I have noticed that those who argue that the world is about to end tend to show a remarkable lack of common sense in their approach. For example, the environmentalists who argue that we are right on the verge of a "runaway greenhouse crisis", completely ignoring (when they don't obscure) the fact that it was warmer int he past yet the world did not degenerate into a raging inferno. Or those who worry about the loss of ozone, yet ignore the fact that were we to lose over half of the ozone at mid-range latitudes, it would be equivalent to moving to an equatorial land, which is hardly fatal for most people. (A 1% reduction of ozone increases skin cancer at a rate equivalent to a 12 mile southward shift.)

However, two of the funniest scares have to be those relating to estrogen.First comes the fear of those who saw the use of DES to encourage growth in cattle as a threat to human life. They even managed to make enough of a fuss to get the government to regulate the use of DES, even though it left traces of only a few parts per billion in the meat from those cattle. The second group has had less success with the government, though they have managed to scare a fair number. Those are the people pushing the line that increased soy consumption, due to the phytoestrogens in soy, has caused the "feminization" of American males.

What makes these two so amusing? Why the simple lack of common sense!

Let us think about what DES is. It is estrogen. Identical to the estrogen that occurs naturally in female (and in lesser amounts in male) cattle. What makes it especially amusing is that DES was present in cattle in amounts far less than naturally occurring estrogen. In other words, eating "safe" beef gave you about 90% as much estrogen as eating beef that had been grown using DES. But, somehow, the environmental fear mongers were convinced that extra 10% or less was going to bring about the destruction of humanity. (Some studies put it as high as 20-30%, but I have yet to see anyone claim DES added even half the estrogen levels, making the lurid scare headlines seem all the more absurd, even with the most generous estimates. It is akin to accusing sprinkles of adding "a lethal dose of sugar" to ice cream. The estrogen was already present, and present in amounts greater than DES added. The amount contributed by DES could hardly cause a "crisis".)

Of course, that estrogen was "synthetic", so some argued it was "different" than "natural" estrogen, but the truth is it was not. Estrogen is estrogen, and whether synthesized or not, it performs the same functions. (Yes, there may be some differences in structure between various forms of synthetic and natural, but in general most synthetic chemicals are essentially identical to "natural" chemicals. In many cases, such as ammonia, they are absolutely identical, whether derived from synthesis or from animal urine. However, many environmentalists argue for a difference even when one cannot distinguish at all between "natural" and "synthetic" chemicals, which makes absolutely no sense.)

Similarly, the phytoestrogen fear mongers avoid an obvious counterargument. While fearing phytoestrogens (which are less easily used by the human body), they make no comment on the estrogen obtained from meat. In fact, one of the more prominent anti-soy sites is run by New Zealand beef growers. Considering that those who eat a lot of soy usually eat much less meat, and vie versa, it seems that the worry is not that phytoestrogen will be added to the beef estrogen to produce too high a dose, but that somehow phytoestrogen is dangerous while estrogen itself is not. Though, if you thought about ti a bit, it would seem estrogen, which performs an explicitly feminizing function in animal biology, would be better at feminizing animals than phytoestrogens, which are plant products which just happen to have a structure similar to estrogen and thus perform a somewhat similar function.

Then again, when has common sense ever stood in the way of a good doomsday myth?

POSTSCRIPT

I know the phytoestrogen "soy turns you gay" story was picked up by some conservatives who bought into it because they found something pleasing in the idea that liberal vegetarians were being turned gay by their diet, but that does not make the pseudo-science any better. If phytoestrogen can feminize men, then estrogen present in animals certainly could as well, meaning those fearing soy-based homosexuality should certainly adopt a vegan diet as soon as possible. However, I doubt they will be any more consistent in applying this rule than the DES scaremongers were in applying common sense to their beliefs.

I suppose in one way it is comforting to know that humans are alike enough that both liberals and conservatives are prey to the same sort of pseudo-science. On the other hand, I would hope that those pressing for smaller government and rational approaches to governing would be a bit more skeptical, even when they find the conclusions to their liking.

POSTSCRIPT II

An interesting example of the relative density of estrogen in treated and untreated beef can be found on this site. Though I note even this site tries to overplay the amount of "estrogen activity" in soy by using "soybean oil", which effectively concentrates the phytoestrogens, compared to beef, which contains a large amount of non-estrogen bearing tissue. A comparison of whole soybeans or tofu would produce much lower level of estrogen in soy.

It seems every group who addresses this issue tries to push it to their own advantage by maligning the other side. Wouldn't we all be a bit better off if we said "maybe there really isn't anything to be afraid of in soy or beef"? But instead, we have vegetarians and cattlemen (not to mention liability lawyers, environmentalists, and a few conservative pundits ranting about gay-friendly tofurkey) trying their hardest to turn the chicken littles against one another, resulting in an endless stream of stories about how the sky is falling yet again.