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 23:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Its bullshit. The "soy milk contains estrogen" urban legend has been debunked for years now, and actually needs to be mentioned IN THE ARTICLE for that very reason: Some people still think its true. It was originally put out by the dairy industry to try and drive people away from soy. --98.232.176.109 (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not bullshit. Soy milk (unsweetened) contains 6028 μg of phytoestrogen per 100 g wet weight. Whole cow's milk contains 25 μg/100 g (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/jf801344x). Whether this has any adverse health consequences is altogether another question. 211.31.2.101 (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

In regard to : . " Soy milk (unsweetened) contains 6028 μg of phytoestrogen per 100 g wet weight. " . Precision should NOT be confused with accuracy : "6 mg" in place of "6028 ug" would be a better expression of the parameter. . I make no comment as regards the facts or effects of the item in question. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.55.44 (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

This page is biased: Cow milk is meant to be consumed by calves, not by humans. Soy milk is suitable for humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linda Martens (talk • contribs) 15:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

ecologically advantageous?

Very unscientific, and heavily biased. "because the amount of soy that could be grown using the same amount of land would feed more people than if used to raise cows." If you stop feeding your cows with human foods, people can eat beans cows will eat the stalks(yes thats what they actually eat) and I can have my good old fashioned cheese without exposing my taste buds to soya, so everyone will be happy, except for the vegan who added that sentence to the article.