After discussing the requirements for alleging an Eighth Amendment violation, including that a plaintiff “must . . . show that society has chosen not to tolerate the risk at issue, ” the court found that “the alleged risks posed by consuming a soy-rich diet do not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation.” Id. at *4; see also Catlin v. McNeil, No. 4:11-cv-624-WS-GRJ, 2012 WL 662296, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2012) (rejecting general challenge to inclusion of soy in prison meals) (citing cases). The Court agrees with the analysis in these cases.