Interesting. It is also good to note, too, that there has been some debate as to whether casein (a milk protein) is implicated in aggravating cancer cells. The same arguments have been made about animal proteins in general. Then again, anything that encourages the division of healthy cells (a glut of calories, protein) is apt to encourage the same in cancer cells. And that may be the issue; we all produce abnormal cells at some rate, but a healthy immune system (NK cells in particular) can remove small numbers of them, keeping them in check. With advancing age, the number of NK cells and other immune activity is severely decreased, which decreases the body's ability to keep up with the advancing rate of abnormal cell line genesis.
The paper does point out that, since these hormones are fat-soluble, their concentration in skim products is still low.
The article does not compare the estrogen found in conventionally farmed milk and those found in processed soy products. I feel the article is just stating what most of us already know about non organic milk products.
Nothing at all is exagerated pertaining to soy. Numerous studies by many different fraternities, those who specialize in nutrition as well as bio chemists over 50 years ago who used soy, calabar beans, yams... These veg. sources are have been used to synthesize hormones that the human body recognizes as endogenous. Everything from synthetic cortozone to the birth control pill stems fro soy and others.
What's surprising is that only recently any of this gets the play. Soy's only usefull in small amounts.
Even oriental cultures use it in small amounts compared to health enthusiasts have in the west.
I think anyone who avoids soy because of the presence of a hormonal mimic falls solidly in the "health nut" category. What the article suggests is that doing so is jumping out of the pan info the fire - that the solution is orders of magnitude worse than the problem.