Phytic acid, which is found in grains and seeds, has a higher affinity for heavy metals than it does beneficial nutrients. The other half of the phytic acid myth is that it robs the body of nutrients. If we think about it the phytic acid will already be bound with minerals the plant picked up from the soil. So let's say it is already bound to calcium, but it has a higher affinity for mercury. So how does it bind to the mercury if it is already bound to the calcium? There is only one way. It would have to release what it is bound to in order exchange it for something it has a higher affinity for. Put simply it is not robbing the body of minerals as some people claim.

It should also be noted that phytic acid is sold as a great anti-cancer agent called inositol hexaphosphate (IP6).

So being that phytic acid is found in so many of the foods we eat why is it that the Weston Price Foundation is only targeting soy? Sure looks like they have a clear anti-soy at any cost agenda to me. In fact looking at their site I see the foods they really promote are beef and dairy, industries that are financially threatened by the popularity of soy. Ironically the few plants they promote as being good such as nettle and cabbage (sauerkraut) are phytoestrogen sources!!! Maybe we should follow the Weston Price Foundation money trail back to see what their financial interest is in bashing soy so we know why they have this strong anti-soy agenda.

Trypsin inhibitors are also found in a variety of plant and animal sources including beans, egg whites and human colostrum. So does the Weston Price Foundation also advocate not breast feeding since human colostrum contains trypsin inhibitors?

And why do they fail to mention the fact that trypsin inhibitors can be inactivated by fermentation, cooking and even stomach acid? Again this makes it look like they have an anti-soy agenda so strong that they will lie or mislead the public to make their point.

In addition the studies showing adverse effects of trypsin inhibitors were in animals such as rats, mice, hamsters, guinea pigs and chicks, not humans. In these animals the trypsin inhibitors caused problems. But when tested on dogs, calves and pigs there were no adverse effects. Keep in mind that pigs have systems very similar to humans.

These myths have been disproven so many times. I address the fertility issue here:

As for the myth that soy promotes breast cancer:

And why is it that most of the herbs used to treat cancer are phytoestrogen sources? Simple, because they DO NOT raise estrogen levels, they antagonize the stronger estrogens.

Again very misleading. first of all the goitergens are inactivated by cooking and fermentation. And again it is ironic that they bash soy for having goitrogenic glucosiniolates. But at the same time they promote sauerkraut that is made from cabbage that contains a goitrogenic glucosinolate called sinigrin. I cover their deception more here:

As for their claim that soy increases the risk of thyroid cancer the studies say differently:

As for their claim of increased thyroid autoimmunity I could find no studies verifying this claim. 

Again misleading. If you want true B12 you have to look at meats such as beef. The B12 found in plants are analogues. But there is no proof that they deplete B12 from the body. To the contrary the fibers in plants feed the intestinal flora that in turn produce B12 for the body such as Lactobacillus reuteri .

Another misleading comment. The only study I could find on this showed a case of a vitamin D deficiency in an individual infant receiving soy milk not fortified with vitamin D. The problem was not that the soy was depleting vitamin D from the infant, but rather the soy milk was low in vitamin D to begin with. Being that most soy milk is fortified with vitamin D and most adults also get vitamin D from other sources such as the sun, fish oils and plants this is not really an issue. So the only reason for their false claim would be to mislead the public. 

Heating of any protein source, such as the beef they promote, can denature the proteins. Or do they eat their fish and beef raw?

If lysinoalanine( LAL) is so toxic then why is is a normal component of our body's tissues?:

To claim LAL is toxic in humans just because it is toxic to rats is just outright misleading. Using the same principle we could claim that chocolate is deadly to humans since it will kill a dog. Apparently the Weston Price Foundation has not figured out how to differentiate between rodents and humans. 

If LAL was toxic to humans then they ought to avoid meats as well since LAL can form from the heating of proteins.

As for nitrosamines, they can also form when meats are cooked, and can be found in dairy products as well. Yet the Weston Price Foundation promotes both meats and dairy.

Actually they should have said glutamate, which is also found in the meats and cheeses they advocate eating. You might find this list of glutamic acid levels interesting since the foods they advocate eating are higher in it than soy:

All plants contain aluminum. Being so common in the Earth's crust it would be impossible for the plants to not pick it up. Then cattle eat these plants picking up the aluminum that ends up in the milk and beef they recommend consuming:

So all the claims they made about soy were either misleading or outright lies. How do you consider this "good" information? In my opinion this shows the Weston Price Foundation completely lacks credibility.