Sally Fallon Morell giving a talk at the University of Massachusetts in 2010.
One of Sally Fallon-Morell’s major accomplishments since forming the Weston A. Price Foundation in 1999 has been to establish a vibrant world-wide network of local chapters, nearly 600 strong, in the U.S. and as far away as South Africa and New Zealand. The chapters organize food clubs, provide recommendations to local farms and health care providers, recruit new members, and bring in food experts as speakers (I’ve spoken at WAPF chapters in California, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire.)
Each chapter is headed by a chapter leader, usually a person already committed to the Weston A. Price food and nutrition philosophy, who organizes the chapter in his or her own area. At the national conference, like the upcoming one in Anaheim, CA (Nov. 13-16), local chapter leaders meet the day before the four-day conference begins.
Dave Wetzel of Green Pasture provides information at his company’s exhibit booth on how chapter leaders can distribute FCLO to their members, such as by selling it themselves or directing members to order directly from Green Pasture, at a discount.
Not surprisingly, the ongoing controversy about whether FCLO might be rancid and causing ill effects for some users is creating tension among the chapter leaders. Yesterday, the WAPF sought to put an end to any debate about the safety of FCLO by warning chapter leaders: toe the line on FCLO, or you’ll join naturopath and long-time WAPF member and exhibitor Ron Schmid in being unceremoniously booted out.
In an email to chapter leaders yesterday, under the heading “The Cod Liver Oil Controversy”, the WAPF pointed chapter leaders to its Q&A on the controversy, and added:
“What we do not allow is criticism of competing brands. It is fine to say ‘I find this brand works best for me,’ or ‘My children like this brand the best.’ What we do not allow is negative comments about products we recommend. This is our policy at conferences as well. Exhibitors are not allowed to criticize competing products, only talk about the good things in their products.
“If you feel there is some reason we should not recommend a product in our shopping guide or elsewhere, please bring your concerns to the staff—rather than posting comments online–and we will look into it.
“For those of you who sell products through your personal websites, please check to make sure these guidelines are being followed. If you feel that you cannot comply, then we will reluctantly ask you to step down as a chapter leader.”
The WAPF also signaled in the email that the organization’s cozy business relationship with Green Pasture will continue. “Many of you organize bulk orders of cod liver oil for your group, or even sell it on your websites. As a chapter leader, you may sell or arrange orders of any of our recommended brands.”
When you go to the WAPF web page I linked to in the previous sentence, with the recommended brands, you find there is only one on the page with yet another link to a Weston A. Price page….you guessed it—Green Pasture. The page, from 2010, lists about 60 chapter leaders who sell Green Pasture fermented cod liver oil.
Not surprisingly, many WAPF chapter leaders weren’t pleased with the email warning about not voicing concerns about FCLO. In a number of posts on Facebook, they expressed their doubts and displeasure. (I am not quoting them by name, or indicating which Facebook pages the comments came from, to protect their identities.)
I hate that WAPF is so dogmatic about things, but I have learned a lot. I’m going to the conference in November, primarily because the last time I went I learned a whole lot and really enjoyed the food (and the deals on products). But I don’t agree with everything they do and I’m hesitant now to be associated with them as a chapter leader.
I will never be a blind follower of anything, and was raised to question everything, but I am not sure there is room for that within WAPF, which is a true disappointment since I always thought they were kinda rebellious.
Basically the typical Chapter Leader e-mail went out today…. except this one addresses the controversy and in essence told us that we can recommend any product they endorse, we can organize group ordering of those things they endorse, but we are not allowed to discuss a product they endorse in a negative light, that discussing this controversy in public/internet land is not allowed and that we should address our concerns directly to them, and if we feel the need to then we should consider resigning our position as Chapter Leader. This gives me many mixed emotions……
Not that I would agree with everything any organization does anyway, but the leadership has gotten shaky here lately….I’ve found that even rebels want people to agree with them…and some people just can’t “agree to disagree” for the sake of peace. I think SF is one of those people, unfortunately.
I never minded it before this situation, and was actually happy to mention it and teach people about WAPF. Now I am seriously considering stepping down, especially after this last development.
Ugh, I’m not a fan of WAPF’s shut up or get kicked out policy. We should be allowed and encouraged to be free thinkers and to do our own research.
The same kind of dissent is showing up on the chapter leader list serve. As Karen points out in a comment following my most recent post, the chapter leader listserve, searchable on onibasu.com, has discontinued showing the WAPF chapter leaders’ Yahoo group. Until last week, anyone could search out comments on it. (I tried to access it once last week briefly, and was unable to call up the most recent comments.)
In one comment made available to me, a chapter leader said yesterday on the list serve, “I have been a member of the WAPF for about 10 years now, and a chapter leader for 4 years. While I think this is an organization that can be very beneficial in spreading the message of nutrient-dense diets and natural health, I have also at times felt like the position of the WAPF can become somewhat dogmatic and unquestionable, as if people aren’t willing to even consider anything that conflicts with the official position of the WAPF. I think that is very unfortunate, as not being willing to consider new information and data can halt progress and prevent growth.”
To which Sally Fallon-Morell replied, “Of course we are willing to consider lots of opinions, and we have 4 brands of cod liver oil in the best category. What we don’t tolerate is the smearing of products with lies (fermented cod liver oil is NOT rancid) and the attempt to put a good company with a good product out of business–yes, people have come to me and suggest we do that! Many of us have wonderful results with the product-just because it has not worked for you does not give you the right to disseminate untruths. The people who are not willing to consider new information and new data are the people who are smearing Green Pasture– there is not a single mention of our test results in Kaayla’s report and she knew about them because I shared them with her.”
Such dissent is even prompting calls for strict action by WAPF to silence the dissenters. In one comment on the list serve today, a WAPF chapter leader said said she was “wondering if it would not be wise for the Foundation to start being more particular about vetting the chapter leader requests that come in and as well review chapter leaders that are now currently active? – I have personally been dismayed, and at time frankly horrified at the amount of outright disrespect in some of the posts of the recent FLCO controversy from those chapter leaders that are openly and blatantly criticizing not just the FCLO but also the Foundation itself, its stance and mission! Thank God for the patience Sally has had to date, but I nevertheless have to ask why is that being allowed, and hope that there are new guidelines coming up in the future that will never to allow this to happen again!”
So why is there no move toward accommodation by WAPF and Sally Fallon Morell? She says it’s because she wants to do all she can to ensure fermented cod liver oil stays on the market. And why can’t WAPF chapter leaders express concern about fermented cod liver oil? Because no on at WAPF is allowed to say anything negative about any sponsored product, even to recount a negative experience they may have had with the product, as Ron Schmid did. I’ll just say as an aside I’ve been involved in any number of trade shows, and have never heard of any business or organization enforcing such a policy. Exhibitors at trade shows do say negative things about other exhibitors –it’s part of the nature of competition in business. It doesn’t happen a real lot because bad-mouthing the competition isn’t usually considered professional, and generally results mainly in giving the competitor more public exposure. Something’s not making sense in WAPF land.
(Editing note: this post was edited since it was first published; in particular, the third paragraph was adjusted to reflect the fact that Dave Wetzel doesn’t actually address chapter leaders the day before the annual conference, as was reported previously.)
David thank you again and again for hitting the nail on the head. Just one correction….the chapterleaders group archives were removed from a site called onibasu.com. …not omnibus.com.
The archives there have been open to anyone for over a decade so this sudden decision to remove them is extremely odd. I suspect the archives were removed because 1) something fishy is going on WAPF that needs a cover-up or 2) Sandrine whined loudly enough about a comment someone made on your blog referring to her negative thoughts on fclo ( a link to the comment was given via onibasu but of course now no one can see it). Probably some combination of both caused WAPF leadership to suddenly clamp down on what used to be open valuable information.
Thanks, Karen. I corrected that misspelling–I actually had it right, but spell check was adamant, and changed it when I wasn’t looking. And now I know why that link to Sandrine’s negative comment on FCLO no longer works.
In the same email that David mentions, it says: “Please remember that conversations on the chapter leader forum are confidential and should not be reproduced on other boards, blogs, or forums.” Which appears to demonstrate WAPF’s policy to hide information they deem as not fit for the public, and perhaps shows their reason to remove the availability of internet archives of the chapter leaders group.
Honestly, we couldn’t even make up a story like this debacle if we tried. Sometimes real life is more amazingly absurd than fictional stories.
I am saddened by the whole state of affairs at WAPF. I have been an active supporter of our local chapter, and chapter leader, in Madison Wisconsin for some time, and we have a lot of good going on at the local level. However, even locally I can see WAPF corporate policy at play. A WAPF decision this week, about not allowing an expert guest speaker to talk at our chapter in the future, and has caused me to pause and consider if I can continue to support WAPF in any way going forward. Something I am still pondering. If I do drop support, I will continue to point people to Dr. Price’s research, as I believe it is very important information for all to know.
From what I understand some of the discussions in the WAPF chapter leaders group are clearly done in an effort to work out positions. I find nothing concerning about an organization trying to work out certain matters prior to airing them publicly. Don’t most organized groups do this?
What kinds of positions would they not want to let the public hear all sides of? Are you saying that they need to work out their doctrine before indoctrinating their people and that if any layperson heard any kind of contrary information, it could negatively effect the WAPF organization? In what way? It seems to be completely contrary to the position that Sally is trying to present of “Of course we are willing to consider lots of opinions . . . . ” Just as long as the WAPF faithful doesn’t see those opinions. They might actually think for themselves, come to a different conclusion than the WAPF, and . . . what? Start investigating other things? Start showing more personal responsibility in heath and diet decisions made for family? Start questioning other WAPF positions? Stop paying the WAPF membership money?
Dr. Price promoted cod liver oil and butter oil together. He never mentioned “fermented” cod liver oil.
I seem to remember that traditionally it was prepared this way so was ‘fermented’ just not in the term.
The CLO Price studied and approved of was not fermented. And he specifically warned against rancid and over activated oils as harmful.
Nowasto traditional CLO, it depends on whose story you want to believe as to whether fermented clo was the tradition medicinal or low grade lamp oil.
Pete, Price did not study and cod liver oil nor did approve any or say that he wasn’t using traditionally prepared clo. Do your research before you make such statements.
Where ever did you get that idea Carrie? PPnF released a paper and a blog post on Price’s studies of CLO. Near as we can tell, there was no fermented CLO on the market back then.
You seem to remember reading that? Or did you merely hear that? What source? Obviously not Dr. Price’s writings.
The Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation (PPNF) recently wrote an article about the history of cod liver oil. http://blog.ppnf.org/cod-liver-oil-a-historical-perspective/
Here’s a quote from the article which compares the difference between brown and pale cod liver oil:
“The light-brown is only a pale oil which has become old.” In practical terms, this left two types: light or pale oil (usually extracted from fresh livers, using low or no heat) and dark brown oil (from the second pressing or from decomposing livers, or rendered with high heat).
Since PPNF owns all of Dr. Price’s original notes, manuscripts, photos, etc., they were able to search through the archives to find out what type of CLO Dr. Price actually recommended: fresh/pale oil (not fermented).
They also discovered that Dr. Price warned against “solar activated” cod liver oil, because it was so dangerous. Green Pasture’s promoted FCLO as being “solar activated just as Dr. Price did”.
@ThePriceWasRight even more to the point is PPNF free Dr. Price Cod Liver Oil Ebook. It’s on the Price-Pottenger website free when you sign up for their newsletter. The quotes are straight out of Price’s book on what makes good cod liver and butter oil . http://ppnf.org/
Karen, please show me “Price’s book on what makes good cod liver oil and butter oil.” I know of no such publication.
The Price Was Right….you are extracting quotes from an article, yet these are not Price’s words. This came from a document Price had in his files but we have no understanding of why he had this information or what he thought of it. And I would like to know where Price wrote his warning of “solar activated” cod liver oil….can you show me where that if from?
Carrie,
Do you deny these are Price’s own words…
“Exposure for one hour to the noonday summer sun or to a mercury vapor quartz lamp produces a product which is distinctly harmful, and it would be better to use the raw cod-liver oil unactivated than to use this product….I have learned much from experimenting on myself, and one of the early safeguards that came from that source was secured as the result of severe headaches produced by taking cod-liver oil that had been exposed to ultraviolet rays from a mercury quartz vapor lamp for one half hour, even though the dosage was only a few drops.”
http://blog.ppnf.org/cod-liver-oil-a-historical-perspective/
And if so, one what bases do you make this claim?
I’m sure they would say what they said to me about meeting minutes, something like, “This is our policy to promote open dialogue amongst this group.” I feel like if somebody doesn’t want their comments to be public, when they are talking about an organizational matter, they probably shouldn’t say anything. Honestly, it looks more like new policies are being created to hide tyrannical or draconian behavior from the general public. Much easier to ostracize and cast out and not lose large portions of your following when people don’t know any story but the one you give them.
Jim, on the first note: I am the list owner and moderator of the private chapter leaders’ forum. We made the decision to keep our list private exactly for this reason: we did not want some of our *private* discussions made public for various reasons. These emails are not your emails, they are not yours to read. At times we discuss our own personal health issues, and at other times we are hashing out one issue or another amongst ourselves, such as this, and it is not an attempt to “hide information” but to keep these discussions to ourselves. Do you share your family disagreements publicly? Are you and your wife’s private emails public domain? I don’t think so, and it is perfectly fine to have *private* conversations within a group!
As to the state of affairs at WAPF, you do not have the whole story and it is not being reported by Kaayla or anyone else here. You simply do not have all of the facts and until you do, please do not pass judgement. Facts *are* out there, but they are being ignored.
As chapter leaders we are not “blind followers” of Sally’s wishes and dictates. Far from it.
The long-standing policy of one company bashing another is a right one. It simply can not be, and Ron Schmid did not choose to abide by that. We are all sad to see him go, not the least of whom is Sally.
This whole discussion about fclo is totally one-sided. The rebuttals to Kaayla’s report are not being aired on this website or on FB; they are being given nothing but a passing mention. How about looking at the lab results from the German scientist who also analyzed the oil at the request of WAPF? How about Dr. Chris Masterjohn’s critique of Kaayla’s assessment? Let’s be fair and balanced!
I still take my fclo/bo every day and give it to my kids. Not because I am taken in by Sally Fallon Morell and her whims or the whims of WAPF, but because it has made a HUGE difference in our health! But do we take mega-doses? No way! As Ron originally said, “Too much of a good thing isn’t good.”!
Maureen, I agree with everything you are saying here – especially the fact that your family’s health has greatly improved on FCLO. I can say that for our dental health for sure.
I am very suspicious of this – it smells of a corporation preying on small businesses and individuals. Such govt-connected (revolving door from private sector into government) interests could use what is said on WAPF and in private meetings against individuals. Who knows who the posters are even in this very comment section?
Erasing archives is futile.
Sandrine’s comment lives on: https://itmb.co/hhfkw
Light in Dark Corners…….aren’t you clever! Thanks as I’m sure other curious folks are out there.
A nutrient-dense WAPF diet creates a healthy body and mind.
I hope these Chapter Leaders use their excellent minds to fully exercise their right to freedom of speech, their right to dissent and call their leader to the carpet if needed.
Perhaps the new qualification for a chapter leader will require a lobotomy. That way, they will be very tractable little sheeple.
I know a couple of these folks and they are not at all the sheeple type. These chapter leaders are amazing, generous, hard-working, free-thinking women and men who VOLUNTEER countless hours to teach and connect people with good sources of food. They are leaders in their communities. David, I hope they use your blog as a safe way to share their thoughts, pro or con.
And, ahem, Sally, .why are you still saying bad things about Dr. Daniel? If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all, or you will be disinvited from your own conference and exhibit hall.
Dr. Daniel has to start selling something and be taken on as a sponsor by WAPF before she gets that kind of protection. Although it doesn’t seem to be stopping GPP or SFM from making shadowy, negative insinuations about “some other cod liver oil” company. So maybe Dr. Daniel already is selling something and maybe she is a sponsor, but the policy serves to protect only one company and its product.
You said that she is asking people to voice their concerns to organization first. Is that so much to ask? Fallon is right that smear campaigns can easily put someone out of business when they are small providers. If you belong to an organization, it would seem that you should work within that organization or there is no organization. I don’t think Ford would be selling many cars if every dealer had a strong and differing opinion on the models it sells, putting it out on Facebook or whatever gossip site they prefer. I think this particular blog piece was meant to stir up agitation. There is freedom of speech of course, but it doesn’t come without consequences. Never has.
So the cover up has escalated to Sally Fallon issuing a gag order to the chapter leaders? Several of them reported problems with FCLO ages ago. Are they forbidden from disclosing their medical problems?
I wonder if any of the chapter leaders who had problems with FCLO reported those problems to Sally Fallon? If so, I hope it was done on paper or through email and that those complaints were saved by the people reporting them. If so, this whole issue could be put to rest much more quickly. This whole gag-order thing could certainly cost the foundation some chapter leaders.
Personally, if Carlson’s or Nordic Naturals et al doesn’t pull their products from being recommended by WAPF, I’ll be surprised. The foundation is showing quite a bit of favoritism to Green Pastures and something about that situation isn’t right, either. We still have 1st Amendment rights in this country, bylaws of the foundation or not, and people should be able to voice their experiences with a product endorsed by WAPF, both good and bad. That is part of the american way, isn’t it? Someone seems to have overstepped the bounds of common decenty with this gag order, but that’s just me. Getting too big for their britches? You know what they say about power going to the head – – and about the heat in the kitchen . . . 8-\
Sorry, that should be “bounds of common decency”…
There is no “gag” order for CL’s. Our list is simply private, as many others are also. We don’t want to have our personal discussions and health issues spread across the internet and our business is our business, not yours.
Yes, people have openly stated that they did not do well with fclo. This is not a problem and is something we talk about. Not everyone can do well with everything including such foods as raw milk, grains, etc. That doesn’t mean we publicly bash those things nor tell people they are wrong for saying that they can’t eat those things.
Dr. Ron’s was just as much an asset and valued by WAPF as GP. But GP didn’t call any of Dr. Ron’s products foul, inferior, or make claims of any ills due to mega-dosing on a potent supplement.
What is GP?
Green Pasture (www.greenpasture.org)
It sure reads like a gag order.
I see you’re sticking to the same old talking points.
As David has uncovered here, Dr. Ron’s doses were reasonable considering the kind of advise WAPF was giving on dosing.
The problem isn’t that some people don’t do well on CLO, or even FCLO. But that there is honest reason to believe there is a real problem with the product.
People who took the product for months and years suddenly received nasty product. There is reason to believe it is rancid, has been cut with vegie oil, and is over-activated and deleterious to health.
Actually Pete, Dr. Ron is, ahem, a *doctor* and he was recommending these high doses too! He was also taking more than what the rest of us were recommending and for decades!
Chris’ Masterjohn and other *lipid scientists* have gone through the report and do not find the product rancid, nor is it *not* cod. There are still just 1 or 2 questions, including that about transfat/vegetable oil. However, there are several other completely reasonable reasons for this other than VO, and as I know Dave Wentzel well and absolutely trust his integrity, I have no reason to believe that the product is cut with vegetable oil. The liver of cod does contain PUFA’s, and that is one reason why I keep mine refrigerated and capped, and do not use anything that has been opened for months.
Maureen exactly what do you mean “Dr. Ron is, ahem, a*doctor*” ??? Are you now taking personal attacks at him since your facts are holding up?
aren’t holding up……
I have no desire to attack anyone, especially Dr. Ron Schmid whom I have admired and been glad to know for years. But the fact is, he’s a doctor. Should he have anyone but himself to blame if he took something, medicinally, in a detrimental way?
Dr. Ron should blame the person who invented an experimental product and inflicted it on people as “traditional.” That person made us all guinea pigs.
Maureen, you never really answered my question of why you would say Dr. Ron is “ahem, a *doctor*”? Using language like that sounds like a mean attack of blame the victim. One more thing I wouldn’t have expected from people representing WAPF. Dr. Ron has made it perfectly clear the amount of cod liver oil played a part in his illness, BUT only a part. And he knows he could have kept quiet and saved himself the hot seat…..so could Kaayla.
I don’t believe they could have lived with themselves knowing it’s possible someone else could be hurt. And I for one am very grateful their personal ethics didn’t allow for poor behavior. I’m finding at 3 weeks off all fclo, problems I could never get to clear are disappearing. In my wildest imagination I would have never gone to the fclo as the source of problems (And no tbsps were not being taken. I took the WAPF approved Sarah pope’s video amount of 1 measured tsp daily).
So while we’re on WAPF approved fclo exactly how does this stuff fit with Weston Price’s own research on best cod liver oils. That’s what it’s supposed to be right? Or am I wrong? For years, I’ve been under the impression that the Weston Price Foundation is recommending what Weston Price found to be the best cod liver. A rock solid traditional cod liver oil backed up by Price’s own research that’s the “number one superfood”. Now in retrospect why in the world would I have ever thought this? It’s crazy thinking….just because the foundation is named after the man doesn’t mean they use what he researched and recommended. No, it appears it’s better to make and recommend a new “traditional” cod liver oil and forget Weston Price’s own work.
Weston A Price himself would recomend you NOT consume GPS fermented cod liver , and that it is probably harmful.
Doctor’s don’t know everything. We as students of nutrition should know that better than most. Dr. Ron is not blaming the dosage on anybody but himself. He is saying that the product made him sick, and it wasn’t an overdose of vitamin A. So what was it in the product that overwhelmed his system and damaged his heart? That’s what is at issue here. From what I understand, the way he sees it, he took similarly high doses of another CLO for 25 years or and maintained himself in good health, started taking this new product and his health steadily declined for the next six years, stopped taking it and his health rebounded. That is just anecdotal evidence from one person. On the other hand, he is a *doctor*, so . . . .
“people should be able to voice their experiences with a product endorsed by WAPF, both good and bad.”
Nobody said that they shouldn’t. But if they want to make damaging accusations without any solid proof then they need to do so from their own personal point of view and not from the position of an active WAPF representative. Just as David Gumpert won’t allow his page to be used for libelous comments, so does WAPF not want their organization to be used to smear GP. It’s really that simple.
Apparently you have either not heard what is being told to Chapter Leaders or you are interpreting it much differently. They are not allowed to say, “it caused a rash”. They are only allowed to say, “It did not work for me”. That means they are not able to voice their experience. They are not able to talk about their experience. They are able to say one thing and one thing only. If somebody wants to say, “It burned my throat”, they have to resign as a chapter leader, or they will get kicked out.
Amanda, you are misinterpreting what I will and won’t allow. I allow almost all comments that come through. But when someone says, as one person did, “Green Pasture FCLO caused my son’s asthma,” I wouldn’t allow it. I asked the commenter if she would change it to effect, “My son developed asthma after being on GP FCLO for two years. I don’t know if it was the cause, but that is what happened.” She refused, because she was certain, in her mind, of what occurred. I won’t allow direct accusations of a criminal nature, without some sort of legal supporting evidence, like a court suit against the company.
To apply that same logic to WAPF, it should be okay to say, “I developed a rash after taking GP FCLO for two years. I’m not certain GP FCLO caused it, but that is what I experienced.” To say I only allow comments of a critical nature against Green Pasture or Weston A. Price Foundation is totally inaccurate.
As I’ve said before, libel law isn’t cut and dried, it’s subject to interpretation by judges. I’ve studied it, and try to offer my interpretation, imperfect as it may be. But I try not to let my interpretation favor one side or the other.
She is asking people to voice their concerns to the organization ONLY. And yes, that is too much to ask.
The vast difference between a Ford dealer and a chapter leader, is that the Ford dealer is being granted a franchise of the company and personally making enormous sums of money. A chapter leader is a volunteer promoting the WAPF brand and recruiting new members, whose labors puts more money into WAPF coffers.
There are no “coffers”. Nobody involved with WAPF makes a big salary, although many put in countless hours.
Substitute “budget” for “coffers”. I did not mean to insinuate that anybody was getting rich at WAPF. I meant that telling a Ford dealer to “shut up and take your money to the bank” is far different than telling a WAPF volunteer chapter leader to “keep your opinions to yourselves, do not post them on the Internet, only share them with the overworked WAPF staff where they will be addressed when all of the other more important work is finished, and if you can’t do that, then we say to you regretfully, go away.”
Well as Voltaire stated, “To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”
It’s unfortunate that they would implement such a directive. It’s one thing to have an opinion; it’s another and destructive to their cause if they resort to intimidation in an attempt to reinforce it.
Anyone, and it doesn’t matter whether one is for or against CLO or FCLO, that tows the line and consciously acquiesces to such strong-arm tactics is a puppet.
David- I find it quite disgusting that you have gone into a private group and taken quotes from conversations out of context and WITHOUT PERMISSION from those whose words you quoting here. Your spy tactics do nothing but spread malice! The chapter Leaders of the WAPF do so on voluntary basis because they believe in the health principles that have been shared by Weston Price and Sally Fallon in her book Nourishing Traditions as well as many other many other Traditional foods health books. As a chapter leader I have taken on the voluntary role to promote and share the health principles that i believe in and are recommended by the WAPF. Why in the world would i want to join an organization and become a chapter leader if i did not believe in the information that is presented or the mission statement itself. If that was the case i should not be a chapter leader. When you take on a roll to leadership in ANY organization you do so to help promote and share the mission and information of the organization because you believe in it, NOT because you are blindly being led.
I Applaud Sally Fallon for wanting to discontinue the negativity and slander of any company that works to promote health. Smear campaigns have no place in discussions or on our boards. Personal opinions yes- But to spread negativity and untruths is irresponsible. In my experience the WAPF leaders have always been free thinkers and have been willing to step out and take on a role and position to share information that does not fit with the mainstream. Tell me how that equates to being blind followers of Sally Fallon? For most of us it has taken many years of research and education to come to a place where we want to promote health principles that benefit not only our families but our friends and others. I have been researching nutrition for the past 20 years in feeding my family healthy foods – and have just now decided to become a chapter leader of the WAPF because i have done my research, and experienced the benefits of a traditional foods diet. I don’t take on this role for money or reimbursement of any kind! i take on this role because i believe wholeheartedly in promoting the information and mission of traditional foods AND the WAPF. Please give me an example of any “leader” of an organization who does not promote the company or product they believe in?! if you don’t agree with the principles of WAPF then don’t be a chapter leader or even a member for that matter. There is no one being forced to believe anything or forced to take on leadership roles. If you don’t want to promote the foundation then step down and go form your own organization- But to try and discredit others by spreadiing misinformation and taking private conversations out of context to perpetuate the conflict and lies is truly irresponsible. You do not have permission to use anything I write on the WAPF chapter leaders yahoo group in any of your material or blogs, regardless if my name is used or not. I will not be part of your smear tactics!
Chris up until quite recently your conversations were not in a private group. Onibasu carried the archives of the chapterleaders discussion publicly for anyone to read. This arrangement has gone on for over a decade with no problems or complaints from any chapterleaders or admins for the yahoo group until this big blow up. I’m not sure why David Gumpert would not expect to be able to use comments that were being published publicly.
And I would still like to know why suddenly Onibasu is being told now you can’t cover the chapterleaders discussions. It all smacks of more fishy stuff than just some cod liver oil. What the heck is really going on?
actually that is incorrect… having the Chapter Leader discussions archived on Onibasu has been a hotly debated topic for many years. The recent blow up where people have taken comments out of context and used them for the sole purpose to discredit or smear others is, I believe, the straw that broke the camel’s back so to speak.
Barbara, okay thanks, I did not know Onibasu was hotly debated so that’s interesting.
However, since Onibasu remained open it sounds like past debates always fell on the side of keeping public disclosure. So once again for the umpteenth time I ask the question why now…..what is this big straw that broke the camel’s back? I would think NOW of ALL times keeping the dialogue open to everyone is even more critical. And of course, the ONLY answer seems to be there a secret bigger than open dialogue. Could you clue me in if I’m wrong????? Why abruptly shut down Onibasu when openness is more critical than ever? So what is this “straw that broke the camel’s back”?
The rationale was not because of some need to err on the side public disclosure, but to allow more easy searching by current and future chapter leaders of previous discussions. Aka, the chapter leaders group was always considered private, and Onibasu was a compromise method for allowing members to more easily sift through what quickly became a massive amount of posts over the years. Had another tool been available that allowed the same and that the people in charge were aware of and could implement, that would have certainly happened long ago.
The straw is when people are taking bits and pieces and sensationalizing things instead of giving full context.
John…..The chapterleaders list is a yahoo group. I’ve run yahoo groups and they are all searchable via yahoo itself. And I’ve had chapterleaders suggest Onibasu to search for more detailed information on topics. It’s been a go-to source for years for many. You mean to tell me the chapterleaders meant to keep all they do a big secret yet plain ole google searches would bring up Onibasu dialogues. Are you kidding me no one knew this …or they didn’t really care until now?
Maybe people take bits and pieces of things when they aren’t given the full information and that’s all they have to go on. The more you hide, the more people fill the pieces in. …….so let’s get back to the ongoing cover-up and current gag order.
The discussions continue on the CL forum, but I can assure you that there is no “secret” being discussed. As Barbara stated previously, the subject of whether or not to have the boards archived on Onibasu has come up numerous times on the boards before. I think the answer to your question of why “NOW of ALL times” is that this time, when the issue of whether or not to remove the CL archive from Onibasu was raised, there had very recently been people’s comments taken out of context from those archives so more people were open to the idea of removing the archive.
Karen you are incorrect. Originally when the group was set up Onibasu was connected so that anyone could search a health or WAPF-related topic and find answers. However, we had a discussion in 2014 about whether or not to take the list off Onibasu and make it totally private for several reasons, one of which was that if we have discussions relating to chapter or foundation policy, those discussions needed to stay within the group. Also many of us talk about person issues and we don’t want those issues being publicly available. With the inflammatory comments and misinformation taking place all over the internet, and chapter leader’s comments being used and taken out of context or without proper reference or clarification, I personally, as list owner, decided that the only action that could and should be taken was to not allow public searching of our list any longer. This was always my preference, and yes, with this blow-up it was the right time to do so. There is absolutely nothing wrong with making what should be private to begin with, private. Only in this way can our CL’s have the freedom to fully express themselves and feel safe.
How dare you Maureen not give people access to information they can misquote or otherwise misuse by blocking access to a private yahoo group from the public! 😉
What hs been misquoted. and taken out of context?
You all keep making that accusation but we’ve yet to see substantiation.Just looks like more cencorship and cntrolling the narrative to us out here.
Well said Chris. I feel for you and others like you.
Chris, I certainly appreciate your concerns about privacy. As a journalist, I’m always trying to be sensitive to those concerns in what I write, just as I’d like to think that others reporting on me would be sensitive to my privacy. In this situation, we are dealing with matters of public concern–there have been credible worries (in my judgment) raised about the safety of Green Pasture fermented cod liver oil. That’s really what a lot of the discussion these last couple weeks has been about. WAPF has given itself a prominent role in the discussion by repeatedly and publicly endorsing this product for its 14,000 or so members, and for the public at large. So, this issue is very much an issue of public concern.
Now, the WAPF is very much a public organization. It’s organized as a nonprofit, gets special tax considerations by the government. It makes annual tax and other filings with the IRS that are publicly available. I say that to make the point that its officers, directors, even its chapter leaders, are public figures, in a broad sense. So, what you all say about this debate is of interest to a segment of the public, especially that segment of the public that takes WAPF’s recommendations seriously. What you all say about this controversy is fair game for journalists. Green Pasture is also in a broad sense a public organization in that it sells its product to thousands of people each year, and anyone can purchase it, without the need to provide a medical prescription or any other private information.
I’ll also reinforce what another person said in a comment, which is that when you post your opinions and ideas on social media, as well as in list serves, you have to assume in this day and age that those views could be reported in the media. That applies even if you’re not involved in a public organization and debating a publicly-relevant issue, like the safety of fermented cod liver oil and the policies of the Weston A. Price Foundation. As I said, I personally try to be respectful of individuals’ privacy. But in this situation, the needs and interests of the public to know seem to outweigh the desire by some involved in this controversy to keep their views private.
Here’s another mystery…..The chapterleaders handbook mentions bylaws “The bylaws of the Weston A. Price Foundation stipulate that those participating in local chapter activities are not required to be members of the Weston A. Price Foundation” and notices to chapterleaders refer to them “Also, please note that our bylaws prohibit local chapters charging dues”.
Where are these bylaws?
I’ve looked all over the website and there’s no such creature easily found. It seems like bylaws of a major nonprofit shouldn’t be stowed away only to be found by the most clever of sleuths.
The bylaws pertain to chapter leaders and as such are found within our own files.
“bylaws of the Weston A. Price Foundation” should be bylaws that govern the non-profit as a whole. These bylaws should be readily available to all the members of the organization. Karen is right that the bylaws for the organization should be easily accessible by the members.
Nice job, David. Their contract for chapter leaders includes when having official WAPF meetings, the agenda and contents of the presentations be submitted and approved. Also, food being served must meet WAPF guidelines (although I am pretty sure the recipes of the food served do not need to be submitted for approval). When they changed the contract and required all chapter leaders to sign it a lot of them quit (this was about 7 yrs ago)
WAPF should never ever be recommending product brands to begin with! This is the root of all these problems and more. As far as controlled speech goes it sounds like 1984 or a communist party. I wonder what the churn rate is? Whatever it might be it will go higher now. This is all very sad to see happen as this controversy should have never happened if they did not recommend or rate specific brands.
David, I am not aware of a single chapter leader who quit over signing any contract.
This is nothing like the communist party and there is no controlled speech. We simply expect to be treated and to treat others with respect. Bashing and making slanderous remarks about another company’s product or individuals is neither respectful nor decent.
We recommend products because people need and want to know! There is so much false and misleading advertising and information; how would a beginner know where to go for foods that are actually good for us if we were not recommending products?! Of course we are going to recommend products for ourselves, our families, our communities-it is what we are here for! And so should all of the other organizations out there that *do recommend products*!!!
People have genuine, honest concerns about this product, which has made several sick and appears to not be what it was marketed as. Why can’t we have an open discussion about that?
Please name one slanderous remark.
We are attempting to have an open discussion about these legitimate concerns. The problem is, the “discussion” seems to be very one-sided…
And by the way, pollock *is* cod. It is one of 5 species within the genus which are literally, scientifically and factually, cod.
To call pollock cod is out and out deception and fraud. That you all keep toeing that line is mind boggling.
The FDA requires it to be labeled pollock. People were sold the story that this was authentic traditional cod liver oil, I.e. made from Atlantic Coe, not from Pacific pollock.
We expected a pure traditional product and instead we got fukushima fish.
Whatever happened to the customer is always right? Over and over again we get excuses, rationalizations and blaiming the victim. But the fact of the matter is many many people are upset at GP now that they know the truth. And whatever your self justification, that alone is proof that the customer was wronged. What they thought they were getting, they did not.
No Pete. Many of us bought it simply because of it’s fatty acid and vitamin A and D content as reported in many, many lab analyses posted by the company. That, and the fact that it is not reconstituted. We don’t really give a flyin’ flip about whether the cod are from the pacific or atlantic, and we certainly don’t give a damn about ANYTHING the FDA says!
The fact that you say there are 5 species within the genus which are cod just indicates that you are repeating something you were told and have not actually verified it yourself since you wouldn’t find that information from any reputable source. There are only 4. It really makes one wonder how much other information you are stating as fact that you haven’t actually verified and that might not be exactly what you thought it was.
Walleye Pollock (aka Alaskan Pollock) was not classified as a cod species until sometime in 2013. Prior to then, it was classified in a different genus, Theragra chalcogramma. It is now Gadus chalcogrammus, considered to be part of the same “evolutionary lineage that included the Pacific, Atlantic, and Greenland Cods (Gadus macrocephalus, G. morhua, and G. ogac). The data also indicated that Theragra is more closely related to G. morhua than the other cod species, rather than outside Gadus in a separate lineage.” http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Quarterly/OND2013/divrptsRACE1.htm.
When did GP start using Alaskan Pollock instead of Atlantic Cod? Prior to 2013, when Alaskan Pollock was considered to be a different genus than cod, surely passing it off then as cod was deception and fraud.
Slanderous remarks, there are many. Let’s start with: SFM & WAPF refused to have the oil independently tested. They did. You can read it on the website (sorry, I would link to it but my service is slow at the moment). Then that Green Pastures and David Wetzel are hiding that they know the product is rancid (which, if you read other analysis and the study which the foundation had done, it is not). That Sally placed a gag order on we chapter leaders. Need I go on?
Actually, there are no slanderous remarks at all. The term you are looking for is “libelous”.
The only accusation that you mentioned that I have seen on here is that Sally placed a gag order on chapter leaders. Definition: “A gag order (also known as a gagging order or suppression order) is an order, typically a legal order by a court or government, restricting information or comment from being made public, or in some cases, passed onto any unauthorized third party.” Telling people what they may not say, regardless of what it is, falls under this definition. If you tell people they can’t cuss on a forum, is it censorship? Yes. Is it a gag order? Um, sure. Is it a violation of first amendment rights? No. They can say what they want to say . . . some other place. Chapter leaders have been told what they are not allowed to say. If they cannot abide by those guidelines, they’ve been told to find another place. The phrase “gag order” may not be how you see or would like to portray the current situation, but I can’t see how you could say that it true according to the above definition.
I find it odd that a true discussion on the possibility if rancid FCLO could be shut down by the most eager to spread healthy eating. It was briefly mentioned that Sally is willing to do further testing by a proper lab. This is a good start. But to blame those that are having potential health problems for having them is not in line with what is best for all. DR. Price’s work could be interpreted as antidotal by so called medical experts and dismissed. He is considered by the conventional dental institution to be a quack for spending his life speaking the truth about his findings. This FCLO controversy smells like the color of money. Follow the money and you will find the truth. I believe the only way to put an end to this schism is to have Dr. Daniel’s and Sally FM come together with the appropriate testing and double testing to see what the facts are. Until then I will suspend using FCLO and use Krill oil from Dr. Mercola who was removed from the Board of Directors and has one of the most extensive research arms to his company is the number one go to doctor on the internet. The work of Sally Fallon may have peaked and may not be needed anymore since the zeitgeist for many practitioners recommend the practices of Dr.Weston A Price. Truth does not stop. It moves forward in spite of our heals being dub in. I am a free thinking and free wheeling chapter leader.
Wow. This blog piece hits very close to home, as I am one of the Chapter Leaders that David has quoted. First let me mention that I am aware anytime I post a comment on the internet that I am doing so knowing that it could come back, that others can see it, and that it could be something used against me in the future, so ANY and ALL of my comments are made with that in mind.
My biggest concern and issue with this entire debacle has been that I felt left out to dry by the Foundation, as have other chapter leaders with whom I am friends with. When the original report was released I had 25 separate e-mail conversations with people from my Chapter within 4 hours. I assured ALL of them that I would contact WAPF and they would have their questions answered. The only thing we as chapter leaders received was the same e-mail that was released to all members saying that Sally would put out an official statement by the weeks end. Ok, great, I am still on board and looking forward to the entire thing being resolved. And then an incomplete and dismissive rebuttal is released. Wait, what? I am sorry but there are many holes here that were not adequately explained or not addressed at all (vegetable oils?) so again I go on “we can solve this path” and go direct to WAPF with my own questions as well as the questions that my chapter had raised. The response to my e-mail was a form letter referring us to Sally’s rebuttal and Chris Masterjohn’s. It did not answer the questions we had, but cool…..I am sure the foundation is VERY busy and short staffed to handle such a PR nightmare. So I call to see if there is a better way to handle this (took about 3 messages, and about 7 total calls for me to get through). To which I am told that the only thing I can refer my chapter to is Sally’s response. Any further questions should be killed (not a quote), but for me to down play….in essence be dismissive of any free thought my chapter might have on this subject. To not allow discussion about GP, to not allow people to question it, to not allow concern. WHAT?
These are people who go against FDA, CDC, and whatever initial organizations the Govt runs and still drinks raw milk for health benefits. These are people who are standing up to mandated vaccines, they read through the lines and make their own decisions on the efficacy of such schedules. These are people who have researched health guidelines and read through the lines of a low-fat, low-salt society and have come out making their own decisions to NOT follow the current fad of raw food, juice based, vegan trends. And as a leader I am being told to brush them off. The Foundation is closing the doors and windows on questions and just expecting people to acquiesce? They are circling the wagon around GP and closing out those that have worked tirelessly for an organization that they truly believe in?
I have NOTHING against GP, Mr Wetzel, and do NOT wish his company put out of business. What I do expect is that WAPF take this entire thing seriously and perhaps step away from any direct ties to his company until such time that more testing can be done…..until they can answer all questions, and not just say “ooops forgot to address that one”.
I could go on a long rant but I do not want to ramble on. This entire controversy has shed a light on what many have felt but have not expressed. I had high hopes for over a week that this would be solved, that WAPF would stand up and do what was right, that everything would be fine. Instead all we get is some victim card be waved in our faces. It is an insult to our intelligence. It is doing more harm than good. I am still hopeful, perhaps the foundation can still redeem themselves. I hope there is something big planned for the Conference, perhaps a debate? Maybe a big Q&A session to treat the members with some respect by addressing all of the concerns and show some transparency? Maybe? We will see.
Very disappointing that you continue to try to fan the flames of dissension and rumors while ignoring WAPF’s clearly defined and understandable policies; not to mention the input from the scientific community. Clearly you are departing from professional journalism.
The point, MaryAnn. Well said. I am also disappointed and surprised at all the lack of common sense among commenters. And what has gotten into Gumpert to spread all the slanted information?
Very little information, if any, information is unslanted. When a human touches it, their experiences and understanding and biases result in a slanting of information presented. If you think that ANYBODY else in this situation is presenting information without a slant, then at that point, you can KNOW that the reality is you’re leaning the same direction and that’s why it looks unslanted to you.
Hardly MaryAnn, David is operating in the finest tradition of investigative journalists of sniffing out and exposing corruption, lies, and deceit. He is much to be commended.
Open and honest discussion is vitally important in the search for truth.
Funny how you turn exposing censorship into ‘fan the flames of dissension and rumors’. Only those trying to cover up the truth benefit from trying to hid whats going on.
I’m a chapter leader and don’t have access to the listserve; this is news to me… much like most of the strange things that are coming from WAPF as an organization. :/
I found that interesting as well, as I do not have access to that either. News to me too!
The chapter leader listserve is the Yahoo group for WAPF chapter leaders, which is open to all chapter leaders. I found out about this group when I first started our chapter, and they still include information about it in the Chapter Leader Updates (which are sent out by email periodically). For instance, a link to this Yahoo group was included in the Chapter Leader Update from May 2015. They strongly encourage chapter leaders to participate in that group, since Sally does participate directly in that group discussion. Here is a link to the group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wapfchapterleaders/
R, all chapter leaders have access to the group. It is easily and readily available. If I had your email address I could send you an invitation and if so, you might be reading the side of the story which is not being discussed here, including the facts about GP’s fclo, etc. But Sarah Smith posted a link below, so simply go to that and you can make a request to join.
I belong to a former chapter. I joined my “nutrition club” in 2009 and they were already an independent group. There’s another such group in my metropolitan area. Our history with WAPF is rocky. Our group didn’t like the controlling aspects of the new contract. our meeting topics are wider than what would be allowed under WAPF. We still teach the basics and host info on local farms and raw milk. Many people are individual WAPF and PPNF members. I was very put off a couple years ago when WAPF attacked the Paleolithic diet. It’s such a shame. I would prefer a collaborative community.
Many of us CL’s agree with you on the Paleo diet and it is a frequent topic of discussion. I am quite hopeful things will change in this regard. As a matter of fact, at a meeting which I held for my group last year we had Sarah Ballantyne, author of The Paleo Approach, speak. I cleared it with Sally personally.
Thanks David for sharing this. As far as you departing from professional journalism, I can safely say that I wouldn’t have known about this new information, that I am grateful for knowing, and it seems to me, that is the job of a journalist. That’s why we have a first amendment. It’s to give some measure of transparency and accountability. It’s like looking in a window – you can’t see it all, but hopefully enough. Removing articles, shutting down archives, changing documentation, and creating new policies that prevent information from being disseminated is the opposite of transparency. It’s closing the curtains. You might even say it is “covering up”.
First a policy from the board to prevent any vendor from speaking ill of any other vendor or their product. That may not be the norm, but it is understandable. Then a new policy that the public cannot see board meeting minutes. Then a new policy that chapter leaders are not allowed to post concerns about WAPF endorsed products online. Then a new policy that chapter leaders are to not allow any discussion of GPP to occur????
I would really love to see an original copy of the letter to Chapter Leaders if any of you are brave enough to post it.
See my post below Steve, I pasted in the relevant part about fermented cod liver oil. Most of that email had nothing to do with fclo, it was about marketing the November conference and a few other things.
Eric, thanks for your courage in posting that. It was good to see the exact wording.
If only the rebuttals and other lab tests were part of the discussion here, which they’re not. So this is fair and honest journalism?
There is no policy about the public not seeing the board’s minutes; they are publicly available. The private CL’s list, however, is not and there is nothing wrong or deceitful about that! If you’re not a chapter leader you have no business reading our mail!
No policy huh? They just happen to refuse to provide the minutes when asked?
No business huh? Then how come you choose to put it out publicly for years? That was your choice, you only changed that when it started to make you look bad.
Pete, I was not the one who set up the yahoo group and chose to make it public. The public search ability aspect of it was discussed several times, with most of us agreeing it should not be. I took over the list… I don’t remember if it’s been a year or two now, but we again the the discussion and I dragged my feet because I didn’t want to upset anyone (weak trait, I know). With this recent unpleasant event, and having chapter leaders involved, I chose to take it off Onibasu.
The minutes are available, just ask. The office is short-staffed (and currently one of the 3 staff are off getting married, which makes the work load even heavier), and so of course the most important business is what gets taken care of first, just like with the rest of our homes and businesses.
Maureen, I think your information was correct – about two weeks ago. One of the board members posted publicly that the board meeting minutes were public, and that anybody could get them just by requesting them. So I requested them on Monday the 24th of August. On September 2, I got this response:
“Hi Steve,
Sorry for the delay in answering
It is the policy of the Weston A. Price Foundation to not make the minutes of meetings of its board of directors public. We have found that a policy of confidentiality supports full and frank discussions by the board.
We have consulted with our legal counsel and have been advised that this policy is in accordance with applicable law.
Sincerely, Sally”
“Sally” is Sally Fallon-Morrell. I thought it was strange the the head of an organization should take the time to write to me about a “policy”. If it was an existing policy, I would think that an intern could handle it. So, my suspicion was that it was a new policy and it took a little bit of time for the legal counsel to get back with them to let them know it would be ok to establish that policy. Your post would seem to confirm my suspicion that this is a brand new policy, created just to keep confidential the December 2014 meeting minutes.
this is only one issue, look at the many WAPF has led the way
As a former Chapter Leader, I feel comfortable saying I would be offended by this latest WAPF guidance. While I can appreciate and follow “company guidelines” most of the time, when there are large questions to be answered, blind loyalty is not in order. The questions raised by K. Daniels are legitimate in my opinion. I have read her complete report. It is not perfect, but does cause me to want more research and investigation. Rather than demand blind compliance from Chapter Leaders when seemingly legitimate questions exist about FCLO, Sally should quickly fund research that will either prove Daniels research was wrong, or confirm there are problems with the product.
By Sally Fallon’s own testimony in the FCLO Q&A, the scientists are split on whether or not the FCLO would be rancid and in fact the majority would say it is. For those who wish to quibble this point, I’ll just add that Weston Price himself would object that the FCLO is likely over-activated and therefor dangerous to health and should never be taken.
For her to then say claims of rancid FCLO is a lie is unconscionable. This censoring of free discussion really crosses the line. Obviously they know they have a rebellion on their hands. Power and money and egos are talking here, not truth and not science.
It is interesting that here again her defense of FCLO as being good comes down to her own personal anecdotal experience. Her experience is Truth and anyone saying otherwise is a liar. Her own experience of fresh FCLO overrides the experience of others, the testimony of scientists and research of WAP himself.
Is this the Sally Fallon Foundation or the Weston A. Price Foundation?
This is the height of solipsism. This is anti-science, demagoguery, zealotry. How can anything she claims have any credibility? What is she hiding?
They can angrily blaime Dr. Danials and throw accusations at her. They can accuse anyone who has questions, doubts or disagreements as being biased. But the actions of Fallon are wrecking havoc. She is their own worst enemy.
I heard of a few people who have used straight vit A say exactly the same about their eyesight as Sally said in her opening Q&A. I don’t think anyone is debating whether there’s vit A in the fclo. The question being asked is if the price for the vit A is rancid oil that wrecks other parts of you as your eyesight gets great. Not a great trade off.
@ Karen: Luckily there are other ways to get Vitamin A besides CLO or FCLO or whatever. 😉
Karen – You hit the nail on the head. According to Dr. Daniel’s report, there is a respectable amount of vitamin A in FCLO. Since sub-clinical vitamin A deficiency is rampant, it is no surprise that people who use FCLO report positive benefits.
WAPF promotes the “fact” that 1 teaspoon of high-vitamin fermented cod liver oil contains 9,500 IU vitamin A. Dr. Daniel’s report found that there was only 3,150 IU/tsp. If the primary reason for people to take cod liver oil is for the vitamin content, you would think people would be outraged by the fact it only has 1/3 the vitamin A as purported. I don’t think any of the rebuttals argued the fact the fact that FCLO only has 1/3 the vitamin A.
One last thought on the vitamin A. It is an accepted fact that cod liver oil has approximately 4,500 IU/tsp of vitamin A. Has anyone every questioned why FCLO was promoted as having “double” the amount of vitamin A? There would only be two logical explanations for why FCLO would have double the vitamin A. Synthetic vitamin A was added, or, just as we are finding out, there really isn’t double the vitamin A. Then, the question is, why did they state it was double? Was it a faulty lab? Or was it simply marketing propaganda? Or a combination of both?
To be fair there is another explanation: the product is highly variable. And I think GP may have even brought this up.
However it does beg the question, how can we count on the recommendations, which are based on the levels of vitamins and their ratios, if the product is so variable?
This is especially true if there is indeed a very low amount of Vitamin D; in which case FCLO may not meet WAPFs standards for recommendation.
Pete – you are correct, FCLO should not even be listed in the shopping guide. It definitely wouldn’t qualify for the “Best” category, and it wouldn’t even qualify for the “Good” category.
Here are the guidelines for the “Good” category:
“sources of processed cod liver oil with synthetic vitamins in the right proportions (ten or fewer units vitamin A to one unit vitamin D, and with at least 2,500 IU’s of vitamin A and 250 IU’s of vitamin D per teaspoon) are in the GOOD category. We do not recommend brands of cod liver oil that have low levels of vitamin A and/or low levels of vitamin D.”
Based on Dr. Daniel’s test results, not only is the ratio of A:D wrong, but the vitamin D content was only 76 IU/tsp (far below the 250 IU/tsp criteria in the WAPF shopping guide).
Thank you, David, for your meticulous reporting and analysis of the ongoing cover up.
I’m concerned that the chapter leaders, through no fault of their own, are being asked to involve themselves in Sally’s elaborate strategy of denials. While the leaders have remained innocent parties until now and have remained above board, asking them to participate in secret discussions could make them part of the scandal when the legal investigations begin. And they will.
The WAPF chapter leaders need to get their own lawyers, not Sally’s. As others have said, Sally and WAPF could not have handled this situation worse with the preposterous denials, hired chemist, and ever-growing cover ups. Obviously WAPF is getting dubious legal advice. The chapter leaders don’t want to make that mistake.
Wow……..hmmm………I hadn’t thought of chapterleaders being complicit legally in a cover-up, but I suppose it could happen. This is a good point to bring up.
If I hadn’t read about this issue online, as it came up in a newsfeed (don’t even remember which one), not only would I have never heard of FCLO but I would not have known what WAPF is. I’ve heard of it, but don’t remember how, Nevertheless, I am glad to hear of all of it because my ears are always open to not only products and availability and access and choice, but very interested in the politics of the natural health industry, and the politics of the food industry. I will not pass judgement, yet. But instinct tells me I would never put any oil in my body that is not fresh fresh fresh. How does one ferment oil? And the term “nutrient dense” is mumbo jumbo for eating healthy and naturally, and as optimally as possible, which is the basic message of the whole natural health industry. Putting a term behind it is leading people down the wrong the path, as if there is something special or specifically achieavable beyond basic healthy principles that have been around for millenia, and that are spoken of constantly all over the place, without calling it “Nutrient dense”. Seeking to recruit the ignorant and vulnerable. I have more to say, and I suppose I have passed judgement after all.
The fact is, that Sally does not want the Foundation to be associated with SLANDER, given that most of the accusations do not hold up to scrutiny. Of course she would not endorse a product proven to be bad, but WAPF promotes things on the basis of them fulfilling their dietary guidelines, with zero expectation that they have been tested thoroughly or at all in the way that would be done by a regulator or certifying body. What next, should Sally personally vouch for the hygiene standards for all the raw dairies listed in realmilk.com ?
Kaayla started a debate, blew it out of proportion, and provided inconclusive results. Of course Sally does not want that amplified by Chapters. So unless you can actually come up with verifiable evidence, there is no point just bleating on and on and on about it, because eventually, everybody just stops listening.
You gave me a good laugh with your statement:
“Sally does not want the Foundation to be associated with SLANDER”
Here is the definition of slander:
“the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation.”
Dr. Daniel’s report stated that Pollock was used for FCLO and has low vitamins (and the butter oil was from Argentina). None of which were false statements. (There was some debate regarding rancidity)
Dr. Ron shared his own personal experience with FCLO.
Those wouldn’t qualify as slander.
What would qualify as slander?
Sally’s statements about Dr. Daniel and Dr. Ron. (and anyone else who dares to question FCLO)
Additionally, it wouldn’t be slander anyway, it would be libel.
Here is the definition of libel:
“a published false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation; a written defamation.”
I’ve been a WAPF chapter leader for a couple years now. I sent out my local chapter’s monthly update earlier today and offered links to Daniel’s report, Ron Schmid’s article as well as Sally’s and Chris Masterjohn’s rebuttals to give the 500+ folks on my email list both sides of the story. I just found this blog while doing some follow-up research, and wish I had known about this series earlier. I will include a link to the FCLO-relevant posts in my next email update, probably later in the month or in early October.
Then, I just so happened to check my spam folder and saw the ‘gag’ order others have mentioned from the Weston A. Price Foundation. I received it a few days back, but didn’t see it. Woopsie! Oh well…
I have to say I find the way WAPF is handling this very saddening. Thanks David Gumpert for this great series on your blog, it’s been a fascinating read!
For those who want to read the ‘gag order’ sent to chapter leaders, here it is:
Dear Chapter Leaders,
COD LIVER OIL CONTROVERSY
Most of you are no doubt aware of the current cod liver oil controversy. If not, please read our Questions and Answers about Fermented Cod Liver Oil: http://www.westonaprice.org/uncategorized/questions-and-answers-about-fermented-cod-liver-oil-fclo/.
Many of you organize bulk orders of cod liver oil for your group, or even sell it on your websites. As a chapter leader, you may sell or arrange orders of any of our recommended brands: http://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/cod-liver-oil-basics-and-recommendations/#brands
What we do not allow is criticism of competing brands. It is fine to say “I find this brand works best for me,” or “My children like this brand the best.” What we do not allow is negative comments about products we recommend. This is our policy at conferences as well. Exhibitors are not allowed to criticize competing products, only talk about the good things in their products.
If you feel there is some reason we should not recommend a product in our shopping guide or elsewhere, please bring your concerns to the staff—rather than posting comments online–and we will look into it.
For those of you who sell products through your personal websites, please check to make sure these guidelines are being followed. If you feel that you cannot comply, then we will reluctantly ask you to step down as a chapter leader.
Please remember that conversations on the chapter leader forum are confidential and should not be reproduced on other boards, blogs, or forums.
Eric, I have been reading the chapterleaders forum on the public site for years and years. Until very recently this was NOT confidential in any way and in early days we were encouraged to read it on Onibasu. So what gives now……why are we suddenly cut off from one of the richest sources of WAP information out there? What are these chapterleaders talking about so suddenly that’s a great big secret and so special we everyday people can’t possibly be allowed to hear? Or is there more buried in the archives some people don’t want out there?
Your statement “Please remember that conversations on the chapter leader forum are confidential” makes no sense given no one cared who read at all just a week ago. Please consider this more accurate assessment:,”Since the WAPF cover-up began conversations on the chapter leader forum are NOW confidential and Onibasu will no longer allow the public to see those discussions”. (I.E …appears Onibasu is part of the gag order.)
Hi Karen. I had no idea the chapter leaders forum even existed until I learned of it reading through the comments on David’s blog entries. No one at WAPF ever mentioned it to me. You do raise good questions though.
The chapter leader listserve is the Yahoo group for WAPF chapter leaders, which is open to all chapter leaders. I found out about this group when I first started our chapter, and they still include information about it in the Chapter Leader Updates (which are sent out by email periodically). For instance, a link to this Yahoo group was included in the Chapter Leader Update from May 2015. They strongly encourage chapter leaders to participate in that group, since Sally does participate directly in that group discussion. Here is a link to the group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wapfchapterleaders/
Again, the chapter leader’s list is for chapter leaders. If you are not a chapter leader you have no business reading our mail. We have discussions, often heated, and sometimes discuss our own personal issues which are not meant for the public. Most of us never wanted the list to be publicly searchable, and I chose to take it off Onibasu for the above reasons. My choice, not Sally’s (although she fully agreed with it, as did virtually every chapter leader who responded to me previously, and currently with this situation and others).
Maureen — You’ve tongue-lashed quite a bit on this blog about how we non-chapter leaders had no business reading your mail. This is a very strange historical revisionism. Again, your mail was indexed by Google and easily found in Internet searches. After having a public archive for many years, it seems just a bit snippy to accuse the rest of us of not respecting your privacy by stumbling upon your discussions in web searches. If you dance in your living room naked with your curtains open and your neighbors see your bare tail, it isn’t actually your neighbor’s fault.
Amanda I do not believe that I have done any “tongue-lashing” here, but certainly there has been quite a bit of it going on. As to the chapter leaders email list, most of us were completely unaware until last year that our emails were being shared, and when we found it this was the case nearly everyone responded with anger and disbelief, a few were going to leave the list if this was not stopped immediately. I am one of those people who was very upset that the nation of my own emails, laden with sometimes personal information, were being shared far and wide. So last summer we made it the policy that emails were not to be shared, but that we could cut and paste relevant parts of conversations, minus any other details, with others whom it might help. With the explosion of accusations, misquotes, and sharing of our emails the only thing we could do was to take the list off Onibasu, and surely you can understand that this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. We are a “private” list, not public. The conversations that we need to have could not and would not happen if our list was being searched for dissent and “damning” evidence of “cover-up”, etc. (which is not what is happening at all anyway). Now with things at least somewhat more secure we are starting to have much more open discussions.
This is interesting in light of all of the chapter leaders that have been bashing Rosita, insinuating that Rosita is behind this whole thing and/or pushing a false rumor about one of Rosita’s oils being recalled. Wonder if those will be allowed to continue.
Steve, none of us are bashing Rosita. It is a reasonable observation that of course, with this controversy, their sales would increase tremendously. Also, they helped fund Kaayla Daniel’s report.
And for the record, Rosita’s ratfish oil was recalled in July, by the FDA if I recall correctly, for unacceptably high levels of mercury and other contaminants. The cod liver oil was not tested, but perhaps it should have been.
First I want to say that I don’t have a problem with people questioning or even attacking Daniel, Rosita, Corganic, or whatever as long as they are honest about it. People can say what they want. What I have a problem with is the institutional double standard.
1) You can’t speak for everybody and I have seen WAPF people making negative comments about Rosita.
2) It is reasonable to observe that Rosita probably benefitted from this and that they provided funding for Daniel’s research. Again the double standard is applied though and negative insinuations are made while innumerable conflicts of interest on the other side are excused or ignored (because, you know, they are good people, unlike that Daniel woman and those Rosita folks who just want to make money and destroy reputations).
3) Maureen, you are so upset at everybody for believing this Kaayla Daniel report where she spent all sorts of time, energy and money, posted test results and all that jazz, yet you feel no qualms about repeating this rumor about Rosita Ratfish oil recall without a shred of evidence. (And the CLO was tested). I know you have no evidence because I have researched it and it is not true. The original rumor didn’t even involve the FDA. Amazing how it has changed and grown in the retelling. Why would you say this? Isn’t that saying something negative about a WAPF vendor? Isn’t repeating a completely unfounded rumor that might do damage to a WAPF vendor’s reputation completely against the WAPF core values? It seems like these “core values” don’t extend much further than protecting GPP.
Eric, thanks for posting this information. Apparently Ms. Fallon’s email doesn’t ask Chapter leaders to not share information, it asks chapter leaders not to criticize a product or for chapter leaders to make negative comments. Merely sharing information about different lab tests and people’s experiences with the various products recommended by WAPF would not be prohibited. So in that sense it’s not actually a gag order.
Here is the email my co-leader and I received from Sally Fallon yesterday:
“Hi Michael and Jean.
I was just on your website and basically it looks great, but I need to ask you to take down the link to Kaayla’s report–it is very negative, inflammatory and just not true.
If you wish to have any reference to cod liver oil on your website, please link to the WAPF official statements on this.
Thanks,
Sally”
FYI–it is a Facebook page and there was already a link to the official WAPF statement as well as Kayla’s info.
A gag order–even for your personal Facebook page? This is quite alarming.This is what a dictator would do.
The power grab is escalating. It seems every day they deploy a new cover up. What next?
To be fair the FB page does have the name of our local WAPF chapter.
Wait a minute….Does the Weston A Price Foundation now think it owns the name Weston A Price? Are you kidding me?
whoaaaa…..I was backing off from using the word gag order but forget that. Well no third hand reporting gag orders now.
Thanks for posting about your experience Jean. That’s what I was afraid would happen. I recently sent an email to my chapter list linking to info that articulated both sides of the argument. It seems even acknowledging the opposing side is enough to warrant action on the part of WAPF and Sally Fallon Morell. Did you take the offending links down? I suspect that when the dust settles from this ordeal, the Weston A. Price Foundation and its membership will have gone through some changes…
Jean, is this in reference to the Weston A. Price Foundation’s Santa Cruz chapter profile on Facebook? https://www.facebook.com/Weston-A-Price-Foundation-Santa-Cruz-Chapter-496733907090864/timeline/
I assume that is what Sally’s email referred to, since we have no other web page. If it suddenly gets a lot more traffic we will know who to thank : )
Yikes! Thanks for sharing that Jean! I guess next if you don’t comply is to be booted from your CL position?
No idea. As of this morning I was still listed.
Hi ‘NS’, I put ‘gag order’ in quotes because I don’t know that I really like that term either. I used it because others had used it earlier in the comments, not because I necessarily think it’s accurate.
Eric: Although apparently from Jean’s experience Sally Fallon has clarified it to indeed be a gag order.
Yes, at this point I agree that ‘gag order’ is probably accurate.
Do you think they will go so far as having CLs sign a non-disclosure agreement in order to retain their position and have access to the CL Yahoo group? That’s what Jean was purportedly kicked out for (disclosing material from that group).
At the time I had not shared anything from the CL list and thought the issue was silly, since it the archives were still publicly searchable. So far no response to my email to the WAPF asking why I was kicked off.
Update on David’s most recent blog. Sally just issued a script chapter leaders must follow about FCLO.
Chapter leaders are never “allowed” to say the oil is “rancid or putrid.” They must say, “it doesn’t work for you” or you had a “reaction.”
Does this insult anybody else’s intelligence? It’s like telling a duck it had a “reaction” to L’orange.
Where was this done?
The Chapter Leaders’ Yahoo Group.
Wow. To answer your question, no it doesn’t insult my intelligence. But it DOES resemble very closely MLM behavior, where they train their folks exactly how to respond to each and every critique, criticism or question about their product, they program their folks to parrot the company line and so on and so forth. This is very strange behavior for a non-profit and it’s members to be engaged in, unless of course they are following this same thing for all of the companies that they recommend. If they are not, then behavior like this makes it look very much like they are using their chapters and chapter leaders to run an MLM-like marketing campaign for GPP. It is interesting that he’s always speaks to the local chapter leaders about his products before every Wise Traditions conference.
Steve – I have attended the last 8 chapter leaders meetings at the Wise Traditions conference and I don’t recall a single one where Dave Wetzel was present, let alone given the opportunity to address the chapter leaders.
And somehow I’ve missed the script that has been alluded to as well…. so far I have not received any script on how to respond to the critique or questions about any company and no company lines to parrot. The closest thing I’ve gotten is a request not to speak negatively about ANY (not just GP) company.
Barbara and Steve, just to clarify, I initially reported on the post above that Dave Wetzel presented to chapter leaders. I learned within a day after the post went up that I had misunderstood the person who told me that, and I corrected the post, to say that Wetzel had a signup sheet at his WAPF exhibit booth for chapter leaders to order product. I noted at the end of the post that it has been corrected. I’m sorry about the misunderstanding.
Barbara, the information I was citing has been removed, so apparently it was either, old information, grossly exaggerated, or false. So, I’m sure your information is much better.
On the second paragraph, again, I have no first hand information, but was answering “L”s question and voicing an opinion about the information presented. Here it is in case you missed it. “…Sally just issued a script chapter leaders must follow about FCLO.
Chapter leaders are never “allowed” to say the oil is “rancid or putrid.” They must say, “it doesn’t work for you” or you had a “reaction.”
Does this insult anybody else’s intelligence?…”
Apparently this was on the Chapter Leader Yahoo group. Have you been there lately? Can you confirm or deny?
I hope to clarify what appears to be misinformation.
I have been in a leadership position since 2004 and have attended 10 conferences. Chapter leaders do meet at the conferences, usually the day before. David Wetzel [or any other representative from Green Pasture] has never presented to us at any conference. I usually present every year. I stay the entire time. He has never spoken to us about his products. That is a fact.
Your portrayal of an MLM scheme could not be further from my experience. Chapter leaders are not asked to be involved in the sale of any products of any kind. All we are asked to do is provide local resources to those who seek nutrient dense foods as recommended by the Foundation.
I have never been coached on how to respond to “each and every critique, criticism or question” about any product. Nor have I ever witnessed this.
Have you been on the Chapter Leader Yahoo group recently? Can you confirm or deny or perhaps explain differently the report from L posted above? I guess you’re not allowed now to post it word for word. :/
“Sally just issued a script chapter leaders must follow about FCLO.
Chapter leaders are never “allowed” to say the oil is “rancid or putrid.” They must say, “it doesn’t work for you” or you had a “reaction.””
Yup that’s the jist of what Sally said.
Steve, I have been on the chapter leader yahoo group recently. (and somewhere I did see someone post the “gag” order word for word and I believe you responded to that commenter… I just don’t have the time or inclination to sort through all these comments to find where it is).
After seeing so many people call it a “gag” order this was what I posted in the chapter leader group last week:
“I’m truly perplexed at the number of people who think that Sally is telling us (and vendors) to not criticize competing products because the foundation is trying to protect certain products/brands or that we are to be mindless robots who blindly follow the leader. Anyone who has been in the business world knows that by not allowing your representatives (which as Chapter Leaders, we represent the Foundation) to criticize a competitor’s product eliminates the legal ramifications of slander and libel. It also ensures a minimum level of decorum. In the case where WAPF recommends certain products, by not allowing the representatives (i.e. Chapter Leaders) to speak negatively about a company/product it eliminates 1) confusion and 2) the wedge that inevitably appears when there are factions taking sides (exactly what we are experiencing right now!) [As a side note, as Chapter Leaders we are also told to make sure we are making objective statements on our resource list and that we are not allowed to only list our favorite farmers or coop as the only resources in the area. The request not to speak negatively about recommended products is really no different.]
Mr. Gumpert seems to think that bad mouthing is to be expected, although he does acknowledge that it is not professional. I know when I hear a competitor make negative comments about another company or product, for me it calls into question the ethics and integrity of the one/company making the negative comments about their competitor. It also makes me question the quality of the product they are trying to get me to purchase or support because it appears it doesn’t have enough going for it to stand on its own merits.”
Barbara, I’m not opposed to the policy or the ruling. WAPF can make any policy that it wants. Those that want to be subject to that will stick around, those that feel they need more freedom of speech will step back. I take issue with the subjective enforcement of it. Maureen, (not just a chapter leader, but the administrator of the yahoo group, if I understood correctly,) has been on here talking about a Rosita recall by the FDA. There was no Rosita recall. There was no FDA involvement. The incident which spawned these rumors didn’t even take place in the US. Even if was all true though, that would be speaking negatively about a company and its product, right? That would be spreading information that would negatively effect the reputation of a WAPF vendor. Were other chapter leaders calling her out? No. Not one. Not you. Not any of the others that have posted on here. Can you tell me if people are spreading this rumor of a Rosita recall on the chapter leader group? If so, is anybody enforcing the “only say ‘it didn’t work for me'” policy? Somehow it seems doubtful if the administrator of the group feels free to say it here.
[quote from Sandrine's post above]: “David Wetzel [or any other representative from Green Pasture] has never presented to us at any conference. I usually present every year. I stay the entire time. He has never spoken to us about his products. That is a fact.” [end quote]
Well, maybe he should.
How many other WAPF recommended foods are widely sold by chapter leaders? How many other recommended foods have their own page with links to chapter leaders who will sell it to you?
Sandrine – Didn’t you create the GPP power point presentation that Dave uses when he speaks free of charge at chapter leader meetings all across the USA? It looks like your work.
It’s a pretty small distinction, and feels like an obfuscation, that he doesn’t present at the actual meeting of all the chapter leaders before the conferences, when he’s doing something much larger.
It appears that you are protecting him. That raises suspicions. I imagine that WAPF does monitor topics at Chapter Meetings too. I’m not saying that’s favoritism or not, I’m just saying, he’s out there talking at numerous WAPF chapter meetings as an approved speaker.
Steve – that’s really amazing when you consider WAPF opinion about MLMs!
From their website: “Due to an adopted resolution by the WAPF Board of Directors, businesses whose products, services or business models are based on a multi-level marketing business model or are connected to such businesses as an independent associate shall not be permitted to exhibit at any Wise Traditions or WAPF Conferences or events.”
There is no script. We are not supposed to bash any company’s product, that’s all. It is not insulting at all.
So Maureen WAPF has no problem with chapterleaders who are asked about the fclo saying something along the lines of “Well half the lab tests by certain labs show it’s rancid and the other half conducted by the fclo company and one by WAP show it’s not. And there’s a big controversy going on in the which the VP of the board felt she had to step out on her own because she couldn’t get the board to expand on further testing to be sure it’s safe. Oh, and btw….it’s not really traditional…we don’t really know what it is since it’s also debatable whether you can actually ferment oils. It all depends on how you define fermenting and what’s fermenting. And oh yea….Weston Price never used fermented cod liver oil. He suggested fresh oil was best. And the fish liver are mostly from Alaska, not Norway. And we just found out the butter oil is from Argentina, not the midwest where most of us thought it came from. We have no idea how well that Argentian herd is supervised.
And if you do take it, don’t take too much or you could have a heart attack. But how much, well that dosing is kinda all over the place, I”m not really sure how to tell you how much.”
I believe you, Maureen. OK, there’s no script but the more I think about it maybe WAPF really does need a script.
Karen, your assertions are wrong on so many levels this doesn’t even justify a response. But if you so despise us and everything we stand for, why are you a chapter leader? Are you only on the CL’s list so that you can warp what we say and pass on wrong information from your slanted, vindictive viewpoint? You greatly misrepresent what we say and what we do, and yet you are still on board?
But for the record, yes, cod livers were often fermented and the oil used for cooking and other things. There are records of the Nordic households keeping barrels of fermenting livers outside and drawing from them for various purposes, including ingestion. And Dr. Price in his recommendation against using the darker oils was talking about actual rotting livers and oils, not fermented. There are literally something like 20,000 pages of Dr. Price’s research: NPD only comprises a small, but significant, portion.
Maureen, you may want to give an academic reference for these urban legends you pass along. Hearsay is what caused the scandal.
Maureen, Could you show me the pages from the 20,000 pages of NPD that shows fermented cod liver oil is a quality oil or even mentions it? Just show me one page where Weston Price recommends this fake product.
https://books.google.com/books?id=XrVbk3EndTcC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=storing+cod+livers+in+barrels&source=bl&ots=Hq5vo8GXHK&sig=1yeXD76NORFWUykjCOVHwmFMuz4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBWoVChMIp8yotPvxxwIVAdCACh2cfA7l#v=onepage&q=storing%20cod%20livers%20in%20barrels&f=false
In just a few minutes using basic tools like google scholar, one finds many references to keeping cod liver and other foods in barrels.
Butter was also stored this way (look up bog butter it should bring up a few more historical references).
John, I don’t see anything there about Fermenting Cod LIver Oil. When you research a derivative product, that is a separate issue biochemically. Betting on benefits of a derivative NEW product seems to be where WAPF and GPP got into trouble. Please feel free to update or correct me. I’m just looking at the facts.
It seems it Fermented Cod Liver Oil were as traditional as WAPF claims, it would be recorded in pharmacy or food purveyor logs during the last centuries.It would be meticulously recorded among the items packed and logged for expeditions or whaling voyages.
As someone who has been taking FCLO since it first became available etc etc etc and is now rather sick with inflammation of unknown source resulting in a metabolic nightmare and 3 years so far of lost health despite sticking to all of the WAPF guidelines all those years I’m certainly grateful for Kaaylas gumption to bring this whole thing to light.
Im tempted to test the remaining blue ice royal in my fridge. does anyone know of people doing that?
Interestingly – my husband – who took the least of it is the healthiest person in our household. I
@sick of it I appreciate hearing from other in this metabolic mess. I actually didn’t want to believe Kaayla’s report but it set off so many bells in my head I stopped all fclo to see. And now 3 weeks later I’m seeing the same changes I saw when I left the country for a month last year and couldn’t take my fclo with. I attributed how good I felt to a change of venue not to stopping a poison. In retrospect what was wrong with me that I took this stuff for years, years and years without ever making a connection. In my wildest imagination, I could never have seen that an organization named after Weston Price didn’t know his research on their premier food. I still can’t quite wrap my mind around that one.
The next question is how to fix the damage done. I can see there will be no help from WAP on this one.
@ Karen: Good post! Yes – – all the good work Sally Fallon and her WAPF organization have done will be forever questioned if this subject is not properly addressed and the “damage fixed”, as you say.
I agree with Augie when he states that WAPF should not be recommending or rating products of any kind. It’s ok to make suggestions if people inquire, but endorsements are quite another matter.
I am a WAPF chapter leader in Maryland. I am also a practicing attorney. I have been observing this ongoing controversy so far without comment, but I feel the need to say something for which I anticipate receiving many insults considering the prevailing sentiment on this blog.
I am appalled at the disrespect being shown to the leaders of the WAPF, some even calling for the replacement of Sally Fallon Morrell. Sally Fallon Morrell is not a recent arrival in the movement for real food and food rights. For crying out loud, she practically started the movement, or at least has greatly expanded it. She wrote Nourishing Traditions, which put Nutrition and Physical Degeneration into layman’s terms for many people and provided a guide for practical implementation of Dr. Price’s teachings. She started the Weston A. Price Foundation for the sole purpose of teaching Dr. Price’s messages. She has relentlessly continued to organize and teach the principles of proper nutrition. Without her, many of us would never have even heard of Weston A. Price. In the process she has undoubtedly saved the lives of countless adults and children, who otherwise may have succumbed to various diseases common on the standard American diet. I would guess that, as a result of her teachings, hundreds of thousand, or maybe millions, of people around the globe are walking around with their health and lives greatly improved as a result of Sally’s efforts. It is unfathomable to me that Sally is corrupted, as many people are implying in their writings on this current controversy. Even if her endorsement of GP products is ultimately incorrect, one must certainly conclude that Sally is at least honest in her belief that GP products are beneficial. The fact that she takes FCLO herself and feeds it to her family is further testament to the honesty behind her position on this issue. Regardless of the fault that you may find in Sally’s conclusions, you should be respectful of her and her leadership. When she eventually leaves the WAPF, it will be an incalculable and enormous loss to the movement.
The criticism of Sally on this blog puts the WAPF in a position of “damned if it does—damned if it doesn’t.” If it ceases to endorse GP products, it is criticized for having previously endorsed the product. If it continues to endorse GP products, it is criticized as lacking “empathy” and “a commitment to healing”. What would you have it do!?
Give me a break! The WAPF has done what is reasonably should do. It has answered the call for INFORMATION by explaining in detail its decision to endorse GP products, and it has promised to provide further scientific research on the subject of FCLO. Any evaluation of the WAPF’s response should be based on the merits of its position that FCLO is not rancid, not whether you think that the response was sensitive to people’s feelings. People should look to the WAPF for accurate information about health and nutrition-related questions, not emotional support.
For those of us who are not scientists, this controversy boils down to a decision of whom to trust. I will trust Sally. She has proven herself to be a clear and compelling leader on the topic of nutrition over the last 15 years. The implication that she is corrupted by GP is ridiculous. Even if you disagree with her position on FCLO, please have some respect for Sally and all the good that she has done.
Now let the insults fly.
Very well said Patrick. Sally does not any type of salary either–from what I have been told–for all these years. From watching her and corresponding with her for ten years now I would say she has no dishonesty at all. (She has recommended five of my special projects to the entire membership in the past) Kaayla should have never made this report public–rather keep it at first within a short list of key people for further considerations. Problem I have with is recommending/endorsing brands== big trouble. Best to develop generic standards of quality and let the vendors and advertisers be the house organs and the members/CLs do the testimonies and word of mouth.
You are setting yourself up for something only you imagine when you say, “The criticism of Sally on this blog puts the WAPF in a position of “damned if it does—damned if it doesn’t.” If it ceases to endorse GP products, it is criticized for having previously endorsed the product. If it continues to endorse GP products, it is criticized as lacking “empathy” and “a commitment to healing”. What would you have it do!?”
I said early on that if Sally and the WAPF stepped away from their endorsement of GP, committed to exploring seriously the concerns many people have, that I thought most people would be very forgiving. WAPF has helped many people improve their health, and they are appreciative, and more than ready to give the organization the benefit of the doubt.
You’re absolutely right David. I have no problems with mistakes being made especially in an organization like WAPF that I feel like has done so much good. I do have a problem with denial, lack of disclosure, ignoring problems, blaming victims, closing off avenues of information, hired hand researchers and all the other poor ways WAPF has reacted to this. What I hoped to hear was that they take this seriously and are committed to the best follow-up they can do because they care about the potential problems. (Same for GP although given what I now know it would be tougher, but I could even live with their mistakes if I felt like our well-being and full disclosure was a top priority)
At this point I no longer feel WAPF can get it right. They’ve reacted so poorly I don’t see how they can fix this short of a total housecleaning. I don’t believe that will happen. I guess what drove Kaayla to write her expose was the same feeling.
Step away from endorsing GP? And should you and others step away from endorsing raw milk when there are unsubstantiated claims against it? The claims against raw milk are exponentially greater than any against FCLO, but I do not see you backing down from your support of raw milk.
How is it possible David that you can be an advocate of raw milk, and not FCLO? Do you not see the parallels here?
Most of the support behind Dr. Daniel’s report is coming from bloggers that are affiliated with Rosita EVCLO, and many are not shy about it. They draw comparisons that are grotesque in their misrepresentation. Take for example the idea of transparency…
The Rosita products are called ‘Extra Virgin’ with much fanfare made about the purity of processing and the product. They also have detailed nutrition labels, showing the exact amount of Vitamin D and Vitamin A. These things are all applauded, and yet nobody sees the obvious falsehood here:
The product CANNOT be completely natural and unprocessed if it has exact Vitamin content. The product MUST be heavily processed, in order to have the exact vitamins added until desired levels are established, and have the levels maintained consistent throughout the inventory. So, either the naming and marketing of ‘Extra Virgin’ is grossly misleading, or the labels are incorrect. The latter would be illegal, so I suspect that the product his heavily processed after it is extracted. That processing is also necessary to remove the heavy contamination, which the company has already acknowledged is present in the harvested livers. Perhaps you can use your investigative expertise to give us more details on this David?
Green Pasture FCLO has no such problems, and no such duplicity or mislabeling.
Carrots, Apples, and FCLO do not have such labels, because they are natural foods, and the nutritional content can vary considerably from one batch to the next. Two carrots can look the same, and yet one can have ten times the nutrition of the other. None of this is new.
@ Victor: What in the hell does raw milk have to do with FCLO??? It’s not your place to tell other people what to support and what not to support.
I guess you are new here D, so you didn’t notice most of Mr. Gumpert’s prior posts, or his mission statement:
“This site’s mission is to provide news and analysis about food rights and raw milk.
Increasingly, our access to privately available food is under attack by government and industry forces that seek to impose their choices on us. This blog seeks to provide up-to-date information and encourage the development of community to maintain traditional food acquisition options.”
So yea, the parallels are many – food choice, privately available food, traditional food, etc., and I am asking him a question about such.
I guess you’re new here, Victor, or you would know that D. Smith is a long time regular participant in discussions here.
And I guess you didn’t notice my sarcasm Mary Jean. I thought it would be more polite than screaming back. He obviously did not need the answer I posted, but it may have been useful to other readers.
I’m not sure why you replied to my comment, but thank you for giving me a reason to elaborate. I would not normally engage blogs like this, but it seems to me that Mr. Gumpert is still greatly confused by Dr. Kaayla Daniel’s report, and it is a shame, as Dave Wetzel and Green Pasture are exactly the type of person and small farm that Mr. Gumpert has fought for. In truth, anyone reading this blog must be here for similar reasons.
Victor, in response to your Q about how I can be an advocate of raw milk and not FCLO….I am not an advocate of raw milk, but rather of people’s right to have access to it, as part of their food choices. I feel the same way about FCLO–that people should have the right to decide whether or not they want to include it in their diets. Where I have a problem with FCLO is with Weston A. Price Foundation’s endorsement and close financial ties to the only producer of FCLO, and its refusal to step back from both (the endorsement & financial ties) in the face of credible evidence that there may be safety problems associated with FCLO. WAPF hasn’t taken the same stand of endorsing and getting equally close with a particular producer of raw milk.
OK David, I can appreciate that. Thank you for clarifying. I support your stance on such, in regard to both product categories. But I do not agree about the financial ties or safety problems, as the evidence I see puts them in good standing on both counts. I hope that we can continue to evaluate the things that you see as credible evidence.
If I stuck a carrot or an apple in a vat of salt water and left it for a year, I probably wouldn’t want to eat or drink whatever “natural” thing floated to the top. How about you?
I’ve never tried apple but I do eat fermented carrots and drink the left over liquid all the time. That is exactly how it is made. You put carrots in a jar, cover with salt water, and wait. I have some that are two and three years old and they are still good. Also cabbage, cucumber, beets, and peppers.
I make my own olives from scratch at home and this salt water is pretty much the process, except I change the water every day for a month until they stop leaching the acid. I have also eaten them from batches 2 or 3 years old and they don’t go bad, not sure I’d call them fermented as they do not taste pickled like the ones you buy at the stores.
That is called pickling Steve LOL In Japan they pickle just about anything and call that Tsukimono. It is served as a side dish with most lunches and dinners. Most cultures have similar practices, and all these foods are highly recommended for health.
Dave Wetzel has some nice videos with people sampling various pickled foods on the Green Pasture website, and they discuss some of the science behind it. Since nobody here has obviously not read or watched any those informative links, here they are:
http://www.greenpasture.org/fermented-cod-liver-oil-butter-oil-vitamin-d-vitamin-a/my-thoughts-in-looking-back-over-last-weeks-controversy
“Discussion and a fun video on fermented foods we eat every day with test data tables showing correlation of amines to odor comparing to fermented cod liver oil:”
http://www.greenpasture.org/fermented-cod-liver-oil-butter-oil-vitamin-d-vitamin-a/fermented-food-study-and-taste-test-video/
“If I stuck a carrot or an apple in a vat of salt water and left it for a year, I probably wouldn’t want to eat or drink whatever “natural” thing floated to the top. How about you?”
Actually, you’re roughly describing kimchi, and its quite tasty. Fermented vegies are very safe, as Sandor Katz has documented zero known incidences of food poisoning.
But that is NOT true of cod liver oil. Weston Price himself argued against oxidized over activated oil such as this. In part because they made him sick! (and also killed the animals in his experiments).
And thats what is crazy about this. Today the foundation bearing his name is advocating an oil he himself would not and is going around blaming the victim for when people get sick; insinuating its just an individual sensitivity and not a problem with the product.
Patrick,
The fact that people are well aware of Sally Fallon-Morell’s past accomplishments is what makes this situation such a gut wrenching experience for many of them.
Unfortunately Sally is setting herself up for a hard fall with her “shut up or get kicked out policy”. If you truly believe in freedom of thought and freedom of expression you don’t treat people that way. Especially…the type of people her organization tended to attract; namely, freethinking individuals who valued their freedom of choice, expression and thought.
Her hardline stance is a fundamental violation of everything she and the WAPF stood for.
Ken, herein lies the problem: it is absolutely not true that Sally has instituted any such policy. She simply asks that we not bash company’s products that we recommend. We can discuss issues, and we frequently do, but we may not bash them. We treat one another with respect, at least most of us do, and investigate and analyze before we criticize and condemn.
Well said Patrick. I keep wanting to avoid this blog, but I do not want to abandon people like you. Sadly, the GP FCLO is probably the target of hidden agendas, and Sally is collateral damage. As is Dave Wetzel, the GP owner who I would regard the same way – someone who has dedicated his life to providing us with natural healthy foods. We are several weeks into this fiasco already, with still no proof that can confirm any of the accusations, and yet people here keep keep the negative rhetoric going.
Update: Sally has now ordered the Chapter leaders to follow a script when describing FCLO.
They must not say the oil is “rancid or putrid.” Chapter Leaders must say the product, “doesn’t work for you,” or “you have a reaction.”
The new script insults the intelligence of the leaders. This is like saying a duck is having a “reaction” to L’Orange.
Except that we don’t really know if the product is truly rancid. Dr. Daniel’s lab tests merely raise the question of the possibility. A very important question, given that apparently many people have had an adverse reaction to FCLO. It makes sense to stick with facts, Chapter leaders should be able to disclose and discuss when certain individuals have had an adverse reaction to a particular product recommended by WAPF. But it still is extremely concerning the way the organization is handling this whistle-blower situation.
Yes NS I was concerned enough when I read Kaayla’s report to stop my fclo. And of course, I wanted more testing done. That seemed reasonable. I was willing to keep an open mind but now after watching this WAPF mess, words like cover-up just fit. What other explanation is there for so much poor behavior?
And I feel sorry for the chapterleaders I know. Sally’s all but abandoned them to their own devices with their main directive being don’t use words like “rancid” or “putrid”. Just say it doesn’t work for me or whatever. Sally published her Q&A, said wait for Fall journal for more, had her admin cut off Onibasu and that was it. I’ve not seen hide nor hair of her on the WAPF website giving any updates on this mess. (oh yes, add from Jeans post now purge any disagreeing chapterleaders)
There are an awful LOT of unanswered questions……where is Sally (or GP) to answer them?
Our education team inside the OPDC marketing department provided me some fascinating yet very frustrating in information yesterday. While providing nearly 1000 samples of free raw milk to people attending the Ghirrudelli Chocolate Festival in San Franscico ….this is what they heard repeatedly. Owe….I have tried A2 Milk and it was not a good experience….it gave me gas pains and lactose intolerance. It was clear that A2 further confuses consumers and it is filled with fake hollow misleading claims. A2 is CAFO raised,not organic, UHT processed, homogenized and standardized. It is 100% BS.
Obviously, OPDC and raw milk will need to address A2 Corporation claims and further distance itself from this phony fake misleading Austalian snake oil.
Sadly….there are great things that can be said about raw A2 milk….but this is not what is being pushed in the mainstream to consumers. The A2 that is being pushed is no better than the worst highly processed fake crap that has already destroyed milk markets already!!!
By far the most frequent question asked at this event was this…90% of all questions were related to lactose intolerance. Something that raw milk is not related too. It is clear that A2 is connected directly with upset stomachs and serious digestion problems. Now we have more market confusion….thanks to hollow A2 claims… Thx Mr. A2 Corp. you really screwed it up big time.
Mark, what does this have to do with the ongoing WAPF cover-up we’re commenting on?
Should the newest update be: Diversions tactics being now being used on on blogs that are deemed too negative to WAPF?
Mark,
Why do seem to always pop up to blow your own horn in every way. You are a self serving fool only after the money. If David Gumpert ever investigated your track record and people you climbed over with disregard this blog activity on FCLO would look pale in comparison. And by the way can you verify you have a certified A2 herd. I doubt it. If the public knew what cows you have they could eliminate “It is clear that A2 is connected directly with upset stomachs and serious digestion problems”.
Karen, this blog was focused mostly on raw milk before FCLO and associated topics consumed all the bandwidth here. I don’t see anything out of line in someone posting on what used to the this blog’s raison d’etre. And it’s not like Mark’s post is going to remove commenting space and stop anyone from continuing to post on FCLO, WAPF, and GP.
In fact, I rather welcome a shift from exclusively talking about FCLO, WAPF, and GP. I say this as someone who is a WAPF member who has taken GP CLO/FCLO/BO (1 tsp/day) since 2005 and has now stopped pending further clarification. Despite following a WAPF diet for around 13 years, I started experiencing PACs about 7 years ago and then atrial fibrillation about 3 years ago, which greatly puzzled me until I read about the possible connection with FCLO consumption. So I have a keen personal interest in this discussion, but I don’t think it will advance until we have more testing results.
In regard to D P’s post, Mark has stated previously that his herd is part Holstein, and he has never claimed to have an A2 certified herd. The comments Mark reported are in reference to A2 milk sold by The a2 Milk Company. He’s not talking about raw milk that comes from dairy breeds purported to produce A2-dominant milk such as Jersey, Guernsey, and Brown Swiss. Mark’s beef is that a product that is UHT pasteurized, homogenized, and standardized is nevertheless touted as being more healthful.
Oh yes, I know this blog…I regularly read it. BUT for the most part, blog etiquette by frequent users keeps comments on point with the particular blog post. (well except for the sneaky spammers) When it veers off like Mark did with little to no explanation, it gives the impression of diversion. And this is hot topic it seems some people would like to see go away.
btw……I’ve also gotten off the fclo I’ve been faithful too since 2005. Am seeing some digestive pain I could never get to bottom just melt away. Unsettling to say the least….so what else was going on I couldn’t make the connection to. I guess I’ll see.
I’m sure this will return to the regular issues of raw milk in the not too distance future so don’t fret.
the way the A2 Corporation sabotaged Dr Woodcock’s hypothesis | Devil in the Milk | is a classic example of how the Adversary works … take something authentic and precious, have the over-educated idiots with letters after their names pervert “studies” designed to fail, then point to such failure everafter = “see, there was nothing to that nonsense”. The history of actual remedies for cancer, being that technique writ large.
… Worst example : the vaccination industry. From serum made from the blood of horses and cows, doctors proved in 1949 that immunity could be transferred. Patterson did the work to prove that a treated cow would produce “immune milk”. So from real cows = vacca = we can get something miraculous. But that game-changing concept was outlawed because it’s too cheap for the corporate government to make a profit. They stole the root word to cover their diabolical worst. California now orders its children must be injected with poisons produced from diseased monkeys, and cell-lines harvested from babies killed in the womb. And the Cult of the White Robe would have you believe this is “progress” .
This is what I was afraid of–Food Safety News is calling for the U.S. Justice Department and the FDA to get involved in investigating the fermented cod liver oil controversy. Hard to imagine a satisfactory ending if that happens.
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2015/09/letter-from-the-editor-a-superfood-controversy/#.VfWRoLRFL8k
Well darn, that article’s not going to help. After skimming this I find myself agreeing with other commenters that the Weston A. Price Foundation should probably not be recommending any supplements. That just doesn’t seem like a reasonable strategy in this age of litigation.
Having read ‘Nutrition and Physical Degeneration’ the book written by Dr. Weston A. Price, it was cod liver oil and high vitamin butter oil that Dr. Price used to supply the critical nutrients missing in modern foods. It makes sense that the Weston A. Price Foundation would recommend them.
Recommending a “high quality CLO” and actually pushing brands are two different things. I don’t remember who said it, but somebody mentioned that at the chapter leader meeting before the Wise Tradition conference, one vendor was brought in to speak to the group about his product, how to get setup to be a reseller of it, how to organize group buys and get discounts, etc. Always that same vendor. Wanna guess who that vendor is? That’s definitely favoritism, maybe even cronyism.
Get your facts straight Steve; this has never happened to the best of my recollection, and I have only missed 1 conference in 12 years!
You’re right on the chapter leader thing. It was misrepresented to me. The favoritism is still there.
oh wow…..just wow…….this is exactly why we didn’t want all this WAPF stonewalling. Nope…this is not going to end well and WAPF can only look to themselves for the outcome.
Was there ever a doubt that Marler would become involved in this?
From the article at the link David Gumpert posted above (from FSN): Benjamin C. Mizer, who heads the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Division as principal deputy assistant attorney general, said last week: “We will investigate and prosecute companies and individuals that sell supplements that threaten the health of the American public and drain their bank accounts with misrepresented products.”
Maybe we should also be doing this for many of the “approved” Rx drugs on the market, huh, Mr. Mizer, sir? Talk about draining people’s bank accounts. If anyone misrepresents their products like no one else, it’s BIGPHRMA and their little cheerleader drug reps. No one at FTC or FDA et al seems to be worried about threats to the health of the american public from those drugs with side-effect lists which are 3 feet long! No sir. BIGPHRMA even gets a free pass from the DOJ on liability if their drugs injure someone. They always have an excuse – and of course the science is always on their side, if you truly believe science as it works today.
Not that I think GP should get a pass if something is truly wrong with their products, but I’m a lot less worried about taking a food-based supplement (according to the instructions) than taking a chemically-based drug. Those drugs are far and away more easily misrepresented, Mr. Mizer, so get a grip and look at the big picture.
Here’s a good article on what I was referring to in my above post. Most supplements are not “misrepresented” as Mr. Mizer would have us all believe, but they are mislabeled because the FDA generally stifles companies from making suggested “recommendations” regarding dose and/or content. This might be a big reason why people take incorrect doses, or they go by someone else’s recommendations rather than the advice of the manufacturer – or even a nutritionist or naturopath. Still, too much of anything isn’t a good idea, as has been discussed here ad nauseum.
Some of the legalities involved are striking, however. No wonder people use supplements by guess and by golly, and maybe now that will change – without the good Mr. Mizer pushing his skewed agenda.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/08/bill-sardi/will-supplement-makers-now-have-free-speech/
[quote from the article at that link]: “Now all we need is for some brave dietary supplement maker to step up to the plate and challenge the FDA on its restrictive labeling policies and make a label claim that an essential vitamin or mineral supplement remedies a dietary deficiency disease.” [end quote]
Jonathon Emord comes to mind . . .
But D,
if you take all those “recommended” rheumatoid arthritis drugs, COPD drugs, etc you’ll be doing summer-salts, back flips, skydiving and dancing in the streets smiling and laughing too!!
It’s on TV so you know it MUST be true!
@ Sylvia: Most of the people taking those drugs will end up dead (sooner rather than later), regardless of what the tv blasts at us all day every day. But wouldn’t it be nice if it worked the way you described it!
Also, in my post above yours, when I mentioned Jonathan Emord, what I meant was that if anyone knows of a supplement company who might be willing to take on the task of challenging the FDA, Jonathan Emord would probably know who that company might be. So far, evidently, most of the companies are worried about dotting all the i’s and crossing all the t’s, and it can’t be done to suit the FDA (because they keep moving the goal posts) – and that’s why none of the companies want to go there unless FORCED to do so.
That article is kinda scary, but has some truth in it. If the nutritional supplement industry doesn’t regulate itself, the Feds will step in and do it in a much more arbitrary way, catering to the big companies, and crushing the little guys. According to this article, if FCLO is actually a food as Wetzel says and Victor keeps reminding us, it comes under more stringent regulations than a dietary supplement. If true, that is interesting. But it could be a misrepresentation, or misinterpretation.
Steve, please consider how your ideas sound in the context of this reality: Green Pasture is a top CLO product in the world. It means that the product has been reviewed for sale in numerous countries, each of which has there own tough requirements for testing, labeling, etc. This is not some black market or gray market product. The product has been sold retail, globally, for many years already. The product is not mislabeled, misrepresented, or any other such nonsense. If they were doing anything wrong, they would have been caught by some governments, just as the Rosita Ratfish Oil was.
Oh, wait, you said in some other posts that I was naive to believe that Ratfish Oil story? You should really stop winging answers and insinuations, as the owner of Corganic acknowledged that directly, and you can find confirmation in various places if you just do some research.
I wish you all would just check the facts. You only hurt yourselves with all of this trolling.
Oh Victor. I did check the facts. If you think that having their products reviewed by the FDA would be an easy thing for GPP and that they would pass with flying colors, then perhaps you should report them, and prove your point. Personally, I think it would be devastating. There is no court of appeals. The product IS mislabeled (and that is probably why Green Pasture hasn’t directly issued a statement addressing that concern – probably waiting until they relabel their products and may not even say anything about the past even then) and until you get an FDA representative to agree with you, you’re just stating your opinion and the preponderance of evidence points to mislabeling.
If you think that every product that is sold in every part of the world is tested before being sold there, you really don’t have any understanding of what goes on. You work with computers. If you buy a processor that was made in Malaysia, do you think that the customs officers are grabbing samples from those shipments and doing stress tests on them? Nope. I’ve shipped nutritional supplements all over the world. They have never been tested by any of those countries. No bottle has ever been opened. Not once. No certificates of analysis or test results have to be proffered. NOTHING has to be done but put a harmonized code on the customs form, which is a number specifying generic nutritional supplements. I’ve had product refused and sent back by customs once or twice, but never tested. There are certain things that customs officials won’t allow into a country. Like some EU country won’t allow K2 to be imported. How do they determine that? They look at the label. That is one reason why not putting on the label what is in the product is such a big deal and if they find out about it, the FDA will come down on a company hard – especially a small company without a battery of lawyers and good ‘ol boys in the buddy system that can mitigate such a response.
Would love to see where you found Corganic admitting to having their products recalled, or admitting that a government forced them to stop selling it. I believe that was your claim before?
The true story is that the government affiliated lab asked for crude ratfish oil, so that they could do nutrient testing on it. They did contaminant testing, and because the fish is a bottom feeder and the oil was crude and had not been filtered at all, it of course had contaminants. Then a report was put out citing the results and asking people not to take the oils. It was a complete misrepresentation. They couldn’t recall the oils or stop the sale or export of the product because they hadn’t actually tested finished product, and therefore had no grounds. Producers of fish oils in traditional manners in Norway are treated like raw milk producers are in the US.
Listen Steve, I am trying to be helpful here, but you are making it difficult.
You should refrain from assuming anything about me personally, as I do not just work with computers. I have my own businesses, and work in various industries and countries.
I’m sorry to say, but ‘shipping internationally’ has nothing to do the context. I am talking about setting up to be a distributor in a foreign country. That is a completely different context.
I live in Tokyo, and sure, I can have FCLO shipped to me from the U.S. with no problem. But I cannot have it shipped in bulk without risk of confiscation. And I cannot distribute it. You have the same risk traveling between countries with your baggage. Anyone that has traveled internationally understands this risk, as they must complete a customs form.
Green Pasture does not merely ship globally – they have distributors established in various countries. And that requires a ton of paperwork and procedures that is unique for each country and each product category. And neither I nor GP can explain the exact details of such, as that burden falls on the distributor. I know, because I have been involved in such. We cannot speak in absolutes about testing or not testing, as we simply do not know for sure what happens in each situation. But we certainly can say that the FCLO is on the radar of various governments around the world, and there has never been a problem in all these years.
About Rosita, I have no desire to bash them needlessly, as they are probably just an innocent bystander here. Their name has been dragged into this because of the aggressive business practices of Corganic, and because everyone making accusations about FCLO seems to be selling EVCLO. This is a very sad thing, as the world is certainly big enough for numerous CLO suppliers, and GP can never meet demand anyway.
I’ll post some links anyway. I would like to see you do the same, and post some links to support al your accusations.
Contaminated Rosita Ratfish Oil:
http://www.nutraingredients.com/Regulation-Policy/Norway-warns-on-polluted-fish-oil-supplements
http://healthsnewsarticles.blogspot.jp/2015/07/dangerous-levels-of-contaminants.html
http://healthyfamiliesforgod.com/2015/08/response-fermented-cod-liver-oil-report/
http://blog.ppnf.org/cod-liver-oil-a-historical-perspective/
Of course, these things happen, so it really isn’t a big deal. It is just another small thing that demonstrates how good Green Pasture FCLO is. It is also relevant because several people have compared Rosita to Green Pasture, insinuating that GP is not transparent. And yet here we have a government report that has no public response from Rosita.
I hope to see some links in your next posts. Or better yet, I hope you realize that you have been duped by Dr. Daniel’s report.
When you post these links, do you even read what they say?
Link 1 and 2. Yes, this is the story as I have seen it reported. It is a little misleading, but not grossly untrue. You will note from reading them, that there is no recall. What??? No recall??? How could the authorities find such high levels of contaminants and not issue a recall??? That seems totally irresponsible. It is because they tested crude oil and not finished product.
Link 3. Just references one of the articles above and then, to achieve the desired end goal, completely misrepresents the article by saying it was Extra Virgin CLO, and not Handcrafted Ratfish OIl. An attempt to scare people away from EVCLO. After the mistake was pointed out, author still doesn’t edit to change the claim, and makes a further note below to try to scare people away from EVCLO.
Link 4. No reference in the entire article about ratfish oil. Two comments about ratfish oil. One is from Sara Jo Poff who has been very active in spreading this misinformation around as much as she can. Another is from Dan Corrigan clarifying that it was not Rosita EV Ratfish Oil that was tested with a link to their FAQ about ratfish.
I have distributors in Canada and Mexico. They have had to do no testing and simply get a customs number to import the products. Your insinuation that it has to go through rigorous and strenuous review to be sold in foreign countries, without giving a single example, is without any credence.
Again, I’m not sure what accusations you think I have made. Still waiting to hear that.
Hi David,
I write this sincerely – since you identify yourself as an investigative reporter, I would love to encourage you to investigate and report the entire story. I don’t see any mention of these viewpoints:
http://www.thehealthcloud.co.uk/green-pastures-rancid-report-analysis/
http://chriskresser.com/important-update-on-cod-liver-oil/
http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/2015/08/weighing-in-on-fermented-cod-liver-oil.html
http://www.otezok.com/2015/08/27/flco-chriskresser/
You make statements that are interpretive. “Many” chapter leaders. How many? Perhaps include those who don’t feel silenced and who aren’t at odds with the Foundation. One could assert that there are many who don’t feel like they are puppets and find that the requests made of them are doable and acceptable.
A chapter leader writes on a public Facebook page”The title of this article is incorrect in two ways. As a chapter leader, I received the email that David Gumpert references and (1) never thought that it was an attempt to control me or that I had no right to my own opinion and (2) I have seen no evidence that the dissension among chapter leaders (or members) is mounting. Chapter leaders are not required to take (or even recommend) CLO or FCLO or to “push” it on anyone. I often recommend trying FCLO because I have taken it for several years (since it was introduced) and have seen significantly improved health benefits. I never ask or expect anyone to take my word for any dietary or health advice, and the WAPF does not expect or require me to do so. I always recommend that people do their own research and make up their own minds, just as I do. I follow the dietary guidelines of the Weston A. Price Foundation because after years of personal health and nutrition research, I have found them to be the best supported of any of the well-known and less well-known promoted “diets.” I continue as a chapter leader because I have been helped by these guidelines and have seen very positive results in others as well. If I didn’t believe that the WAPF represented a healthier way to live, I would not support it and would withdraw as a chapter leader.”
https://www.facebook.com/FindRawMilk/posts/10153588715989557
Other chapter leaders mirrored this experience and said so publicly.
If you aren’t willing to report all the different viewpoints, I encourage you to be clear that your posts on this topic are all opinion pieces.
I was informed that the Weston A. Price Foundation now has about 550 chapter leaders.
http://www.westonaprice.org/get-involved/find-local-chapter/
How many did you contact in order to truthfully portray chapter leaders opinions as a whole group? I ask genuinely: how thoroughly have you investigated this topic before declaring that “dissension mounts” amongst us chapter leaders? My concern is that your investigation isn’t reflective of the whole story.
Sandrine, Many of us possess the transcripts of the cover-ups, gag orders and telling the leaders who didn’t support Sally to leave. That’s on the record. It doesn’t matter how many chapter leaders complained about the scandal.
What matters is how disgracefully the whole response from WAPF was handled, including mocking the victims and showing no care or curiosity about them.
I don’t know where you are getting your information from Lynne, but there are no gag orders or cover-ups. Honestly, why can’t we just discuss the issues with Kaayla’s report?! All there is here are accusations and here-say! And there has been absolutely ZERO mocking of any so-called “victims”!
I am a chapter leader and I, for one, do not feel I have been told to toe the line. I have actually been surprised at how loosely we are managed. Some of my friends are chapter leaders for other organizations (MOMS Club, Holistic Moms, La Leche League, etc.) and I couldn’t believe the interview process they had to go through and all the rules they have to follow. The only requirement that I am aware of as a WAPF Chapter Leader is to be a WAPF member in good standing and maintain a list of local farmers. There are many resources available to us, such as lists of product recommendations, but we do not have to personally endorse every product. We are encouraged to share positive experiences. In regard to the recent email to chapter leaders that was mentioned above, I took it to mean “If you don’t have something nice to say, don’t say anything at all.” That is also what my mother taught me and that is how I believe political candidates should behave, though none ever do. If a product is a good product it should stand on it’s own merits. Not every food or product is right for every person. I am in support of open conversation and scientific testing to better understand the mysteries and complexities of nutrition but we as humans still have a lot to learn. I though Dr. Daniels 111 page “report” brought a lot of valid questions to light but I was really put off by the way she presented it. Fermented Cod Liver Oil has done wonders for me and many people I know, no matter what her tests say. I understand there is a “new” Cold Liver Oil product available and I will be happy to try it. If I have similar results with it I will also recommend it to my chapter members, regardless of weather or not it is on the WAPF list of recommended products.
Is dissension not mounting, Sandrine?
Great post Sandrine. The idea of investigative reporting is what has shocked me most with Mr. Gumpert’s posts. The movement I see here mirrors what we see in Astroturfing and Seeding efforts by big business. In fact, there is a good article here that explains those terms:
http://www.foodrenegade.com/vaccines-pr-and-the-news-cycle/
Of course many negative comments are from innocent people that have simply been caught up in the emotion of Dr. Kaayla’s Daniel’s report, or Mr. Gumpert’s posts. Hopefully your comments will help shed more light.
Another good article was written by Sara Jo Poff on her site:
http://healthyfamiliesforgod.com/2015/08/response-fermented-cod-liver-oil-report/
Sara Jo Poff had posted on one of David Gumpert’s articles before, but I have since been unable to find it.
This is what is called ‘projecting’.
The problem with any investigative reporting is that there is not one person who has spoken on the topic who has the expertise to address the core question of rancidity. Batting about everyone’s opinion isn’t going to get us any closer.
Amanda,
Even if there were one or more people of so-called expertise speaking on the topic, do you “really” think it would make a difference?
For some perhaps, for others…I doubt it.
You may be right, Ken, it might not matter for the whole group dynamic here. I keep hearing about various responses from bloggers or practitioners but none of them are based on the level of expertise that is required to answer the core questions. There is the German lab guy (or whoever that was in one of the WAPF reports) but it’s unclear what his credentials are or if he understood the community’s concern when reporting his lab results.
Why is that only one side’s “experts” are qualified?! Really? Kaayla went into this with an agenda and already knew what her labs’ tests would show: that fclo is “rancid” and unsafe. How is this credible?! So, we have a pPhdD in lipid biochemistry and just because he is closely linked to WAPF, his analysis is invalid?! Really? And how about the other truly expert scientist who tested back in February when Sally sent a bottle off? Because Sally sent it, his expertise is in question as well? In both cases these scientists explain things like peroxidase values, free fatty acids, etc., things which Kaayla personally got wrong, but of course only her conclusions are correct because, after all, well, why exactly?
So here’s the link to the “official” statement which SFM put out several weeks ago. I know, Sally wrote it. Of course, so we shouldn’t believe it. But scroll down to the, “Why did you send fermented cod liver oil to be tested last year” section, and decide for yourself whether or not this British (sorry, I had previously incorrectly stated German) scientist has to say:
http://www.westonaprice.org/uncategorized/questions-and-answers-about-fermented-cod-liver-oil-fclo/
@ Maureen: I’m sorry, but you have absolutely no way of knowing that “Kaayla went into this with an agenda and already knew what her lab tests would show”. Really now, let’s get off that showboat.
I’m not sure if your question is for me, Maureen. When I said there were no experts involved, I meant on both sides. I haven’t seen anything written by a lipid biochemist, so I don’t know your reference but I’d be interested to read it. I’m not sure of your “truly expert scientist” either. I mentioned up thread something about the guy who tested for WAPF but it’s not clear to me what his credentials are. He might be an expert but if he is, it’s not clear if he sees his lab results as anything resembling “conclusive.”
@Amanda Rose I believe the lipid biochemist Maureen refers to is Chris Masterjohn. You can read his analysis here. http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/2015/08/weighing-in-on-fermented-cod-liver-oil.html
@Maureen I have not heard anyone say that Masterjohn’s report is invalid ?? Maybe I missed it though. What I have heard is that 1) many people have no idea exactly what it says as it’s all over the place 2) Masterjohn has too many financial ties to WAPF to be objective 3) his conclusion is we need more testing which is exactly what Kaayla orginally asked for and was forced to do on her own.
Karen — Masterjohn’s Ph.D. is in nutrition, not unrelated but not really on target for what we need here. We really need someone to cut through the noise on measurement of rancidity in marine oils. I looked at Grootveld’s lab results again and that key point is missing there too — he performs a test but it’s not clear to me that it’s the right test to answer the questions we have. Maybe his lab results are the information we need. An expert would be a person who has the training to tell us if it is and to analyze the results.
Amanda, I agree, so maybe the focus should be on all the other questions that have nothing to do with rancid or not rancid oil. Let’s start with what would Weston Price consider a traditional high-quality cod liver oil?
Lots of experts have already weighed in. Just look for it. You are just looking for someone to support your belief. Look at the tests yourself. The FCLO is clearly not rancid. Here is a report that is quite easy to read:
http://www.thehealthcloud.co.uk/green-pastures-rancid-report-analysis/
I think Craig did a great job, and he posted here on David Gumpert’s first FCLO article, and you all ignored him. You should really give it a read. Or look for other links if you prefer. But do not claim that there are no experts.
I don’t know Craig’s credentials, Victor. Does he have an advanced degree in a relevant field?
Apparently I have a different standard than many on this blog of what it takes to be an “expert.” I have a Ph.D. in a field unrelated to this question and I consider a research degree in a related field a prerequisite to provide the rest of us with some foundational knowledge on this topic.
Amanda, Craig posted this at the bottom of http://www.thehealthcloud.co.uk/how-to-tell-if-fish-oil-is-rancid/:
Craig
Nutritionist at The Health Cloud
Graduate of Nutrition & Food Science (Bsc) at Reading Uni.
Doesn’t look like an advanced degree to me.
You don’t need an expert or credentials for most of this. Think for yourself. If you care so much about it, you can easily get a good idea about it with minimal research. There are six rancidity markers tested in Dr. Daniel’s report:
Aldehydes & Anisidine: If these two markers have high values, that is a strong indicator that the oil is rancid, and we see that often with many rancid oils. The Green Pasture FCLO has LOW values for both. Kaayla only tested for one of these, but it was LOW.
Peroxide: Same as above – high values are a strong indicator or rancidity. Again FCLO tests LOW in Kaalya’s report.
TOTOX: High values indicate rancidity, and again the GP FCLO tests LOW.
TBA/MDA: Not a useful test according to Kaayla, but she did it anyway. Inconclusive because 2 or 3 labs show excellent LOW scores, while one shows a high score.
Free fatty acids content: The presence of fatty acids could be an indicator of rancidity. This is where Kaalya makes her claims, as the product does have fatty acids. But this has always been known, as Green Pasture already explained this. And as Craig says “For me, the presence of free fatty acids isn’t something to worry about, and only means that some of the triglycerides are effectively ‘pre-digested’ in a way my body would have done anyway.”
Standing alone, no single indicator confirms rancidity. You can see this yourself by looking at tests of rancid oils. You don’t need experts. Just compare the results of rancid oils against the FCLO, and you will see that the FCLO is no where near rancid.
Of course testing methods mean a lot, and there are other tests. But Kaalya did not disclose the methods or the labs, and she did not do any other tests. It is an ongoing science of course, but by established standards of rancidity and comparative analysis, it is easy to see that the Green Pasture FCLO is an excellent product with regard to rancidity.
I am a social scientist, Victor, and so I don’t have an opinion on the various markers of rancidity. I do not know the nuances of measurement in that field. Until someone with a real credential who is not on the dole of financially interested parties can shed light on this situation, I would strongly advise everyone to think for themselves. The best approach is probably “if it looks like a duck and smells like a duck…” Open a bottle of FCLO and think for yourself.
Here are a couple of quotes from Masterjohn’s analysis for you:
“…Altogether, then, I do not think the oil demonstrates a history of lipid peroxidation, and in the sense of the “fat chemist,” I do not believe it is rancid.”
“I find the antagonistic tone of the report to be unfortunate, and many of the accusations reach beyond what the evidence should allow for. If this report stands on its own, I do not think Green Pasture gets a fair hearing.”
And there are lots of other scientists with analysis out there. You just have to look for it. Some of the links are already scattered around this blog.
There is not a single scientist that I have found that has supported Dr. Daniel’s findings, as she contradicts even her own lab reports. I imagine that is why the labs are blacked out, and we do not even disclose the methods, as they do not likely wish to be associated with false accusations.
If you haven’t already checked the Green Pasture website, you really should, as you can see many scientists there discussing the various issues. And of course there are other independent sites.
So Maureen, you seem to be really close to this, so perhaps you can find out the information that I would like to know.
The date on the Grootveld report was December 14, I believe. Do you know the date of the board meeting?
Sarah Pope, a board member said in her blog that they had the Grootveld report in hand and that is why they decided not to pursue further testing. Sandrine Love also stated this in many places and seems close to the situation. Sally said that they had test results that GPP had provided and insinuated that they didn’t yet know that they weren’t very good for evaluating rancidity of a product like that. I have a hard time reconciling the stories. Can you?
Can you explain why WAPF did not publish the Grootveld report in its entirety? The only reasons I can think for doing that are not flattering to WAPF.
I have to agree with Sandrine: “(1) never thought that it was an attempt to control me or that I had no right to my own opinion and (2) I have seen no evidence that the dissension among chapter leaders (or members) is mounting.”
In fact when I read Mr Gumpert’s blog and an unsolicited email I received from Dr. Ron about the “gag” order, I wondered if perhaps I didn’t receive the email gag order at all. But when I checked my inbox I had received it, had read it, and never interpreted it as a “gag” order. As for dissension mounting, the only place I’ve seen that happen is on this blog. It certainly doesn’t appear to be the case with comments I’ve seen by the chapter leaders on the infamous chapter leader group or with questions I’ve had to field from members.
Chapter leaders have been told to come to this blog and post in support of the official WAPF view. We have been told not to “like” David Gumpert’s or Kaayla Daniels posts on any Facebook pages or any other posts “disparaging” to the WAPF or FCLO on any Facebook pages. We have been told if we do not agree with the official stance–Fukushima fish is the same as Atlantic cod, Chris Masterjohn says everything is fine with FCLO, etc–we should resign.
A chapterleader I know told me she was reminded her name would show up if she liked facebook posts against WAPF. Whoa…..now surveillance is going on. Cover-up, gag orders, surveillance, scripts of what to say…. You can’t make this stuff up even if you tried.
What a sad state of affairs.
I am a chapter leader who has been criticized by some on the chapter leaders forum, so I’d like to add my two cents here. I do not agree that we are being “told” the things you have mentioned. (not to “like” David Gumpert’s or Kaayla Daniels posts on any Facebook pages or any other posts “disparaging” to the WAPF or FCLO on any Facebook pages. We have been told if we do not agree with the official stance–Fukushima fish is the same as Atlantic cod, Chris Masterjohn says everything is fine with FCLO, etc–we should resign.)
I don’t agree that we are being “told” those things; rather there is a discussion ongoing on the forum about different people’s opinions of ways to best handle this matter. If you are a chapter leader, please join in that conversation on the chapter leaders forum. If you don’t agree with how the WAPF is handling things, that is the place where we can hash these things out and possibly influence change for the better.
Can you post the original emails/posts/messages? I think that some that are not in the loop are being swayed by one interpretation or another, and maybe a few, like me, would like to see the actual words.
One main point in all of this is that the Chapter Leaders forum is only a forum. Many people express different opinions on the forum, but that does not mean those opinions are “orders”. They are just different people’s opinions. I may disagree with people on the forum by expressing my own opinion, just as they may. Sometimes the debates get a bit heated, but in the end, they are debates and not directives.
I’ll try to sum it all up with the specific items that have been called out by “not gagged”.
“Chapter leaders have been told to come to this blog and post in support of the official WAPF view.” One person on the chapter leader forum made a comment that she had seen a lot of comments on David Gumpert’s blog and that the discussion seemed one-sided, so she suggested that other chapter leaders come here to voice their opinions as well.
“We have been told not to “like” David Gumpert’s or Kaayla Daniels posts on any Facebook pages or any other posts “disparaging” to the WAPF or FCLO on any Facebook pages.”
One person mentioned that she was able to see that some chapter leaders had “liked” some of those pages/posts on FB. She did not call those people out by name, nor did she make any mention of people not being allowed to do so; rather, she was expressing her concern that seeing those “likes” made her upset.
“We have been told if we do not agree with the official stance–Fukushima fish is the same as Atlantic cod, Chris Masterjohn says everything is fine with FCLO, etc–we should resign.”
I can’t find any reference to the particular instances being called out here (regarding cod or Chris Masterjohn). There has been a discussion amongst various chapter leaders expressing their own opinions about whether someone should keep acting as a chapter leader when they find that they strongly disagree with the WAPF policies or mission. There have been many different opinions expressed on this topic. But in the end, they are opinions!
Some people have expressed dissatisfaction/disagreement with my own actions in reviewing Kaayla’s report and posting a summary of it on my blog (nourishedandnurtured.blogspot.com), and yes, there has been some talk of resignation related to that, but in the end, it is still people expressing their own opinions. By and large, when I explain the underlying motivations and intentions for my actions, there has been acceptance of those (if not approval) and a willingness to move forward.
One other big issue here is that there are very few chapter leaders engaging in this debate on the forum who have anything negative to say. Instead, those chapter leaders are apparently voicing their frustrations on Facebook and blogs such as this, but they are not voicing those feelings in the forum. By not voicing those feelings in the forum, where they can be seen by other chapter leaders and WAPF leadership, the discussions there can be too one-sided, just as they seem to be on many of the blogs. People from both sides of the discussion need to be willing to engage in it, else no progress will be made. Finger-pointing from outside the organization doesn’t get us anywhere, and doesn’t provide any impetus for change. If anyone reading this is a chapter leader and is feeling dissatisfied with something the organization is doing, please come and voice your opinion on the forum, where chapter leaders and WAPF leadership have an opportunity to hear those opinions.
That is not what was said and since you are an “anonymous” chapter leader (so brave of you to hide your identity!), you know this. Yes, I have personally stated that if you can not support our core values and seek to undermine the foundation and all of our credibility, you should resign. It is a sound and sane statement and I stand by it.
Is supporting Green Pasture Products now a “core value” of the WAPF? Is condemning, or maybe even questioning a GPP product, now undermining the foundation and all of its credibility?
With the bombardment that other “brave” chapter leaders have had to endure, I really don’t blame the poster.
Treating one another and our supporters with respect is, yes, a core value. Not jumping on the bandwagon of accusations and misrepresentations without debate I would determine is also a respect issue, and a sound practice. Exercise good judgement and open discussion, also yes. The reputations and integrity of several very good people have been attacked and most people here are just believing what has been said without giving ear to the other side of the story but believing only a one-sided story from someone with something to prove. Kaayla has gotten a lot of mileage out of this, while others have been crucified with no opportunity for their defense.
I don’t disagree with that. I would however like to point out that in the rush to support the reputations and integrity of “several very good people” the reputation and integrity and even the intelligence of several other good people have been attacked. Dr. Kaayla Daniel is being viciously attacked by WAPF supporters, and I have seen nothing to indicate that Sally gives a thought about that as long as doing so strengthens the GPP position. Dr. Ron would be another person that Sally could have protected by saying that he took right at or slightly more than previously recommended dosages. Instead he was made to look like a fool for “taking up to 9x” the WAPF recommended dosage. So, is it because Kaayla Daniel is not a vendor, and Dr. Ron is no longer allowed to be a vendor, that they don’t have to be treated with respect and can be accused and misrepresented by Sally, the chapter leaders, and the members?
In addition I find the avoidance of the very key issue that that taking more than the currently recommended dosage is so incredibly harmful, quite disgraceful. Why is it harmful? Why is this extremely beneficial and safe and sacred traditional food able to produce heart failure in just a few years? Dr. Price had a theory – and it wasn’t nutrient overload.
I would disagree that most people have not heard the other side. I think most people have only heard one side of this story for YEARS, and are only NOW hearing the other side. For years and years GPP has gotten a ton of mileage and money out of spinning stories of FCLO as a traditional food in many places, Vikings, trips to Norway and the like, weaving a tapestry that created a beautiful picture and insinuated promises. WAPF’s wholehearted support meant many of us didn’t even look past the surface. Now the veil has been lifted and cries of, “we would have been transparent about sourcing, contents, and process if we’d known that was important to you” from Wetzel seem to be disingenuous. This is the real food movement where we want to know the breed, feed and heritage of the chicken that laid the eggs we eat.
Perfectly said Maureen. Sadly, I do not think most people here on David Gumpert’s site, including Mr. Gumpert, have done much research. I see absolutely no comments about David Wetzel’s superb post nearly two weeks ago, which has lots of convenient links, and ends with a plea for peace in the community. He simply lays out the facts, with several scientists there. People really need to read all of that before they continue with unfounded accusations.
Several of my employees read his response, and came to me incredulous that after 2 weeks of prep, that was his response. I read it, and I was surprised too. It seemed to be like, “Why are you picking on me, I’m so nice, can’t we just all get along?” But most importantly, he didn’t say anything about the Alaska Pollock issue. He didn’t admit to using it. He didn’t say they didn’t. I’ve said all along this is the most important issue to me and I’ve been waiting for him to address it. I’m beginning to think that he won’t and if he doesn’t that says a lot to me. If it was as simple as you make it out to be, he would have had a simple response. Wouldn’t you think?
I totally agree. Dave W has always avoided questions about his products, but with all the outcry, I thought he would finally realize that we are serious about what we consume. I have been pretty surprised at his lame responses. He took forever to respond and then when he did, it was more of a ” poor me, I’m being picked on and I’m a bad communicator” instead of just answering everyone’s questions and concerns. Many of the questions people have do not even require testing. Do you use cod or Pollock? Does it come from the Atlantic or pacific? He could have responded as soon as Kaayla’s report came out and said ” I’m sorry…yes, we do use pollock, I wasn’t trying to deceive anyone…I just didn’t think it mattered that much” and he probably would have kept or regained the trust of some folks. Instead, continues to hide behind the WAPF and pretend that he has no obligation to respond to his customers.
Maureen, You are not correct. Others have had plenty of opportunity for their defense, they have failed to seize that opportunity and failed to answer all the questions raised.
Yesterday I discovered I was no longer on the chapter leaders list. Following is the last post I made there, probably on Sept 10 or 11:
Hello all,
I have been a member of the WAPF since year 2000 and a chapter leader since 2007 and am very grateful to have access to the health-giving nutritional information for myself, my family and all those who have contacted me as chapter leader over the years. I had not re-read the mission statement until recently and found it enlightening to look at it again:
About the Foundation – Weston A Price
Personally, I am 100% behind the mission as presented on the website. We have occasional disagreements as to the details as to how it should be done, but we are all working together “restoring nutrient-dense foods to the human diet through education, research and activism.”
We have our unique outlooks and tastes because we are all individuals. A number of people I know do much better without grains, even properly prepared heirloom grains. Some people are fine with fruits and vegetables fermented in mason jars, others truly need to have theirs fermented with an airlock. There are those who find that a little organic dark chocolate is beneficial for their health; others can’t tolerate it.
As chapter leader I have coordinated group buys(of FCLO) for those who wanted it. I felt it was responsible to inform our local chapter members and my extended family, coast to coast, about both sides of the questions and issues about Green Pastures products and let them make their own decisions. If being chapter leader precludes one from sharing information, such as two sides of a disagreement, something is wrong.
Let’s keep the mission statement in mind.
Jean Harrah
Santa Cruz County, CA chapter co-leader
I did not save the response I got from Maureen and no longer have access to the archives, but as I recall she very politely accused me of sharing CL list info publicly and undermining the organization, repeated many of the points you have seen her make on here and encouraged all on the list to spread the official WAPF view.
Jean, I’m so sorry Maureen asked to share your feelings and you were immediately purged from the Chapter Leaders group by Maureen. All you did was tell your chapter members and family that there was a dispute. Anything else would have been unethical and possible dangerous.
Purging is the method of force tyrants use to maintain control. You were the victim of the WAPF purge that we predicted when Dr. Ron was fired from speaking at the conference. Other chapter leaders have been stalked in the effort to uncover moles who report on the ongoing cover up and gag order.
True character gets revealed in disputes. You have revealed yourself to be honest and were punished by an out of control Yahoo Group leader. Please know how much you are respected.
David Gumpert could not have known five days ago how prophetic his “Toe the Line on FCLO” blog title would become.
Is mentioning David’s blog on your Facebook page considered a reason to be banned from WAPF discussions?
Wow. I’m sorry that happened. I don’t know how you are feeling, but I know in the past when I’ve had similar things happen, it felt like a knife in the chest. And I would ask myself why, because, hey, I can live without that, right? I still don’t know why, but I suspect that it has to do at least in part of feeling that somebody must have completely misunderstood me in order to respond the way that they did and cut me off, and that my reputation would be negatively effected as they explained that I had violated blah blah and there was no defense I could make and that people that were my friends would believe it and cut me off – and they did.
I guess you know now, toe the line or hit the road. Not only can you not violate the policy, you can’t even politely and respectfully disagree with the policy.
You might wonder why this is happening, and I really don’t know for sure. There is some powerful force compelling this action. The usual suspects of money, power, nepotism, etc. don’t seem to be at work here. The only thing I can attribute this to is fanaticism. You know how you can’t talk about religion or politics if you want to have a polite conversation? This is that. We are seeing the exact same behaviors. You might wonder why since there doesn’t seem to be any religion or politics involved. The only thing I can conclude is that there is a strong belief system at work. Faith. True believers. Many have mentioned that the things that have seen seem like cult like behaviors. They believe every word that comes out of Sally or Dave’s mouth and verify nothing. They repeat it like automatons. They use strong tactics to protect their sacred objects, their “core values”, their principles. They will violate their own policies, core values, and stated standards of conduct in their headlong rush to protect those said items. They make no apologies. They can’t see it. (I was in an organization like this once. I know.) Anybody that points out any flaw in their logic, any duplicity, any double standards, or any errors, well that person is obviously attacking them – an enemy to the faith, or ignorant and not worth consideration. Again, they don’t “see” it that way, wouldn’t term it that way. But they might say things like, “Why are you so angry with our organization? Why are you attacking us?” Suddenly, disagreeing about something means you are an embittered enemy bent on destroying the organization? That’s when you know you’ve questioned something sacrosanct. FCLO (not CLO) is sacrosanct to WAPF.
I would warrant that the rumor about Rosita ratfish oil recall that Maureen tried to spread on here, is making its rounds on the Chapter Leader list, without a single moderator or WAPF leader telling people to stop saying negative things about a WAPF endorsed product. GPP FCLO = sacrosanct. Rosita = disposable.
Thanks, Steve.
Sandrine, Chris Kresser says he doesn’t even use fclo. He switched as soon as Rosita was available “This, together with Rosita’s transparency and third-party testing, was enough to convince me to switch over to EVCLO and begin recommending it to my tribe.” Right out of the link you just sent.
Sounds like Chris Kresser went with better quality control than the fclo offered. And that’s all most of us wanted from GP, at least in the beginning. Now that this can of worms has busted open a lot more has been revealed than just quality control of the fclo. Let’s start with it’s seems to be a new fangled invention that wasn’t even around for Weston Price for to test.
And then what about the other Chris. Chris Masterjohn doesn’t really use it either although he doesn’t say precisely how much. “I say above that my practice has been to take small amounts in the coldest four months of the year.” He prefers other sources for his nutrients.
Exactly what would David write…… two of your four other viewpoints are wishy-washy on using fclo and neither take much or any of it?
Karen, I am the author of one of Sandine’s links, calling out Chris Kresser. Some of his own patients disagree with his article, as he recommended FCLO successfully for years with great results.
Chris Kresser has not responded to any of the criticisms against his article. GP puts out far more information than Rosita, and I have commented on this elsewhere. There are no hints of quality control issues anywhere at GP. There is only insinuation and unfounded accusations.
Victor, Yes I read your blog post right after you put it out. Chris Kresser appears to try and stay out of taking a position either way. And he says that some of his patients love fclo. But once again if the stuff is so fabulous with a long history of research behind it (NOT) why would Chris switch himself and his family to a different cod liver oil. (one that happens to fit the description Weston Price used of a traditional high-quality clo)?
@ Victor: Have you ever toured the GP facilities in NE? I live one State away from NE and I don’t care to do so because I don’t use their products, and don’t intend to.
There’s a reason I don’t use them. The reason is that I tried used the regular CLO many years ago (2003 or 2004 maybe?) and even though it smelled rancid the moment I opened it, I continued to try to use it. After about 1/2 a bottle or so, I just couldn’t do it anymore because I couldn’t get the stuff past my nose or down my gullet. That’s just MY personal experience, but I can also tell you that my DH didn’t think I should use it because he smelled it, as well, and said “rancid” before I could even state my concern.
Now, you may not call that “scientific” enough, but for me it was enough to tell me that my body, as well as my husband, didn’t think it was the right thing for me.
I don’t know why you persist in chastising people who don’t want to use it, for WHATEVER reason. I also don’t understand why you think you must carry the flag for a highly questionable product.
People are asking questions because they want answers from the folks who are supporting the sale, use and creation of the product. They’re also asking questions because issues have been raised, that’s how discussions begin. That’s not unreasonable, nor is it unreasonable for David to report what he sees going on – behind the scenes and right here at this blog.
In the end, the product will either be vindicated, or the sale of it will have to stop. Would it be the end of the world if you had to start using another product from another company? So it’s not *fermented* – so what? Apparently it’s not even a validated fact that *fermented* equates to healthy. Until that happens, I think people are wise to hold off using it. That doesn’t sound unreasonable nor unfounded, and it’s far more than insinuation. Personally, I would have NO desire to use a questionable product.
My money, for what it’s worth, is still on Dr. Daniel.
Victor, evaluating the good of something by apparent results is a really, REALLY bad way to do things. Doctors got good results for years by bleeding patients with leaches. But that practice has been abandoned and would now be considered barbaric. Demographics show that deaths from major infectious viral diseases have dropped precipitously since the introduction of vaccines. Does it matter then what is in the vaccine? Do side effects matter? A chieftain can point to the elimination of a rival tribe and say it was a good thing, because now, there is peace. Believe it or not, the average person was better off under Soviet rule than under the Czars before that. It didn’t make it a good system. Modern drugs are keeping people alive, treating their symptoms. Keeping alive would be considered a “great result” by most people. But it doesn’t mean that there isn’t a better way. In this situation, just because people have gotten good out of FCLO, doesn’t mean they or others have suffered no ill effect, and doesn’t mean that there isn’t a better way.
GPP has put out more information than Rosita because it has been in business for longer than Rosita. Coca-Cola has put out more information than either company. Billions of people have used the product for years, and to my knowledge there has never been even a hint of rancidity, they have good quality controls at their thousands of plants around the globe, and yet, it’s not a healthy product.
Can you find recent test results on GPPs pages? I can’t find anything newer than 2013, except for one of the most recent blog posts.
Uh, yea, the test results from several labs and several tests in Daniel’s report LOL Is that not recent enough for you? And the February tests from WAPF. None of the tests show the FCLO to be rancid. None. If you are saying the FCLO is rancid, please show me the test results. Labs and methods should be included. Don’t just be Dr. Daniel’s parrot. Show me the results that confirm the FCLO to be rancid. I have asked this countless times, and nobody here shows any evidence.
Sandrine, I made a judgment, based on a few things. One was that a dozen or more comments of dissatisfaction from chapter leaders popped up on a couple Facebook sites I look at. These were public comments being made despite WAPF warnings to keep the WAPF email confidential. Since I didn’t view all Facebook pages where such comments might appear (like the one you quote from above), I made the not unreasonable assumption there were probably more concerned (and supportive) comments scattered around on FB.
Another reason I assumed there were a significant number of disaffected chapter leaders was that I received a number of private emails from upset chapter leaders who frankly told me they wrote me privately because they were afraid to post their complaints and concerns publicly on FB or on my blog.
Finally, it is clear that all FB sites formally connected with WAPF have shut off debate and discussion about the FCLO issue. One of those sites, which has many chapter leaders among its followers, shut off discussion within a couple days after the Kaayla Daniel report, after receiving literally hundreds of comments. Why would WAPF sites avoid this subject if there wasn’t lots of criticism, from both chapter leaders and members?
So, all this put together, I made a judgment that there is a fair amount of disaffection among WAPF chapter leaders, just as there is among members. I never said I did a survey of chapter leaders. And, BTW, nor do I refer to myself as an “investigative journalist.” That’s something a few people here have occasionally said, but if you look at the About page on this site, I describe myself as “a journalist and writer…” I have done investigative journalism in connection with some articles and a couple of my books, but I don’t ever suggest that I only do investigative journalism, which is a specialized form of journalism that generally involves exposing corruption and coverups.
Marketers figure that for every complaint, there are 25 more people who didn’t bother speaking up…and that under normal conditions where there is no pressure to keep quiet.
That tells me there are a significant number of unhappy chapter leaders.
David, I just wrote a comment and it seems to have disappeared. I didn’t get a message that it awaits moderation. Will you let me know if I need to re-write it? Am I being blocked from discussions?
No, Sandrine, you aren’t being blocked. The system held your comment for my approval, and I was offline for a short time. It’s now posted.
Lynne M…..thank you for adding clarity about raw A2 verses the A2 Corp UHT, standardized, homogenized CAFO junk that is mascarading in mainstream stores.
I also found it fascinating that when we tested 25 of our cows for A2 traits, more of our Holsteins came back pure A2 than our Jerseys. OPDC is not A2 and we never claimed to be. I support A2 raw but not A2 fake promoted UHT junk of fools. Yes….the A2 Corp is playing consumers for fools. There are 2100 distinct proteins found in raw milk. According to PHDs at IMGC each and every one of those proteins is changed and denatured by pasteurization temps. A fool would believe that special A2 proteins would survive intensive heat treatment of UHT. Hence….A 2 Corp UHT CAFO offerings in the mainstream stores are completely BS.
Yes….I am trying to add some breathing space to this Cod Liver Oil water boarding marathon. I have never seen so many new aliases with bad attitudes circling arround The Complete Patient. People get really brave and say some pretty ugly things when they can do so while hiding. I said this years ago….I will say it again: If you are going to comment…grow a spine and put your real name to the comment. Perhaps kinder more considerate comments will flow when people are accountable and can not hide out behind some fake name. If you would not say things to a persons face….you should not say them here or anywhere.
and furthermore ( for comic relief! ) not only do I want to see names and dog-tag serial numbers, I want to see FACES alongside comments!! Since the switchover to the new format, I cannot figure out how to post a photo for the avatar rather than the default cartoon gremlin. Perhaps someone can give me a hint?
Gordon, try this: Go to the “Blog” page (from the across-the-top choices) and in the upper right-hand column, under “Login”, you’ll see, “Need an Avatar? Try Gravatar!” Click on Gravatar and go through its process to register and upload your photo. Then, the info will always be in the blog’s database. Unfortunately, we couldn’t take the photos from the previous site.
thanks, David, but I think I’ll pass for now on Gravatar = ’til I can hire some 14-year-old whiz-kid, who understands that code. I’m stuck with the gremlin cartoon … but I’ve taken worse photos.
… When I took intro. to computer science at SFU in Burnaby in 1969, we used punch cards to program-in every single bit, on the state-of-the-art IBM 360 …which literally took up a large room. An Apple watch today, has more capacity.
…. Along the same vein : at the Saanich fair last weekend, talking about raw milk, people trotted-out the same trite arguments, parroting old wives’ tales from the 1940s. We DO have electricity on the farm now. Running water, too. And we DO have an ice machine. And we DO have the iPhone gadget so we can test for a specific pathogen, within minutes.
… Thanks mainly to the Weston A Price Foundation and the RAWMI institute, the Campaign for REAL MILK is the very cutting edge of scientific food safety, while the mentality of our detractors is half a century behind. I go back so far I remember Walt Disney introducing us to “the Space Age”? … 1960 : we used to go outside and watch Telstar go over! Believe it or not = you Flat-Earthers.
Mark,
You self serving bum you re my hero!
My sons have a little YouTube channel and they made a video in honor of this whole topic:
Actually, they don’t know about this controversy so I guess it’s more accurate to say that I set them up…
Oh my goodness, your kids’ YouTube video was just delightful! I laughed so hard! I can’t imagine eating cod liver out of a can though. I’d eat it fresh, but not from a can.
Thanks Eric. It actually mixes in very well with canned tuna and the Half Pints never even notice. 😉
Amanda Rose: where do you buy decent tuna these days?
Update — The cover up deniers are now stalking the whistle-blowing chapter leaders around the Internet.
Hell hath no fury like people who are caught lying about chapter leaders group cover-up.
The gag order is documented. Sally’s script on how to tell people the oil isn’t putrid is documented. Telling chapter leaders to resign is documented.
You can stalk us all you want. You can’t undo your intimidating posts. The Internet is forever.
Lynne, just the same as you, we are reading through the commentary and so, I guess, that makes you a “stalker” too!
Telling people to stop calling a product “rancid” when in fact it is not, is not gagging or covering-up. Read the other side and understand why it is not so, from a *scientist* (or 2 or 3) knowledge of what the test results really say, not just what Dr. Daniel wants them to say. And yes, I will say it again: any chapter leader who can not support the goals and core values of the foundation but who instead undermines the work and credibility of our leaders, the foundation itself, and other people of very high integrity, should resign. This would be the same whether we’re talking WAPF, the Republican National Committee, or Dick & Jane’s Learn to Read Association.
I rest my case.
I agree, Lynne! And, uh, Maureen, I know rancid when I taste it or smell it, I don’t need a *scientist* to tell me something so obvious.
Would making snide comments about Dr. Daniel and insinuating she has an agenda be considered “undermining the credibility of our leaders”? Because, uh, you just did it.
We are the Borg. You Will be Assimilated.
Spin faster Maureen, maybe then they’ll start to believe the Narrative.
As a chapter leader, I find myself very torn over this issue. On the one hand, Kaayla’s report is delivered with a rather condescending tone that I find compromises her overall credibility (and I find it truly disappointing – what editor would let that go out the door?). On the other hand (as Reb Tevye would say), 4 labs seem to corroborate her assertions, and I find it alarming that the WAPF BOD was so dismissive of concerns about this when they were initially expressed. On the other hand, I’ve always been impressed with Chris Masterjohn’s articulate and objective analyses, so I am disposed to assign a certain amount of credibility to his statements. On the other hand, I have reached out to Dave Wetzel twice since this issue surfaced, specifically to confirm that the pollock was not harvested in the north pacific, as my concern about radiation exposure and Cesium 137 uptake in fish off the Alaskan coast and in the pacific northwest is well validated by documented monitoring and testing. Dave has not acknowledged either of my inquiries. I have historically found him to be very approachable and responsive, so I am all the more disappointed that he would ignore such a pointed question. ON THE OTHER HAND, nutritional science these days is a bit like the bible. People tend to cherry pick data to support their position, often taking it well out of context. What is a layman to do? I’m not sure how to sift fact from fiction here. I’ve only had a problem with GP FCLO once, and Dave graciously replaced my bottle, with an explanation that the amine levels are what are responsible for the severe fishy taste and egregious odor and they can vary significantly from one lot to the next. Can I continue to give this to my child in good conscience? Can I continue to recommend it to friends who rely on me as a source of well vetted guidance? Can I, in good conscience, continue to serve as a central ordering depot for my local chapter? I don’t have answers for any of these questions, and I’m not confident that the WAPF Mothership is addressing these issues adequately (certainly they have not provided me with anything that would resolve any of the concerns I’ve stated).
I looked up WAPF’s 990 once, and Sally was certainly making a healthy 6 figures then, and of course, her speaking engagements didn’t need to be captured, but were personal. Is her stake here more financial than ethical? Does Kaayla have an equally oppositional stake? As a rule, I’m jaded enough to ALWAYS follow the money. It typically reveals motive. I do, however, have a life to lead and little time to peel this onion, so I ask again, what’s a concerned layman to do?
I would suggest that WAPF and Kaayla each submit 3 lots to Mike Adams at Natural News. He’s set up his own lab and appears able to test for a broad array of contaminants and nutrients. He has no dog in this fight and cares deeply about providing truth in nutrition. Thoughts?
Blumtnmama: Critiquing a woman’s work with remarks about “tone” is always considered sexist. Apparently, unless a woman phrases her expose with mommy-like diplomacy, she doesn’t know her place.
Let’s stick to reviewing the content and the significance of Dr. Daniel’s work and avoid what you expect of her personality.
LOL – how ironic. I may not be ‘PC,’ but I am a woman, and I am certainly capable of recognizing a deliberately abrasive tone when I read it. It has everything to do with the context that the content is framed in. Her tone compromises my perception of her objectivity, just as Dave’s lack of response to my inquiry compromises my perception of his integrity.
PC is another word for respectful.
And yes, you are treating Dr. Daniel disrespectfully. I’m sorry you can’t see that women are just as capable of sexism as mean are. Let’s stick to the issues.
PC is also synonymous with ‘copout.’ Can’t address the issue? Play some sort of descrimination card as a distraction. Treating her disrespectfully would mean I dismissed her report altogether due to it’s tone. Acknowledging that the tone of her report cannot help but be cause for consideration of an ulterior motive is prudent.
You know you’re embracing your inherent right to be disrespectful. I have no idea what other ways you find to defend your disrespect. “Tone” is a dog whistle word to deflect from issues and focus on personalities. I’m sure that’s accepted in your circles. Look up deflection under logical fallacies and you’ll see the error of your ways.
This is to “L”:
“Tone” is a dog whistle word to deflect from issues and focus on personalities.” I can state with assurance that I know the definition of ‘deflection.’ I doubt, however, that you know the definition of ‘tone.’
It’s a bit frustrating to respond to this, as I feel I’m having to school you in basic high school english, but here goes: from the first dictionary google ‘hit’ I got;
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deflection?s=t
there are 7 definitions: mine would be closest to #4, copied below:(there doesn’t seem to be a tool to set text aside with bold or italics here, so, all you’ve got is ”
“a particular quality, way of sounding, modulation, or intonation of the voice as expressive of some meaning, feeling, spirit, etc”
This is true in music, literature, writing, editing, theatre, public speaking and the entire world of human interaction; and certainly, in parenting. All of which I feel confident claiming a strong background in. There is 2,000 years worth of etymology to support my use of this definition so if you want to make a point, you need to come to this discussion with a stronger argument (or a better command of English) if you want to convince me that I’m being disrespectful by articulating my honest, well thought out and articulate observations of Dr. Daniel’s report.
Oops – my bad – I selected the link to ‘deflection’ (wrong tab), not to ‘tone.’ Correct link is below: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tone?s=ts
Since you haven’t identified yourself by name, David said he can’t look up your inquiries. He isn’t sure what email you may have written to him at. He asked that you call: 402-858-4818. Hie explained that his lack of response is not intentional and certainly doesn’t reflect his integrity.
Thank you, Sandrine. I appreciate your effort to diffuse the situation, but in light of the fact that several other posters here have disclosed their own unaddressed inquiries to Dave regarding the same concern, I do not see any reason to reach out directly a third time. We all want to know and we all want transparency, which means that it is past time for Dave to respond in a more public manner. The question is not 50 shades of grey. Did he use pollock harvested from pacific waters or not?
Dave could give Gumpert the deets and avoid the many emails.
I was informed that they will publish a detailed question and answer in the next week or so. They have published 2 responses so far, and the next will fill in what was’t addressed thus far.
I was also informed that they have a very small staff and weren’t aware that folks had unanswered inquiries until now. When I read that here, I forwarded the concern. They aren’t sure where those emails are and will check into it. They’ve had phone calls and answered questions that way, which is why David requested phone calls.
“weren’t aware that folks had unanswered inquiries” — sorry that doesn’t pass the straight face test at all. They have been stonewalling on the issues raised.
This is huge mess with potential big ramifications. Exactly how can folks at the heart of it not be aware of all these unanswered questions ?
I can’t comfortably sustain a back and forth but, wanted to offer David’s words before I focus elsewhere:
Dr. Daniel took 1 year to write her report. We are attempting to have scientists answer all the questions so it is not another opinion paper like was published. It takes a couple weeks. I am sorry it is taking so long but we want any grey gone. Scientific not opinion. Tell the chapter leader to call me. (402) 858-4818
I will bow out. I was concerned when I saw reports that questions weren’t answered because I know that there has been an open invitation to inquires, and that they would be concerned that folks had not been responded to.
David recommended that I add “just ask for me and they will transfer the call to me. Hope she calls.” Ok – I’ve attempted to make a connection!
Oops – these are my words: “I will bow out. I was concerned when I saw reports that questions weren’t answered because I know that there has been an open invitation to inquires, and that they would be concerned that folks had not been responded to.”
Green Pastures needs scientists to answer the question of what fish livers GP was purchasing?
I don’t believe so. 😛 It could be they don’t think that is a really big issue, or it is a really big issue and they are going to try to avoid it like they did before, or they are getting a bunch of scientists to testify how it is actually better to use Alaska Pollock along with Pacific Cod in a 10/90 ratio or some such thing. I wouldn’t be surprised if they avoid the admitting that they actually HAVE used Pollock in the past, talk about the present and the future, and don’t address the labeling issue at all except to say what you can expect in the future.
But, I’m with you. They’ve already trotted out a bunch of scientists to testify that their product is good. Not sure what else they would be doing now except maybe taking up where Masterjohn left off and further attacking Daniel’s conclusions, methods, etc., without further addressing their own stuff.
“Critiquing a woman’s work with remarks about “tone” is always considered sexist.”
WOW… This takes the cake for the most ridiculous argument yet to spawn out of the FCLO chatter. lol “sexist” indeed. Talk about grasping for straws.
I love your position. Love your thoughts. I didn’t like Kaayla’s tone either. It was not what I would have expected from a good position paper. The layout was hard to follow with her cherry picking from lab results without explaining at the beginning what exactly it was that she sent to each lab to test. I think that alone hurt her credibility. When I first read Masterjohn’s report, I was disposed to have that be the last word on the science subject. Then I reread it and realized that he didn’t really say anything except to give a seemingly plausible explanation for everything. The one thing that got me though was when he came across something that he couldn’t explain away, and he chalked it up to “aberration” – untrue test result. In a product that Wetzel says varies drastically from batch to batch, now if something negative is found, it is an aberration and the batch is fine??? I spoke to another person close to the situation, but not in the WAPF inner circle and their comment was something to the effect that Masterjohn said what he needed to say to continue his relationship with WAPF, but he didn’t present any conclusions.
I too have contacted Dave a couple of times, once to let him know that we were in wait and see mode (we are a reseller), and once to ask him when he would be releasing the promised point by point rebuttal. I’m still waiting to hear what he has to say about transfats and Alaska Pollock. He has yet to reply.
Interesting to hear that Sally was making six figures. That’s what I had always imagined. I read just a couple of days ago somebody wrote in the comments on one of Mr. Gumpert’s articles that Sally didn’t take a salary.
Can you or should you continue to recommend GPP products? Obviously that is a decision for you. At this point, until we hear the official story from Green Pasture, and unless it is compelling enough to change our minds, we are going to be using another brand of CLO, HVBO, or ghee. There are a number of good ones out there, including several that WAPF itself lists in the “best” category. I’m just going to feel better about giving it to my kids, and recommending it to others. In addition to the concerns that Dr. Daniel raised, there testimonials I have seen just on this site of people that have had a reversal of certain chronic symptoms since ceasing their daily FCLO dose. I’ve still got a backstock of GPP product. If I don’t continue to carry it, I will probably sell off what I have and just make sure that people have the information that they need to make a good decision. I know sometimes our folks want us to tell them what they should do, and I’m sure you’ve experienced the same. We continue to lead them along the path of personal responsibility for their health decisions.
Most tragic is the behavior of GPP and WAPF which has really been shocking. Revealing. There is a relationship there that goes far beyond the Sponsor/Host relationship they are trying to portray. As several people have said, WAPF and GPP are ACTING guilty. Additionally for me personally, full disclosure is a big deal and I feel like we haven’t gotten it from GPP or from WAPF. It’s my fault that I didn’t look further but I was trusting WAPF’s endorsement. It seems now that no matter what GPP would do or could do, or what information could be revealed about GPP, WAPF will still endorse them fully to the last gasp. Back to doing my own due diligence . . . which is as it should be.
Steve, I just contacted David Wetzel and let him know that some await a response from him. He doesn’t have the bandwidth to read these articles and comments. He is not sure what email you wrote to him at but, he is unaware of unanswered emails. He asked me to pass on this: please call 402-858-4818 and ask to speak to David. You can leave a message for him with your phone number if he is not available.
David said he is very happy to have conversations with folks. In re: to written inquiries: “We are in the process of putting together more answers to questions we’ve received from customers in the aftermath of a report from Dr. Kaayla Daniel. We appreciate your patience. Please be sure to sign up to receive our blog posts as that is how we plan to respond to the community as a whole.”
Personally, I used the contact form on their website – twice, and selected David from the dropdown list. I believe I’ve used it in the past. Definitely possible that it doesn’t work though. Things like that have happened to our site before. I just assumed he wasn’t answering certain questions or people after it took two weeks and a followup phone call to have my email inquiry to WAPF answered, and the questions I have asked on their Q&A page have gone unanswered while I know they have been seen because they have had to be approved, and other questions on their asked at the same time have been answered.
I will pass this on to David, and then leave it to you to contact him by phone, which was what he asked me to pass on.
Dave seems to like talking to people on the phone individually, but all his emails and inquiries seem to get “lost”. In situations like this, I would think it best to have conversations in writing.
I did the same (also twice). There in no strategy to discuss here – yes or no is the only answer, and if there is a caveat, we are open to it, but at this stage of the game, stonewalling is just unacceptable. Public and transparent acknowlegement of fish source is essential. It’s not the only issue I’d like to see addressed head on, but it’s the the one that I’d like to see be addressed first.
Dave W really should try try to find a way to read a few articles and comments. He’s clearly out of touch with reality.
I think that a lot of my own struggle with this issue is that I also relied on WAPF and GPP to act as my vetting entity, and I now feel, to my shame, as if I may have misled others on the basis of information that I perhaps should have analyzed more aggressively. It’s difficult for us all to remain agile with the perpetual onslaught of information we need to sift through, and it’s embarrassingly easy to take a breather and think “whew – Thank G*d I don’t need to do so much homework on THAT one, at least.”
I’m right there with you. I’m also a chapter leader, and am deeply displeased by how Sally and the foundation are handling this. I’m not sure if I will continue my chapter into 2016, or at this point if I will even continue supporting the Weston A. Price Foundation with my membership.
I’d never thought to look up WAPF’s 990 before. I looked up their 990 for 2013, and while the Foundation reports just over $200,000 as salary outlays, it lists no salary for Sally. Blumtnmama, I’m curious where you got the idea that Sally makes 6 figures as salary from the Foundation?
My mother (who is also a chapter leader) and I looked up one day on Guidestar, prompted by a discussion we were having about our perceptions of WAPF’s growth and gradual change in approach to chapter leaders (that more dictatorial approach that’s been mentioned). It’s been a few years, but at that time, her salary was disclosed. I’ll try to make time to look it up again. It was not bundled with general salaries, but disclosed on the remuneration to officers page, which details the entire board and their individual time commitments and remuneration, if any. I know Guidestar carries the previous 3 years of 990s, so I’m not certain it’s still in the list, as it has been a few years since we looked it up. I will say that neither of us begrudged her the stated sum upon learning it. I never provide support to a charity organization without first looking at their last three 990s. That being said, I’ve worked in non-profit management for long enough to know how easy it can be for a 990 to reflect exactly what the BOD wants the public to see. Nevertheless, it’s still a useful tool.
I shared your concerns with Sally Fallon Morell. She wrote: “Woah, I have never made “six figures.” For a brief period (a couple of yeras), in order to get health insurance, I made $500 per month (that’s $6000 per year, is that what she means?), but I am not being paid anything now except for speaker fees.
Regarding the claim that we did not respond to Kaayla’s concerns, actually I responded immediately, I was so concerned that I send a sample immediately–over-nighted it–to the UK. When it came back negative–absolutely no rancidity–I was greatly relieved and shared these results with Kaayla and the board.
(You can post this) Sally”
I looked on the remuneration to officers page of their 2013 tax return (which the foundation makes readily available on their website). It lists Sally Fallon Morell by name and that she contributes an average 15 hours of work to the Foundation per week, but lists her salary as zero. I’m sure she does receive other income from speaking gigs and her business (I think she and her husband own a small dairy), but I don’t see any evidence that she takes a salary or any compensation of any sort from the Foundation itself. For 2013 they do list over $45K in consulting fees, so I suppose it’s possible she might get some of that, although again I have no way of knowing it for sure.
Something seems off about their 990s. In 2011, they reported $15,000 compensation each for Sarah Pope and Kaayla Daniel, but only an average of 2 hours of work per week for each of them. If accurate, that seems awfully high for a non-profit where none of the officers ever make any money. 2 hours a week is 104 hours, which works out to $144/hr. I realize there could be some transportation and stuff in there, but still seems off.
The money is in New Trends Publishing. WAPF has been its publicity arm.
Oh wow. I hadn’t considered that at all and suddenly, this whole thing makes so much more sense to me. I really wasn’t getting why GPP was getting special treatment. It also didn’t make sense how certain people could spend so much time working for WAPF, and not get paid any money at all for it. I couldn’t figure out why certain bloggers were being pushed so much and why Sally was doing all of this for everybody with her organization and getting nothing for herself. But for some reason this piece of the puzzle makes it so much more clear. Nobody is making money with WAPF, not Sally, not anybody. But there are certain people making money because of WAPF marketing their books, blogs, products, practice or services, non-profit, etc. When they came out in defense of GPP it looked like there was little to no conflict of interest. But they are all part of the same marketing club.
My husband just chided me for having posted my recollection of the 990 reference without having a copy of the report in question to refer to. He is quite right,and I must stand corrected until I can petition IRS for the 990s for the years in question. I will try to make time to petition copies of the 990s for 2006 – 2009 and will defer further recollections on the matter until such time as I can review the data. My humble apologies to Sally.
Steve, I hope that your epiphany is a welcome one, and sadly it is quite often the way the non-profit world works. If what the organization does fits into it’s mission, it is not a significant challenge to filter just about any amount of money where they want it to go. There are so many 5041(c)3 orgs. in US, that it is unlikely anyone will suffer an audit. Non profits are big business – especially in Washington, DC!
Blumtn Mama: I found the 990s available on line and I have pdf’s of them. I could email them to David G. if that makes sense.
Here is the WAPF funding page, which includes links to the IRS 990s:
http://www.westonaprice.org/about-the-foundation/wapf-funding/
Steve,
The original Nourishing Traditions book stated:
“Buy good quality cod liver oil containing ant-oxidants, in dark glass bottles, and store in the refrigerator”.
and the updated version of Nourishing Traditions states:
“the newly available high vitamin fermented cod liver oil contains about 10,000 IU vitamin A per teaspoon” (after stating that “regular” cod liver oil only has 5,000 IU vitamin A per teaspoon)
I believe that chapter leaders sell the NT book and FCLO to raise money for their activities.
It reminds me of how Jordan Rubin started Garden of Life. He gave away the book “Patient Heal Thyself” which prompted people to buy his soil bacteria Primal Defense.
Sounds like that’s worth exploring. Thanks, Amanda Rose.
Consulting – as anyone inside the Beltway will tell you, can be very lucrative!
The BOD is all volunteer (and typically generous donors, which is invariably part of the criteria for being asked to join the Board – a commitment to regular and generous support. While this is not always the case, in the non profit world, it’s probably 96%. You could likely ask Kaayla directly about her consulting compensation, though I expect Sarah Pope would be very circumspect about her’s. The 990 that you viewed may be for a year in which Sarah Pope did several videos for WAPF (just a guess). Kaayla, I don’t know….
I just contacted David Wetzel and let him know that some await a response from him. He doesn’t have the bandwidth to read these articles and comments. He is not sure what email you wrote to him at but, he is unaware of unanswered emails. He asked me to pass on this: please call 402-858-4818 and ask to speak to David. You can leave a message for him with your phone number if he is not available.
David said he is very happy to have conversations with folks. In re: to written inquiries: “We are in the process of putting together more answers to questions we’ve received from customers in the aftermath of a report from Dr. Kaayla Daniel. We appreciate your patience. Please be sure to sign up to receive our blog posts as that is how we plan to respond to the community as a whole.”
He seems to be “unaware of emails” much of the time.
Regarding Kaayla’s tone, have you heard her speak? I have listened to all of her lectures at the conferences and the “tone” is exactly the tone with which she speaks. She calls herself the “naughty nutritionist” and she is very humorous and catchy way of delivering the health information. A technical paper in the style of Chris Masterjohn would have been rather difficult for regular people to read or understand, so I believe that she was able to get a lot of attention to the issue really quickly with her great title “Hook, Line, and Stinker”.
This all sounds so very familiar. When I dared speak out about Sharon Palmer, a Southern California farmer who was profiled in “Farmageddon” and a WAPF crowd darling, Sally called a conference call with all the chapter leaders and told them to toe the company line. AnnMarie Michaels of former Cheeseslave glory was our area chapter leader and basically said the line of, if you’re not with us you’re against us because we are such a small minority in this battle against big ag, yada yada. Funny, because all these years later Sharon Palmer plead guilty to 14 felony counts and is awaiting sentencing pending the sale of her farm. It’s been so long I can’t remember all the details anymore. Yes, Sally makes her money off of new trends, her publishing company. WAPF is her marketing arm. Follow the money and the emporer usually has no clothes. I wrote about it all at farmmuckraker dot blogspot dot com.
It has all the earmarks of tyranny, and rampant profiteering at the expense of those who need health solutions. The more this unfolds, the worse WAPF makes themselves look, and the guiltier GP appears to be. If they had a leg to stand on, they’d have already had their lawyers taking action.
I just resigned from Chapter Leader. I could not comply with their requirement to not speak negative about the oil. I have been progressively losing my hair over the years as I started the GPFCLO when they first started making it. I now have lost most of my hair, despite a WAPF diet. I am a licensed health care practitioner and no way am I going to be a part of a recommendation to take this rancid oil that has most likely made me go bald 🙁
Sad for you. I can’t imagine that was easy. We wanted to open a chapter here, but thought it would be burdensome to meet the requirements of having to submit everything for review for each meeting. There’s been so much back and forth, but for me right now, I’m concerned about more people having adverse reactions. I was told that CLs were instructed to tell members “FCLO is not for everyone”. I don’t think I could be constrained by those guidelines where it concerns the health of another person.
Steve, I laid low for a while hoping that WAPF would come around, but it seems evident that they are not gong to budge on this issue. I really felt I had no choice but to step down. I cannot say anything negative about the product that they continue to recommend. I want to warn everybody, as you stated above, especially since I have had a particularly dramatic adverse health event myself that I believe is related to the GPFCLO!
Annette – Just as a suggestion, had you considered having one of your chapter members make those announcements for you so that you can continue on in your role as chapter leader without having to break policy? Because chapter members are under no obligation to follow said policies, as they are not representing WAPF in any official capacity. This would enable you to alert your group to any concerns you feel they should know about without having to resign from your position in order to do so.
Uh oh… Now that you mention it, I have actually been losing hair as well for the past several months, though I can’t remember exactly when it started. The hair loss hasn’t been bad enough to be noticeable by others (perhaps due to the fact that I’ve always had a ton of hair on my head), but recently every time I would run my hand through my hair I would have three or so strands come out… even more strands would come out when I ran a brush through it, and after every shower there would be a huge clump of hair left in the mesh thingy that covers the drain… about the same amount of hair that used to accumulate in the drain trap over the span of a month or so. I have no idea if it had anything to do with the FCLO, but I did notice that there was substantially less fallout in the drain after the last couple of showers that I took, and I stopped taking the FCLO a couple weeks ago… :O
I know that during her second or third pregnancy, my wife had a lot of hair loss and we thought it was nutrient deficiency. She didn’t know that she had Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, which causes problems with vitamin D among other things. She has to take handfuls of supplements to get normal Vitamin D levels. I just googled “hair loss low vitamin” and this was the second result:
http://www.prevention.com/beauty/hair/vitamin-d-deficiency-may-cause-hair-loss
Several other articles confirm. Here is one:
https://www.vitamindcouncil.org/blog/is-there-a-link-between-vitamin-d-and-female-hair-loss/
Of course this article says too much vitamin A can cause hair loss. https://www.aad.org/dermatology-a-to-z/diseases-and-treatments/e—h/hair-loss/who-gets-causes We know that A that is not buffered with D is much more toxic, so a vitamin D deficiency coupled with even a slightly elevated amount of A could be problematic.
Regardless, I wish you all the best with your hair, your health, and the relationships that might be impacted because of FCLO related events.
Dr. Tom Cowan had been recommending a lower dose of FCLO for at least a 4 years now. 1/2 teaspoon. When I asked him why the lower dose, he said “i think 1 tsp is too much vit A if you are using fermented CLO”. Interesting.
I should add… recommending the lower dose to his patients; not publicly that I know of.
I believe that GPP recommends just less than 1/2 teaspoon and Dr. Price recommended 1/2 teaspoon along with butter oil. However it should be noted that Dr. Price was using it to cure people of illness, not setting daily supplement guidelines. Not sure why WAPF insists in recommending more than double the manufacturer dosage.
Dr. Cowan is on the board. I find it interesting that his idea on dosage differed from WAPF.
OH MY GOSH! Wow. Vitamin D and hair loss.
The rancid oil would have caused vitamin D deficiency.
This is like a Nancy Drew mystery and all the pieces of the puzzle are starting to come together.
I agree, it is all coming together like a novel! Just looked up my labs and vitamin D was 18 in 2013 and that was a time I was taking FCLO and had been for years! Hair loss was progressive all that time. it was 27 4 months ago when hair loss was so bad I had to buy a wig. I stopped FCLO immediately after Dr. Daniels report came out. I started on 5000 IU vitamin D3 capsule and now it is at 55. How did I get it up that fast after all those years of FCLO?? I am also seeing some return of hair and I am suspecting the FCLO was lowering my vitamin D level.
Thanks for sharing Annette. I really believe it is important for us to hear these stories. An individual anecdote could be an anomaly or a coincidence. A host of them in probably indicative of a problem.
If you listen to only the pro-GMO crowd’s rhetoric only, after a while you’re like, yeah, yeah, that sounds right. We need to feed the world. Hey it is saving farmers money and we support farmers. Yeah, yeah, this is a good thing. Yeah, changing all of the labels to indicate GMOs would sure be expensive, and would drive up the cost of food, and that wouldn’t be good. You need to hear stories of how people are teaching indigent populations how to feed themselves better with real food, rather than rely on corn from some multinational corporation. It is important to hear the stories about the farmer that thought he was going to save money buying more expensive seed, because he would only have to spray once. But now he is buying the expensive seed but having to spray 3 times and it is costing him more to produce the same yield than it used to. You need to hear the stories of unexplained spontaneous crop failures. You need to know that farmers are worse off now than before. You need to hear the stories of animals being fed GMO grain that are going sterile after a few generations. It is important to hear that the cost of adding a line to a label is negligible. They are constantly updating and reprinting and 5 minutes of a graphic designer’s time is all it would take. The cost would be in educating the world that GMO is not only safe, but better. The cost would be that a lot of people will no longer buy your GMO foods.
We need to hear each other’s stories. Some of them may well be coincidence or aberration. But if we hear enough stories, we’ll find any patterns that exist, and with that knowledge we’ll be able to dig deeper and hopefully save some people from harm.
Steve most of what you say makes a lot of sense, BUT for this… “changing labels to indicate GMO would sure be expensive and would drive up the cost of food, and that wouldn’t be good” does NOT. Constantly updating and reprinting and 5 minutes of a graphic designer’s time is all it would take. On the contrary, in the overall picture of public health and food choices would not cost hardly anything. It’s a no brainer except for the MSM brainwashed. Not using or consuming chemicals in food is a basic choice at all levels you can pay me now or the undertaker later. I guess I’m agreeing with you.
Hi Ora, I don’t think it would cost them very much to relabel – virtually nil if it was phased into effect the way they do just about everything – like the trans fats issue. But the cost is part of narrative against GMO labeling.
Steve, thank you for the info. I read all the links. Since I am seeing a Dr. At Vanderbilt who is an alopecia specialist, he has determined that it is autoimmunity and inflammation. I also had low vitamin D and low vitamin D can cause autoimmunity, but he is really on top of things and is probably aware of the vitamin D connection. Now, for the first time in years, my levels are normal. I am suspecting that the FCLO ( or the belief that the FCLO was giving me 2000 IU per teaspoon) caused a deficiency but also caused severe inflammation. Perhaps I was more susceptible since most people who take FCLO don’t lose hair. I think also if it was toxic to your body that you would naturally produce autoimmune antibodies. Interestingly, I saw an old Elisha test that said to rotate fish. Maybe daily intake of fish oil wasn’t a good idea. Maybe after all the fallout and hopefully the product is removed, we can better determine how it may have damaged people like me and how to repair the damage.
You must be in the Nashville area. We live about an hour southwest in Centerville. We probably have some mutual WAPF friends.
Hi, I think you were posting to me and put Annette in the comment so I don’t want to confuse readers and wanted to point that out. Mine started that way, the loss was gradual but then one day you wake up and there is a bald spot. IA week later your bangs are gone. I would love to see a thread on others who experienced hair loss. I am feeling very sure at this point that the FCLO was the culprit. But that is a blessing because it is a warning sign that some serious inflammation or autoimmunity is going on and you could have something far worse on inside.
Oh sorry, you had “Amanda” as your name!
I’m a touch confused. So did both Amanda and Annette loose hair on fclo? Or do we have a name conflict?
If I got it right, Annette lost a LOT of hair over a long period of time. Amanda was losing hair – she said about as much per day in the shower as she would over the course of a month previously.
Correct. I was losing a large handful of hair every shower, and now I’m back to losing only about a pinch of hair (if that makes sense) each time … which is normal for me, since I have a lot of hair on my head and it’s long hair at that.
Side note: I also got my first 3 gray hairs ever just recently. I didn’t even notice them myself until my older sister pointed it out when we were out at lunch with my mom and grandma the other day. I thought she was just messing with me, but then I looked in my mom’s purse mirror and sure enough… not one, but three gray hairs were sitting in the bang region. I almost died. lol
I mean, I don’t know… is it normal to have a few stray gray hairs at 33? Hard to tell in these times when almost everyone dyes their hair on a regular basis.
That is correct. I have had a long term loss over a period of years while taking FCLO. I stopped the day the report came out about 8 weeks ago and have seen some improvement, but mine was really serious so it will probably take time to see if I get major improvement and the hair growth cycle is 6 weeks. It can take 8 weeks just to get out of your system as I understand.
Note: I started taking Rosita CLO directly after finishing my last bottle of FCLO, so that’s two changes that I made back-to-back right before my hair stopped falling out at an abnormal rate.
Out of curiosity, how do you find the Rosita CLO? It didn’t make me want to gag, but was still a little too fishy for me and my family. Tried it in smoothies. Nope. Planning to load up some capsules in the next few days. I’ve heard that EVCLO in capsules will be available from Rosita in December – so that’s something for me to look forward to.
Steve – I basically had the same impression of the flavor of Rosita CLO as you just described. It tastes exactly as I would expect it to taste if I were to lick the slime off the scales of a freshly caught trout (or other brackish fish). I swallowed it down by itself the first time, but it was not a pleasant flavor. Now I chase it with milk, which is what I used to do with the FCLO.
Not that there’s necessarily anything wrong with the taste, but I was expecting “mild fresh fishy taste” to taste more along the lines of sashimi, rather than a fresh caught fish. I guess “mild” means different things to different people?
“Mild” has mean different things to different people. Cuz. Ya know. Humans. 🙂 For my tastebuds, Rosita CLO definitely falls into the “mildly fishy taste” category.