Miso and shoyu are both soybean-derived products used for flavoring other foods. Miso is the paste form, while shoyu is the liquid form. Both originate from soybeans. Both are produced through a fermentation process involving a fungus called Kojikin and salt. Both are used as condiments and flavor-enhancement agents added to other foods rather than consumed on their own.

From the standpoint of the Primal Diet, Aajonus placed both miso and shoyu in the category of anti-healthy products, meaning they actively work against optimal health rather than being neutral or beneficial. This classification is not casual; it is rooted in the specific biochemical problems inherent in soybeans themselves, the problematic role of salt in the fermentation process, the industrial rather than traditional origins of how these products are actually made, and the absence of the specific enzymatic conditions that would be required to make soy products safe for human consumption.

Aajonus treated these not as borderline cases that might be acceptable in small amounts or in special circumstances, but as products that, as long as salt is used in their production, which is always the case commercially, are definitively anti-healthy for people seeking optimal health. He stated this conclusion explicitly and without qualification.

---

The foundation of Aajonus's position on miso and shoyu begins with soybeans themselves, which he identified as containing a specific poison that certain species cannot neutralize. He described the situation in precise biological terms:

• Humans cannot neutralize soybean poison. The poison in soybeans is something that humans lack the enzymatic capacity to detoxify.
• Fowl cannot neutralize soybean poison. Birds also lack this capacity.
• Herbivores can neutralize soybean poison. Grazing animals such as cows and goats possess the enzymatic machinery to handle soybean poison, which is why soy is sometimes used in large-scale industrial animal feed, but only sometimes, and even then with significant limitations.

Aajonus made the point that even true vegetarian animal herbivores cannot eat soy without getting sick, and that no herbivore will eat soy in any significant quantity. He cited this as evidence that the soybean's problematic compounds are recognized even by the biology of animals designed to process plant matter. He said: "An herbivore will not eat it in any quantity, even a goat, because there are enzymes which absolutely stop digestion, protein inhibitors, enzyme inhibitors."

Aajonus directed people seeking detailed information on soy's documented biochemical problems to the Price-Pottenger Foundation website (www.pricepottinger.com), specifically citing Dr. Mary Enig and Sally Fallon's research, which can be found under "soy ploy" on that site.

Aajonus explicitly identified that soybeans contain protein inhibitors and enzyme inhibitors, compounds that actively block the digestion process. These inhibitors prevent enzymes from doing their work and prevent protein breakdown, meaning that the nutritional value of soy cannot even be accessed by the human body, and worse, the presence of these inhibitors actively disrupts the body's digestive function.

Because humans and fowl cannot digest raw soybeans, both because of the poison and because of the enzyme inhibitors, fermentation was developed as an attempt to pre-digest soy in a way that would make it edible. The organism used for this fermentation is Kojikin fungus. Aajonus drew an analogy between this process and the way bacteria pre-digest milk in the fermentation of dairy products. The fungus is supposed to break down the soybean in a way that accomplishes what the human digestive system cannot.

However, Aajonus identified a critical flaw in this fermentation strategy: salt is used alongside the Kojikin fungus, and the salt disrupts and partially destroys the fermentation process itself. He explained that if you are going to make a fermented or "rotten" food, it must be raw fermentation, and the use of salt undermines that.

Salt serves two functions in the production of miso and shoyu: 1. It is used specifically to destroy the poisons in soybeans. 2. It acts as a flavoring agent.

But Aajonus explained that salt is both cheap and toxic. While salt can chemically neutralize or destroy the soybean poison, it does so at a cost, the salt itself becomes a toxic load on the body. Furthermore, the salt "kind of wrecks some of the fermentation," meaning that even the pre-digestion benefit of the Kojikin fungus fermentation is compromised by the presence of salt. The fermentation is never complete or truly effective because of this interference.

Aajonus specifically singled out shoyu (soy sauce) as being "extremely high in salt." This is relevant because salt accumulation in the body is something he wrote extensively about as a negative health factor. In the context of soy sauce usage, where the product is already made from an inherently toxic base ingredient, the additional burden of an extreme salt concentration compounds the anti-health effects.

He stated directly in a Q&A response: "There is lots of salt in soy sauce, plus soy is toxic and promotes cancer."

Aajonus made the explicit claim that soy is toxic and promotes cancer. This is a categorical statement, not a hedged or probabilistic one. He did not elaborate on the specific mechanism in the passages available, but framed it as an established conclusion within his system.

He did address existing research that claimed to show the opposite, that miso and shoyu prevent certain forms of cancer, and systematically dismantled this claim (see the Historical & Political Context section below).

Aajonus outlined the specific condition that would theoretically make miso and shoyu acceptable:

This means that instead of using salt to destroy the soybean poison, the fermentation would need to use herbivore-derived enzymes, the same enzymes that allow goats, cows, and other herbivores to safely process soy. These enzymes would accomplish what salt does (neutralizing the poison) without introducing the toxic burden of salt.

However, Aajonus immediately noted the practical barrier to this approach:

So in commercial reality, this enzymatic fermentation is never done. Salt is used instead because it is cheap, flavorful, and familiar, even though it is toxic.

Aajonus connected salt to adrenal exhaustion. He noted that the only circumstance in which he had ever recommended salt at all was for people with true adrenal exhaustion, and even then, only "a few grains of salt weekly for several months to several years." He described true adrenal exhaustion as a condition so severe that the person cannot get out of bed or off the couch. For people with this condition, he acknowledged a limited and extremely minimal salt recommendation. But for everyone else seeking optimal health, the high salt content of miso and shoyu represents an anti-healthy burden.

---

Miso is the paste form of the fermented soybean product. It is used to flavor other foods by incorporating the paste into preparations. The fermentation involves Kojikin fungus and salt. As described above, the salt interferes with the fermentation process. The fermentation of miso is not raw fermentation in the way Aajonus would consider truly beneficial.

Aajonus stated: "Miso is, again, almost all salt, meaning soy." This characterization, "almost all salt", suggests that in his view, the dominant biochemical reality of miso, from a health-impact perspective, is its salt content, with the soy being a secondary but equally problematic concern.

Shoyu is the liquid form of the fermented soybean product and is used as a sauce. It is "extremely high in salt" as Aajonus specifically noted, making it even more concentrated in its salt content than miso. The liquid form is used directly as a condiment, often poured over or added to raw fish preparations such as sashimi and sushi.

Aajonus made clear that the issue with both forms is not simply that they are fermented soy, but that the commercial preparation method always involves salt, always involves non-raw processing conditions, and never involves the herbivore-derived enzymes that would theoretically make soy safe. There is no commercially available version of miso or shoyu that meets the standard he described as potentially acceptable.

He further noted that the fermentation itself is not raw fermentation: "they don't ferment the soy, they don't ferment any of that raw." The fermentation process for miso and shoyu is not conducted under conditions that Aajonus would classify as truly raw or truly beneficial.

In explaining what proper fermentation of grains or similar difficult foods would look like, Aajonus provided a comparison that illuminates why miso and shoyu fermentation falls short:

He went further to describe what proper grain germination looks like: "You need to germinate the grains until they mold in the germination process. Keep them wet. Not completely covered, but keep them wet so you see this white mold start growing, and then when the blacks and the other molds start growing, you know there are different stages."

The implication for soy is that even if soy were to be fermented in a way that might help, it would need to go through this kind of raw, wet, multi-stage mold-based germination, not the cooked, salt-preserved process used in commercial miso and shoyu production.

---

Aajonus addressed the situation of a person (John from Los Angeles) who was buying miso and shoyu from a "club coop", a health food cooperative, under the assumption that because these products were fermented and available at a health-conscious store, they were acceptable. Aajonus made clear that the source of purchase, a health food co-op rather than a conventional supermarket, makes no difference to the biochemical reality of the product. Miso and shoyu from a health food store are still made with salt, still made from soybeans with their inherent poisons and enzyme inhibitors, and still do not utilize herbivore enzymes in the fermentation process.

The person asking the question justified consumption partly because the products were "fermented and not raw." Aajonus's response demonstrates that he does not consider the fermented-and-not-raw designation to be a positive quality in this case. The fermentation being non-raw is actually part of the problem, not a mitigating factor.

Given that: 1. Commercial miso and shoyu are always made with salt 2. Salt is toxic 3. Salt partially destroys the fermentation 4. Herbivore enzymes are never used in commercial production 5. Soy contains protein inhibitors and enzyme inhibitors 6. The poison in soy is not neutralized without herbivore enzymes (since salt destroys the poison but at the cost of introducing its own toxicity)

...there is no commercially available version of miso or shoyu that Aajonus would recommend. The preparation method that would theoretically produce an acceptable product does not exist in the commercial marketplace.

---

There is no pairing described in the sources that would make miso or shoyu acceptable or safe for consumption. Aajonus did not describe any fat buffer, complementary food, or combination protocol that would offset the harms of miso or shoyu. His conclusion was that they are anti-healthy as long as salt is used in their production, and since salt is always used, they are always anti-healthy.

The question asked specifically: "Are they okay for me to use with my raw meats?" This framing, using miso or shoyu as a condiment with raw meat, is the actual usage context in which these products are typically consumed. Aajonus's response did not give a qualified yes with conditions; it was a categorical rejection of the products.

Instead of directing people toward pairings that would make miso and shoyu work, Aajonus directed them toward his alternative: the 82 sauce recipes he created in his recipe book, each of which can be made 3–5 different ways, and none of which involve salt, cooked fermented soy, or any of the problematic compounds found in miso and shoyu.

---

There is no safe dose of miso or shoyu described in Aajonus's system. The characterization is that they are "anti-healthy" categorically, not in a dose-dependent way. The conclusion is based on the structural properties of these products, their salt content, their soy base, the poison in soybeans, the enzyme inhibitors, and the absence of herbivore enzymes in fermentation, not on a quantity threshold.

The person who reported using "a little soy sauce" was still told this was problematic. The framing "a little" did not provide any mitigation in Aajonus's response.

---

Rather than providing a way to use miso or shoyu acceptably, Aajonus directed people entirely toward his alternative sauce-making system. He described this system in specific terms:

This means there are potentially 246 to 410 distinct sauce variations available from his recipe book, all raw, all without salt, all without cooked fermented soy, to replace any culinary role that miso or shoyu might otherwise fill.

Aajonus also described a demonstration of this sauce system's quality: he made a bet with a famous chef at a famous restaurant in Santa Monica that he could take any sauce the chef made and produce a raw version that would be better, and that the chef would receive more compliments on his food than he ever had before. He took the chef's recipes and made raw versions that fulfilled this.

At his recipe demonstrations referenced in workshop settings, participants experienced raw sauce preparations including horseradish mustard sauce, chicken ceviche, and fish ceviche, all prepared without miso or shoyu, and described as tasting "very good."

The instruction to a person struggling with bland raw meat was explicit: "I gave you recipes to make condiments to enjoy raw", with no acknowledgment that miso or shoyu could serve even as a temporary substitute during the transition.

---

Aajonus addressed the existence of studies and reports suggesting that both miso and shoyu have anti-cancer properties. He did not simply dismiss these reports but instead analyzed their methodology in detail:

This is a critical methodological critique: the researchers attributed anti-cancer effects to the miso and shoyu when in fact the human subjects were also consuming large amounts of raw fish (sashimi and sushi). Raw fish, in Aajonus's framework, is a highly beneficial food with substantial protective and healing properties. The confounding variable of raw fish consumption was not controlled for in these studies, meaning the anti-cancer attribution to miso and shoyu is scientifically invalid on its face.

Aajonus went further in his critique, addressing the laboratory animal component of the pro-soy cancer research:

This is a dual critique: first, that the cancer-induction methods used in the animal studies were methodologically suspect (meaning the cancer being tested was artificially induced in a way that may not reflect real-world cancer development); and second, that the research was funded by soy product producers, a fundamental conflict of interest that compromises the integrity and objectivity of the research findings.

A common cultural argument for soy's safety is the claim that Japanese people have thrived on soy consumption. Aajonus addressed this directly and dismantled it:

And more critically:

This historical reframing is significant: Aajonus argued that the modern Western perception of Japanese soy consumption, including tofu as a traditional staple, is a myth created by industrialization and marketing. Traditional Japanese soy consumption was limited to small amounts of soy sauce, not the substantial quantities of tofu and other soy products that are now marketed as traditional. The industrialization of soy consumption in Japan is a modern phenomenon, not ancient wisdom, and tofu represents the commercialization of soy rather than traditional use.

Furthermore, even the limited traditional use of soy sauce in Japan does not, in Aajonus's assessment, constitute evidence of health benefit, it simply represents the least harmful form of an inherently problematic food category, consumed in the smallest quantities.

In workshop discussions, Aajonus situated soy within a broader pattern of commercially motivated food promotion. He described soy as being promoted because it is "high in protein, easy to grow, and great marketing", not because of genuine health benefit. The marketing of soy as health food, the funding of pro-soy research by soy producers, and the transformation of limited traditional usage into a broad modern health narrative are all part of this pattern.

---