You are what you eat

Ending the juice fast

To make a long story short (or shorter, in any case), I ended the juice fast early. I did it for 7 days instead of 10.

(My reasons for discontinuing the daily blogging of the fast had nothing to do with becoming disenchanted with the fast or fearing that I wouldn't finish the ten days. Let's just say that sometimes life hands you a rough patch.)

The morning of Day Eight, I realized that I didn't want to continue, so . . .  I didn't.  I'd read, and heard, that the first few days were the hardest, but that wasn't true for me. The first few days were really easy, and at the halfway mark, I was confident that it would be a breeze to finish the 10 days.

What happened was that I craved protein and carbs. My first foods off the fast were a boiled egg and a bunch of peanut butter-spread saltines. My daughter laughed when I told her what I'd eaten after deciding to ditch the fast. "It figures" was what she said (more or less).

I have no regrets about starting the fast or about quitting early. I will do a juice fast again, because it really was good for me. I felt good while fasting, and I looked good. In the meanwhile, I'll be juicing regularly as part of my usual eating habits. And I do think that making an extreme departure from one's usual eating habits can kick-start a healthier way of eating--for some people, anyway. 

What I learned on the fast:

1. It's really important to put the pitcher at the end of the spout where the juice comes out of the machine. If you forget (say early in the morning when you're a little groggy), it's messy.
2. If you're going to go off caffeine, do it before you start the fast itself. I had to do it gradually because of vicious caffeine-withdrawal headaches. Take that possibility into consideration.
3. Mean Green is not only palatable, it grows on you, especially if you tamper a little with the ingredient  amounts and add a pinch of salt. Who knew liquefied kale could be so tasty?
4. In fact, vegetable juices overall are really underrated. They don't get the respect they deserve. I know that I used to be revolted by the very idea of carrot juice. I was an idiot. Raw juices are delicious and you can practically feel the vitality pouring into your body.
5. But overcoming the strangeness of smelling beets or spinach in your glass might take a little time. Stay with it, because you'll get over it.
6. A juice fast will not leave you weak, tired, and hungry. At least it didn't leave me that way.
7. A juice fast will have you trying fruits and veggies you may never have tried before.  And that's a good thing.
8. I started to crave protein around the end of Day Six. Not sure I can overcome that in future fasts. This is just my experience; I'm sure every experience with a juice fast is different. And I don't think omitting protein for the length of a brief fast has any ill effects. I'm talking about cravings only, not malnutrition.
9. I'm definitely not consigning the juicer to the basement or the closet. I love the raw juices and will continue to use the juicer. I've got a great track record when it comes to actually using the kitchen gadgets I buy, and this will be no exception.
10. A macerating juicer (the kind my daughter has) really is better than a centrifugal one (mine). However, for the money, I'm not sorry about my choice of juicer. Previously, the price of juicers only added to my reluctance to try the whole juicing thing. I may trade up in the future, though.
11. Having a compost pile is a great idea if you're going to juice regularly. Lots of trimmings, plus lots of pulp. Why let it go to waste?

So, if you've got the means, I'd really recommend juicing and a juice fast of whatever length. If you can afford it, juicing will ensure that you get the veggies your body needs (and probably craves, if you're eating the SAD [standard American diet] way). Vitamin supplements are all very well, and I take them myself, but they can't replace actual plants with all their micronutrients.

If you decide to take the plunge, I'd love to hear about your own experience. You can also join the Reboot Your Life community and see what others have to say, as well as check out what it's all about.

Bon appetit! 

 [cross-posted to View from the Loft]

This sounds appetizing: meat glue

Meat glue: it's what's for dinner!

It may well be, as meat glue--transglutaminase--is used to make fake steak, sausage and hot dogs, imitation crab, fish balls, and, I suspect (but don't know for sure) chicken nuggets.

What is transglutaminase?

TG is an enzyme that catalyzes covalent bonds between free amine groups in a protein, like lysine, and gamma-caroxminid groups, like glutamine. These bonds are pretty durable and resist degradation once the food has been formed.

In other words, it's a very strong glue. The enzyme comes from pig or cow blood, but if it's in your food, you probably won't know it, as there is no labeling requirement. If it's on the label at all, it will be as "composite meat product," so you might want to read those labels.

Watch the video to get an idea of how it works. For a "steak," say, you sprinkle the meat glue over chunks of meat, roll them up tightly in plastic wrap, and refrigerate overnight. In the morning, you've got a roll of meat that can be sliced into filet mignon-type "steaks." Notice, in the video, that the butcher and the reporter wear masks as the TG is sprinkled onto the meat. That's because they don't want to risk thrombosis.

Meat glue has recently been approved by the EU. Plenty of consumers are outraged by the decision, which reverses the EU's previous stance.

Many people, however, not only have no problem with TG, but wholeheartedly embrace it. Nils Noren and Dave Arnold, who author the high-tech food blog Cooking Issues, are enthusiastic about it. Innovative, avant-garde chefs experiment with it, producing such things as pasta made almost entirely out of shrimp. With meat glue, you can take different types of fish and meld them together for a new kind of fillet, or different kinds of meat for a "mixed grill."

Over at BoingBoing, Maggie Koerth-Baker and her commenters wax enthusiastic about the stuff. Commenters have used it to make turkey confit and to glue bacon and scallops together. Also coming in for praise on the blog is the idea of not wasting any meat--making what was previously un-sellable attractive and sellable.

After all, humans have long used meat scraps and the less aesthetically appealing parts of the animal in head cheese, blood sausage (black pudding), and the like. Someone on BoingBoing mentioned how native Americans used every part of the buffalo.

I can see the point, but unless I have a guarantee that the meat comes from grass-fed beef without antibiotics or hormones, I myself would rather not eat certain scraps. Organ meats in CAFO animals are notorious for their concentrated toxins.

Also, there is a much higher risk of food poisoning with "steaks" made with meat glue. As microbiologist Glenn Pener points out in the video linked above, “The amount of bacteria on a steak that’s been put together with meat glue is hundreds of time higher.” Why? Because scraps of meat put together feature bits that were on the outside--where bacteria can gather--but now have surfaces on the inside, where it's hard to get rid of them through cooking. Think about grilling a real steak. Bacteria on the outside will be killed by cooking, but if you're eating your steak somewhat on the rare side, that inner meat doesn't cook as much. Which is fine, because (especially after dry-aging) the inside of the meat is a lot safer. But a patched-together "steak" has lots of exterior (think beef stew meat) that becomes interior. Those previously exterior pieces are hard to cook thoroughly. For this reason, restructured steak should, according to the Wiki entry, always be cooked well-done. I doubt that it always is, though.

And finally, consumers should feel insulted by the deception going on. Inferior meats can be sold as if they were premium cuts: good for profits. Along with such things as surimi and restructured steak, one of the uses for meat glue listed in the Wiki entry is

Improving the texture of low-grade meat such as so-called "PSE meat" (pale, soft, and exudative meat, whose characteristics are attributed to stress and a rapid postmortem pH decline).

(Before leaving the uses for transglutaminase, I should point out that "meat glue" is something of a misnomer, as TG is also sometimes used in noodles and in milk and yogurt.)

I really resent the deception employed by the meat industry. There's no end to it: gas-injected packaging to keep meat red; water injection to make it plumper, heavier (pay by the pound, remember?), and better looking; pink slime in ground beef; and now I learn about meat glue.

I also tend toward plain cooking (Mark Bittman is my hero) with natural ingredients, and meat glue doesn't fit into my food philosophy at all. But hey, if meat glue sounds like something you'd like to try in your own kitchen, you can buy some through Amazon!

Do McDonald's hamburgers decompose?

According to one artist, the answer is no.

Sally Davies has kept a Happy Meal in her home for 6 months, with no noticeable change other than "it's hard as a rock." You can compare the photos yourself at the link.

McDonald's accuses Ms. Davies of fabricating the whole thing. Well, I don't know ... have you seen this video of the Bionic Burger? And the museum of ancient McD "food"?

 

High-fructose corn syrup found to cause greater weight gain in rats

That's right--a new study by Princeton University researchers confirms what many of us have been saying for some time now:

. . . all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same. 

In addition to causing significant weight gain in lab animals, long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup also led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides. The researchers say the work sheds light on the factors contributing to obesity trends in the United States.

When rats drank high fructose corn syrup at levels far below that in soda pop, they became fat, every single one across the board. According to the researchers, this just doesn't happen. Even when the rats are fed high-fat diets, not every one becomes obese.

The study monitored weight gain, body fat, and triglyceride levels in rats fed HFCS over 6 months. The ugly truth?

Compared to animals eating only rat chow, rats on a diet rich in high-fructose corn syrup showed characteristic signs of a dangerous condition known in humans as the metabolic syndrome, including abnormal weight gain, significant increases in circulating triglycerides and augmented fat deposition, especially visceral fat around the belly. Male rats in particular ballooned in size: Animals with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained 48 percent more weight than those eating a normal diet. In humans, this would be equivalent to a 200-pound man gaining 96 pounds.

They gained 48% more weight! Unbelievable.

No matter what the Corn Refiners Association tells you in those commercials, HFCS is NOT a natural product, and it is most certainly NOT the same as sucrose. I've written in a little more detail about HFCS here if you'd like some further information on how and way HFCS causes obesity and other health issues.

That doesn't mean you should reach for a diet pop, though. Aspartame is not your friend! Try unsweetened tea (including herbal and fruit teas), water with a slice of lemon or lime, or juice spritzers. I especially like a small amount of cherry juice in sparkling  water. Although cherry juice (and other fruit juices, like pomegranate) can be expensive (especially organic), by using a small amount and cutting it with carbonated water you get a refreshing drink that's not bad for you. On the rare occasions when I do want soda pop, I buy the kind sweetened with actual sugar. Again, it's more expensive, but we aren't meant to be drinking vast quantities of carbonated beverages anyway.

Is there nothing the government won't allow in our foods?

If you needed more of a nudge to avoid processed foods, here's one: the US government is encouraging farmers to spread waste from coal-fired power plants on their fields. This started during the Bush years, of course, but the Obama administration has continued the policy.

Yep, that's what I want to eat: coal waste. Scrub it out so it doesn't go into our air, but then spread it on our food. Makes sense to me ...

I realize that disposing of coal ash, etc. is troublesome, but getting rid of it by putting it on our crops just doesn't seem like a great idea. This waste is a synthetic form of gypsum, but it contains toxic materials such as mercury, arsenic, lead, and other heavy metals. The EPA claims that the amounts are so small that they have no effect on human health. Mmm-hmmm ... but what if every vegetable and fruit you eat contains these so-called tiny amounts? Add that to the mercury that's already in fish and, well, all the various toxins that seem to show up in our food, and how "tiny" are we talking? Not.

Since 2001, farmers' use of this stuff, which is called FGD (flue gas desulfurization)gypsum, has tripled, with nearly 279,000 tons used last year.

Please, please, avoid processed foods, know your local farmers and talk with them about how they raise their crops . . . and keep an eye open for whether FGD gypsum will be allowed in foods labeled organic.  

How about some ammonia to go with those fries?

According to the New York Times, If you like Big Macs, you're getting ammonia in every burger. It's part of "a mashlike substance frozen into blocks or chips [and] used in a majority of the hamburger sold nationwide," including that sold at McDonald's, Burger King, and other fast-food "restaurants," not to mention hamburger used in schools (where up to 15% of the hamburger can be "mashlike substance") and other institutional settings.

Doesn't that look appetizing? Those must be the frozen chips. Microbiologist Gerald Zirnstein calls the stuff "pink slime" and feels that allowing it to be called ground beef constitutes fraudulent labeling.

What is this pink slime, why does it have ammonia in it, and above all, why is it in most hamburger sold in the U.S.? Follow the money ...

The product itself came about thus:

The company, Beef Products Inc., had been looking to expand into the hamburger business with a product made from beef that included fatty trimmings the industry once relegated to pet food and cooking oil. The trimmings were particularly susceptible to contamination, but a study commissioned by the company showed that the ammonia process would kill E. coli as well as salmonella.

These "fatty trimmings," you'll notice, used to be used in pet food and cooking oil--that's the trimmings minus the ammonia. How do they get the product? They liquefy the fat of these slaughterhouse trimmings and extract the protein in a centrifuge, resulting "in a lean product that was desirable to hamburger-makers.." Thanks, but I'll pass on that. I don't want to eat slaughterhouse trimmings, really I don't.

These trimmings tend to be high in pathogens like e. coli and salmonella, as much of the fat is on the exterior of the carcass and possibly picks up said pathogens during the slaughtering process, handling, etc. I'm not completely clear on the whys, but the fact is, these trimmings are loaded with harmful bacteria. What to do, what to do?

Beef Products discovered that ammonia was effective:

Meat is sent through pipes where it is exposed to ammonia gas, and then flash frozen and compressed — all steps that help kill pathogens, company research found.

Of course, the reason there are so many pathogens in the first place is not only due to processing in the slaughterhouse, but also to the way beef is raised in this country. However, much of the blame can be placed on the processing of the meat.

The USDA was persuaded to label the ammonia a food processing agent, not an ingredient, so many of the end users didn't realize that the ammonia they were smelling wasn't there because of contamination, but because of processing. Officials in Georgia, where the product was used for prisoners' meals, returned nearly 7,000 pounds of the stuff because, even while frozen, the odor of ammonia was obvious. Other buyers of the product complained as well.

The company was forced to reduce the amount of ammonia due to the offensive smell, but that ended by allowing the pathogens to grow. Many instances of salmonella and e.coli have been found, despite the fact that the USDA exempted Beef Products from regular testing on the grounds that their method completely killed the bacteria. In fact, so completely did the USDA buy into the company's own data concerning safety, Beef Products didn't even face a recall of its product in most cases where several sources of beef (and beef products) were used by hamburger makers. That has changed now; the company will be under more scrutiny, according to USDA officials.

Is ammonia in food harmful? Well, when the Georgia state officials complained to the USDA about the product, they noted

that the level of ammonia in the beef was similar to levels found in contamination incidents involving chicken and milk that had sickened schoolchildren.

As for why companies use this slime, why else? To save money. It's cheap; a school official was quoted in the Times article as saying that it shaved 3 cents off the cost of preparing a pound of hamburger.

After reading this, all I can say is that if I didn't have a reliable source of grass-fed beef, I would most certainly have my own meat grinder by now, and I'd be making my own ground beef. As factory-farmed beef, it might be objectionable for all the usual reasons, but at least it wouldn't include pink slime or ammonia.

Evil Dean Foods strikes again

One of the best known soy milks is the brand Silk, formerly owned by WhiteWave but for some time under the ownership of Dean Foods. Many health-conscious consumers bought Silk because it was labeled "organic." And it was--as much as industrial food can be called organic, anyway--until early this year.

But it seems that months ago, Dean replaced the "organic" label with the word "natural." In the food biz, "natural" has absolutely no meaning whatsoever, because the government has no definition of the term and no standards for labeling a product as such. Dean Foods, however, made sure not to tell anyone of the change, and many consumers--and the retailers who sell Silk--simply didn't notice the change. The UPC code is the same, and the packaging, except for that one little word, is still the same. And, of course, the price is still the same, even though conventional rather than organic soybeans are now used to make the product.

Dean Foods claims that it sent a form letter to distributors describing the change and blamed distributors for "not following through" with independent retailers. According to the Fort Worth Star Telegram, specialty stores have reported not noticing the change for 6 to 9 months.

The failure to change the bar code is, to me, evidence that Dean was intentionally hoping to fool people:

Jon Mellor, a spokesman for New Jersey-based GS1 US, the nonprofit agency that issues Universal Product Code numbers and bar codes, said changing products so they are no longer organic is considered a big enough shift to require new codes.

Apparently,

Supermarket executives and food processors expressed surprise at Dean’s actions, saying that even when a package size is altered, a new bar code is affixed.

It's really hard for me to believe that they didn't want people to keep on automatically grabbing the blue carton and for grocers to remain unaware of the change, since the bar code stayed the same.

Dean has re-introduced an organic soy milk in a green carton, according to the newspaper article. But if it were me--I don't buy soy products--I would be extremely reluctant to buy any product from Dean Foods.

Soy is NOT good for you

My vegetarian friends, especially, aren't going to like this post, but the amount of soy in processed foods means that most Americans, vegetarian or not, eat a lot of soy. Soybean oil is extensively used, while textured vegetable protein (TVP), soy flour, and soy protein isolates can be found in all kinds of packaged foods.

But soy is just not meant for human consumption--unless it has been fermented (and tofu is not really in this category).

Wait, wait! you say. Hasn't it been found to be helpful in preventing heart disease? And aren't there other health claims made for it? And isn't it a great meat substitute, since it contains all the amino acids, which most legumes do not?

Yes, that's what we've been told, and have we ever. Thanks to a massive advertising campaign on the part of the soy industry, as well as to the FDA's 1999 allowing of claims linking soy consumption to a healthier heart, the years from 2000 to 2007 saw over 2700 new soy-containing foods appear on supermarket shelves (sorry, no link; registration and download required).

So what's wrong with soy? Let me count the ways ...

First, the very substances that have been touted as beneficial turn out to be harmful: the isoflavones, also called phytoestrogens.

Isoflavones are goitrogenic: they depress the functioning of the thyroid. Less than two glasses of soy milk, two servings of tofu, or a handful of roasted soy nuts per day can depress thyroid function in women. If you're eating soy meat-replacement products and drinking soy milk regularly, you may be at risk for depressing thyroid function.

Depressed thyroid function has a whole host of nasty consequences, including, in severe cases, mimicking Alzheimer's disease. It can also cause heart problems--the very thing that isoflavones are said to prevent. In fact,

no study has ever offered direct proof that soy can prevent heart disease and in most of the major studies in which cholesterol levels were lowered through either diet or drugs, a greater number of deaths occurred in the treatment groups than in controls, deaths from stroke, cancer, intestinal disorders, accidents and suicide.

Because phytoestrogens act like estrogen on the body, some researchers suggest that soy-based infant formula may account for the alarming growth in premature physical maturation of girls and deficient male hormone in boys.

There are other harmful substances in soy. One is phytic acid, which blocks the absorption of zinc, which is essential for mental functioning. Soy also blocks absorption of calcium and vitamin D, necessary for good bone health. Yet some soy proponents claim that soy helps prevent osteoporosis!

Enzyme inhibitors present in soy interfere with digestion and block the breakdown of protein. This probably accounts for the digestive problems and allergic reactions many people have to soy products.

Soy also contains hemagglutinin, which causes red blood cells to clump together and can cause blood clots. I wish I'd known this back when I was eating soy--I have suffered from blood clots, and it would have been prudent to avoid soy products.

All these and more occur naturally in soybeans. I haven't even talked about the processing of soy into its various forms, from oil to TVP. These processes are meant to get the toxins out of soy, but they're not fully successful. And the processes themselves have some nefarious effects: depending on the end product, aluminum is leached into the final product; high-temperature processing denatures the protein in the soy, so that, for example, lysine has to be added to soy-based cattle feed; nitrites, which are carcinogens, are produced. With soybean oil, hexane is used as a solvent, and some remains in the finished product. High temperatures and other steps in the process form free radicals, which, as we all know by now, are carcinogenic.

But haven't Asians eaten soybeans for thousands of years? Yes and no. Sally Fallon and Mary Enig write:

During the Chou Dynasty (1134 - 246 BC) the soybean was designated one of the five sacred grains, along with barley, wheat, millet and rice. However, the pictograph for the soybean, which dates from earlier times, indicates that it was not first used as a food; for whereas the pictographs for the other four grains show the seed and stem structure of the plant, the pictograph for the soybean emphasizes the root structure. Agricultural literature of the period speaks frequently of the soybean and its use in crop rotation. Apparently the soy plant was initially used as a method of fixing nitrogen.³ soybean did not serve as a food until the discovery of fermentation techniques, sometime during the Chou Dynasty. Thus the first soy foods were fermented products like tempeh, natto, miso and shoyu (soy or tamari sauce). At a later date, possibly in the 2nd century B.C., Chinese scientists discovered that a puree of cooked soybeans could be precipitated with calcium sulfate or magnesium sulfate (plaster of Paris or Epsom salts) to make a smooth pale curd - tofu or bean curd. . . . The increased reliance on bean curd as a source of protein, which occurred between 700 A.D. and the present time, has not necessarily been a beneficial change for the populations of the Orient and Southeast Asia.

Fermented soybeans don't contain the toxins and other harmful components of raw or cooked beans. And it should be remembered that the typical Chinese or Japanese diet utilizes fermented soybeans, as well as tofu, as condiments and flavorings, for the most part. When tofu is consumed along with meat or fish, the mineral-blocking properties of soy are reduced, and that is how it is generally consumed in Asia.

Don't take my word for any of this: look into it for yourself. I have never made a secret of the fact that I view the food industry with wariness and distrust, so I'll admit to having a very strong bias against industry claims. The food industry is driven by one thing and one thing only: profits. Here are some links--including to a couple of pro-soy articles--to check out (including the ones in this post); they contain numerous references to scientific studies: 

 Soy: The Dark Side of America's Favorite Health Food

The Ploy of Soy

Tragedy and Hype: The Third International Soy Symposium

Newest Research on Why You Should Avoid Soy

Soy Online Service

Soy Industry on the Attack

Dangers of Dietary Isoflavones at Levels Above Those Found in Traditional Diets

What About Soy? (pro-soy)

A Sensible Part of Your Diet (pro-soy)

Soy Politics

 

Michael Pollan's new rule

Michael Pollan has found a need to update his rules. The minimalist  set of rules: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." The expanded set includes such things as "don't eat anything your great-grandmother wouldn't recognize as food" and "don't eat anything with more than five ingredients on the label."

Pollan is an advocate for un-processed food, and one of the markers he used to identify highly processed foods was high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). This is not something the home cook can add to a recipe. It's manufactured using highly technical processes, and thus, when it appears on a food label, serves as a warning that the product has undergone intensive processing in a manufacturing plant.

But now that HFCS has been identified as a no-no, food companies are going back to sugar. Yet sugar is not a health food and is not particularly desirable. As Pollan says,

But to boast about your product not having high-fructose corn syrup as being some kind of virtue is really stretching it. And I think what we see here is another example of the food industry’s ingenuity in taking any critique of industrial food and turning it into the next marketing strategy. It’s a lot like the low-fat campaign, you know, which began as a government critique of food, you know, beginning with George McGovern in the ’70s saying we should eat less red meat because of heart disease. Whatever you think of the science of that, which turns out not to have been that good, it was a well-meaning campaign to improve the American diet. Industry came back and re-engineered the whole food system to have less fat in it and no fat in it. And that campaign sold a lot more food. And, in fact, since that campaign, we’ve been eating about 300 more calories a day, and we’re a lot fatter. So, you can’t—you just can’t underestimate their ability turn any critique into a way to sell food.

Too true.

As a result, Pollan has formulated a new rule: "Don't buy any food you've ever seen advertised":

And with all this new marketing based on these ideas, my new suggestion is, if you want to avoid all this, simply don’t buy any food you’ve ever seen advertised. Ninety-four percent of ad budgets for food go to processed food. I mean, the broccoli growers don’t have money for ad budgets. So the real food is not being advertised. And that’s really all you need to know.

Amen.

How does your soy product brand rate?

Okay, I had a longer post on this topic about half finished when the browser just stopped working. I can't bring myself to rewrite the whole thing.

The gist of it is that the Cornucopia Institute has issued a report detailing the practices and sourcing of various companies that produce and market soy products, such as soy milk, cheese alternatives, tempeh, soy sausages, and so on. The Institute has issued a ratings scorecard that shows you at a glance how your brand rates according to ten criteria, ranging from the source of the soybeans (most of us really don't want to eat anything that comes from China) and whether they're tested for GMO contamination to whether any soy lecithin in the product was extracted using hexane (hexane is a neurotoxin and a hazardous pollutant, yet it is commonly used in so-called "organic" foods).

You should consult the ratings scorecard for yourself, but I'll summarize briefly here.

The top-rated companies, which scored 5 out of 5 "beans" (instead of stars), were Eden Foods, Unisoya, Vermont Soy, Small Planet, FarmSoy, Twin Oaks, and Green Cuisine.

Some well-known soy companies, including Vitasoy and Nasoya, garnered only one bean. And in the zero bean category ... well, say goodbye to Boca Burgers, Gardenburger, Pacific Foods, Silk (a good rule of thumb is "If it's made by Dean foods, don't eat it"), and Soy Dream. These companies rated low for various reasons, but one of the main reasons is that they wouldn't disclose their sourcing. That, to me, indicates that they may be using soybeans imported from China. It is highly doubtful that China is following the organic standards defined by the USDA.

If you can't read the entire report--and you really should, if you ingest a lot of soy products--at least read the executive summary. 

You may not care about some of the criteria used by Cornucopia, such as whether the soybeans were procured from a family farm or a publicly-held corporation, while other criteria may seem more crucial to you. For that reason you owe it to yourself to read the full report's list of criteria. And I urge you to read the section on hexane. It's certainly nothing I want to ingest, yet it's used as a solvent to extract oils from various seeds and from soybeans (thus, it's probably left as a residue in soybean oil, and is most certainly a residue in many soy products).

I'm going to add that I myself am suspicious of soy generally, except for fermented soybeans. It's one of the reasons I quit being a vegetarian; too much of what I substituted for animal products was soy, with the exception of tofu (which is fermented, of course), which I didn't (and don't) like! Soy contains enzyme inhibitors that block the action of certain digestive enzymes. According to Sally Fallon and Mary Enig,

These inhibitors are large, tightly folded proteins that are not completely deactivated during ordinary cooking. They can produce serious gastric distress, reduced protein digestion and chronic deficiencies in amino acid uptake. In test animals, diets high in trypsin inhibitors cause enlargement and pathological conditions of the pancreas, including cancer.14

Soybeans also contain haemagglutinin, a clot-promoting substance that causes red blood cells to clump together.

Trypsin inhibitors and haemagglutinin are growth inhibitors. Weanling rats fed soy containing these antinutrients fail to grow normally. Growth-depressant compounds are deactivated during the process of fermentation, so once the Chinese discovered how to ferment the soybean, they began to incorporate soy foods into their diets.

There are other problems with soy as well, and while fermenting the beans eliminates most of the problems, it may not eliminate all of them.

So, as in all things related to food, choose wisely! The soy scorecard ought to help you make an ethical, healthy choice if you decide to keep soy products in your pantry.