How We Spent $500 on Tech to Ship $2.6M of Soylent

Re:How We Spent $500 on Tech to Ship $2.6M of Soylent by virmundi on Thursday June 04, 2015 @09:09AM (#9658958)

There are various reasons, some of which will require time to checkout. One is that soy is a phytoestrogen [1]. So the studies show there could be some issues with men eating soy at high levels. Googling provides a lot of arguments founded in reasoning for and against. Another issue is that soy requires heavy agriculture and processing [2]. This can harm the environment in much the same macro ways as beef production. The chemicals used in processing soy into tofu and other products can be bad. Again, processing arguments go both ways (though soy is poisonous in its raw form [3]).

So right now many, myself included, advocate minimizing soy. You can't get away from it. Thanks to several US administrations soy is huge business. Just watch it. It might be that its good for you. Right now the soy debate is much like the egg debate of the 80s. I leave you with Lewis Black's commentary on food nutrition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXS5GBuk-GQ

1 - http://blog.zocdoc.com/does-soy-feminize-men-fact-vs-myth/ 2 - http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/agriculture/soy/im... 3 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean#Nutrition

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How We Spent $500 on Tech to Ship $2.6M of Soylent by frandroid on Thursday June 04, 2015 @11:16AM (#9659837)

Considering that soy is being fed to cattle, by definition, soy cannot harm the environment in the "same" macro ways as beef production. Beef production is an order of magnitude more, and anyone who substitutes soy for beef is doing a favour to the environment.

[ Parent | on HN ]