Naturopath Ron Schmid
“I am so filled with dismay at your sensationalizing. The trust in the Weston A. Price Foundation is being shaken. United we stand, divided we fall. Big Ag and Big Pharma are celebrating. My respect for you skyrocketed after the Harvard debate. It’s waning, now.”
As the above message—one of a number of negative emails I’ve received over the last week—suggests, it’s been a tough eight days since Kaayla Daniel issued her devastating 111-page report on Green Pasture fermented cod liver oil, “Hook, Line, and Stinker,” and opened a variety of cod liver oil wounds.
It’s been tough for me, but not nearly as tough as it’s been for a number of others, including naturopath Ron Schmid, Green Pasture owner Dave Wetzel, and Weston A. Price Foundation founder and president Sally Fallon Morell, among many others. Hundreds and hundreds of messages, pro and con about the Daniel report, Green Pasture, WAPF, and related issues have been posted on various Facebook and blog pages, including this one.
And all this about cod liver oil, a nutritional supplement way out of fashion, seemingly replaced decades ago by various fish oils. But, this dispute isn’t, at its heart, about cod liver oil. It is about the politics and ideology of the WAPF, and its considerable influence on the world of diet and nutrition.
An eagerly awaited new report from the WAPF, just issued on Friday, makes all that perfectly clear. Not in what it says in supposedly clarifying the dispute about cod liver oil, but in what it doesn’t say. Here are five key omissions in Sally Fallon Morell’s report, and why they are so important in understanding what is really going on here:
- No dissent tolerated. Ron Schmid, the naturopath who had his upcoming national WAPF conference gold sponsorship and speaking engagement unceremoniously canceled last week, has been an extremely committed and loyal WAPF supporter. Nor was Schmid the first notable and loyal health care provider to be booted, and on this very issue. Back in 2008, osteopath Joseph Mercola wrote in an article on cod liver oil that the WAPF “kicked me off (an advisory board) once I disagreed with their contradictory view” on the subject. Mercola’s heave-ho prompted, yes, a lengthy Q&A defense of cod liver oil from WAPF founder and president, Sally Fallon Morell. Because Mercola wasn’t the same kind of insider as Daniel, Mercola’s dissent didn’t prompt the huge response that the Daniel report did.
- No empathy for those who say fermented cod liver oil may have damaged their health. Ron Schmid, a loyal WAPF advocate, nearly dies from heart failure, but the cause couldn’t have been fermented cod liver oil, according to the WAPF report: “If this in fact contributed to his heart failure, it is just as likely that his extended over-consumption of cod liver oil in general, rather than fermented cod liver oil in particular, was the contributing factor.” Talk about blaming the victim. Moreover, his situation is reduced to a business problem by WAPF. While he isn’t mentioned by name, he is clearly the target of this comment: “We do not allow any of our exhibitors to criticize another approved product. If they have concerns, they need to bring them to us to look into. They should sell their products by emphasizing their good features. Exhibitors who market their products by criticizing competing products will be asked to leave and will not be invited back.” That was Schmid’s fate–exile to Siberia. There have been dozens of other reports on Facebook pages about serious skin rashes and increased colds. As I reported in a previous post, I had terrible pain in my esophagus after several weeks of taking the Green Pasture product.
- No commitment to research. When so many knowledgeable people about nutrient-dense food are expressing contradictory positions about a particular supplement, and people are getting sick, then it’s time to step back and inquire seriously about what is going on here. But in the new WAPF Q&A, there isn’t a single indication that I can find pushing for additional research to determine the truth about the efficacy and safety of the Green Pasture products.
- No commitment to open discussion and healing. As far as Sally Fallon Morell is concerned, the Daniel report on cod liver oil wasn’t meant to educate and inform. Quite the opposite: “The (Daniel) report is clearly aimed at putting Green Pasture out of business and taking this wonderful product away from the thousands of people who have benefited from it, including myself and members of my own family.” When you view dissenting actions, even by your closest associates, through such a conspiratorial prism, then it’s clear you can’t tolerate anything approaching open discussion intended to express dissenting views and clear up legitimate health concerns, with an eye toward creating common ground.
- No sense of the ongoing risk this earthquake has created. Nearly everyone who analyzes this situation tries to assess the technical aspects of cod liver oil—is it rancid or is it a good source of vitamin D—as if this is entirely a matter of chemistry, and up to consumers to decide. I haven’t heard a single expression of worry that one or a number of the illnesses could lead to lawsuits against Green Pasture for possible negligence in making people ill. (There is this throw-away line in the WAPF Q&A indicating it couldn’t possibly be the fermented cod liver oil leading to the bad reactions: “Some people are very sensitive to the polyunsaturated fatty acids in cod liver oil; others are allergic to all fish products, or sensitive to iodine or to fermented foods.”) I’ve not heard a single expression of concern that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration could poke its hostile nose into the fray, over the possible mis-labeling or inappropriate advertising of fermented cod liver oil, and the need for warnings about possible bad reactions. If you want to know what the FDA is capable of doing to providers of nutritional supplements, just go back and re-read the experience of Wilderness Family Naturals.
Finally, one of the most discouraging aspects of the WAPF report is excuse after excuse on behalf of Green Pasture. It failed to inform people that it included pollack instead of cod for its oils? No problem, says WAPF: “Green Pasture uses mostly Pacific cod but also some Alaskan pollock, taken from Alaskan waters, depending on availability. It is standard practice for cod liver oil manufacturers to use many different varieties of cod and even other fish. They are not required to list the individual varieties on the label.” Yeah, no one is obeying the law, so why should Green Pasture? There’s more, that cod livers can be fermented, and Green Pasture products can’t be rancid, etc., etc.
To me, it’s vaguely reminiscent of the Rawesome Food Club falling out over the alleged Sharon Palmer mis-labeling of eggs and the possible substitution of conventional meats for farm-produced meats. There were denials and endless explanations, and in the end, the dispute helped tear Rawesome apart, and leave it open to a second devastating raid in 2011 by the FDA and assorted other regulators that put it out of business.
What makes this current cod liver oil imbroglio especially discouraging is that the WAPF has done so much good–it has been instrumental in alerting the country to the importance of saturated fat, especially from meat from grass-fed animals. It has helped alert people to the potential benefits of raw milk, and the dangers of soy. I know in my case, WAPF recommendations have helped shift my food preferences and diet. Not only that, it has stood up for food rights, particularly in helping form, and then support, the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense fund.
Unfortunately, the WAPF is ideologically rigid when it comes to its food and nutrition philosophy. In that respect, it is no different than any other ideologically/theologically-based organization, whether it be political, religious.. or food based. It is a form of fundamentalism, and change isn’t one of the options in such organizations. There is a single narrative, and you can’t deviate from that narrative if you want to be an active participant. So it is for the WAPF.
David ….Thank you for this. You captured exactly how I’m feeling. I really can’t add more.
It is dismaying to learn that Green Pastures has – apparently – fallen prey to what’s all too common in the food biz. : Fraud. But … after watching what happened to the term “Organic”, over 30 years, I’m not surprised.
… what I am most interested in, is = getting true butter oil into the hands of people who need it. At Part VI footnotes 13, 14 of her Report “Hook line and stinker”, Dr Daniels insinuates that Green Pastures brand butter oil is being made, these days, from butter imported from Argentina, whilst letting customers believe it’s from the Great Plains of North America. People with integrity don’t go to the trouble which Kaayla Daniels, has – putting this report out – just to pass the time of day. They’re moved by genuine concern for a big principle. So, I am inclined to believe her, but all she’s presented about the butter oil, amounts to hearsay
The WAPF report excuses the Argentine butter oil, along with the pollock livers, and other possibly deceptive marketing: “When the company could not get enough butter for butter oil domestically, it set up a supply from a dedicated grass-fed herd in Argentina, where there is plenty of good pasture.”
So, I suppose you’re against Kerrygold butter, then. I’d prefer to buy local pastured butter myself, but can’t find any, so I’m grateful that Kerrygold is available at my local Kroger store, no less. What’s wrong with Argentinian grass-fed butter?
Nothing wrong with Argentine gf butter, unless everyone was led to believe it was from cows grazing the fast growing grasses of the northern Great Plains. That you built your company on that story and then failed to clearly disclose that you switched the source to South America.
Gordan, I am pasting here what I posted as a reply to the fraud accusation, just to make sure you receive it.”I should have also noted that in no way is using a sub-species of the same species fraud: a dog is a dog, whether German Shephard, Yorkshire Terrier, or a Heinz 57. Alaskan Pollack is cod, so let’s stop calling this “fraud”. And so what if some of the butter for butter oil comes from grass-fed cattle in Argentina? I don’t care one bit, so long as we get our butter oil! With grass-based dairies in short supply here in the US, what is the problem with importing in order to have what we need?!”
Maureen, if it says Yorkshire Terrier liver oil but instead is a German Shepard liver oil, I would have a problem. They might both be part of the same family (Gadidae), but they are NOT the same fish!
And everything else above that Dr Schmid says still applies as well. Rigid you bet, reminds me of the rigor of the Nazi party.
Finally, someone brought up the Nazis!
Godwin’s Law – look it up
It is not a sub-species, it is a different species in the same family. So it is comparing a fox and a dog, not a German Shepard and a Yorkshire Terrier.
You’ve hit the nail on the head, David: ideological rigidity. I remember a couple of years ago when WAPF attacked the Paleo way eating in two successive journals. I remember that a lot of people at the conference were pissed about it, and the following year there were at least a thousand fewer in attendance. There is great diversity of diets that are called “Paleo,” or “Primal,” and they are quite similar to the WAPF principles. They are our natural allies, and that movement is growing (and appears to be better known among the general population), while WAPF appears to be stagnating in membership. Flexibility is crucial to optimal mental health, and to optimal diet. We are all different, and must each craft our diet to reflect what helps us feel healthy. I’ve reread Dr. Mercola’s article from 2008. He says there is wide variation in the vitamin A and D profiles in cod liver oil, so it is not possible to know how it is going to affect our health. It is not a food. It is made in a factory. It is very expensive. I gave up eating factory food ten years ago, and I haven’t been sick since. I wouldn’t recommend to anyone to eat cod liver oil except one whose vitamin profile was well established, and under a doctor’s supervision. Nor would I eat butter from Argentina unless I was in Argentina. As far as I know, this was never disclosed on the GP website. The shabby treatment of Dr. Ron deserves a comment, as well. This was beyond the pale. I intend to retain my WAPF membership-the conferences are fabulous, full of remarkable people. But I will be skeptical of WAPF pronouncements in the future. Integrity means treating people right, allowing open dialog, questioning all received wisdom, and welcoming and promoting research. Rigidity and stonewalling will not do.
Good Stuff David!! We are not eating any fish off the West Coast of the US now since Fukushima. The fish in our waters are way too toxic now, so that in and of itself is a major reason for me to be very concerned about GP cod live oils if they are using fish from our waters. I hate that companies stop caring about the customers and their heath and only care about the big fat paycheck coming in. No integrity. Sad.
I believe that was Sally Fallon who attacked the paleo way of eating. I don’t think it represented the opinion of many who belong to the Weston Price Foundation. I think there are a LOT of us who eat paleo and have improved health from it.
Karen, you are correct. I couldn’t believe it. The Paleo way is so similar to the WAPF way, the attack, repeated again, was something like the opening salvo in a turf war. I, for one, think for myself.
Excellent David, I could not have said it better. I am a long time member of the WAPF and have attended 6 of their last 7 conferences and I will be going to Anaheim this November as well. I won’t miss a chance to hear Stephanie Seneff, Dr Cowan, Chris Masterjohn, etc. I have had my irritations with the WAPF for years but I have learned so much I will continue my membership. I am extremely disappointed with the WAPF Q & A response. To me it was, “My family and I are doing great. This is just how business works. Move along, nothing to see here” and is dismissive of the serious concerns brought up in Kaayla’s FCLO report. I, for one, want more discussion, further testing, and open mindedness. Marching in lockstep does nothing to reveal the truth.
“I, for one, want more discussion, further testing, and open mindedness.”
You will never get it so long as Fallon is in charge.
I know this game all too well. Just replace fermented cod liver oil with the 2006 raw milk outbreak and similar tactics were used. There is no empathy for the victim and she will use lies and any other tactic to keep her beliefs and reputation intact. Now that it is happening to two of her own, people should really question her character and integrity. And really, now outsourcing is a problem with the cod liver oil, but wasn’t when raw milk products are involved? Just a bunch of drama and BS.
What victim? He knowlingly took toxic amounts of a product and is now blaming the product. Insane!
Very interesting. I always wondered why WAPF pushed things that Weston Price himself did not advocate, He never fermented his CLO, and he did not use homeopathy, etc.
I don’t believe WAPF has ever claimed that Dr. Price practiced or used or endorsed or even commented on homeopathy, nor do they claim that he used FCLO. That wasn’t commercially available in Dr. Price’s day as far as I can tell. I have my own criticisms of the WAPF, but I don’t like how people are conflating the issues and focusing on personalities instead of facts. I parted ways with WAPF (let my membership expire) after Sally’s anti-Paleo screed, but that has nothing to do with the current issue.
FCLO was available in Dr. Price’s day, and he left information on what type he used. The Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation has all his records. More info: http://renourishment.org/2015/08/30/researching-which-cod-liver-oil-weston-a-price-recommended/
So, I have to pay the $40 PPNF membership fee just to find out the answer that you’ve alluded to in this comment? Does anyone else here have membership access to this publication?
No, you can also read the version accessible by non-members, as listed in the link provided.
Actually, the PPNF information does not corroborate your claims. Here is their direct response to a question asked about what they recommend based on actual Price research (note: FCLO is not recommended).
“PPNF says:
August 13, 2015 at 10:04 am
Hi Sam,
There are a number of good quality cod liver oil products on the market. PPNF does not endorse a specific brand as we do not have the resources to visit the manufacturing facilities or conduct independent lab studies. The response to each product may vary with each individual. However, we did contact healthcare professionals about products they recommend. The first responses were from Jonathan Wright, MD, who uses Carlson’s and Nordic Naturals cod liver oil, Dr. Ron Schmid, who recommends Rosita and NatraPro cod liver oil, David Getoff, CCN, CTN, FAAIM, who uses Carlson’s cod liver oil in his practice, and Dr. Catherine Shanahan who uses Rosita and Sonne’s Old Fashioned cod liver oil No. 5. Dr. Shanahan does not recommend supplemental oils for everyone.
We also suggest the consumer investigate the brands in which they are interested by contacting the manufacturer or going to their website and asking questions about how their oil is processed.
Please check back on the blog comments as we hear from other practitioners as to which brands of cod liver oil they recommend.”
http://blog.ppnf.org/cod-liver-oil-a-historical-perspective/
Incidentally, the PPNF article does not mention or refer to fermented cod liver oil at all. The only place it’s mentioned is in the comments by, drum roll, Victor Cozzetto. *Shocked* (not shocked). The reason that PPNF does not refer to FCLO is because it was not, in fact, ever mentioned by Dr. Price in his catalog of writings.
Just FYI, the PPNF article discusses what we commonly call FCLO today: cod liver oil that is produced by leaving excess livers in barrels until the oil releases from the decomposed livers. The early documents quoted in the article also refer to processing via “putrefaction”, and “rotted oil”—other names for FCLO (a relatively recent term), which was certainly available in Dr. Price’s time, but under different names.
Yeah, that’s what I gathered from the article as well. Same process, different name.
Read the PPNF article. Fermented CLO wasn’t available back then. Most likely Weston Price was using steam extracted or cold pressed. But he gave warnings about the harmful affects of using rancid/oxidized oil or cod liver oil that had been exposed to sun more than a few minutes.
A ‘fermented’ oil, exposed to the heat of the sun for months at a time, he would not have approved of.
Yes, and he would have used it to tan hides, light his lamp, or for making soap, were he so inclined, but not for external or internal use.
Oh, I see. I didn’t realize that both links had the same information. Since I had already seen the “Historical perspective” article about a week ago, I just assumed that you were referring to some new revelation that was not included in that article. Thanks for the clarification, Ali. =)
Ali thank you for joining in on these comments. So far nothing from the WAPF addresses this critical question of what Weston Price would use. It’s as though in WAPF and GP your article, and the quotes PPNF put out on what Price said about cod and butter oils, don’t exist.
I find this recent discussion very interesting. Theresa has confirmed that the PPNF article does not mention fermented cod liver oil, which is a fact. Personally, I would like to see the actual reference to the cod liver oils that were available during Prices time that were found in his files. My hunch is that Price had some type of industry related document which discussed cod livers oils that were commercially available at that time and how they were produced. To say that these commercially available oils were what Price recommended is quite a stretch because we have no documentation from Price himself that delineates what he used.
Through social media, people have used logical fallacies to support their assumptions as to what Price would have used or even recommended. Ali then continues on in this thread with this…. “The early documents quoted in the article also refer to processing via “putrefaction”, and “rotted oil”—other names for FCLO (a relatively recent term), which was certainly available in Dr. Price’s time, but under different names.” This is also a logical fallacy and is indeed a huge assumption. FCLO is a relatively recent term and it used by GPP to describe a proprietary process that they are using to produce cod liver oil. GPP has NEVER, at any time, stated or even insinuated that this was the oil that Price used, nor has WAPF.
And as Pete has pointed out, Price “gave warnings about the harmful affects of using rancid/oxidized oil or cod liver oil that had been exposed to sun more than a few minutes.” This is something that we know to be true today; processed oils are very fragile and this is one of the reasons it is recommended to store these oils in dark bottles away from sunlight. For example, we know that unsaturated fats in milk, when exposed to sunlight, will begin to oxidize and that this lipid oxidation will diminish fat soluble vitamins A and D, along with several others. Pete’s statement does not refer to FCLO, it simply refers to oxidized cod liver oil. Pete is also attempting to use logical fallacy, promulgated on someone’s OPINION that FCLO is rancid (whatever that means), to insinuate that Price did not recommend FCLO.
The PPFN article does not mention fermented CLO. It mentioned putrefaction, which is the process that GPP claims that their process is based on. The explanation of the two is almost identical. http://www.greenpasture.org/utility/showArticle/?ObjectID=5972&find=putrefaction&happ=siteAdministrator In this article Wetzel talks about going back to the old ways and the old way that he references is putrefaction. There is no old way of “fermentation”.
Of course then the script is flipped and much time is spent talking about the difference between fermentation and putrefaction in this article. http://www.greenpasture.org/utility/showArticle/?ObjectID=8397&find=putrefaction&happ=siteAdministrator
As somebody already said, either this is an ancient method – putrefaction, or this is a brand new, proprietary method. Wetzel has claimed both things.
FCLO IS rancid. Not one scientist has said that it is not – even Masterjohn. The only people that have said that it is not rancid are GPP and WAPF and their supporters. It just appears to not be “oxidative rancidity”.
David you state that “…in the new WAPF Q&A, there isn’t a single indication that I can find pushing for additional research to determine the truth about the efficacy and safety of the Green Pasture products.”, but the Q&A states: “Obviously we are now going to do more testing, but we want to make sure that we are testing for the right things. We are currently looking for a U.S. lab to do this.” In response to another question, “Why doesn’t fermented cod liver oil raise the vitamin D levels in the blood?”, the Q&A states among other things “Again, this is an interesting question and one that we hope to look into.” In reference to the high Vitamin D levels the UBE Labs testing of FCLO found, the Q&A states, “what we are planning to do is provide funding so that Chris Masterjohn can do this testing in his laboratory at Brooklyn College, so we can study this question thoroughly.” Near the end of the Q&A, it states, “because of this controversy, I will now be recommending to the board that we develop a protocol for testing all brands for vitamin levels and markers of rancidity before we approve them.” All these statements indicate to me that there is a plan to perform additional testing/research.
Eric, good point about the promises of testing, and that’s certainly a worthwhile start. I would distinguish between testing and research, though. Research involves going way beyond lab testing of the product and using testing on people to come to conclusions about safety and efficacy. It may even involve use of control groups. It’s much more involved, and costly.
If you actually believe that there needs to be years and years of expensive and thorough research on this one product, then you must also believe the same for all other products, no? I for one would prefer WAPF to make better use of it’s time and resources than wasting it all on product research. Nobody is being forced to use these products, and if a particular person has a bad reaction to a product then they should stop taking it… simple as that!
Amanda, no, I don’t believe there should be expensive and thorough research “for all other products.” Most nutritional supplements have no adverse reactions associated with them, even when taken in dosages beyond what’s recommended; in such instances, the excess amounts are simply excreted from the body.
Not so the fermented cod liver oil. Since the first online questions were raised about its side effects and safety in early 2013, there have been dozens and dozens of complaints about rashes, nausea, adverse immune system effects and, most recently, the concern by naturopath Ron Schmid that his heart failure was brought on by FCLO (and cleared up when he discontinued the FCLO). Here is the first article of concern–you can review the 269 comments and see if they concern you at all.
http://nourishedandnurtured.blogspot.ca/2013/01/why-we-stopped-taking-fermented-cod.html
I’m not sure what form the research should take. Perhaps it’s a matter of studying individuals who have reported symptoms/illnesses, and learning what commonalities they have. In any event, some sort of written warning should have been offered by Green Pasture well before this.
And you don’t think that the prior years of 1-2 tablespoons of clo had an impact on Dr. Schmid’s health? Aren’t fat-soluble vitamins stored in the tissues?
Firstly, you can overdose on water, so yes, dosage of anything matters. The mafia killed people by making them drink olive oil. Countless of ‘supplements’ are lethal in high doses, not to mention foods, and various other products. And this doesn’t take into account allergies and such that no manufacturer is responsible for. It is the consumers responsibility to manage what he/she puts in his mouth. If you are allergic to peanuts, don’t eat them. If FCLO makes you sick, don’t take it. Do not try to insinuate that FCLO is somehow dangerous.
Secondaly, Dave Wetzel has warned from day 1 – FCLO is NOT for everyone, as everyone reacts differently. No secrets here. Nothing special at all. WAPF and others also talk about dosage issues, and yes, many people have used higher dosages short-term for specific issues.
Finally, the word supplement is used as a convenience, and Dave has said from the beginning that he does not consider his products supplements. They are food. They are bioactive foods. They are not inert tablets containing minerals and vitamins. They are living products whose nutritional profile cannot even be fully understood or accurately measured. Again, nothing new here. Old news.
The Green Pasture products are popular because they improve people’s lives. They can’t help everyone, but they certainly help many. Not to mention that they are a beacon for natural, unprocessed, traditional foods. I thought you were one of those beacons David?
Victor, first, I’m interested in your connection to WAPF and/or Green Pasture. You have been posting everywhere in unequivocal defense of both organizations. Everybody else that has exhibited the same pattern that I’ve been able to identify has, when questioned, revealed a conflict of interest.
Second, the WAPF has also treated and recommended this FCLO product as food, recommending high dosages for years, and only recently lowering those recommendations to about 1/6th of previous. WAPF is SUPPOSEDLY following the teachings and research of Weston A. Price. As far as I have been able to tell, Price did not view CLO as a food, but rather as a medicine. He warned about toxicity. He recommended ACTUAL food for daily nutrients, and used CLO as a means of treating illnesses. How is it that WAPF and GPP have strayed so far and still continue to purport to be following Price’s teachings.
I have also noticed that Victor seems obsessed in protecting both of these parties. Hmmm?
This is not true. I have also been defending both organizations and I have no financial connection to either one.
Amanda, what you say above is true. You have been defending both organizations. However, I have a hard time reconciling it with this: “I am not taking sides. I simply find Dr. Daniel’s words and actions to be atrocious throughout this entire ordeal… and frankly I had never even heard of her prior to this “report” coming out, so this was my very first impression of the woman and she immediately lost my respect.” Defending one side (vigorously) and attacking the other side, seems to me at least, to be the very definition of taking a side. Can you explain how you have not taken a side?
Well, just as I said before, this was my very first impression of Kaayla Daniel… and it was a terrible one. So, right off the bat I had no respect for the woman. In other words, she is not the type of person whose “side” I would ever be on, no matter what the case, due to her malicious and unprofessional nature. But this isn’t about choosing sides between people. I’m on the side of rationality and logic, of which Kaayla has neither.
I don’t have a problem with people questioning GP or WAPF within reason, so long as they aren’t lashing out in retaliation just because they are feeling some kind of way… and that is what I’ve been seeing as a direct result of Daniel’s actions (note the calls for reporting GP for “fraud” to the FDA …I mean, really? People feel entitled to destroy a company and hurt the entire real food community over a labeling technicality?)
“I don’t have a problem with people questioning GP or WAPF within reason, so long as they aren’t lashing out in retaliation just because they are feeling some kind of way …”
So, basically, people can’t question GP or WAPF because they will ALWAYS feel some kind of way. How dare they want transparency and truth from their food supplement companies and be concerned that they aren’t getting it and express that concern. How dare they want the best for their families health and be concerned about transfats.
“People feel entitled to destroy a company and hurt the entire real food community over a labeling technicality?”
Technicality? You’re acting like this they forgot to put a capitalize a letter, or use correct punctuation. If you bought non-GMO at your grocery store and found out it was GMO, would you be acting like it was a no big deal labeling technicality? If you found out that your 100% pasture raised beef was finished on grain, is that a technicality? If you found out that your 100% organic products, “contained organic” but wasn’t ALL organic, is that a technicality? No, it is a breach of contract. You were offered a certain product, agreed to get that product, a different product was delivered, and money exchanged hands = breach of contract.
The truth is that there are labeling laws. GPP has chosen to ignore some labeling requirements, and because of their decision that labeling laws don’t apply to their products, I think they chose to be ignorant of some others. It is required that certain things, like trans fats, be put on a label. If the tests that GPP just posted are similar to the ones that they have been getting from time to time all along, then they have KNOWN that they have transfats in their product and they have not only not put that on the label, they have withheld that information when they DID post test results. There are other things that must appear on the label.
I’m not a fan of unions (certainly not what they have become), but I know that there have been times when it has been important for unions to form in order to force management to make changes that will make a safer working environment, when previous attempts to get their attention seemed to yield no action.
I’m not a fan of the way that Kaayla Daniel did this report, I’m not a fan of reporting a small, natural company to the FDA and getting them further into our business (like hiring a trigger happy, shotgun wielding madman to deal with a couple of flies in your kitchen), but I do understand that when there are serious concerns that seem to go unheeded and people feel like they have no other option to get any action, they will resort to what is available, however bad an option it is.
People CAN question GP, like I already said. What I have a problem with is accusations of malice, fraud, etc. just because that was the tone set by Daniel’s report. If she had presented her findings minus all the sensationalism I don’t believe that all of these people would have their pitchforks out as they do. Instead they are feeding off of her retaliatory attitude, which IMO is directed at Sally Fallon more than anything, and GP is just the pawn that she used go after her with.
In any case, here you go moving the goal posts again. Since when did you switch your focus to trans-fats? You’ve said a number of times now on this blog that your problem has always been with the cod/pollock issue, and Pollock can hardly be compared to GMO or grain or any other ingredient that is harmful and of no nutritional benefit
So people can question GP, as long as it remains within your parameters of “within reason”? And because you don’t think there is fraud, then nobody else is allowed to question GP about fraud? Because you don’t think there is malice, nobody else is allowed to insinuate malice?
I think you are wrong about the pitchforks. When people are misled and deceived and they find out, the pitchforks usually come out. Kaayla may very well have an axe to grind with Sally Fallon and that may have been her target. I don’t know. SFM could have easily side-stepped the brunt of this wave of outrage by choosing to act in a different manner. By siding 100% with GPP and saying, hey nothing is wrong here, nothing to see here, and oh by the way, if you talk about it, we’re kicking you out (you are NOT ALLOWED to be worried about mislabeling, Fukushima fish or trans fats in this product!)
“In any case, here you go moving the goal posts again.” Oh. I thought this was already settled. After weeks of silence on the issue, GPP has finally admitted to using Pollock, stated that they won’t be using it this year, and committed to explicit labeling by species. They could have done this 4 weeks ago or more. I can’t think of a single reason why they COULDN’T have done this, except that they were trying to find a way to NOT admit it, or were trying to find a good way to spin it, or it took that long to run there statement past lawyers, since there is potential liability there. I have never been shy about saying that the biggest problem that I had about this whole thing was the labeling issue. IIRC, only one of Kaayla’s tests showed transfats, so it could have been a batch problem and not something that GPP actually knew about. GPP just lots of test results. All showed significant amounts of trans fats. That’s not good. They should have known about that. I believe they DID know about that, and did nothing about it, no labeling, no reporting, no attempts to remove them, NOTHING. It’s not moving the goal posts. It’s just resetting for another drive. The more I learn, the more concerned and sickened I am.
I really don’t feel like going over this again. You keep insisting that GP is merely being “questioned” when actually they are being outright accused. There’s a difference, and the latter puts people squarely on the defensive. It’s the very reason that you have myself and others coming here to defend the accused parties. But hey, if that’s the ultimate goal with you guys: to put WAPF and GP on defense, rather than encourage open discussion, then don’t let me get in your way.
“It’s just resetting for another drive.”
Word it however you like. Moving the goal posts is exactly what you’re doing.
I’m using the word “question” because it is the word that you used. Yes, they have been accused. There are certain accusations that I don’t think are accurate and I have defended them. There are others that I don’t know enough about and have either ventured an opinion stated as such, or kept out of. And they have been accused of mislabeling. By me. They have been defended of the accusation . . . by you . . . using all of the tools provided for you by WAPF and GPP supporters. You cannot possibly still believe that the product has NOT been mislabeled according to FDA specifications? I understand not caring whether it was or not or not caring whether it was cod or pollock or haddock or catfish. But certainly you cannot still be contending that the product wasn’t mislabeled, and that Pollock IS Cod and is allowed to be marketed that way according to the FDA?
“Word it however you like. Moving the goal posts is exactly what you’re doing.”
In another comment on this very article I wrote, “I’ve said all along that the problem that I had with the report is not the rancidity issue, or the vitamin issue, but the labeling issue.” Trans fats are a labeling issue – in addition to being a health hazard that needs to be addressed. Regardless, I refuse to let my concerns be confined by arbitrary boundaries that you erect using sports metaphors.
Yes, I do still seriously contend that it was not mislabeled because there is nothing illegal or otherwise incorrect about labeling pacific cod as “cod.” That he didn’t specify which species of cod used, or the fact that Pollock is also used, does not make the “contains: cod” a lie.
“There is nothing illegal or otherwise incorrect about labeling pacific cod as “cod”. ” You are correct in this. “That he didn’t specify which species of cod used, or the fact that Pollock is also used, does not make the “contains: cod” a lie.” You are correct in this also. However, both of those correct facts, does not mean that a product that contains Pollock, yet does not list Pollock on the label, meets labeling law criteria and is not mislabeled. GPP admitted to using Pollock. GPP never listed Pollock on the label. Mislabeled FCLO. DNA testing showed Pollock in cow lick product. Pollock never appeared on the label. Mislabeled Cow Lick.
Where in FDA guidelines does it say that you must list exact species of fish used in products? I thought that the whole argument being repeatedly made here, by you and by others, was that “contains: cod” is a false statement because Pollock is not technically cod, and it can not legally be labeled as such according to the Feds. This argument being based on the false assumption that FCLO is actually just “Fermented Pollock Liver Oil” (because, well, that’s what Kaayla told you). Not only is this argument totally nonsensical (since Pollock is actually said to be more closely related to Atlantic cod than any other fish in the cod family) but it isn’t even the argument that all of you have been making this whole time… including Kaayla.
So… in summary: You guys were ticked off before because you thought you were getting Pollock instead of actual cod. Now you find out that you WERE in fact getting actual cod, but you’ve decided to remain ticked off because there’s some Pollock in the mix that you didn’t know about until now (because, well, you never actually cared enough to inquire about the specific species… until Kaayla told you to care)…?!?! Please explain how this is NOT a textbook example of moving the goal posts.
I feel embarrassed just typing this up because of how utterly absurd it sounds. Seriously.
Amanda,
Sometime in 2013, the American Fisheries Society reclassified Alaskan Pollock (aka Walleye Pollock) into the Gadus genus. At that point, it became technically correct to call it a cod. Prior to that reclassification, it was not correct to call it a cod.
However, the FDA has not changed their labeling rules regarding Alaskan Pollock. According to the FDA’s Seafood List, the only currently acceptable market name is Alaskan Pollock and possibly Walleye Pollock. If GP had used Alaskan Pollock in their FCLO at any time, that would have violated FDA’s labeling rules. I don’t know what the consequence is of violating those FDA Seafood List labeling rules. And perhaps they don’t even apply in this instance, since we’re not talking about GP selling whole fish, but rather a dietary product made from fish. Or is FCLO a supplement, which means different rules and different violations? I don’t think that has been settled. I suspect some alphabet agency will be informing Dave W. soon enough about what labeling rules he has to follow.
I don’t get excited about the Pollock/cod issue, except I wish everyone would understand that it’s now correct to call Alaskan Pollock a cod, but it’s still not correct to label Pollock as cod if you’re selling it on the market. And if it’s Pacific cod in the FCLO, there is no violation at all. If people didn’t have the perception that they were getting Atlantic cod in the FCLO, you could make a case for applauding Dave W. for using a more sustainable species. If he had disclosed that when he first started doing that, and talked about the tradeoffs, I don’t think there would have been much discussion about it. Unless it was before Alaskan Pollock was reclassified as a cod. I think part of the indignation now is that people feel they are paying a premium price for FCLO and they don’t think of Alaskan Pollock as a premium product.
I do get excited to think that I may have been consuming transfats for 10 years, that FCLO may be rancid, that the vitamin levels may not be what they were when Dave W. still listed them on the label, and that there may be a causal link to the heart arrhythmias I developed over the 10 years of consuming GP CLO/FCLO.
Lynn, you’re missing the point. The FCLO is made with both pollock AND pacific cod.
And I don’t understand what point you’re making by saying FCLO is made with both Pollock AND pacific cod. That doesn’t negate anything I said. Dave W. says it’s just Pacific Cod this year. He’s said Alaska Pollock was used in previous years.
Lynn, you’re right. It doesn’t negate anything you said. However, what you said was beside the point that I was making. Dave says that the FCLO will be exclusively pacific cod from now on, but up until now the FCLO has been a mix of pacific cod and pollock. From what I understand, the FCLO was never 100% pollock.
Amanda, since Alaskan Pollock was used previously, my post was not besides the point. Even if Alaskan Pollock was mixed with pacific cod, it was and still will be a violation of FDA labeling laws to pass any amount of Pollock content off as cod. You just don’t seem to get that labeling laws were violated.
I did see that Dave W. said he is using exclusively Pacific now. I didn’t catch where he said he would be using exclusively Pacific Cod from now on. Where can I find that statement?
Lynn, you are not the FDA are you? Why don’t we wait to see what the actual FDA says before speaking on their behalf? And you can find statements from Dave under his blog posts. Read the last months worth of statements.
Lynn, no Amanda doesn’t get it. She thinks that saying “contains Cod” is plenty good enough if it has any cod in it. Like Taco Bell’s ground beef. It has beef in it. Some. Can you imagine the outrage of a vegetarian that bought a box of soy burgers and the ingredients said, “contains soy”. Later they realize that these are the best soy burgers ever because they have beef in them? Amanda doesn’t get it, because Amanda doesn’t want to get it. She’s offended I’ve already called the FDA to see what they had to say and you are correct. They are not required to list the species. GPP is going out of their way to do that and at the same time insinuating how ridiculous it is and how nobody else does it and can you imagine putting 12 different species on a bottle???? This is smokescreen to cover the previous, uh, let’s say, “neglectful” labeling. know how ridiculous to do that, and how impossible it would be for other companies to do that and that’s why they don’t and they bend all sorts of rules, etc.
And you are also correct that Dave W. did not say that he would be using exclusively Pacific Cod from now on, at least not that I could find. What he said was, “We are using Pacific Cod.” The only reference to a time was “excellent supply in the past year”. In the comments he said if they need to change that in the future they would update the label.
Carrie is right though. Check the comment for some interesting stuff from Dave.
Steve, none of your “it would be like” comparisons have any relevance whatever to this issue since they all involve some appalling ingredient that the subjects in your examples go out of their way to avoid. Has anyone ever gone out of their way to avoid “pollock liver oil”? I think not. Certainly NOT the type of people who consume fish oil supplements on the regular.
Actually, you already agreed with me (in another post) that the inclusion of pollock oil actually ADDS VALUE to the product for it’s close similarity to atlantic cod (remember?). So, if you want to make a logical comparison then it would be more like: “Can you imagine someone buying what was advertised as Grade A Maple Syrup, and then later finding out that there was some Grade B syrup mixed in? Now can you imagine them being pissed off about it??
How dare you improve my product without my knowledge! Ludicrous!
“they all involve some appalling ingredient that the subjects in your examples go out of their way to avoid”
In one sense you are correct. As it pertains to labeling laws the second example especially, is dead on. It does not matter if the unlabeled ingredients add value (adding beef which costs mroe than soy certainly adds value) or if it detracts from the product (if you don’t want beef you’ve been screwed). It is equally a violation of labeling laws. Just because it is true (contains cod) does not mean that it is legal. The labeling law thing apparently cannot get past your mental roadblocks.
If I recall correctly, I agreed that Pollock MIGHT indeed improve the Pacific Cod product. The implication from that though, is that the product is an inferior quality – inferior to Alaska Pollock, and vastly inferior to Atlantic Cod – yet has been marketed as the absolute very best by WAPF, and has a premium price tag. If I recall, the context was people feeling defrauded because they thought that premium price tag was getting them Atlantic Cod.
Well Carrie, I believe Steve Tallent has already told us what the FDA says. If you remember, he called them up. They didn’t condone calling Alaskan Pollock cod.
I did take you up on your invitation to read the last month’s worth of statements at GP, which I have been reading regularly anyway. And upon rereading, I did realize something wasn’t what it appeared to be at first blush.
Dave gives the Merriam Webster Dictionary definition for CLO, which has no legal bearing and is therefore of no use here. Then he says that definition is “similar to the “definition proposed by the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and World Health Organization’s CODEX Committee for Fats and Oils for CODEX standard for fish oil, which specifically identifies the livers to be obtained through wild caught fish from within the Gadidae fish family. See page 34 of the report.”
Now Carrie, I believe you were the one that posted the link to that CODEX draft here, http://www.iffo.net/system/files/CCFO%2024%20Report%20Final_EN_2.pdf, although I don’t believe you were kind enough to tell us which of the 200 pages was relevant. On page 34, the PROPOSED DRAFT CODEX STANDARD FOR FISH OILS description for CLO is: “2.3.2 Cod liver oil is derived from the liver of wild cod, Gadus morhua L and other species of Gadidae.”
What needs to be understood about this draft is that it is only a draft of proposals. This draft was to be presented at July 2015 meetings, and there will be more steps and working groups and another vote in 2017. So right now it is an unofficial description and has no legal relevance whatsoever. Furthermore, the FDA is the regulatory body in the US, not Codex. It is the FDA rules that have legal authority in the US.
As reported on 9/12/14 at http://www.iffo.net/node/751, the draft Codex Standard for Fish Oil references CLO as “Cod liver oil from G. morhua (Gadidae)”. In the details of the 8/30/14 report, it doesn’t say “other species of Gadidae”. Interesting that “other species of Gadidae” was added to the draft Codex standards after 8/30/14. I haven’t seen an update to know if that new 2015 descriptor was approved.
There is nothing about a draft Codex report that justifies labelling Alaskan Pollock as cod in CLO, especially before 8/30/14. Since there is nothing official about that proposed new draft CODEX description of CLO, why would Dave mention it, other than to have us think that it was okay for him to be using any fish in the Gadidae family in FCLO despite FDA labeling regulations.
When I realized that the Codex draft Dave referenced was only a proposal, I wondered what the existing standard was. From the reading I’ve done, it appears there is currently no existing Codex standard for CLO.
Splitting hairs in a kangaroo court; that’s all you’re doing.
The information that Steve got from the FDA is no longer relevant since he did not mention to them that the FCLO does in fact contain pacific cod.
Amanda, a FCLO made exclusively from pacific cod, as Dave says is the current formulation, does meet FDA Seafood List labeling regulations. But if an improperly labeled ingredient was used, which it was, it is irrelevant if the product also contained another component that does meet labeling regulations.
According to the draft Codex regulations that were approved on 8/30/14, cod liver oil was defined as coming solely from the Atlantic cod. That was the agreed upon international criterion for CLO, which leads me to believe that at least up until that time, quality CLO would have been expected to be solely from Atlantic cod. Without knowing whether the changes incorporated in the 2015 Codex draft proposals were approved, which would allow any species in the Gadidae family to be used in CLO, I don’t know if that standard has changed now.
I suppose your position will be that it doesn’t matter whether labeling violations occurred in the past or not, that pacific is legally a cod, so everything is good now and we can just move on.
Lynn, I’m a bit dumbfounded at this comment. I found it odd that you guys were looking to the FDA for guidance before, but to see you citing Codex Alimentarius standards is downright bizarre. Do you even know what that is? Here, let me help you find out (see link below )…
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/05/14/codex.aspx
If I didn’t know better, I would seriously think that some of you were gov’t agents.
Amanda, where was your indignation at citing Codex standards when Dave W. did exactly that when he wrote “the definition proposed by the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and World Health Organization’s CODEX Committee for Fats and Oils for CODEX standard for fish oil, which specifically identifies the livers to be obtained through wild caught fish from within the Gadidae fish family. See page 34 of the report.” Did you find Dave’s citation of Codex standards downright bizarre? The 2014 proposed Codex standard for the named fish oil called cod liver oil are even stricter than what the FDA allows. Maybe that’s what upsets you about my using that reference.
Codex Alimentarius is about much more than supplements. Their attempt to determine international food standards and define what foods are has good and bad aspects. Whether those standards should be imposed as law in this country is an entirely different question than whether the proposed Codex standards are a reflection of current international thought on what qualities describe a named fish oil. In the case of the named fish oil called cod liver oil, in 2014 that standard was still that the oil had to come from from the livers of gadus morhua, Atlantic cod.
It seems that you, Carrie and Victor have now resorted to name calling (troll, gov’t agent, splitting hairs in a kangaroo court, mud-slinging, illogical fallacies) and ad hominem attacks on Steve. No reasoned defense against the points made. If that’s the best you all can muster, I would agree you are dumbfounded.
Lynn, you obviously didn’t even bother to read that link on Codex Alimentarius if you still think that there’s something good about it, or that it somehow “reflects current international thought.”
Dave W. doesn’t have any other choice but to follow Codex regulations, because he’s in the food/supplement business. Same with the FDA. That doesn’t mean that WE should be looking to Codex for guidance and helping to enforce those draconian “standards.”
And no, the fact that I said you are starting to sound like a gov’t agent does not equate to “name calling.” Sorry you feel that way.
Amanda, you apparently don’t know anything about the membership of the Codex Committee on Fish and Oils and the IFFO. The 2013 session was attended by 101 participants from 35 Member countries, one Member Organization (EU), and four Non-Governmental Observer Organizations. One of the participatory organizations is the IFFO, the international ‘not for profit’ organisation that represents and promotes the fishmeal, fish oil and wider marine ingredients industry worldwide. With a network of members reaching across 60 countries, IFFO members account for over 50% of world production and 75% of the fishmeal and fish oil traded worldwide. They include producers, traders, feed companies, edible oil refiners, retailers, financial institutions, governmental and non-governmental organisations. Seems pretty international to me, and since the members meet every year and have electronic exchanges inbetween, I would say their work reflects current thinking.
The Codex Committee is responsible for these standards for fish oil: description of product, essential composition and quality factors, food additives, contaminants, hygiene, labeling, and methods of analysis and sampling. Reading your 10 year old advocacy piece from Mercola about Codex did not convince me that those standards are not desirable outcomes. I don’t agree with your black and white thinking on Codex, and I will also say that it reflects badly on you to conclude that someone hasn’t read referent material because they still disagree with you.
Codex regulations are voluntary standards being developed for international trade. Saying Dave W. doesn’t have any other choice but to follow Codex regulations is wrong, because there are no Codex regulations for fish oils. They are nothing but draft proposals. Furthermore, Codex has no regulatory authority in the U.S. The FDA is the regulatory authority. Dave cites the 2015 Codex draft proposal because it makes it look like he’s okay using any fish in the Gadidae family. Don’t know if that change from the 2014 standard of Atlantic cod only stuck or not. Doesn’t matter, the FDA Seafood List didn’t change, and Dave still mislabeled when he used Alaskan cod.
I am a private individual. What is important, however, is not whom I am, but whether my arguments are sound. You have yet to show where anything I say is wrong.
should have said Alaskan pollock, not Alaskan cod.
You obviously didn’t see my previous post on this Lynn_M…
Anyone here complaining about the Green Pasture FCLO products being mislabeled because it says ‘Cod’ has exposed themselves as a troll or astroturfer (someone being paid to troll). This is obvious because:
1. Someone that was truly so passionate about eating ONLY ‘Atlantic Cod’ would never buy a product labeled simply as ‘Cod’ because they would be fully aware that such a label is not informative enough for them.
2. Such labeling and naming assumptions would be ridiculous for a true ‘Atlantic Cod’ advocate to make, as they would certainly realize that this is an ‘American’ problem, in that ‘Atlantic Cod’ is not called by that name everywhere in the world. The word ‘Cod’ is a global English standard that may or may not generally refer to one of a hundred different fish.
3. An ‘Atlantic Cod’ advocate would already know better of course, as scrutinizing such labels would be normal for them, since it is standard industry practice to use dozens of different varieties of Cod without disclosure. They would know that this definition varies greatly, depending on the industry, the country, and even the point in history. Thus, they could never be shocked or feel deceived in any way. Their life long experience of hunting for ‘Atlantic Cod’ would have etched into them this labeling reality.
4. The ‘Atlantic Cod’ advocate would certainly be aware that there are over 100 fish that fall under that category, some of which are in fact not cod. Thus they would be impressed that a product labeled cod actually has only the varieties of the four ‘true’ cod fish.
5. Surprise requires ignorance. The ‘Atlantic Cod’ advocate could not have been ignorant – would not have allowed himself/herself to be so ignorant about Cod labeling. Such an advocate would have already known the details, and long ago considered them irrelevant for FCLO. If they did care, they would already have years of blogging history to demonstrate such, and would not likely still be a user that cared about this blog post.
If you find the above offensive, then you are still caught up in the fog of your trolling. You have been exposed. Not only are you obviously trolling, but you are obviously an American troll. Or, you are astroturfing. And of course some of you have simply been caught up in the mob mentality that trolling and astroturfing aim to create. If the the third possibility represents you, I hope this message will help you realize that, as this message is only for you. Obviously the trolls will simply keep on trolling.
Victor, your post is an example of an ad hominem fallacy, the classic ploy of attacking an accuser rather than engaging in the merits of an argument. What have I said that is incorrect?
Lynn_M, it has nothing to do with being incorrect or correct about Codex or whatever. The point is that there is no point. You are only attempting to insinuate some wrong doing, and you are stretching beyond all rhyme and reason to do so. Your comments do not contribute to any greater good, and they distort perspective, which seems to be your intent.
Dave Wetzel has spoken and written publicly about labeling and FDA, and there has never been any hint of intention to deceive on his part. His efforts exceed the industry practices on such, and yet here you are trying to attack him and trying to imply some wrong doing.
If such things were truly a passion for you, you would be contributing to those discussions within those realms, and you would be happy to see that Dave Wetzel has showed himself as someone that openly discusses the topic.
Victor, what you say is your opinion. I believe I have made a case that labeling has been incorrect. I have responded to inaccurate statements made by others. I will leave it to other readers as to the validity of your judgment.
Lynn_M, I do not contend whether or not the labels are correct. The point is that it is a non issue, and you are trying to imply wrong doing or intentional deception on the part of Green Pasture when there is none. You are trying to create an issue where there is none. Let’s shed some additional light on the absurdity of such effort on this blog:
With all of the lengthy dialogue and supposed research, all of you keep a steady focus on trying to tie Green Pasture to some wrong doing, and never does anyone mention ABS. “ABS Corporation is registered with the FDA as a food and drug manufacturer and is also certified to meet the requirements of the USDA Organic program as a handler and packager…”
There is much more where that quote came from, and it is in the letter posted on the Green Pasture website. Labeling is far more complicated than you try to imply, and has a host of people responsible for it.
Green Pasture is a growing company that will have to make label changes along the way, due to supply chain management, demand, FDA requirements, FCLO definition, protection of trade secrets, protection of sources, etc., etc., and it is not an easy task.
Neither your opinion or mine have any meaning on this topic, unless we believe we have unearthed some evidence of a conspiracy to deceive. Nobody has shown any shred of such evidence, and we do in fact have good evidence that shows Green Pasture is an open and honest company.
If you continue to insinuate wrong doing without evidence, people will continue to view you as a troll. You have not shown their labels to be incorrect, and you have not shown any reason for even questioning such. Yes, a more informative label would be helpful and desirable, and Green Pasture has already showed that they are moving in that direction.
There are certainly many issues that could use your passion, so why not redirect your efforts there? The other CLO producers are not nearly as transparent as Green Pasture, so perhaps you could get them to open up more.
One thing is obvious, Victor knows a lot A BS.
Victor, you are continuing to exhibit another type of logical fallacy called Argument from Motives. “The fallacy of declaring a standpoint or argument invalid solely because of the evil, corrupt or questionable motives of the one making the claim… A variety of the Ad Hominem argument. The counterpart of this is the fallacy of falsely justifying or excusing evil or vicious actions because of the perpetrator’s purity of motives or lack of malice. (E.g., “He’s a good Christian man; how could you accuse him of doing something like that?”)”
You said “Labeling is far more complicated than you try to imply.” Okay, I’ll bite. How about you come down from your high horse and explain the specifics of those complications to me? I look forward to hearing a reasoned response rather than more pontificating.
You seem to think that I am engaging you in an attempt to convince you with logic, but you miss the point entirely. My information is posted for other readers, not for you. My effort is simply to post some facts for other readers when I see the BS pile too high.
I would like to engage you in discussion as another concerned human, but you have already ignored attempts at discussion.
Your response perfectly demonstrates my points, as you attempt to attack me instead of addressing the facts. You are illustrating troll tactics. I gave you facts – typical business processes that impact labeling – and you didn’t address any of them. I have now given you two new things to consider:
– The role of ABS in FCLO labeling
– The role of other business processes and issues – supply chain management, etc.
You ignored both. And here is a third that I am sure you will ignore:
Precedence. You have zero precedence for any of the BS you continue to spew forth, as the vast majority of CLO producers do not list any such details, and that has been the standard practice for many decades. Green Pasture is among the best in the industry with regard to labeling, as they openly discuss the topic.
And you still make insinuations about rancidity and trans fats? Do you not realize that it has been nearly six weeks, and no experts have stepped forward to support your unfounded claims? There are no tests that confirm rancidity. And trans fats are irrelevant, as FCLO is trans fat FREE by FDA standards. I’ve already explained that in detail.
A lie left unchallenged eventually becomes the truth, and so your comments should not be left unchallenged. As a supplier, Green Pasture shows itself to be among the most transparent, responsive, and responsible in the market.
Victor, the stench from your pile of BS must be getting to you, because I’ve not said anything about rancidity and trans fats. I see no use in engaging with anyone that puts words in my mouth. Furthermore, you failed to provide any specifics about the complexities of labeling you alluded to. Instead of providing information, all you can do is spew troll and use fallacial argumentative tactics.
Post by Lynn_M September 28:
“I do get excited to think that I may have been consuming transfats for 10 years, that FCLO may be rancid, that the vitamin levels may not be what they were when Dave W. still listed them on the label, and that there may be a causal link to the heart arrhythmias I developed over the 10 years of consuming GP CLO/FCLO.”
The rest of the post certainly sounded like you, so I do not think it was an impersonator.
Maybe you did not actually read all of my post, so here is a list of SOME possible factors that may effect labeling of products:
– supply chain management
– supplier availability
– product demand
– FDA requirements, certifications, etc.
– FCLO definition, categorization
– Protection of trade secrets
– Protection of sources
– Market, market definition
– NDAs, copyrights, patents, etc.
– Branding concerns
– Common names, scientific names, local names
– etc., etc. etc.
All those things and more may influence how a company determines labels, and even how a regulatory body chooses to define and enforce any guidance for such. Everything is in flux, so a large percentage of products will always be in ‘violation’ of any guidance, no matter how hard they try to comply.
I hope that helps.
So you think mentioning something as a concern, which is what I meant by getting excited, is the same thing as making a claim? You think that is an insinuation? I have not entered into the arguments about whether FCLO is rancid and contains transfats, which is what you were implying.
I did not say you made a claim. I said you make insinuations. Most of the attacks on the FCLO and GP are not claims, but insinuations, or attempts to associate the product with some unfounded concern. Your statement of concern is adding wood to the fire.
Of course you have a right to be concerned about anything you wish, as do I. And my concern is that people are being misinformed and misdirected. GP is our ally, and the FCLO is a good product. Our debates about labels, etc., are not productive for anyone IMHO.
I can understand people getting freaked out and concerned by Dr. Daniel’s crazy report, as it is certainly intended to incite emotion. But we are already six weeks into this, and there is still nothing to confirm any of her allegations.
I can understand the anger and fear also, but that anger should be directed at Dr. Daniel, and not at GP or the FCLO. Certainly we must all remain vigilant. What’s more, these conversations are leaning towards more dependence on regulation and science, and that is not the direction you want to head in. No food product is perfect for everyone. We need more personal responsibility for food consumption, as no science, no regulation, and no opinion can determine what is right for you to consume.
Atlantic cod advocate? huh?
He did not say that it “will be exclusively pacific cod from now on”. He said, “As noted on the label we are using Gadus macrocephalus (Pacific cod) as this was in excellent supply in the past year. ” I don’t think his statement makes any promises for the future.
You’re right, Julie. My mistake.
The FCLO was almost always all cod. Only for a short time did he use 10% pollock liver oil.
Is that Alaska Pollock, Pollock or both? Is that 10% of each batch for a short time, or 10% of his total production for a short time?
Amanda, for the record,this controversy about fermented cod liver oil got its official start in January 2013, with dozens of complaints about FCLO on a blog. You may want to take a look–just be warned, it may affect your denial mentality. Unfortunately, all the stuff about mislabeling and false advertising came up when people started looking more closely at what Green Pasture was promising.
http://nourishedandnurtured.blogspot.ca/2013/01/why-we-stopped-taking-fermented-cod.html
Thanks, David. I had read through these comments before, but I felt that I should hold off on addressing this until I had time to sit down and really analyze these complaints. Finally, I have done just that. Here’s what I found…
Out of the 268 comments left in response to that blog, I counted 32 Positive FCLO Reports and 17 Negative FCLO Reports (the remaining 219 comments were either off-topic or involved opinions about FCLO from people who have no personal experience taking the product.)
Out of those 17 Negative Reports:
(2) report an allergic reaction but admit to having a prior allergy to either fermented foods or to seafood, another (2) report minor issues like burps or throat burn, another (1) reports “anxiety” but admits that she has “high anxiety issues” normally, another (1) reports heavy menstrual bleeding but admits that taking vitamins gives her nose bleeds, another (1) reports bloody stool but admits that it’s a loose correlation to FCLO and could be from anything.
That leaves a whopping 10 legit Negative Reports, most of which are related to digestive distress and many of those specifically involve the cinnamon tingle flavor. Once you break it all down like this, it really doesn’t seem quite so alarming, does it?
Amanda, you are awesome! I have been meaning to reread the comments on that blog for the very same reason. But I did just go through all of the reviews of GPP on Steve Tallent’s Beyoutiful website and all were positive as well.
What are you saying? Are you saying that the product is safe or can’t possibly be unsafe to anybody because not enough people have complained about it or given it bad reviews?
Steve, it’s not just what you said she’s saying. There’s also the presumption that the 268 comments left on the nourishedandnutured blog and however many on your website are a representative sample of all users’ opinions of FCLO. There is no reason to assume FCLO users had even read those websites, let alone be inclined to leave comments. What I find alarming is Amanda’s willingness to think people don’t have any legitimate concerns about FCLO, based on the tenor of comments left on one blog.
Lynn, I’m not making that presumption though. David wanted me to look at the comments under that blog, saying: “just be warned, it may affect your denial mentality” (on the contrary, I was actually surprised at how few legitimate bad reports there were, and how the overwhelming majority of complaints were invalidated by the authors own admission that they’ve never even tried FCLO. Point being that, at first glance, you read these comments and get the impression that “dozens and dozens” of people are reporting health issues from FCLO… and then you take a closer look and realize that, oh wait, it’s actually only 10.
BTW, I am not doubting that there are legit concerns about the FCLO. It is the manner in which some people are (over)reacting that I find unacceptable and unproductive. Like suggesting that people report GP to the FDA, for instance…
Amanda, it would be informative to have a better idea of how many people have been impacted by taking FCLO. I can see why you did your analysis of the comments at nourishedandnurtured, but the commenters there hardly form a representative sample of all FCLO users, making any kind of conclusion from that data pretty meaningless. Right now all we seem to have is anecdotal stories here and there rather than good data on how many are affected. Your concern about that seems legitimate.
Another factor that compromises reliance on customer reports about FCLO as a indicator of it’s goodness or badness is that some of these more serious side effects take time to develop, and given all the hype over how wonderful FCLO is, such as in Krispin Sullivan’s article, it’s mentally hard to realize it could be the culprit for your symptoms that took years to develop. The negative reports from the blog you analyzed are all for fairly benign symptoms that are easily correlated in time with consumption of FCLO. That’s the low-hanging fruit. Sometimes you gotta hear someone else’s story to realize that your faithful years-long consumption of a supposedly health-enhancing substance may actually be doing you in. If WAPF’s contention is that people were following outdated advice, it seems they should have put a disclaimer a long time ago at the top of Krispin’s article advising that dosing recommendations had changed.
I do agree with you about not liking the advice to report adverse effects from GP’s FCLO to the FDA. But I think most regulars on this blog figure the FDA is reading everything here anyway. They’re probably really enjoying all the hubbub right now.
Steve, I don’t know whether you were addressing Carrie or myself with this question, but I will go ahead and reiterate again that I would not call *any* product “safe” as there is no such thing. There are no guarantees in this world. One man’s food is another man’s poison.
So, between 20% (if you count only 10) and 34% (if you count all 17) of people reporting had negative experiences. Were the 32 with positive experiences actual health improvements or just people who took it and did not notice any bad effects?
“Where in FDA guidelines does it say that you must list exact species of fish used in products?” It doesn’t.
“I thought that the whole argument being repeatedly made here, by you and by others, was that “contains: cod” is a false statement because Pollock is not technically cod, and it can not legally be labeled as such according to the Feds. This argument being based on the false assumption that FCLO is actually just “Fermented Pollock Liver Oil” (because, well, that’s what Kaayla told you).”
Yes, this is apparently where you don’t get it. I’m not sure how or why it is so hard to understand some of the simpler aspects of labeling laws. Maybe because of a deep seated need to believe that GPP did nothing wrong and that WAPF didn’t spread untrue information about the whole thing? First, we don’t actually know how much Pollock was used, because GPP didn’t say. We have heard rumors of 10%. Assuming that is true, what does that mean? 10% of each bottle? 10% of their output for the year? Are some batches completely cod, and others completely pollock? Are there other fish involved? GPP’s recent statement certainly made it seem like they considered anything in the Gadidae family to be acceptable to make CLO.
Do you ever read labels in the store? (I’m not sure how somebody could be part of the real food movement and NOT read labels, but I guess there are all kinds.) Do you expect them to accurately reflect the product in the package? See under your understanding of the law as you explained it, as long as GPP put a little bit of Cod in the product, the majority of the product could be sheep liver oil, vegetable oil, or petroleum. But that’s not how the labeling laws work, and it is precisely to avoid such things that they exist in the first place. Listing a true statement about what is in the product is not the same as being in compliance with labeling laws and being truthful about what is in the product.
So, you might be happy with the product, the company, the level of transparency that you’re getting from them and all of that. But the only way that you can say that they have not violated labeling laws is if you CHOOSE to remain ignorant of those laws in even the simplest terms. lf you choose to remain ignorant of the laws, you should probably choose to remain silent on the issue, if you wan anybody to take any of your future comments seriously, because otherwise, it will seem like you have an agenda other than truth.
Is there a campaign for non-pollock labeling?
“Is there a campaign for non-Pollack labeling”
LOL =D
So is it Pollock or Pollack? And which is from Poland or Artic circles and angles, hooks are hard to remove no?
Glad you asked. I have absolutely no affiliation with Green Pasture or WAPF, and I have never met any of these people, or done any business with them in any way, other than being an ordinary customer. I have been purchasing the Green Pasture products for a few years now, as have other members of my family, and friends. I am also a WAPF member for the last couple of years, which should make it obvious that I am an advocate for natural food.
I have been an outsider looking in, so I have no personal bias here, other than protecting the health of my family and friends. But… I have been reading the research for years, and I didn’t need to wait for any new reports to tell me that Dr. Kaayla Daniel’s report was bogus. I was never relying on one opinion or one report. I am a computer scientist, not a nutritional scientist, but I am serious about research. We live in an age of information warfare, and I recognize the tactics when I see them. I also recognize facts, and Dr. Kaayla’s words due not line up with the facts.
My list of facts still stands unchallenged everywhere it is posted, yet people just insist on following Dr. Daniel’s insinuations without basing them on any facts. When facts get in the way, somebody just blows more smoke to distract us conjecture, opinions, insinuations, new accusations, etc., but no facts to support them.
As for your thoughts on WAPF following Dr. Price’s guidance, that is an interesting perspective. But I have never seen WAPF as pushing anything on me, or anyone. When I see your comment about historical dosage guidance, I think ‘Wow, this FCLO is a lot more potent then anyone realized. That’s great.’ As for the medicine idea, indeed, I agree with you in a way, and I think the WAPF is in alignment here too. The general advice for daily supplementation is due to the difficulties in achieving sufficient nutrition from our diet. I see WAPF promoting the diet first and always, with FCLO as one of the superfoods that can help augment the diet. The FCLO is not necessary if you can get enough of the other good foods. But I am certainly glad it is available to me.
Dr. Weston A. Price did highlight the combination of CLO and High Vitamin Butter Oil as an almost magical elixir of nutrition. His emphasis on this cannot be overstated. It is indeed a proven super supplement, superfood, or medicine if you prefer. The WAPF should absolutely be pushing this knowledge to the forefront, and I am grateful to Dave Wetzel and Green Pasture for producing these products in the best ways possible. For sure, get your bone broths, raw milk, veggies, etc., first, but if you cannot get enough, its nice to know that some of us have FCLO to help.
Victor, while I agree with the overall sentiment, let me caution you that all bone broths and other are not the same. IF they come from your local farmer and you know their methods and procedures, sure. But if you’re buying that from a franchise supermarket chain, then NO. That applies to milk raw or not, and just about any food you can get unless you grow your own
Chris Masterjohn has also added to the discussion. He seems quite balanced as well. http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/2015/08/weighing-in-on-fermented-cod-liver-oil.html
Chris Masterjohn says WAPF paid for part of his schooling twice as well as contracting him to work for them for years. In his own words he says he’s received a “minor but significant” portion of his income from the organization. People who receive “significant” portions of their income from an organization can’t be called a disinterested party counted on to produce unbiased balanced work. It’s pretty obvious by now WP and GP are intertwined in some odd way. And Masterjohn is an interested party in WP. I wouldn’t say you can guarantee this is a quite balanced view.
(btw….I am curious as to what the heck a “minor but significant proportion of my income” could possibly mean. I don’t think it works both ways.)
Even though Chris was just writing a blog post, he held himself to scientific publishing standards in his full disclosure of any *potential* conflicts of interest. That does not mean that his professional opinion has been bought or that his view is biased. He was honest enough to let everyone know exactly what his association with the WAPF has been, and should be commended for that. His report stands on its own merits. He is an associate professor at Brooklyn College; there is no reason to believe he “needs” the WAPF at this point to make his career; he has earned his own good reputation fair and square. I doubt he would jeopardize it so he could continue to present at Wise Traditions. Look at his evidence, check his sources. Does it add up or not? That’s how it should be evaluated, how Kaayla Daniel’s report should be evaluated, and how the WAPF publications should be evaluated.
So, Chris’ disclosure that he receives income from WAPF automatically negates his scientific analysis? He is a researcher who specifically studies fats and fat soluble vitamins!
How about we apply the same rule to Dr. Daniel then and realize that she, as well as others, receive a profit from selling *another*, competitor’s cod liver oil?
I think Chris should stay out of the debate given the conflict of interest issue. His reputation as an unbiased researcher is important to maintain. Even if his association with the organization does not impact his evaluation of the data, he should not risk losing credibility.
Nailed it. Bravo!
The saddest part of the WAPF report was the closing paragraph:
“My biggest concern is that the report is clearly aimed at putting Green Pasture out of business and taking this wonderful product away from the thousands of people who have benefited from it, including myself and members of my own family. This would be a terrible thing to happen.”
Sally’s greatest concern was Dave Wetzel’s business? What about Dr. Ron? He could have died. Shouldn’t she be concerned about the possibility that this product made him sick — and might be making others will get sick?
Even if it’s not the cause, shouldn’t we be investigating?
Thanks, David. Really appreciate your contributions to this community.
Oh my gosh Ann! Dr. Ron almost died because he took 3 T a day of cod liver oil for years and then 3 T a day of FCLO for years afterward. The recommended daily dose is 1/2 tsp! You would think a Doctor would know not to OD on something! You can OD on water, should we shut off the faucets?
Judging by Sally’s recent post, this is indeed the storyline that WAPF would like for you to believe. Meanwhile they are trying to bury all evidence that they ever recommended higher dosages. The fact is that they regularly recommended 3-6 times the current recommended dosage, and sometimes higher than that. What he was doing, and what he was advising his patients, was in line with the WAPF thinking and recommendations at the time. Nobody is even contending that Dr. Ron was not hurt by FCLO. (That in itself is amazing to me.) Forget about asking him to not darken their doors again. That they are throwing him under the bus and trying to make him out to be an irresponsible incompetent who can’t read and follow directions is inexcusable. I have a problem with this. Think of all of the myriad of people over the years that have been taking the WAPF recommended dosages of 1-2 TBS per day. Think of all of the kids that were taking 3x the recommended adult dosage! Is there any big announcement that were changing their recommendations? Any apologies for improper recommendations? Any indications that they’ve learned something new? Nothing. Just edit some pages, pull down damning articles, and insinuate that anybody that took more than 1tsp per day was an irresponsible fool. Thankfully archive.org has a record of their past recommendations and there are people out there hunting down that information and preserving it.
Steve, I can’t help but notice that the more you comment on this topic, the more outlandish your accusations become. Why is that? Have you always been this suspicious of the WAPF’s
In any case, why do you say that WAPF is “burying evidence”? Maybe I’m missing something here, but isn’t it a good idea that they remove the outdated information from the web since the Foundation no longer advises that dosage amount? …or would you prefer that they leave it up to allow further potential confusion? Furthermore, how old were those recommendations? I seem to recall someone saying that they were from 2002 maybe? If this is correct then that would be over a decade ago. That’s quite a long time! I imagine that the foundation was probably not run by the same people then as it is today, but I could be wrong about that (does anybody know?). Bottom line: WAPF did update those recommendations to reflect the new suggested dosages, as they always do whenever they gain new understandings of things and change their advice accordingly. Everyone knows that information is always changing and being updated as time goes by. It is each person’s responsibility to keep up with new information. Even laws change frequently, and nobody is allowed to claim ignorance for not being aware of changes in laws just because they haven’t picked up a newspaper in the last 10 years. Why should this be any different? The name of the game is: Personal Responsibility.
As far as Ron being “thrown under the bus,” I really don’t get where that accusation comes from. He was asked to follow the same rules that all the other conference sponsors had to follow, and he refused. How is that anyone else’s fault but his own? I think that it is perfectly reasonable for WAPF to request that their sponsors not sling mud at the other sponsors in order to promote their own business. If only political campaigns were conducted this way, it might not be such a sideshow circus (wishful thinking, I know). And, by the way, we DON’T KNOW if Ron’s condition had anything to do with the FCLO. I doubt that Ron even knows for sure himself. Heart failure is not exactly uncommon. I would like to know how he came to the conclusion that it must have been the FCLO. Even people with meticulous diets sometimes have mysterious health issues that they can’t seem to explain.
Amanda, I had a big old long reply written up to address this line by line, but I realized, what is the point? You will argue every single point until it is lost or we are so far afield as to make it pointless and then move onto the next one. 🙂 There is a LOT going on that you have no idea about. There is far more going on that I have no idea about. I’m just getting bits and pieces and trying to assemble a picture. The fact that you don’t even know who the director of WAPF was in 2002 just shows how far out of the know you are. What you have is faith. Faith in the WAPF, GPP and the products they create. It is ok to have faith. You just need to have it in the right thing, and it can’t be blind. It really hurts when the person or thing that you have faith in falls off the pedestal, especially when you’ve been actively propping them up. I don’t want to see that happen to anybody.
You seem to just want things to go back to the way they were. And that’s fine too. The problem is that in order to make that happen you have to discount the concerns of other people. You may not feel defrauded, and that is fine. Other people do and you don’t seem to care. You think they should feel like you do. They don’t. They won’t. And you seem to think that is silly or foolish. You may not be worried about the safety of the product or have concerns about Fukushima or nutrient density or nutrient profile. Other people do and you seem to think that is silly as well, unless and until somebody proves to you that is it not safe or why nutrient density or profile is important – a nigh impossible task with your mind already made up. Some think they have been hurt by the product and you don’t seem to care. I guess you believe it is impossible for the product to harm anybody, or maybe that, well, nobody forced them to take it, so it’s their own fault. This complete lack of empathy is what David was talking about in his article. It is a hallmark of a fundamentalist group. It is the calling card of the blindly faithful.
I was in an organization like this at one point in time. For years I was on the periphery, one of the blind faithful that didn’t really understand that I was all that faithful, or that I was blind. Over the years, I moved closer and closer to the center of the organization and “saw” more and more, and was able to explain away less and less. Along the way I got burnt by a few people because of my blindness, but my faithfulness kept me toeing the line. It was not until I left the organization and got the separation of space, and a few years of time, that I was able to look back and see who I was, and how I was then, and be mortified by things I had done and the way I had treated people, all the while thinking I was doing a good work and was in the right.
I don’t write this for sympathy for myself, or to make you feel bad, or to make myself seem better or more wise than anybody else. I write it just to appeal to you for some empathy — not only for the sake of the people that feel betrayed, or have been damaged, perhaps by these products, but for your own sake. Trying to see these things from another’s perspective will I hope broaden your perspective and understanding, but more, I hope it will protect you.
A lot of people are feeling betrayed right now. Look at both sides and consider those perspectives as well. More details are coming out ever day.
I’m not blind to those facts. If I was Dave Wetzel, I would feel like I was under siege. I just hope that I would also be open to re-examining my product or process when I heard that people were expressing concern that they thought it was hurting them. I just don’t see anybody here or any other place I’ve been haunting, vigorously defending Kaayla Daniel, her findings, and every single action of hers, giving her a pass for everything, believing everything 100% and explaining away anything the other side had a problem with. Or worse, trying to parry attacks on her or her findings by presenting wrong information easily refuted by a simple web search. That’s not helping anybody.
Out of this entire wall of text you offered not a single example of anything I’ve said which exhibits “blind faith” (I wonder why)… I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that you are now accusing me of being insensitive just because I don’t automatically believe someone who claims that they were hurt by something with literally no evidence. Thanks for the guilt trip. I guess we can question everything …except for Dr. Ron. His story is off limits. I wonder why you have no empathy for Dave Wetzel. I guess it’s easy not to have sympathy for a man now that Kaayla Daniel has so expertly demonized him in what almost amounts to tabloid fodder. Very sad.
Speaking of “blind faith”… has it completely escaped you that all of the blogging naysayers just happen to have a convenient affiliation with Corganics? Must be an innocent coincidence, eh?
Amanda, I’ll give you one example and then I’ve got to be done with this. Faith is believing something enough to act upon it. So an example of blind faith is saying that Cod and Pollock are not just the same species, but the same subspecies. Adamantly saying it. And telling everybody else that they were wrong. IN CAPS. I’m almost positive that you didn’t come up with this on your own or make it up, and were just repeating what somebody else said. You believed it, blindly, because you wanted to believe it, because it would explain everything away. You didn’t verify with a quick web search because you didn’t need to. You believed. You didn’t believe what the “naysayers” like me had written, because I had already, many times, addressed the issue that they are not the same species. That is an example of blind faith. That you didn’t take personal responsibility and acknowledge that you were wrong and apologize for calling people wrong is an entirely separate issue.
Thank you for your passion. I’m going to go direct mine to what will hopefully be more profitable and rewarding activities, and let you have the last word. 🙂
That’s an interesting theory you have there, Steve. Forget the fact that I already explained I was referring to Pacific Cod, not Pollock. Thanks for trolling.
Steve and Amanda, to me, the proof of the pudding is that cod sells for perhaps $15 a pound, and pollock sells for perhaps $9 a pound. They are separately listed, and unequal in price.
David, higher prices do not always equal higher quality. Grade A maple syrup is a perfect example of a lower quality product (nutrient-wise compared to grade B) that sells for a premium price. I don’t know what the reason is for the discrepancy in pricing between cod and pollock, but it doesn’t automatically mean that the nutrient density of cod is superior to that of pollock. It could be due to other totally unrelated factors, like… maybe pollock is more abundant and/or easier to catch than other cod fish?
Amanda, you are correct, you don’t necessarily get what you pay for with fish. One of my favorite fish selections is blue fish (popular in the Northeast, had it tonight), which is one of the cheapest fishes you can buy. My main point about buying cod and pollock in the grocery store is that they are listed as separate items, with cod more expensive than pollock. I am certain that if grocers could label pollock as cod, they would. That fact that they can’t, and generally don’t, tells me more than anything else that they are distinct in their desirability. While grocers and other sellers/producers in the food industry make the distinction, and the FDA makes the distinction, Green Pasture decided, for whatever reason, that it didn’t need to make the distinction.
If they could do it, they would do it. This article is a good starting place. http://www.seafoodsource.com/news/supply-trade/25469-noaa-don-t-start-calling-pollock-cod-yet
It’s funny. One of the GPP defenders quoted from it as a support for using pollock as a replacement for cod, completely ignoring the entire subject and conclusion of the article. An example of proof texting.
By “they”, I meant grocers, and all the way up the supply chain.
There is absolutely no connection between economics and biology. The price of the meat has nothing to do with the price, quality, or suitability of the livers, just as the specifications of my iPhone do not fluctuate with Apple’s stock market price.
When I make broth from Chicken feet, I don’t care how much the chicken breasts sell for, and I don’t care what kind of chicken it is or where it came from – as long as it is pasture raised and organic. All tests show that Dave Wetzel is using livers from clean wild cod, and there is still not a shred of evidence to the contrary.
There is no direct connection between biology and law either. Just because something is biologically similar to another thing, doesn’t necessarily mean you can call one the other.
Yes, the FDA rep I talked to, while a seafood safety expert, was not a nutritional supplement expert. He did say that he would talk to me after talking with that department and let me know if they had anything different to add. He never called. I can only assume that they had nothing to add to his evaluation of “mislabeled.”
It just never ends! So now we need to compulsively check the web site for updated recommendations. The dose he talks about were what I remember and close to what I took based on information at all kinds of WAPF and related forums. Vitamin A toxicity has been well known by science for a century, so there was no need to update recommendations–it was always which. Although they probably were just funded by the pet food industry with its massive subsidies of all fields of biology. It wasn’t the Rockefeller Foundation and the NIH, it was Purina.
I don’t know if “compulsively” is the word I’d use. Think checking it at least once a year oughta do it. Too much to ask I’m sure.
No, when I learn from internet sites, I don’t sign up to be part of a cult with required updates for reprogramming. Nor was there an “alert” which I might have seen. “New, important announcement: poles lower does of FCLO!” Again, to go over the point you ignored, there is nothing mysterious about Vitamin A toxicity, which Sally Fallon routinely played down.
“No, when I learn from internet sites, I don’t sign up to be part of a cult with required updates for reprogramming.”
So… if the Weston A. Price Foundation is a “cult” (according to you) then why would you even be checking the site AT ALL in the first place? Are you saying that a “cult” is a good source from which to glean information from …occasionally? lol
While your little dig about pet food is hilarious indeed, to be sure, Purina is but one brand of pet food owned by Nestlé (you know, that little multinational corporation that happens to be the largest food company in the world? Maybe you’ve heard of it) 😉
That’s well known. They don’t fund biological research across the board. There are books written about the influence of the Rockefeller Foundation and government funding through the NIH and NSF is similarly high. It’s simply absurd to suggest that Nestle is rigging the range of biological knowledge, including species classifications and genetic studies of the acquisition of starch enzyme production, simply to hold off the world from rushing to embrace feeding their dogs raw food. Thinking the world is spending all its time to get your group, when by and large, they don’t know or care about it, is typical cult thinking. Moreover, not all funded research dovetails with the preferences of its funders, which a lot of people around here seem to think (in dismissing Chris Masterjohn, for instance, who was forthright about his funding and is not subtly controlled by Sally Fallon, as obviously is not the case with Kaayla Daniel, her co-author).
The Tobacco companies and the industry climate skeptics have been studied for how they twisted research in the ways that they did. It was primarily through internal corporate reports, not published research in peer reviewed fields. In fact, the tobacco companies were liable legally because their internal research actually showed harm which they suppressed (so they couldn’t even get their own hired hands to fake the research). When a scientist receives a grant from a company but does not work for them, he or she is free to conduct the research according to accepted standards in their field. There may or may not be subtle coordination of biases, but any publication will have to pass muster with the wider field. Scientists, by and large, are more affected by their training from other scientists, which may reflect narrow paradigms/research programs dominant at the time, but do not make it easy for outside funders to just get whatever cherry-picked conclusions they want. The fact that this exaggerated view of the contaminating effects of funding on scientific conclusions is cited as a trump card to dismiss whole ares of science is itself a sign of cult thinking, that engages in confirmation bias for beliefs held to be inviolable by the cult.
“When a scientist receives a grant from a company but does not work for them, he or she is free to conduct the research according to accepted standards in their field. There may or may not be subtle coordination of biases, but any publication will have to pass muster with the wider field. Scientists, by and large, are more affected by their training from other scientists, which may reflect narrow paradigms/research programs dominant at the time, but do not make it easy for outside funders to just get whatever cherry-picked conclusions they want.”
Bill, you really have no idea how naive this sounds right now. Most people find it absurd to think that Pharmaceutical manufacturers could be rigging the range of scientific knowledge in healthcare, and yet we know that’s precisely what they’ve done …of course with the help of other major players, like the ones you noted above. Likewise, Nestlé is not the only player funding junk-science to bolster the pet food and veterinary industries (which work together hand-in-hand, by the way).
“The fact that this exaggerated view of the contaminating effects of funding on scientific conclusions is cited as a trump card to dismiss whole ares of science is itself a sign of cult thinking, that engages in confirmation bias for beliefs held to be inviolable by the cult.”
Now you’re pulling lines straight out of the Pro-vaxxer Playbook. I mean you might as well just call me a “pseudoscientific woo-loving conspiracy theorist” and get it over with already.
The above commentary may indeed prove your point, but also means that Chris Masterjohn’s findings may be more biased than previously thought, if not in the science (he basically said anything could mean anything or nothing), then at least in the tone and delivery, which obviously had a very pro-GPP slant. Probably means that we should give more import to WAPF and Sally’s conflict of interest as well.
Veterinarian and author, Tom Lonsdale, writes an expose blowing the whistle on petfood industry/veterinary profession alliance and the junk petfood scam here: http://www.rawmeatybones.com/articles/nexus.pdf
“For dogs, cats and ferrets the biological principles are exactly the same as for their wild cousins. Nutrients need to be raw and easily digested; physically the food should be raw, tough and chewy. In practical terms that’s a diet of whole chickens, rabbits, fish or similar. A raw meaty bones based diet provides a good second-best option.”
Dr Breck Muir complained:
“The pet-food situation has concerned me for some years . . . The scene as I see it goes like this: “Here is the best food ever made for your dog Mrs Jones” handing her a can of commercial dog food or dry food, “but he may develop problems with his teeth, so here is a special toothbrush and paste for you to use to clean his teeth regularly, and then if that doesn’t keep the periodontal disease at bay then we have the very latest in dental equipment just like your own dentist has, and we can give Fido that perfectly enamelled ivory grin” — that he would have had had you not fed him the commercial food in the first place.
Here we have the perfectly engineered commercial circle — a problem doesn’t exist, so we create one, and …come up with all the remedial treatments.”
“The infiltration of commercial pet foods into our lives is one of the great success stories of the business world. Gross sales figures for a single product type is probably only bettered by petroleum products worldwide. We as a profession have been led by the nose by vested interests…”
I think it is important for all to read Chris Masterjohn’s analysis before making a final decision because there are some real problems with Dr. Daniel’s report.
https://www.facebook.com/banjowoman/posts/10205494420254067
Price pottenger foundation has a long article hear that clearly explains cod liver oil historically. The fermented oil is NOT what Price used. Why is WAPF avoiding this truth? The article clearly was written to protect Green Pastures. THANK YOU DR RON! I am nearly bald (female) from alopecia and I quickly switched to Rosita raw CLO. I don’t know if the fermented oil caused it but I can’t wait to see if it helps to discontinue. Why didn’t the article mention the true oil used by Price?
No one, to my knowledge, claims that Dr. Price advocated FCLO, only CLO. FCLO wasn’t in commercial production in Price’s day. CLO has been produced in various ways. WAPF hasn’t “avoided this truth.” I have had my differences with Sally in the past (mainly over the anti-Paleo flap), but I can’t see that they have acted badly in this case, though I have seen lots of blog posts and Facebook comments accusing all sorts of people of all sorts of nefarious things on the basis of one person’s word. All I can say is, read Chris Masterjohn’s explanation of the technical issues and you’ll see that Dr. Daniel’s analysis falls short, to say the least.
It seems there are a lot of rumors floating around as a result of Dr. Daniel’s report. It’s important that readers take a look at WAPF’s official response as well as Dr. Chris Masterjohn’s articulate and professional review of Dr. Daniel’s caustic report (her tone was a turn off to many). http://www.westonaprice.org/un… http://blog.cholesterol-and-he…
The official WAPF statement is very clear that they will pursue further testing of cod liver oils that they currently recommend. They have never engaged in testing the products they endorse, but rather trust the data provided by companies. Fair game. After all, their mission statement isn’t to test products, nor is that the mission of the Price-Pottenger Nutritional Foundation (PPNF), who has quickly jumped on the bandwagon to make it clear that Dr. Price never used FCLO. No one, not Green Pasture nor WAPF has claimed that Dr. Price used FCLO. We all agree on that.
This controversy has been simmering for 3-4 years. WAPF president Sally Fallon Morell did have a test done by a highly qualified scientist in the UK, Dr. Grootveld, last year after Dr. Daniel contended that the FCLO was rancid. It was after his findings concluded “no rancidity” that the WAPF board voted 7-1 not to spend the Foundation’s money on more testing. Obviously now they have decided to test a number of cod liver oil products in an effort to put this controversy to rest.
I think we all will do our real food community good by keeping our heads and waiting for more testing. If the FCLO is working well for you, continue it. If it isn’t, move to another product. Be slow to jump to conclusions about a product because of one or two person’s claims. You have to wonder about a naturopathic doctor who would take 1-3 tablespoons daily of cod liver oil for 30 some odd years, fermented or not.
WAPF has done a lot for the real food movement over the its 16 years of existence. Let’s be gracious and listen to what they are actually saying and not assume the rumors are true.
That’s interesting about the Bio-Kult accusations. I hadn’t heard that. The Soy Story got good reviews, but maybe all Kaayla knows is how to attack other people’s work. If there’s merit to her accusations, fine, great even, but her current campaign is less convincing.
I remember hearing about the bacteria in biokult being a problem. It was B. subtilus I believe. What happened? Did WAPF investigate it? I stopped using anything with high amounts because it was controversial and no one ever had a definitive answer.
should add…..a couple of probiotic researchers were raising a potential alarm. It was enough it seems some supplement companies lowered the amount so seems reasonable to suggest WAPF investigate since that supplement was a big part of GAPS protocol.
Kaayla told me and my husband it was streptococcus thermophilus in the Bio-Kult that was of concern. We stopped using Bio-Kult for a while because of it. Later I realized that streptococcus thermophilus is found in most commercial yogurts and was a bit confused.
Anne, are you aware that David Gumpert has edited your post from August 31st? He has removed your comments about Bio-Kult.
Carrie, I also noticed that Mr. Gumpert deleted your long post that discussed Bio-Kult and the background of the people that you are connected to. I have it in my inbox, and saw that it was attributed to you before it got deleted. May I post repost it on my own blog? Please contact me if you would like to discuss it.
Carrie, Anne, Victor: Yes, I did delete Carrie Hahn’s long comment, because I judged it potentially libelous. I also removed a paragraph from Anne’s comment for similar reasons. I explained my decision to Carrie in two detailed private emails. I explained to her why I considered the allegations libelous–that she was suggesting Bio-Kult was responsible for the deaths of two individuals, without any proof or without any legal or regulatory action to support the hypothesis. She said she would post the comment elsewhere, which I told her is fine with me. I just don’t want the potential legal liability. I explained to her further that I rarely delete or edit comments. I also just deleted a separate comment from Carrie Hahn making the same allegations. I have long had a policy of restricting potentially libelous material, and have probably deleted a half dozen or so comments over the last six years. I have barred a very few people from the blog who have persisted in posting potentially libelous comments. I should have put a note in Anne’s comment noting a deletion, and I apologize for that; it’s been pretty busy the last few days.
I can respect that decision David. And it is of course your blog in any case. However, since you mentioned the idea of libel, let me be so bold as to point out a couple of things…
1. Carrie suggested no such thing in her post. She was actually defending Bio-Kult by pointing out that Dr. Daniel was suggesting such. It seems too convenient to me that you would accidentally attribute such a thing to Carrie rather than Dr. Daniel.
2. How are some of your own statements not libelous? For example, you stated “But in the new WAPF Q&A, there isn’t a single indication that I can find pushing for additional research to determine the truth about the efficacy and safety of the Green Pasture products.”
And I challenged you that, as I count at least SEVEN calls for further research and testing from Sally Fallon Morell. All from that one Q&A article. Not to mention that the article itself is mostly a detailed explanation of various tests and research methods, referencing labs, experts, and historical results.
I even copy and pasted the seven statements on my blog for your convenience. To be specific, you have accused the WAPF of being negligent, and your specific accusation is completely false.
And that is but one example. As yet, you have still not provided any facts to support your accusations.
You are actually a journalist, and a seasoned one at that, so I find these ‘mistakes’ difficult to accept. Indeed, they are unacceptable for anyone, let alone someone with your background. You continue to take the time engage engage the audience here, but you do not offer up any support or references for your points that are challenged. As such, wouldn’t your accusations against WAPF and Green Pasture be libelous?
Victor, it doesn’t matter who makes the defamatory statements, it’s the potentially unfounded accusations that are the problem. I didn’t pay any attention to who was supposedly saying what. Saying that a company’s product killed two people, and naming those people, without proof, is potentially libelous, in my judgment. The main defense against charges of libel is truth. The people discussing that company were merely speculating, from all I could tell, and could never prove what they were speculating.
My statement about the WAPF Q&A is a criticism, not a libelous statement. The 7 statements you listed are about testing, not research, in my opinion. As I believe I stated, we can agree to disagree on that, and other aspects of the Daniel report. To your point, there is a big difference between criticism and defamation via libel. My criticisms of WAPF and Green Pasture are based on testing documented in the Daniel report, as well as statements made by WAPF, Green Pasture, and others. If you’re publishing a blog, I suggest you familiarize yourself with this area of the law. It is quite involved–one of the few limitations on free speech in the U.S. Here is one resource where you can begin:
http://defamation.laws.com/defamation-laws/libel-vs-slander
Thank you responding. Pardon my confusion David, but one of the sentences in her response is this:
“We hope to solve this mystery with further research.”
Yet you are telling everyone that “there isn’t a single indication that I can find pushing for additional research”
Your statement is rather extreme David. That sentence certainly looks like a good indication to me. It says research, not testing.
And as for testing, you honestly do not think that testing is at least an indication of research? You do not see any relation at all between the two?
How about consulting other experts on an issue? Another of the sentences I highlighted for you (which also did not contain the word testing) was this:
“When Dr. Daniel first emailed me about her concerns, I immediately contacted Nina Teicholtz, author of The Big Fat Surprise. This book has a chapter on rancidity in vegetable oils…”
But this too is not even an indication of research?
Now I do understand of course that research is a systematic investigation and analysis of information, and that information is often found without testing or contacting experts, as that are large existing bases of knowledge, such as books, the Internet, etc., or… the life’s work of someone like Dr. Weston A. Price. So It seems to me that the WAPF is by definition a research organization, even without testing or consulting experts. And their body of work reflects such. As does the Q&A that you refute. It is not an editorial or op ed piece. It is not itself a research paper, but it certainly reflects the WAPF’s history and intent in research.
If none of this is any indication of research, please tell us what actions we should commence in order to begin our research. As a scientist, I would like to know.
We are all experts in our own mind, except for you of course. Life is a science so we are all scientists while we’re alive.
Okay Victor….uncle. You are correct, the word “research” is used. I stand corrected. I should have adjusted my comment to say that though there is mention of further research, it is in boilerplate terms. but not with any sense of serious worry or urgency, as in, “There seems to be some kind of worrisome problem here. Let’s deal with this via a commitment to serious research that helps us understand the many user complaints and the disturbing Daniel test results, and the sooner we do so, the better.”
As I said, the big problem with what the WAPF put out in response to the Daniel report was with what wasn’t said rather than what was said, not the particular choice of vocabulary.
I find Dr. Daniel, Dr. Schmid and your words incredibly biased and contrived. Dave Wetzel and WAPF seem to be taking the high road. Such unprofessionalism on the part of you and your cohorts.
Yes, of course.
Wow! It’s crystal clear where David Gumpert’s loyalties lie. And he calls himself a journalist? Done following him.
@ Anne: Too afraid to acknowledge both sides, huh? Yep, packing it in because you don’t like every single word will help you get to the truth. You obviously don’t understand the meaning of journalism. Apparently many others don’t, either.
D, it is difficult for many people to accept the possibility that the WAPF might have been a source of misinformation. When negative information comes out, there can be an inclination to blame the messenger rather than the source of the problems.
Again, nobody here would find it hard to believe that WAPF is capable of making errors. They are human, after all. What IS hard to believe is that so many people would jump to the assumption that they intentionally misinformed people for financial gain. In my opinion, it seems that you and others who share your view are having difficulty accepting the possibility that the accusers could be the source of misinformation… which is hard to understand considering that they are definitely the source of malice. I could understand the malicious nature of Kaayla’s report IF she had gone to David Wetzel with her concerns FIRST to give him the opportunity of addressing those concerns and making changes accordingly (and then he told her to “go pound sand”), but instead she chose to jump straight to accusations. If she can’t be bothered to afford others the benefit of the doubt, then why should I (or anyone else for that matter) extend her the same courtesy?
All of this reminds me a lot of the people who attack raw milk because they are convinced that raw milk was to blame for some illness or health condition that they suffered from at some point in their lives.
I doubt many think that WAPF or GPP misinformed people in ways that they knew would be dangerous, in order to achieve financial gain. I think the issue for many is not that WAPF made a mistake or that GPP made errors in judgement or labeling. It is that they seem unwilling or unable to admit to any errors, be transparent and come clean. And many of their supporters have adopted the same attitude. Instead they are trying to ACT like they never make mistakes, and at this point that involves all of the activities that Pete detailed in a comment on the most recent post on this site. He astutely concluded, “It may well turn out that GP is completely innocent and FCLO is the best thing since sliced bread; it won’t matter. How this situation has been handled by WAPF/GP has broken my trust in them. They act as a guilty party would act. And that really saddens me.”
“How this situation has been handled by WAPF/GP has broken my trust in them.”
So, just to clarify… what you’re saying here is: That’s it? You’re done with WAPF? There is nothing that they could do to please you at this point (short of the board members backtracking on their 7-1 disagreement with Daniel and doing it all over again her way)?
“That’s it? You’re done with WAPF?” I didn’t say that and Pete didn’t say that.
“There is nothing that they could do to please you at this point (short of the board members backtracking on their 7-1 disagreement with Daniel and doing it all over again her way)?” I didn’t say that and Pete didn’t say that. If some representative of WAPF is actually interested in hearing my thoughts on restoring trust with their members (or former members), they know how to contact me.
This misrepresentation of what was said is a classic fallacious argument. You should read Pete’s full comment and research fallacious arguments if you are unfamiliar with their definitions, if not their use.
See, Steve, now this is exactly the type of response that makes you look like a troll. Those lines that you quoted from my comment were obviously QUESTIONS (not statements of fact). This was made clear by my use of question marks rather than periods, and the fact that I said “to clarify…”. Now, in typical troll fashion, you are purposely misconstruing my inquiry as some sort of insinuation. Clearly you are only here to confuse and argue.
I think it’s safe to say that you’re getting ahead of yourself with the “logical fallacy” rhetoric if you can’t even read punctuation. Save the Debate 101 stuff until after you’ve mastered basic grammar. 😉
Amanda, I’m not stupid, I know what a question mark is. I’m also not unfamiliar with argument, and have seen this one before, although you may just be doing this instinctually. Your statements had question marks, but they were statements purportedly clarifying Pete’s quote. They were not honest or innocent questions. When you clarify, you restate. You just tacked question marks on the end of your statements. The question marks mean “did I get that right?” With the insinuation of an incredulous “you can’t be serious???” It is another tactic in argument: Restate the opponent’s position in a way that makes it look ridiculous to waste their time trying to explain their position in different ways until you see a weak spot you can exploit. Also the second sentence insinuates WAPF is making reasonable efforts to earn my trust but there is just no pleasing me because I am completely unreasonable. A real question from a person who was honestly curious and wanted an answer would be, “does that mean you are done with WAPF? Is there anything they could do to regain your trust?” I am not the one trolling.
You’re right, Steve. You’re not stupid. You’re just paranoid. Who are you to tell me what I mean when I say things? The fact that you choose to over-analyze my intent in circles rather than simply answer the questions is revealing of just how paranoid you are. Everyone is out to screw you aren’t they, Steve? David Wetzel, The WAPF, anyone who defends WAPF or Green Pastures, and now me. Amazing. Why don’t you go blog about it?
Thanks for posting. I stumbled into this same conclusion over 10 years ago and was dismayed at the lack of interest in the truth on the part of WAPF. I was chapter leader of WAPF Santa Cruz at the time. It caused me to lose respect for the Foundation.
Chris Masterjohn I trust. He is a first-rate scientist, and he did shed light on the weaknesses in Dr. Daniel’s report. Nevertheless, it is a very good thing that she questions routine consumption of cod liver oil (calling it “fermented” sounds like a stretch, considering the customary usage of the term in WAPF publications is an entirely different process, using vegetables and fruits. A bit like hoppin’ on the bandwagon). Since the traditional people Dr. Price studied didn’t use it (as far as I can recall from NPD), why on earth are we? The precautionary principle should always be the first principle in guiding us in decisions about human health. While cod liver oil clearly has therapeutic uses, as a staple I would never recommend it. Throwing Dr. Ron under the bus was nasty and vindictive, like being back in junior high (this is why I use only my first name); I no longer trust our fearless leader’s judgment. She could learn a thing or two from Dr. Wakefield, whose grace, magnanimity, and boundless kindness (and stiff upper lip) is an inspiration to many.
There are many kinds of fermentation. If you actually read Masterjohn’s article, he deals with that issue extensively. There are very general as well as narrow, technical definitions of fermentation. It is not in dispute whether such a thing as fermentation of cod livers is possible; it is. The general definition of fermentation refers to lactic-acid bacterial metabolism of sugars, but there are other kinds of fermentation, and indeed glycogen is stored in livers, so LAB fermentation of cod livers is certainly viable, and it helps to release the oil to make it recoverable. There are other processes used; in Price’s day steam was the commonly used process. Dr. Price didn’t find traditional societies consuming cod liver oil, but he did use it with patients and in his research. As Sally said in the WAPF response, no one has to consume CLO at all, much less FCLO. They don’t suit everyone, they aren’t necessarily needed by everyone. One person’s anecdotal experience does not have any bearing on what someone else should do. There is such a thing as biochemical individuality, and responses to CLO and FCLO are a perfect example of that.
Dr. Ron wasn’t thrown under the bus; he refused to conform to WAPF’s requirements of vendors — don’t criticize other vendors — so they refunded his deposit. No one advises taking the insanely high amounts of CLO and later FCLO that Dr. Ron took daily for over 30 years. He has acknowledge that that was his mistake. Omega 6 fatty acids and Omega 3 fatty acids are both necessary for health, and they need to be in balance. An imbalance in either direction is dangerous, especially over many years.
WAPF used to recommend to take up to 2 tbsp of CLO in 2002. Google: “cod liver oil 2 tbsp”
It is interesting that the page has been taken off the WAPF website. Thanks internet, for always having a memory.
I hope it’s not considered bad to learn from one’s mistakes.
BS.
Dr. Ron honestly believes there is a problem with the product, a belief that is reasonable on its face given the large volume of reports of people saying it smells rancid or who got sick from it.
And their response is to kick Ron? This is straight up retaliation. They’re protecting GP.
It’s curious to me how quick people are to condemn Ron Schmid for taking a somewhat larger dose (“insanely high amounts,” you say, essentially echoing Sally Fallon Morell) than might have been recommended by makers of cod liver oil. These recommendations, like all recommendations for taking supplements, don’t come with warnings: “Taking more than the recommended dose could endanger your health.” Far from it. Most people ignore the producers’ recommendations and take what their naturopath or other health care adviser tells them to take.
This from Chris Masterjohn in his recent report on fermented cod liver oil: “Nevertheless, there was definitely a very common ‘more is better’ approach to cod liver oil within the community, especially in the early years. Dr. Ron was one of many people using multiple tablespoons of cod liver oil per day. One of my friends had been a patient of his and for a long time took 2-3 tablespoons on his advice, and later became concerned that she developed a thyroid disorder because of it. Another friend used doses like this and she was convinced it gave her food intolerances. From what I can recall, both of these instances occurred prior to the introduction of fermented cod liver oil.”
For Ron Schmid, who tolerated regular cod liver oil quite well for 25 years, it made perfect sense to continue the same dosage of the fermented stuff, especially in the absence of warnings about possible problems.
Whoever has been telling people “more is better,” I hope they have learned from this and have stopped.
I don’t think we can assume that the very high dosages of CLO for 27 years, I think it was, had nothing to do with Schmid’s later heart problems when he was taking FCLO. Problems like heart disease generally develop over decades. Perhaps this is different, who knows? And FCLO may well have been bad for him. Many other people would testify it has made a huge turnaround in their health. Are they hallucinating? There are so many factors to consider. Biochemical individuality is a real issue. Depending on your genetics, your diet, your lifestyle, whether you are also consuming all the necessary co-factors, your general nutritional status — these could all factor into whether a particular supplement suits you. And what you need for a time may not be something you need to take large doses of for over 30 years.
I think this is a potentially important learning moment for the real foods movement, and I hope we learn the right lessons. I am not championing GP, I am just uneasy about the rush to judgment when many issues seem overblown, conflated or simply misunderstood. I don’t assume that there is a good guy and a bad guy and that all the evidence will fall neatly along those lines. It seems murkier than that. I am awaiting further light and knowledge on the subject.
Sally Fallon has never suggested anyone take long term dosages of CLO or FCLO.
Food for thought – Should they put a label on water saying ‘too much water can cause death” (hyponatremia) or ‘Too many soda is bad for your health” ?
Hmm… I guess none of you have seen Dr. Chris Masterjohn’s report yet, or the others that dismantle Dr. Daniel’s claims. Here is a summary:
No tests have ever confirmed the Green Pasture FCLO to be rancid. None. Ever. Not in Dr. Daniel’s report, or any prior.
Summary of Facts about Green Pasture’s FCLO issue:
1. It is NOT rancid. This is explained in great detail by Dr. Masterjohn.
2. It is indeed from fermented livers, and this process is explained in detail.
3. It is Cod. Any search will show you that pollock is one of the few TRUE cod. Just check Wikipedia. Or talk to industry experts about the vast majority of fish that are legally and ethically sold as cod.
4. The Green Pasture FCLO unquestionably demonstrates a powerful and effective nutritional matrix. Not easy to measure, but definitely potent.
5. Activator X is certainly Vit K2, and Dr. Masterjohn invites anyone to challenge his previous reports on that topic.
6. The FCLO certainly contains activator X (K2), and Dr. Masterjohn repeats his statement three times for emphasis.
7. Transfat can be from microbial activity, and does NOT imply vegetable oil is present. Dr. Masterjohn and others presents several possibilities for the transfats, and does not consider them indicative of poor quality.
8. The idea of accidental or intentional contamination with vegetable oil is refuted by many. There is no evidence of vegetable oil in FCLO.
These and other accusations in Dr. Daniel’s report are solidly rebuked in Dr. Masterjohn’s response, and by others. I feel that Dr. Daniel’s report is criminal, and a betrayal to the community. Dr. Masterjohn’s conclusion is much more measured:
“…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…”
If only it really were that black and white…
I appreciate your comments and the fact that you took the time to read Chris Masterjohn’s report. I also am glad to hear that WAPF will be conducting more tests, despite the fact that the lab results from Dr. Grootveld in the UK confirmed MidWestern Labs testing showing no rancidity of GPP FCLO. Puzzling to me why the tone in Dr. Daniel’s report was so caustic and emotional. Glad to see Dr. Masterjohn and Sally Fallon Morell kept their tones professional. I for one will not be abandoning WAPF over this debacle brought on my emotionally charged individuals. It’s interesting Dr. Schmidt is being seen as the victim. Didn’t he knowingly take daily tablespoons of clo and fclo for 30 years or so? Don’t NDs know better?
Victor is exactly correct, and yes it is that simple. There is a reason we have peer reviewed research, to prevent the kind of pseudoscience pandered by Dr. Daniel. Look at all of these so called experts jumping from one bandwagon to the next. Why? Because our entire scientific and medical communities have no education in logic, deductive reasoning, and research design. Basic 101. Dr. Daniel’s marketing efforts for her personal brand are an embarrassment to science.
Justin, lab analyses are not peer-reviewed. They can generate hypotheses. They can validate research findings, but they are not research capable of testing hypotheses, of determining safety. Kaayla Daniels report was indeed flawed, and Chris Masterjohn’s response was excellent, but it, too, is not capable of answering the question: Is FCLO safe for general use? Actual research to answer this question is simply far beyond the capability of WAPF to fund, so it likely will never be done. I, for one am grateful that these concerns have surfaced. We must always be skeptical of health claims. We adults can experiment on ourselves, but to blindly accept a recommendation to take a supplement without questioning the assumptions upon which it is based is not sensible. I’m not paranoic, but I suspect there is more to this than meets the eye.
“Is FCLO safe for general use?”
Gary, nobody will ever be capable of answering such a question with any amount of certainty; not for FCLO or any other product for that matter. Why? Because “safe” is, for all intents and purposes, an imaginary concept. What appears to be “safe” for one person in one situation may not be “safe” for the next person or under different circumstances. Indeed, life itself is not safe. One could even say that life is nothing more than a series of chances… and you have to decide for yourself which chances are worth taking by weighing the risks vs benefits. Don’t expect for somebody else to give you a false assurance of “safety” just so you can have someone to blame when reality proves them wrong. Choose wisely.
Victor: According to Dave Wetzel (on GPA WHOLEFOODS that you linked to on the comments to Chris Kresser’s article), “The method we have developed [for producing fermented cod liver oil] processes the cod liver oil through a proprietary non-heating natural lacto-fermentation.” In other words, he ferments the oil produced from the livers, rather than the livers themselves. Chris Masterjohn tells us in his response to Kaayla Daniel’s report that lacto-fermentation requires carbohydrate. While liver tissue contains glycogen, the extracted oil contains little, if any. What Dave wrote is nonsensical; it certainly isn’t science. As far as I am concerned, this is the final nail in the coffin for FCLO. We’ve been taken in, sold a bill of goods. If you take it, like it, and it makes you feel good, by all means continue, but to call it fermented is silly. How did a leading and respected nutrition organization get taken in by this? We are all fallible, and tend to be trusting of those with which we agree, as P. T. Barnum well knew.
This is all semantics. Dr. Chris Masterjohn explains how the FCLO is fermented and does NOT support Dr. Daniel’s claim. The volume of documentation on fermenting fish oils is enormous. Lots of cultures fermented cod livers, shark livers, etc., and Dave Wetzel has explained this. In fact he has a new response just published. We may question how the FCLO is fermented, but in the end, there is no doubt that the FCLO is fermented.
Victor: This is not semantics. Dave Wetzel’s meaning is perfectly clear, using correct, standard English, that he “processes the cod liver oil [not cod livers] through a proprietary non-heating natural lacto-fermentation.” I’d be willing to bet that any lipid chemist would agree that lacto-fermentation of an oil without the presence of carbohydrate is like alchemy. This statement occurs near the beginning of the article, rendering the remainder suspect. In an explanatory piece, a careful, conscientious writer would not make such a fundamental error, or would have corrected it long ago. No, Victor, I think this is just what he meant, which is why I’ll never again purchase anything from GPP, after daily use for about five years. I’ve never had a bad reaction to it, but enough people have to give me pause. Take it if you like, but I’m sticking with food.
Are you kidding me? Seriously, is this just trolling? There are tons of articles on the Green Pasture website alone. Even with PICTURES of the cod livers! Since you did not post any link to your supposed article, let me post a link here from one of the MANY that explain it clearly:
http://www.greenpasture.org/utility/showArticle/?ObjectID=8310&find=Process%20the%20cod%20liver%20oil&happ=siteAdministrator
I’m not sure why or how you got stuck on one sentence in an article that you do not reference, but I guess it happens. Please do yourself a favor and search the Green Pasture website. There are tons of explanations that make it too obvious. And of course there are tons of data all over the internet that show such things are done.
And oh, look, there is new post today that has photos of the livers being delivered to Green Pasture. Dr. Daniel has taken you all for quite a ride. She knows with absolute certainty that there is no question about fermentation. (Again, certainly there are curiosities about the specific details of how GP does it, as this is acknowledged as an artisan product with trade secrets.)
Gary, the description of what was happening changed from fermenting the oils, to fermenting the livers a few years ago. Keep up please. 🙂
Steve: I was simply responding to the article in the link Victor provided on The Daily Lipid. I don’t keep up with online discussions of cod liver oil because it seems to me to be and exceedingly small part of a life well lived. If what Dave Wetzel wrote was an error, though it seems an odd one, it speaks to carelessness. A minor concern, certainly, but I’ve long had an uneasy feeling regarding Dave for a variety of reasons. He may very well be a perfectly decent, honorable man, producing a wholesome product, and I would be delighted to know this were the case. By no means am I casting aspersions on him or doubting his integrity. I have nothing against him, and it pains me to see what has happened, but my plate is already full taking care of a house, gardening, preparing food, and fighting forced vaccination, so this forum, while essential, is an annoying distraction. I took the FCLO/HVBO, about 1/2-1 tsp. daily, for about five years. I stopped in May for financial reasons (I do think it overpriced), and won’t by taking it any more because I think it unnecessary in the well-nourished. This product has been heavily promoted by WAPF, and I’m not sure that is a good thing. As to the motives of the dramatis personae, life is to short to speculate about the behavior of others. With this I’ll be signing off. Best wishes to all.
Sorry, Gary. It was meant to be tongue in cheek. What I meant was, like seems to be happening in many cases surrounding this issue, the story keeps changing. For example, Dr. Ron was taking, “insanely high” doses of cod liver oil, well above WAPF recommendations according to WAPF supporters and Sally Fallon herself – except that they were in line with all of WAPF’s recommendations until recently. This product is cod – except when it is not. This product is sources from the northern Great Plains – except that it is not. This product is activated by the sun just like Dr. Price recommended – except Dr. Price recommended minutes, not months, and now the same roof that let in the sunlight that was activating the product, is filtering out the suns rays that would activate the product. And there is much, much more. It’s hard to keep up with the changes and stay current. So, I was joking. 🙂
I’m still making my way through this, but in answer to #1, Sally Fallon Morell explained that Ron Schimd violated their requirements for exhibitors, which is not to dis other exhibitors. If they have concerns about someone else’s products, they’re supposed to take them to WAPF. Corganics was warned to stop doing that, and they did, so they weren’t kicked out. Ron Schmid declined to remove his assertion that FCLO had caused his health problems, so his deposit was returned. What sort of ceremonious treatment would have been fairer? I don’t know the details of the circumstances surrounding Dr. Mercola’s removal from the board, but any organization has the right to remove board members if they do not support the organizations mission or are divisive, etc.
Wow. seriously? I count at least SEVEN calls for further research and testing from Sally Fallon Morell. All from that one Q&A article. Not to mention that the article itself is mostly a detailed explanation of various tests and research methods, referencing labs, experts, and historical results.
I cannot understand your motivation here. Dr. Kaayla Daniel’s report has already been dismantled fact by fact, but you are piling more wood on the fire. Why can’t we just focus on the facts instead of posting insinuations, accusations, and unfounded opinions?
My full response to this article is too long, so I have posted it on my own blog at http://www.otezok.com
You seem quite invested in the direction you have taken, so I am curious to see what your followup will be in light of the facts. The readers want clarification, not a holy war. We need to clear up the controversy and get everyone working together.
> Why can’t we just focus on the facts instead of posting insinuations, accusations, and unfounded opinions?
They are trolls, Victor. It’s a free-for-all bloodbath frenzy to bash Sally and the WAPF. As Mr. Gumpert quotes at the top, “Big Ag and Big Pharma are celebrating.” These industry-paid Morlocks are taking Daniel’s sensationalistic marketing bait that Gumpert himself appears to be capitalizing on too. *sigh*
Henry, for the record, Kaayla Daniel isn’t the first person to raise concerns about fermented cod liver oil. She’s just the highest-ranking WAPF official to raise the concerns, and she’s the first person to come in with convincing lab tests to back up her suspicion that the FCLO may be rancid. I saw suspicions first raised in early 2013, in a post by another blogger that attracted more than 250 comments, many of them saying they had experienced adverse health reactions after taking FCLO.
http://nourishedandnurtured.blogspot.ca/2013/01/why-we-stopped-taking-fermented-cod.html
Also for the record, I have been a big supporter of WAPF for many years. I didn’t do the above analysis casually, and I’m not “industry-paid.”
Which test exactly was ‘convincing’ as you state? Which part? There is nothing. Zero. I stated the facts clearly in distilled fashion, and I have yet to see you or anyone challenge them or show contrary evidence. Let me illustrate how absurd this bandwagoning is with this fact: the lab tests from Dr. Daniel’s report actually confirms that the Green Pasture FCLO is an exceptionally clean, powerful, bioactive nutritional cod liver oil. The science is undeniable in this. And scientists have been studying this FCLO for years.
I would love to know where you are getting this info. Dr. Masterjohn, Chris Kresser, and others are also eagerly awaiting.
You have been duped by Dr. Daniel, and you are going to realize that at some point. I hope.
Victor, I think we can all concede that FCLO is bioactive. Plain water is bioactive. With every breath we take, we inhale bioactive compounds and microorganisms. Nutritional we can concede, as well, since the tests detected fat-soluble vitamins. In what way did the lab analyses address cleanliness and power?
If you read Dr. Daniel’s report you will see her concede in her own words that the the lab results show the FCLO to be very low in environmental contaminants. Read the document to see her exact wording. Read the recent reviews by Dr. Masterjohn, Chris Kresser, and any other previous analysis and testing to see what the experts say about the nutritional potency of the FCLO. There is never a question about potency; although the data always varies, and interpreting it is not easy. You may or may not find specific Vitamins, but you will always find their metabolites in abundance. There are hundreds of Vitamin D compounds, and science is nowhere close to a complete understanding of them. We will long have many questions about FCLO, but there is no question about its potency.
Victor, your “facts” are really opinions. All one can do with opinions is agree or disagree. Guess we can agree to disagree.
I am here to be educated David, so please tell me which of my opinions is incorrect. I do have many opinions that I have not voiced, but my list of facts stands unchallenged here and on other blogs. My ears are open.
Just to illustrate that I do understand what an opinion is, here are a few – I think Dr. Daniel has a hidden agenda. I think she is taking money from EVCLO and/or others. I think many people jumping on the bandwagon are doing it for financial gain. I could go on with these opinions, but there is no point, as they are just my opinions. My facts listed above are distilled from what I found from the experts in the field. If I misunderstood something, please let me know. I am certainly out there on a ton of blogs, and on my own. Show me the facts that contract what I have listed.
Victor, you deny the evidence about rancidity, you say the Green Pasture product is from cod even though it is from pollack. Now, as Steve Tallent points out, we learn that the FDA considers cod and pollack as two very different things. Overall, you argue that this is a non-issue, when lots of mothers who have been feeding the FCLO to their kids are very concerned. Maybe their concern isn’t warranted, but for them it is an issue.
David, GP has already clarified that the FCLO IS made primarily from Pacific Cod (90% Pacific Cod, to be exact) and uses only 10% Pollock. Therefore, it is in fact made from cod just as the label states.
Has GPP clarified this on their website or in any email mailing to their customers? I haven’t seen it yet. Until then it isn’t really official is it?
Idk? You’d have to ask Sandrine about that.
I ask again David, what evidence is that? There is no test that confirms the FCLO is rancid. There is one marker on of the of tests that might imply rancidity, but, as Dr. Masterjohn points out, that is likely an error, as it is an outlier that has not been duplicated in other tests. The evidence overwhelmingly shows that the product is not rancid. In Dr. Masterjohn’s own words:
“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.”
Earlier in his comments he wrote “When Holman wrote that the “fat chemist” is concerned only with oxidative rancidity, this is because his field was studying the biological health-related effects of the process.”
The FCLO is healthy. It is only rancid in the sense that other healthy fermented foods are rancid. These semantics are not new, as they apply to all the healthy fermented foods that we eat.
The Cod/Pollock issue is the same. Semantics. You did not learn anything from an FDA employee that clearly stated he is not an expert. You can keep reaching, but nobody is ever going to find a single fish called ‘Cod.’ Most people do not know or care that ‘Atlantic Cod’ is the fish usually associated with that shorthand. Pollock is one of the four true cod, and really, there are a great number of suitable ‘cod’ that would probably serve the purpose. We are not the experts, and there are no health risks associated with pollock, so why even imply it?
Mothers should be thrilled that Dave Wetzel is using a type of cod that is among the cleanest in the world. The proof is in the pudding – the product is tremendously effective. And the evidence continues to mount in its favor. Another post with two more experts just appeared on the Green Pasture site.
Yeah, I can’t believe that Masterjohn said that. The reason for testing each batch is because each batch can be different. Yesterday we had a batch of clove essential oil we were dealing with. We examined the per batch GC/MS test results that came along with it from the reputable distributor that we use. Everything was in line. We started using mixing it and something wasn’t right. We called the distributor. They could have said, “test results were fine, the test results are always fine, go pound sand.” They didn’t. They looked into it. They physically went and found that batch and did sight and scent tests. It was a little off. At that point, they could have said, “it is a natural product, and scent profiles will vary from batch to batch.” But they didn’t. Because they allow that despite all of their quality procedures, it is possible, just possible, that with a natural product, something is just not right. It is being retested. That doesn’t happen with GPP products because there is an institution belief that it is impossible for the product to go bad in any way, ever. They make absolutely no allowances for variations in season, variations in manufacturing procedure, personnel, sourcing, starter, temperature, anything. And now, Masterjohn has basically said it’s ok to write off any unfavorable test result as an aberration. Inexplicable.
I’ll add that, to my estimation, there is no one on any side of this current controversy with the credentials to provide the movement with any real analysis of the rancidity data. An expert needs to enter the discussion or we might as well just take an Internet straw poll (much like we’re doing).
I can’t believe you actually posted this link….thanks so much. This blogger promotes Corganic! Where do you think she got her information?
I think people are sadly missing your point Carrie. When I see those big bold EVCLO banners on a bloggers site, I know I can disregard the content. I do not bother to engage in discussion there, as their agenda is already clear. I thought that Mr. Gumpert was actually an advocate of real food and small farmers, so that is why I am here. I figure he will have to face the facts at some point.
Carrie Hahn – I am the author of that original post about Why My Family Stopped Taking FCLO. Your assertion that I “got [my] information” from Corganic has no basis in reality. For the record, EVCLO was not even on the market at the time I wrote that blog post, and Rosita was not even producing cod liver oil yet. I had no affiliation with EVCLO or Corganic when I wrote that post, nor any reason to be trying to “put Green Pastures out of business”, as I have been accused of by many. I did later sign on as an affiliate for EVCLO, but that had to do with the fact that my family had tried EVCLO and liked it, and that I trusted the transparency of their manufacturing/processing.
For goodness’ sake, when I wrote that original post, I had been taking FCLO for years myself, had been cajoling my family into taking it, had been organizing group purchases of FCLO, and had strongly encouraged many family and friends to take FCLO. And I had been taking the 1Tb that was then recommended on the WAPF website for pregnant and nursing mothers for several years (although I know that now that recommendation has been changed on the site). Even up until now with Kaayla’s report being released, I had only shared my own experience with FCLO and still encouraged friends to take FCLO if it was working for them.
Thanks for providing the real facts about this Sarah.
If my timeline is incorrect as to when you began supporting Corganic on your blog, then I apologize. However, Corganic was exhibiting at the WT Conference in Santa Clara, CA in 2012. It was at this conference that they attempted to distribute a booklet in the sponsor bag, but Sally insisted that it not be included due to the direct attack against FCLO – and therefore GPP – who remains the only manufacturer of FCLO to date. According to your blog, “Why My Family Stopped Taking FCLO,” was published on January 14, 2013
Yes, my blog post was from Jan 2013, but I was not at the WT Conference, and I never tried EVCLO until July of 2014, which is when it actually went to market. I didn’t sign on as a Corganic affiliate until May of this year (2015). I did update the links in the original post when the products actually became available.
This discussion has prompted me to reread your article….you probably should have done the same before you posted your response. From the very last paragraph…….”But, after doing all of his research into cod liver oil, Archie Welch was able to find small company in Norway who was using the ancient extraction method with no heat, chemicals, or pressure to make ratfish liver oil. As a result of Archie’s prompting, this small company is now using the same method to make raw cod liver oil. Archie is finishing up the process of making that cod liver oil available here in the United States and he will be selling that light cod liver oil at corganic.com”
I guess you didn’t see the follow-on comment (which is currently right below this one) that says that I made an error about the date of the cod liver oil (that comment was from 3:46pm today, right after the first post I made at 3:36pm). It is still true that, when I wrote my blog post, I had never tried EVCLO, and it wasn’t on the market until about 1.5 years later. I was not an affiliate of Corganic until May of this year (2015).
Sorry, I made one small error in my previous reply: I said that Rosita was not producing cod liver oil when I posted about why my family stopped taking Fermented Cod Liver Oil, but actually they were not making cod liver oil when my family stopped taking FCLO. By the time I wrote my post (6 months later), Rosita was working on EVCLO, but it wasn’t to reach the market until over a year after I wrote the post.
Sarah, your recent story on your own blog is filled with accusations and insinuations, and you do not allow contrary comments, so why would we believe what you say here? Carrie’s account of the events certainly looks accurate. And you clearly have some personal agenda, judging from your recent article. I posted my rebuttal to your article on my own blog http://www.otezok.com ten days ago because you did not approve my comment on your site.
What accusations and insinuations do you find on my recent blog post? My intent was to summarize the actual test data, not engage in “accusations and insinuations”, as I think the data speaks for itself.
And I am not sure what you mean when you say that I do not allow contrary comments. There are several contrary comments on that same blog post. I can’t tell if one of those is yours, since those comments are left by “Anonymous”. I do moderate the comments, only to remove spam comments since I get tons of those on the blog, but as long as your comment looked like it was written by an actual person (and not someone trying to sell their love doctor potion), it should be showing up there. The blog post is here: http://nourishedandnurtured.blogspot.com/2015/08/shocking-test-results-for-fermented-cod.html
As to my “personal agenda,” it is just to share information, experiences, and truth. I am a Corganic affiliate, and I have never hidden that fact, but I did not sign on as an affiliate with them until May of this year (2015), which was over 2 years after my original blog post about why we stopped taking FCLO. I signed on as an affiliate based on the fact that my family had tried EVCLO and liked it, and that I was happy to promote their product on my blog as I believe it is an outstanding product. Being an affiliate means that, if someone clicks a link on my blog and decides to purchase products from Corganic, then I earn a commission for that sale. And when EVCLO was first released (in June 2014), they sent me a few complimentary bottles to try out and to giveaway on my blog, which I accepted. Companies often make such offers to bloggers, as a chance to have their products reviewed and to get word out on new products. Besides being an affiliate, I have no other ties or financial compensation from Corganic and EVCLO, and I have no “personal agenda” in this. I believe people have a right to access information, including test data, even when that data is inconvenient or even when it is different than people thought.
“even when that data is inconvenient or even when it is different than people thought.”
…or even when it’s methods can not be scrutinized nor it’s results verified for accuracy due to deliberate non-disclosure of pertinent information.
Have you read the full report? It includes the full data reports. The only thing blacked out on them was the names of the specific labs that did the testing. All of the raw data is there.
Sarah – I don’t know about you, but I am no scientist. So, it should go without saying that looking at the raw data wouldn’t tell me much about the accuracy or relevance of the findings. Chris Masterjohn, however, is more than qualified to analyze such things… and he found that the lab findings didn’t find much to write home about.
“What accusations and insinuations do you find on my recent blog post?”
Well, for one thing, throughout the entire article you repeatedly refer to Dr. Daniel’s questionable allegations as well as the lab findings in her report as though they are matters of fact, which you can’t possibly know to be the case due to her lack of transparency.
For instance…
You say:
“This new test data comes from multiple independent laboratories…”
Yeah… so Kaayla claims. But considering that she won’t disclose the names of these labs (for whatever reason) we have no way of knowing if they were independent or not. Now, if you feel comfortable taking her word for it on blind faith alone that’s perfectly fine, but you should indicate this to your readers so that they understand the nature of these claims.
“Over the last year or two, people started expressing doubts about FCLO, including how it is produced, its vitamin content, and its efficacy.”
Yes… and people are also expressing serious doubts about the validity of Kaayla’s findings. You don’t feel that this is worth a mention as well? Seems a bit one-sided to me.
“Although the Board of the WAPF voted against testing FCLO, Kaayla wanted to investigate to find out the truth.”
Actually the WAPF had ALREADY tested the FCLO when the vote was taken. The Board voted 7-to-1 not to do *additional* testing as the testing that had already been done a year prior indicated zero problems with rancidity.
P.S. The names of the labs are not the only things redacted from the lab reports. Other pertinent information that was blacked-out includes: the testing methods used (very important!), who ordered the tests, who the tests were performed by, etc.
““Although the Board of the WAPF voted against testing FCLO, Kaayla wanted to investigate to find out the truth.”
Actually the WAPF had ALREADY tested the FCLO when the vote was taken. The Board voted 7-to-1 not to do *additional* testing as the testing that had already been done a year prior indicated zero problems with rancidity.”
The testing had not been done a year before. I’m not sure if they had the test results in had or not. The date on the purported test results that WAPF posted is December 2014. Sarah Pope claims they had those results. Sally said they had GPP test results and not the Grootveld results. Both can’t be true. I tried to get board meeting minutes to reconcile dates and stories about these tests and was denied. One thing interesting in what Sally said was that Grootveld basically invalidated ALL of the rancidity testing that GPP had ever and had ever posted by saying that wasn’t a good method for testing an oil like this one. It’s only an early rancidity test. Basically there is one test – Grootveld’s of which the WAPF has withheld at least part – and the tests that Daniel had done. That’s not a very big pool of data to “prove” with absolute certainty that GPP has never, ever sent out a batch of rancid oil. If you pull out Daniel’s test, there is one test.
Sorry, I should have said *the* year prior, rather than “a year prior.” The point is that they already had recent testing done on the FCLO, which is why they felt it unnecessary to do additional testing at the time of Kaayla’s request.
“Grootveld’s [test] of which the WAPF has withheld at least part”
What do you mean they “withheld at least part”? How do you withhold part of a test?
On rancidity testing…
If you want my honest opinion, I don’t put a whole lot of stock in tests for rancidity… no matter how accurate the test may be. What’s the point? Just because something isn’t rancid today don’t mean it won’t be rancid tomorrow… or next week… or next month.
I will say this much: I’ve been buying GP’s FCLO for years and I’ve never received a batch that smelled “off” in any way… HOWEVER, with that said, there was one instance where I had a bottle of FCLO that was *almost* empty, except for maybe about one 5ml dose of product leftover that I forgot to finish off before opening a new bottle. That almost finished bottle managed to get pushed back in the cupboard and got lost behind other things for a while. Fast forward to about a year later: I found that almost empty bottle again. As I went to go toss it in the trash, I noticed that there was a little bit of product still in there. Not wanting to be wasteful, I thought, “let me see if I can get that last bit with the syringe” …which I did, and then I took it. This remaining bit from the bottom of a probably 2+ year old bottle both tasted and smelled undeniably OFF… and was nothing like the product had ever smelled or tasted before. I mean, it must have gone rancid at that point, because it didn’t smell/taste anything like that when I first got it. So, in conclusion: Do I think that FCLO can *turn* rancid after a certain amount of time? Yes, absolutely. I’d say so. I can’t be positive, but I’m pretty sure that’s what happened to that old bottle of mine. What does this mean as far as product quality goes? Well, I think it means that the product is fine so long as you finish it within a year… OR keep it in the fridge if you don’t plan on consuming it right away. Especially if you happen to live in a tropical climate, like I do down here in New Orleans. Suffice it to say, that’s the only issue I’ve ever encountered with a GP product.
““Grootveld’s [test] of which the WAPF has withheld at least part”
What do you mean they “withheld at least part”? How do you withhold part of a test?”
Answer – you remove it. Kind of like blacking out lab names before scanning, but a little more sophisticated, albeit easier, as the results were in a PDF format.
Oops, my apologies on the blog post issue, as I crossed you up with another blog. I did not post on your blog, to my knowledge. However, in seeing your post, I would have the same questions.
Why are you so quick to simply repeat what was in Dr. Daniel’s report without confirming it? There is no fact to support the accusations. For example:
You wrote:
“FCLO appears to not actually be a fermented product”
“it appears that FCLO is actually putrefied instead of fermented.”
Notice the word ‘appears’ is in both of your sentences. The fact is that no test confirms the FCLO
to be rancid. That is a fact. ‘Possible indicators’ or whatever are not fact.
And, uh, you know there are photos of fermenting livers on the Green Pasture website, right?
You also wrote:
“At least one of the bottles of FCLO that was tested showed significant rancidity issues.”
Again, this is reaching, this is not a confirmation of rancidity in even the one bottle. There was one marker out of many, and that is more likely human error in the testing. Even if perfectly correct, that is not enough to declare the product rancid.
It is easy to confirm rancidity beyond a shadow of a doubt, so that is not the issue. If the FCLO were truly rancid, there would be very clear facts to support that, as there are many markers for that. The fact is that no test, even in Dr. Daniel’s report, can confirm rancidity for the FCLO. Thus, there is no basis for claiming such.
Something even more damning is your comment below, as you accuse Green Pasture of making a claim that it did not make:
“The bottles of FCLO that were tested had extremely low levels of Vitamin D, nearly nonexistent Vitamin K, and much less Vitamin A than claimed by Green Pastures.”
Dave Wetzel has MANY articles on his site that discuss the nature of the vitamin content in the FCLO, and explains that it is not so easy to measure, and should not be considered a supplement, as it is a food. Numerous scientists have comments on his site about this too, and have even commented again after these false accusations surfaced. These stand as numerous disclaimers to any general comments about nutrition.
Thus, your comment about vitamin levels is false on two counts:
1. Green Pasture never claimed that his products had any specific quantity of the vitamins mentioned. Though they do claim to have a rich nutritional profile (metabolites, etc.).
2. Tests show clearly that the Green Pasture FCLO is a superb source of these nutrients, even if you cannot measure them specifically in the product. This is because vitamins have hundreds of different structures, and we do not fully understand them, or how to test for them.
Furthermore, you know that the Green Pasture products have aided many with healing tooth decay and other issues, and this would simply not be possible unless it was somehow providing us with high levels of the vitamins in question.
You conclude with a statement about Rosita being so transparent, which is very interesting to me, as this is repeated by many other Rosita advocates, and yet they are not nearly transparent as Green Pasture. It is not even close. This makes me much more inclined to find truth in Carrie’s comments about the connections. You simply must be aware that the information put out by Green Pasture dwarfs that put out by Rosita, and yet you strongly imply the opposite is true.
In addition, your claims against Green Pasture are based on tests that do not disclose the labs, so there are serious transparency issues there.
I could go on, but I already have in other posts. If you truly are a neutral party that is simply seeking the truth Sarah, then you should be able to see it.
Nobody is saying the FCLO is for everyone. No food is for everyone.
That is fine if you prefer another product. But what is the motivation in making unfounded claims against Green Pasture?
As I’ve stated previously, I don’t have any motivation against Green Pasture. I’ve been a member of the WAPF for 10 years, and a chapter leader for 4 years, and I have (in the past) highly recommended FCLO to friends and family. Obviously, once it became clear that my own family was having issues from FCLO, I stopped giving it my personal recommendation to others, but I was never on any agenda to slander GP or bring them down. (Obviously, my comments here are my own, and not associated with the WAPF.)
I can see from your response that we could go round and round all day without coming to agreement. For instance, you are criticizing me for saying there should have been vitamins in the FCLO, then going on to say that there are vitamins in it and “FCLO is a superb source of these nutrients, even if you cannot measure them specifically in the product”.
The reason I used words such as “appears” is that, really, that is all that can be said from the limited amount of data that is available thus far. It is a small subset of data, and by no means an exhaustive amount of data that could fully answer all of the questions. To me, with my own scientific background, the data points to the fact that there *may* be some variability going on with the product and more testing and/or research would need to be done to find out why the data has showed such variability from bottle to bottle or in testing from lab to lab. I am not an expert in nutritional analysis, but I am experienced in looking at data and in designing scientific methods and tests (from my background as an aerospace engineer), and the wide variation in the test data shows the need for more analysis and testing. And certainly, if I were still using this product, I think I would have a right to have access to this type of data and to determine whether I still wanted to take it or not.
I am not going to continue to engage in this back-and-forth which seems destined to end in disagreement no matter what is said or quoted.
“Oops, my apologies on the blog post issue, as I crossed you up with another blog. I did not post on your blog, to my knowledge. However, in seeing your post, I would have the same questions.”
Victor, for a scientist (even if it is computer science as I suppose) you don’t seem to care much about accuracy, well, at least not your own, or anybody that is supporting GPP. Once is excusable. It is getting out of hand.
“And, uh, you know there are photos of fermenting livers on the Green Pasture website, right?”
Please explain to us how to differentiate a rotting liver from a fermenting liver from a picture. If it is open to the air, isn’t it is being oxidized?
“1. Green Pasture never claimed that his products had any specific quantity of the vitamins mentioned. Though they do claim to have a rich nutritional profile (metabolites, etc.).”
Well that’s just false. Why do you think Daniel talked about it in the first place and Wetzel went into the whole vitamin issue in his first rebuttal? If he had never claimed anything, what was she attacking and what was he defending???
“It is easy to confirm rancidity beyond a shadow of a doubt, so that is not the issue. If the FCLO were truly rancid, there would be very clear facts to support that, as there are many markers for that. The fact is that no test, even in Dr. Daniel’s report, can confirm rancidity for the FCLO. Thus, there is no basis for claiming such.”
This just isn’t true either except in the case of early rancidity. Didn’t you read Sally’s comments attributed to Grootveld or Masterjohn’s report? Your comments make me think probably not. I think it may have been in the comments on Chris Kressor’s post that there was a discussion that had different lipids experts at odds with each other over what might actually indicated rancidity in a product like this. The truth is that nobody has experience testing a product like this. Perhaps if they tested earlier on in the process the tests that they have been using would be valuable to prove no rancidity.
“That is fine if you prefer another product. But what is the motivation in making unfounded claims against Green Pasture?”
I wouldn’t say that she was making unfounded claims, but rather sharing claims made by a well respected PhD, whom we all lauded for giving us the real poop on soy. And Sarah did it with circumspection, using words like “appears”. Chris Masterjohn used a lot of circumspective, indefinite words in his blog piece on the Daily Lipid, and you didn’t call him out for it on your blog.
The earliest report of problems I’ve seen is from 2010, on WAPFs own page recommending FCLO.
Henry: I am not a troll. I am a nearly-six-year WAPF member. I have attended four conferences, and will be in Anaheim in November, if I don’t croak first. I fully intend to renew my membership. I have great respect for both my fellow WAPF members, and the leadership. I think Sally made a mistake in judgment, both in regard to the Paleo community, and in trusting Green Pastures. And Kaayla Daniel in the tone, and to some degree, substance, of her report. I am not perfect, either. But the issues she raises are important and have serious implications. Dave Wetzel’s writings, his responses to customer queries, and the odd feeling I’ve gotten in chance encounters I’ve had with him at the conferences do not engender trust. I do not wish him or his company ill, but I think we’ve been taken in by a product of uneven quality which is dangerous for some, and one that couldn’t possibly be fermented. Big Ag won’t get any of our dollars, but Pharma owns our government and media. They don’t need to celebrate. But we can do something about it. Come to Atlanta the fourth weekend in October. CDCtruth.org has the details.
Absolutely. Very well said.
I’ve said all along that the problem that I had with the report is not the rancidity issue, or the vitamin issue, but the labeling issue. My company is committed to full disclosure. If it is in the bottle, it is on the label. Now, I find out that not only was it mislabeled, it was ILLEGALLY mislabeled. The FDA (the group that provides loopholes and exceptions for every big producer to get away with putting all sorts of crap into our food and drugs without disclosing it or properly disclosing it) DOES NOT ALLOW POLLOCK TO BE MARKETED AS COD. Everybody supporting GP just sweeps this under the rug. The ethics of it might be argued. The legality of it no.
If you buy shark oil at a health food store, it does not list the species. Numerable sources on the internet list Alaskan Pollock as a type of cod. Another example….from the label on my butter – ingredients: cream, salt. It does not say what breed of cow they use or where the source for their salt is.
@ Carrie Hahn: If the label would say Organic Jersey Cream, or cream from organic or pastured Jersey cows, it better be from pastured or organically fed Jersey cows. That’s the difference here as far as I can tell. It depends on what is actually on the label and what is actually being used. If pollock is being used, the label should reflect that or maybe state exactly what type of codfish is being used to produce the liver oil.
Great analogies Carrie. This is such a non issue, and it is sad to see people get sidetracked by it. There was never any attempt as deceit, as nobody would have cared either way. All these people running around yelling about cod, as if it were a single fish is comical.
Scientifically, there may not be a problem. Legally, because we have this thing called the Food and Drug Administration that regulates such things, listing Pollock as Cod on a label is considered fraud. FCLO has been marketed as a traditional product prepared in a traditional way, and it has never been that. Traditionally, Atlantic Cod was used for CLO. Why? I don’t really know. However, what I am told is that if the DHA is higher than EPA it is Atlantic Cod. If not, it is something else. This is confirmed in an article by David Wetzel posted on WAPF page. Perhaps in that ratio is the real power of CLO. Sally reported that GPP has NEVER used Atlantic Cod. Atlantic Cod is the most expensive of the Gadus genus. Alaska Pollock is the cheapest. Because of his stories, because of his claims of a traditional product, people believed they were getting Atlantic Cod. Go check out the early comments on this fiasco from GPP supporters that were adamantly exclaiming that GPP was using Atlantic Cod, that they wouldn’t use a cheap substitute like Pollock, that the DNA results were “inconclusive”, etc. There was a deep seated belief in WAPF circles that in this premium “traditional”, “sacred” food product was the traditional ingredient of premium Atlantic Cod. Now that the admission of use of Pollock is out, stories are changing to “big deal, it’s all cod.” The big deal is that I believe that GPP and WAPF writers knew it wasn’t Atlantic Cod, knew that most people thought that it was, but did nothing to dissuade people of that belief. Why? The easiest answer is money. I, for one, am not feeling warm fuzzies about that.
Legally its an issue if you are selling fish. If you are selling a value added product it is not.
Food and Drug Administration labeling guidelines for nutritional supplements citation to support this assertion? Or just what you heard or what you’d like to believe. As I said, I called the FDA. They said mislabeled. Are you disputing that?
It is listed as cod on the label because it IS made from cod: 90% Pacific Cod, to be exact. So what if 10% of it is from Pollock?? Seriously?? That is not fraud. You wanted cod liver oil, and that’s exactly what you got. Does anybody really think that the Vikings (or whoever) from the days of yore were really so picky that they only ever used the oil of one specific type of cod fish? Back way before anyone had even came up with all of these classifications in the first place? Please.
Amanda, you’ve lost it completely! Any manufacturer who includes an unmentioned product for 10% of their product is dishonest and will get no sympathy from the natural food communities. 90% coconut milk, 10% unlabeled carrageenan. 90% grassed milk and 10% unlabeled industrial CAFO milk; 90% organically fed and 10% unlabeled GMO feed. Why are you trying to police people’s own concerns about what they want to put in their bodies and their right to know. You’re like the food manufacturers who don’t want to label GMOs or anything else they think doesn’t make a difference. It’s not up to them–or you–to decide that you know better about what has to be disclosed. Do you really think this is effective damage control?
You raise an interesting point Bill, and you did not notice it – your comparison lists all undesirables, while the pollock is no such thing. If Green Pasture were using some kind of farmed Frankenfish, I would be in agreement with everyone. But the fact is that they are using all good fish. It would be like the grass-fed milk coming from two different cows, even two different breeds, but it is still 100% grass-fed cow milk. Just as the GP FCLO is 100% CLO.
The right to know is great. But people are being whipped into a frenzy by false accusations.
Exactly, Victor.
In fact, while researching cod fish I came across this interesting point:
“New evolutionary studies have found that Alaskan pollock is more closely related to Atlantic cod than any other cod.”
Seems to me that the presence of 10% Pollock adds value to the product, if anything.
Amanda, you are probably right. Adding Pollock might add value to GPP products. It would diminish the value of products made with Atlantic Cod.
Not everyone agrees with you. It’s not up to you to decide that unlabeled ingredients are fine and that people’s concerns about radiation or EPA/DHA ratios are irrelevant.
And as for true Viking point, I gather they used ATLANTIC cod, as GPP web site descriptions of the product I recall seemed to insinuate. I know the Vikings got around, but not that far.
Bill, I clearly stated: “the Vikings (or whoever) from the days of yore.” I mean, are you just arguing out of sheer boredom at this point?
I’m trying to tell you that your defenses look like cult speak from the point of view of someone undecided about the cod controversy. I’ve read the documentation on both sides and I’m not clear at this point if FCLO is rancid or not. But when you tell me that standard industry practice (which it isn’t any way) and fraudulent representations of a product are OK because YOU don’t mind, I find it stunning. I was trying to say, given what the web site has said about their formula, even using actual Pacific cod seems to go against what they insinuated (Atlantic cod). Some people–not me–feel that they don’t want to eat any fish from the Pacific due to Fukushima. YOU have decided they are wrong to care about 10% non-Cod species fish, let alone the fairy story about being true to the Viking story, so you probably think they shouldn’t care about radiation in their fish, either. I don’t think radiation in Pacific Cod is a problem, but if someone does think it matters, they should be able to rely on labels and web site representations of the product.
And you never respond to the objections to your position. You just move on to the next talking point.
I already responded to the cult assertion elsewhere on this page. I don’t feel it has a great deal of merit. Why do I sound “cultish”? Because I can spot bullshit (excuse my French) a mile away when I see it, and therefore sound rather sure of myself? OK… but that’s just how I am. Sorry if you don’t like it. You certainly aren’t the only one, but that’s okay. I am quite sure of myself in this case, and I think that you will see that I’m right as this ordeal unfolds further.
Also, to clarify… I don’t care what people choose to believe about GP or if they ever buy another product from them again (I hear that they were having trouble keeping supply up with demand anyway, so perhaps losing some business would not be so tragic for them after all… who knows?). What I do care about is that people are out for vengeance over this –against both WAPF and GP –and I am sorry but that is wrong, and disgraceful. If some folks believe that they could take on WAPF’s role and do an even better job at it, then I say more power to them! They should go ahead and do that. If not, then perhaps they should stop pointing fingers and slinging damaging accusations over hearsay, because some of us value these organizations a great deal and maybe, just maybe, this controversy isn’t worth weakening the foundation over so that it will be even HARDER to sway people we care about away from Pharma and the REAL fraud that is medicine. Just a thought.
It’s because I value WAPF that I think your defense of them only further damages their credibility. If they are wrong, then they need to stop digging themselves in further. If they are right, they need to establish that and stop excusing the clearly misleading aspects of the labeling and marketing.
Anyone here (still) complaining about the Green Pasture FCLO products being mislabeled because it says ‘Cod’ has exposed themselves as a troll or astroturfer (someone being paid to troll). This is obvious because:
1. Someone that was truly so passionate about eating ONLY ‘Atlantic Cod’ would never buy a product labeled simply as ‘Cod’ because they would be fully aware that such a label is not informative enough for them.
2. Such labeling and naming assumptions would be ridiculous for a true ‘Atlantic Cod’ advocate to make, as they would certainly realize that this is an ‘American’ problem, in that ‘Atlantic Cod’ is not called by that name everywhere in the world. The word ‘Cod’ is a global English standard that may or may not generally refer to one of a hundred different fish.
3. An ‘Atlantic Cod’ advocate would already know better of course, as scrutinizing such labels would be normal for them, since it is standard industry practice to use dozens of different varieties of Cod without disclosure. They would know that this definition varies greatly, depending on the industry, the country, and even the point in history. Thus, they could never be shocked or feel deceived by pollock. Their life long experience of hunting for ‘Atlantic Cod’ would have etched into them this labeling reality.
4. The ‘Atlantic Cod’ advocate would certainly be aware that there are over 100 fish that fall under that category, some of which are in fact not cod. Thus they would be impressed that a product labeled cod actually has only the varieties of the four ‘true’ cod fish.
5. Surprise requires ignorance. The ‘Atlantic Cod’ advocate would not have allowed himself/herself to be so ignorant about Cod labeling. Such an advocate would have already known the details, and long ago considered them irrelevant for FCLO. If they did care, they would already have years of blogging history to demonstrate such, and would not likely still be a user that cared about this blog post.
If you find the above offensive, then you are still caught up in the fog of your trolling. You have been exposed. Not only are you obviously trolling, but you are obviously an American troll. Or, you are astroturfing. And of course some of you have simply been caught up in the mob mentality that trolling and astroturfing aim to create. If the the third possibility represents you, I hope this message will help you realize that, as this message is only for you. Obviously the trolls will simply keep on trolling.
“Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participant(s).”
Agreed. It’s just too ridiculous to be genuine.
What are you talking about? We’ve gone from three cod species mentioned by wikipedia and the question of whether it was appropriate to include Alaskan pollock to the idea that there are dozens or hundreds of fish appropriately labelled cod. Do you mean like other fish with cod in their names, like eel cods or tadpole cods? It would be OK to put these in there, too? Despite being shown that this is considered fraud by the FDA? It is the web site stories about emulating the traditional Atlantic cod fish oil that would have led people who care about avoiding Pacific fish to accept FCLO. I don’t care about that issue, but some might, and they would have been mislead.
If everyone who disagrees with you is a paid troll for astroturfing, that would be something! FCLO is not even sold at any health food stores that I’ve ever been in, let alone mainstream stores, but they are so worried about the competition that the are paying people to post comments in an obscure raw milk forum. This kind of paranoid, defensive approach is precisely the wrong approach to take if you want to defend WAPF. I suspect that the majority of readers are stuck in the middle right now, trying to figure out what’s true about the question of rancidity. Instead of finding a way to resolve these uncertainties, instead we are blasted with bullying and slandering comments that anyone who felt mislead about the labeling issues is wrong or a corporate troll. Seriously? That’s the path you want to go down?
I read labels and web sites scrupulously and I was taken in by the GMO feed issue for Kerrygold butter. It’s not easy when producers are cagy about their products to get your concerns met. Eeven at the farmers’ market, many “natural” and “pastured” farmers use supplemental conventional feed, and it can be quite the chore to try to get to the bottom of that question.
That literally made no sense whatsoever, Bill.
Bill, you are funny guy “should be able to rely on labels and web site representations” is it ok if I just laugh it off? Smells fishy.
Is “WAPF is ideologically rigid”? No doubt. It might be forgivable if they were true to Dr. Weston A. Price’s word. Dr. Price never encountered any cultures that consumed cod liver oil, let alone fermented cod liver oil. When Dr. Price did study cod liver oil, he never recommended fermented cod liver oil.
It certainly seems suspect, when WAPF and their inner circle, comes running to defend FCLO without all the facts. It also seems odd that Sandrine seems to have inside information and speaks on behalf of both David Wetzel and Sally Fallon Morell.
Just a cursory glance at their funding/expenses raises questions.
http://www.westonaprice.org/about-the-foundation/wapf-funding/
WAPF states that they receive no funding from any “food processing corporation”. Do this mean they do not take donations from David Wetzel or from any of his companies?
Looking at the pie charts on the WAPF funding page, one thing that jumps out. In 2004, they list $96,800 for “Office/General Admin”. That number jumps to $616,400 in 2012, a 500+% increase. If you look at the membership dues collected during that same period, $209,100 (2004) and $646,000 (2012), an increase of 200+%. Perhaps there is a reasonable explanation, but you might think that “Office/General Admin” would grow at an equal, or slower pace than membership dues.
Some other things seem worthy of investigation.
Where is WAPF getting “all other contributions” from?
2011: $515,700
2012: $351,649
2013: $414,261
Where did this money go?
2011: $173,536 to “Other salaries and wages” — $112,316 to “Research”
2012: $187,684 to “Other salaries and wages” — $209,048 to “Research”
2013: $166,087 to “Other salaries and wages” — $0 to “Research” — $184,138 to “Grants and other assistance”
Is any money coming from David Wetzel and/or his companies?
Is any money going to Sally Fallon Morell, Chris Masterjohn, Sandrine, WAPF board, etc?
The conduct exhibited by the WAPF inner circle last week, sure makes it seem like there is more to the story. Are there significant financial ties between David Wetzel and Sally/WAPF?
I would love you to reveal your name fully and stand clearly and openly behind what you write. Please leave me alone. The money doesn’t come to me. https://nourishingourchildren.wordpress.com/2015/08/28/i-cannot-be-bought/
Thats right, attack the messenger, ignore the message. That alone speaks volumes. After the recriminations against Dr. Ron, who can blame BJ for speaking anonymously.
Sandrine…. This entire week your name is all over these blogs and facebook sites responding to this issue. It’s pretty obvious you’re tied closely to the WAPF and most of us assume you’re either on staff or on the board. And it’s odd that your nonprofit is impossible to find listed as a regular nonprof with 503 c status. So I take it if you don’t work for WAPF you’re either a private nonprofit or a business with a vested interest in WAPF. And since you’re posting almost nonstop everywhere it’s a highly invested interest.
Karen – https://nourishingourchildren.wordpress.com/2015/08/28/i-cannot-be-bought/
Sandrine has been a chapter leader (more than once?) and has worked hard to promote Dr. Price’s work through her own project, Nourishing Our Children, which is a labor of love. She is an honorary board member, not a voting board member, and not paid by WAPF. I’ve known Sandrine since I took an “intro to real foods” class from her when she lived in San Francisco, at least 12 years ago. I’ve never known her to act other than with complete integrity, even when I haven’t always agreed with her. It is very easy to type accusations about someone you know little of; please reconsider doing so. It is possible to disagree without attacking others.
You are making sweeping accusations without one shred of documentation. Sandrine does have the documentation.
From WAPF website:
http://www.westonaprice.org/about-the-foundation/wapf-funding/
In 2002, $37,170 came from contributions ranging in size from $5 to $5000.
The number jumped to over a half million dollars in 2011.
WAPF “all other contributions”:
2005: $169,000
2006: $183,000
2007: $215,000
2008: $299,000
2009: $346,000
2010: $317,000
2011: $515,700 <—- 62% Increase
2012: $351,649
2013: $414,261
Where did this money go?
2005: $2,757 to "Research"
2006: $3,648 to "Research"
2007: $0 to "Research"
2008: $0 to "Research"
2009: $0 to "Research"
2010: $25,000 to "Research"
2011: $112,316 to "Research"
2012: $209,048 to “Research”
2013: $0 to “Research”
2013: $184,138 to “Grants and other assistance”
During the 5 years between 2005 to 2009, WAPF spent $6,405 on research.
During the next 3 years (2010 to 2012), WAPF spent $346,364 on research.
Do the WAPF board members approve the $300k+ spent on research?
Restating here: “WAPF gets much of their contributions from people like myself who donate small amounts as we can or is convenient. Also, the sales of materials are legally classified as “contributions”, and much of what transpires at a booth during an event are thus, “contributions”.This is common and usual practice amongst non-profits.
As to the increase in salaries and wages, as funds are more available people who previously put in many hours of work benefitting the organization have been given actual wages or salaries; all perfectly reasonable and acceptable as well.
And as so research, this has always been a prime goal of WAPF. Thus, as opportunity arises and is possible, research is conducted. Drs. Daniel & Masterjohn are two who have been directly involved in this research, along with the late Dr. Enig and Dr. Kummerow and others.”
I am personally an example of those who occasionally are compensated as I often travel to speak and manage booths on behalf of WAPF. Others do so as well, and it is of course reasonable to be compensated for travel expenses. Likewise conference speakers and others who also sometimes are paid to speak or write articles for the journal. Standard practice, nothing to hide here. Actually, David is one of these who have received compensation.
Before you make sweeping assumptions this, maybe you should consider contacting the foundation for a detailed report. They are a non-profit and have to make that available.
That’s technically true. However, I requested the minutes of the December board meeting by email more than a week ago (which they also have to make available). I got no response. I have not received it. I called yesterday to ask how I could get a copy of the meeting minutes. “Let me check.” Was told that my request was received, and had been forwarded the day before. Literally that is what I was told. I found that response curious, since I hadn’t given my name, and hadn’t referenced asking for it by email. I asked how long it would take to get the report. “I don’t know.” Where was it forwarded? “I don’t know.” And the tone was not friendly at all. I would have thought that meeting minutes would be kept at their offices which is where I called. So yes, they technically have to make that information available, but whether you can actually get it or not is another story.
WAPF gets much of their contributions from people like myself who donate small amounts as we can or is convenient. Also, the sales of materials are legally classified as “contributions”, and much of what transpires at a booth during an event are thus, “contributions”.This is common and usual practice amongst non-profits.
As to the increase in salaries and wages, as funds are more available people who previously put in many hours of work benefitting the organization have been given actual wages or salaries; all perfectly reasonable and acceptable as well.
And as so research, this has always been a prime goal of WAPF. Thus, as opportunity arises and is possible, research is conducted. Drs. Daniel & Masterjohn are two who have been directly involved in this research, along with the late Dr. Enig and Dr. Kummerow and others.
I am going by instinct here, my gut tells me Ron is telling the truth.
David, did you read Chris Masterjohn’s article analyzing Kaalya’s report? In it he examines, point by point, the tests, results, possibly variables and unknowns. It is available here: http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/2015/08/weighing-in-on-fermented-cod-liver-oil.html
As to Dr. Ron and his heart failure, why oh why is it so difficult to believe that mega-dosing on *anything*, especially something that is supposed to be as potent as cod liver oil, could or would cause harm? I fail to see the problem with believing not only the possibility, but also the likelihood that the dose was a huge factor.
That said however, I am extremely sad at the break between the foundation and Ron Schmid but, Sally did ask and give him opportunity to take down his criticisms while things were being sorted out because of the board-agreed upon policy to not tear down competitive products. It was only after the second request was made and not followed that Dr. Ron’s was dropped, and I know it was an exceedingly difficult thing to do. Still, no words for how awful this really is.
Lastly, Price Pottenger archives all of Dr. Price’s work and, I have been told in the past, there is research in there about his experimenting and analyzing with fermented cod livers and the resulting oil. It has not been printed and may never be, but wouldn’t it be curious to know what he found? My point is, just because there is nothing written in Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, let’s not assume he did not find fclo to be a good thing. It surely has been good for many of us including several in my own family, but I have never seen anyone in the WAPF community be rigid about using it, and only it.
We do need to be more open to change and I think most of us are; but let’s not throw Green Pastures, Sally, and the WAPF over one report which has been answered with other testing, from very well reputed labs, and analysis from other scientists who may in fact be far more knowledgable about this very different product.
PPNF researched Dr. Price’s papers and released information on the CLO that he used and wrote about. It wasn’t fermented. Even Sally’s aforementioned response acknowledges this.
What led you to think otherwise? Who was saying this?
Maureen, I provided a response above about Ron Schmid’s dosage to Jeanmarie Todd. As I said there, dosages for supplements aren’t followed by warnings about taking more than the recommended dose because that is rarely a problem. Chris Masterjohn provided this explanation of Ron’s dose: “Nevertheless, there was definitely a very common ‘more is better’ approach to cod liver oil within the community, especially in the early years. Dr. Ron was one of many people using multiple tablespoons of cod liver oil per day. One of my friends had been a patient of his and for a long time took 2-3 tablespoons on his advice, and later became concerned that she developed a thyroid disorder because of it. Another friend used doses like this and she was convinced it gave her food intolerances. From what I can recall, both of these instances occurred prior to the introduction of fermented cod liver oil.”
For Ron Schmid, who tolerated regular cod liver oil quite well for 25 years, it made perfect sense to continue the same dosage of the fermented stuff, especially in the absence of warnings about possible problems.
On Chris Masterjohn’s own public facebook page he suggests taking ½ tsp/day indefinitely and 1 tsp/day for months. And ,he now scrubbed off WAPF page, Cod Liver the Number One Superfood, talked tablespoons. Now the recommendations has dropped to ½ tsp! This is crazy. The dosing is all over the place. When the stakes are potentially this high if you screw it up wouldn’t you think warnings would clearly be issued?
In the same post Masterjohn says the amines are high and suggests megadosing on thyramine could have caused the heart problem. But he sees “it as a moot point because no one should take that dose of unfermented CLO”. SO WHY again where the warnings plastered where we can’t miss them. And why was the high dose WAPF page just recently (like days ago). This stuff has the potential to be dangerous by Chris’s own admission and now WAPF and Chris are just warning us? This is crazy irresponsible.
Link to Chris’s post Scroll down to the discussion under Debbie https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=889632034405759&id=108150349220602
sorry …that should be “And the” not “And ‘he” in the second sentence…..don’t want to cause more confusion. Chris Masterjohn isn’t who I meant scrubbed off the WAPF page
Did you know you can actually kill yourself by drinking too much water and yet there are no warnings on a bottle of water. And what would happen if I ate a pound of yummy raw grass fed butter, every day, for thirty years? Any guesses on what would happen to my health if I did that? Does Corganic list a daily maximum on their labels or any type of warning? This is ludicrous.
Omega 3 and Omega 6 oils are both critical to health, and it is also critical that they be in balance. Consuming dramatically more of one OR the other are both risky behaviors.
It is not possible to anticipate all the stupid or dangerous ways people might choose to consume a product. People have to take some personal responsibility for their choices. If Sally indeed used to encourage people to take tablespoons at a time, well, shame on her for carelessness, or simply not knowing better/over-enthusiasm. She certainly knows better now and doesn’t advise it for long periods.
Everyone ought to know by now that correlation does not equal causation. One cannot simply assume that the FCLO is what caused Ron Schmid’s heart problems; without more clinical evidence to the contrary, it is entirely likely that the combined years of taking high doses of CLO then FCLO all contributed to his problems. You can take *anything* good to excess.
Schmid’s opinion that there is something wrong with FCLO is not evidence one way or another, as there are many other people who are of the opinion that FCLO has helped them. If it doesn’t suit HIM, he shouldn’t take it, but from what he’s said, all we really know is that years of very high doses don’t suit him. It seems unlikely his body needs more of any CLO for the time being, but, the only way for him to know for sure is to test it on himself.
But I’m not understanding why there should be a “warning” issued just because one man believes that his heart failure was caused by this product. Am I missing something here, or is a sample size of one kind of irrelevant? Furthermore, can he even prove that the FCLO was the culprit?
Here are some quotes regarding “brown/fermented” cod liver oil from a Price-Pottenger article:
* “If the livers are running gradually to putrefaction, the oil becomes of a chestnut brown colour…”
* “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…”
* “the livers in excess are placed in barrels and allowed to putrefy in the sun, yielding a dark brown oil which is also used for tanning.”
* “the livers stay near a specific temperature so there is “no tendency for putrefaction or fermentation of the mass.”
The article contains information regarding the types of cod liver oil that Dr. Price described as “Excellent” (it was not fermented cod liver oil).
* “Newfoundland cod-liver oil … [and] another excellent oil.”[28(p25)] On the next page, in a caption for one of the figures, he listed a brand name (Squibb), in addition to the Newfoundland oil.”
* “In making shore oil, the fish were caught by small boats near the shore and brought in the same day; the livers were then frozen and the oil pressed out.”
* “Squibb’s published material stated that the cold Norwegian weather permitted the pressing of the fresh oil at a low temperature.[29] After its rendering, the oil was kept in airtight containers and away from sunlight. The description made a clear distinction between the darker oil (“banks oil,” from livers allowed to decompose in barrels on larger boats that remained out for several days) and their oil—the lighter, fresh shore oil made from fresh livers. This light oil is what Price called “excellent oil.””
Full article:
http://blog.ppnf.org/cod-liver-oil-a-historical-perspective/
I can’t take anyone seriously who is not open enough to use their real name.
He quoted PP and provided a link I really don’t think it matters about his name. Let’s not keep splitting hairs.
I should have also noted that in no way is using a sub-species of the same species fraud: a dog is a dog, whether German Shephard, Yorkshire Terrier, or a Heinz 57. Alaskan Pollack is cod, so let’s stop calling this “fraud”. And so what if some of the butter for butter oil comes from grass-fed cattle in Argentina? I don’t care one bit, so long as we get our butter oil! With grass-based dairies in short supply here in the US, what is the problem with importing in order to have what we need?!
The problem, Maureen, is the continuing pattern of non disclosure by WAPF and David Wetzel. As for your “all dogs are alike” analogy, I might remind you, if I’m looking to pay for a German Shephard, I don’t want to be sent a poodle. If poodles are as wonderful as Alaskan Pollock, why not accurately disclose the information on the label?
The same with the Argentine butter. If Argentine butter was so great, they would be bragging about it, not hiding it.
Sally’s stock response about not disclosing the true source of the products has been, “industry standards say we don’t have to disclose this information.” So when big Agri hides info it’s immoral and fraudulent. When WAPF and Green Pastures do it, it’s considered OK.
Um… David did not “hide” anything. He is now and has always been 100% forthcoming with information whenever asked. Since the type of cod used at any given time will depend on supply it is perfectly reasonable that he simply put “cod” on the label and give people more details upon request. This is really a non-issue.
Really? How would you know? What is your connection to him? And why are people reporting EXACTLY the opposite…
http://chriskresser.com/important-update-on-cod-liver-oil/#comment-571764
No, it really is a big issue, which is why so many people are upset by the revelation.
How would I know? Because I happen to be an informed consumer (and GP customer) who pays attention to what I buy and from whom. I also ask manufacturers directly when I want to know something about their product that I can’t find an answer to elsewhere. Relationships, and a sense of mutual respect for one another, soon emerges from that open line of communication. I also realize that these small-scale producers are only human, so I don’t expect perfection from them. I will always afford them the benefit of the doubt, allowing them the opportunity to rectify the situation if I have a problem with something they’ve done. It’s the decent thing to do. I find the vindictive attitude and knee-jerk accusations (based off of hearsay) to be absolutely atrocious, and I can only hope that it’s coming from your garden-variety astroturfers rather than real people within the WAPF membership.
Also, I don’t look at internet comment sections as an accurate measure of public sentiment, considering the now wide-spread practice of astroturfing and shilling that is done under fake aliases to discredit businesses and/or organizations that expose industry corruption and ruffle feathers. We’ll see how folks really feel about this at the next WAPF conference or local chapter meetings.
Many people are upset, but this is a manufactured crisis. Many people have no knowledge of supply-chain issues and how much more complex it is to always ensure you have a steady supply of raw materials for your products when they are wild-caught. Even grown crops have interruptions of supply when harvests are bad or exchange rates go wonky. For this reason, manufacturers of many products are permitted to give themselves some wiggle room in labeling to avoid having to re-do labels with each different batch of a product. There is always going to be some natural variation in natural, wild foods. People are expecting factory precision; if you want that, you may as well admit you prefer processed foods. Check out salad dressing labels as an example of what I’m talking about. They often say things like “Canola and/or soybean oil,” and as long as the FDA approves both ingredients as basically interchangeable from a food safety standpoint, the manufacturer doesn’t have to specify exactly what ends up being used in a given batch, only what the possibilities are.
Unless someone can demonstrate that the four major fish species that are collectively referred to as “cod” are not basically interchangeable, nutritionally speaking, I think this is a non-issue. And GP has promised to change their labels to be more detailed in order to please their customers.
I like an expose of an evil corporation as much as the next person, but I don’t think that’s objectively what’s going on here.
Nutritionally speaking, only Atlantic Cod, the traditional species used for CLO, has higher DHA than EPA levels. That is not interchangeable. What exactly that means to the body, I don’t know. A quick websearch revealed this from labdoor.com:
“According to the research reviewed here, DHA outperforms EPA in reducing total triglyceride counts and increasing HDL (good) cholesterol. Alternatively, EPA has a more beneficial effect on lowering overall LDL (bad) cholesterol.
In the cognitive domain, DHA appears to offer greater mental benefits. DHA has been suggested to be more effective in improving overall cognition and preventing cognitive decline in healthy older adults.”
FWIW
Where has GPP promised to change their labels to be more detailed? I have heard this rumored, but have not seen it officially stated. I would be interested to see it. As a reseller of their products, we have received no such notification (not that they would necessarily send one).
That is Chris’s OPINION, just as Kaayla’s piece is an OPINION paper. It is not a scientific paper if she will not release the name of the testing companies.
David, “… is now and has always been 100% forthcoming with information whenever asked”. Really? I wish I had saved that email reply from him of seven or so years ago when he flippantly dismissed a question I had regarding the Omega-6 to -3 ratio in his FCLO. I was asking for my 87-year old uncle with prostate cancer. Dave brushed me off with a “it’s food” answer. I have never before or since been responded to in that manner by ANY seller or service provider. I am not alone. A very well known and respected health practitioner in the ancestral community who sells FCLO in their online store told me last week, “Over the years we’ve had other dealings with him (Wetzel) and he has been arrogant, abrasive, and rude.” Is this the way a man acts who has nothing to hide?
Yes, I also wish that you had proof of this “flippancy” you allude to, because I have both experienced myself and heard from the majority of David’s customers quite the opposite regarding his willingness to answer questions. I suspect that you more than likely misinterpreted his response. It just doesn’t make logical sense that he would be flippant to some and forthcoming to others, and I don’t believe that David suffers from split personalities.
Could it be that “Sally’s stock response” is actually based on fact? Might I suggest you actually call the FDA and ask them what the labeling requirements are?
There’s a website for that. I’ve posted the link a number of places.
Your analogy is completely bogus. Pollock and cod are not different subspecies of a species. They are not the same species at all. They are the same GENUS. Common dogs are members of the same subspecies, Canus lupus familiaris, and we can see the many variations there. They have different nutritional needs, and different health concerns, therefore, if we were to eat them, their nutritional profile would be different from breed to breed. Dogs are the same species as wolves, and you can see the vast difference between chihuahuas (or even St. Bernards) and wolves. Jackals and coyotes and foxes are members of the genus Canus. This is the relationship that we are talking about between Pollock and Pacific or Atlantic Cod. That is another level of separation entirely. It is as somebody mentioned, the difference between a lion and a tiger, or a panther and a housecat. A pollock can weigh up to 46lbs according to wiki. By contract an Atlantic Cod (which most of us thought we were getting due to the “viking” story and other such references (Oslo Orange?)) can weigh 200+. That plus the fact that the FDA website specifically says that it is not acceptable to market pollock as cod . . . .
WRONG. Cod is the SPECIES… (not the “Family”, and not the “Genus”). Look it up.
From where are you getting your information? Here is a wiki entry that explains scientific names. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomic_rank
What we are talking about is cod, correct? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod
Oh, and Alaska Pollock. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_pollock
Notice if you will that the “family” for all of these 4 fish, three under the cod entry and the pollock, is “Gadidae”. They each of the same genus of “Gadus”. And then each of the different kinds of cod and the pollock are different species:
Gadus morhua – Atlantic Cod – used in most cod liver oils – traditional source of CLO – higher in DHA than EPA, unlike any other cod according to an article by Dave Wetzel.
Gadus macrocephalus – Pacific Cod – purportedly used in Green Pasture Products, from multiple sources, but no statement on this directly from GPP.
Gadus ogac – Greenland Cod
Gadus chalcogrammus – Alaska Pollock – reclassified as Gadus less than 2 years ago. Also purportedly used in GPP products.
This, while “scientific”, is not difficult to understand. Each of these fish is a totally different SPECIES. Since you challenge me to look it up, please provide the source where you have looked it up to reach the conclusion that all of these fish are the same species.
Steve is right and Amanda is WRONG. Yes Amanda, I did look it up. According to http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/?set=seafoodlist&sort=SLSN&order=ASC&startrow=1&type=basic&search=pollock, Pollock or Alaska Pollock has the common name of Walleye Pollock and the scientific name of Gadus chalcogrammus. That same website shows Atlantic Cod to be Gadus morhua. Gadus is the genus, chalcogrammus and morhua are the species names.
Some confusion over its genus name could be because Alaska Pollock used to be classified in the Theragra genus and had its name recently changed because it was recognized as being morphologically more similar to the Gadus species. This change has been recognized in the newest edition of the American Fisheries Society Common and Scientific Names of Fishes (2013), the standard followed by the NMFS Scientific Publications Office.
For those that don’t know genus from species, the fact that Alaska Pollock and Atlantic Cod are in the same genus is confirmed by this sentence “Authors (Coulson et al., 2006; Carr and Marshall, 2008) chose to include the Gadus and Theragra cod lineages together in the single genus Gadus” as it appears in http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Quarterly/OND2013/divrptsRACE1.htm.
Furthermore, you are once again WRONG and showing your ignorance when you claim that dogs have “different nutritional profiles”… in fact, they do not (despite what the petfood manufactures would have you believe). All dogs are carnivores, just like wolves, and they ALL require a diet of raw meat and bones in order to achieve optimal health. That’s a fact.
I am a customer and I feel defrauded that I was not told I was buying pollock liver oil, in however small the quantity, and however scientists have quantified the difference between the 2 fish.
Why is that? Because Kaayla Daniel told you that you should feel defrauded? Are you aware that Pollock is just the name of a fish in the cod species… and therefore IS cod?
Why do you keep saying cod is the species for all these fish? Wikipedia says “Cod is the common name for the genus Gadus of demersal fishes, belonging to the family Gadidae.” Pollack is part of the family Gadidae, so by most classifications, it’s not even the same genus. Also, dogs have evolved the ability to eat starch from their association with humans and are considered omnivores, not strict carnivores.
@Bill The fact that dogs have developed the ability to tolerate starch, due to their domestication via human intervention, does not mean that they get any nutritional benefit from the consumption thereof… and it certainly doesn’t magically make dogs “omnivores,” just because people routinely feed their dogs kibble. A dog left to its own devices in the wild (their natural environment) will hunt small animals for food, and consume a diet primarily of raw meaty bones. If they can not find prey dogs may feed on whatever is around, but that doesn’t change their nature as true carnivores… it only removes them from the ‘obligate carnivore’ category (aka “strict carnivore”). For example, cats are considered to be ‘obligate carnivores’ due to the fact that they lack the ability to synthesize Taurine (an amino acid found primarily in muscle meat that is essential to feline nutrition).
Domestication did, in fact, “magically” change dogs into omnivores. That is, the ability to glean nutrition from plant materials was selected for in dogs due to domestication. They have the ability to digest starch that their wolf ancestors did not. I am well aware that cats are obligate carnivores. That’s irrelevant. Dogs are classified by scientists as omnivores because they can and do eat plant and animal foods. I don’t really care what you want to feed your dogs–that’s not the issue. You have not replied to the point about cod classification. You arrogantly told another poster they were wrong (in capitals), then telling them to look it up. I didn’t know who to believe, so I LOOKED IT UP! You were wrong, way wrong. I really don’t have a cod in this fight and am just trying to follow the arguments as they now exist. You’ve lost significant credibility by persisting in berating people that pollock was in the same species as cod, when it was in the same FAMILY.
“Domestication did, in fact, “magically” change dogs into omnivores.”
No it didn’t. The only scientists who make this claim are those that have been hired by the petfood manufacturers to say it. Furthermore, whether or not YOU believe dogs to be carnivores is irrelevant, considering that plant-based foods still have zero nutritional benefit to dogs whether they can consume it or not. The point that was brought up was that different dogs have different “nutritional profiles” when in fact they don’t. All dogs have the exact same nutritional requirements. Period.
As for my comment about cod being the species (not the “family” or “genus”), I was referring to Pacific Cod …as FCLO is made from 90% Pacific Cod, and it belongs to the Cod species.
In my 2nd comment under that I mistakenly typed/referenced “Pollock” while still thinking of Pacific Cod… so, yes, that comment was in error.
Hard for me to understand why the outrage over Pollock is still being brought up, now that we know FCLO is made primarily from Pacific Cod (which is actual cod).
Amanda, you’ve really lost it. Dogs were classified as omnivores due to pet food manufacturing funding?! Christ, I’m glad you’re so sure they don’t get any nutrition from what they eat when it is not raw meat and bones. Just how much of a threat do you think raw food pet feeding is to the pet food industry, how long ago did they foresee this coming, and how did they manage the massive amount of funding required to rig genetic findings about genes that code for starch digestion? Man, they are better than the tobacco company.
I personally don’t know or care what the industry standard is for labeling something cod, when it is only 90% cod. You and I both belong to a food movement that doesn’t tolerate industry-standard lies, however, and you kept saying that all the “cod” in FCLO is cod by species, which it is not. Now, you don’t think it’s a big deal–and frankly I might not care if I could still afford FCLO–but it is lying and as others have pointed out to you is rejected as fraudulent by the FDA. Why is it OK for the virtuous but not for the heathens.
I posted my comment because you aggressively told others to look up something that was not true. I am trying to sort out what’s happening like a lot of people, but don’t appreciate being bamboozled with a lot of talking points, cable news style.
Bill, if you’ve not done much research into petfood manufacturing then you’d be surprised at just how much influence they hold over the entire pet industry. It is not an exaggeration to compare their influence to the influence that Pharma has over the healthcare industry and regulatory departments. Just as Pharma funds the medical universities, so do pet food companies fund the veterinary schools and trade associations. Do a google search on “Junk Pet Food and the Damage Done” and you will find a very interesting expose detailing this by a veterinarian who moved well up the ladder in the vet industry.
There is no such thing as “the cod species”. You might say there is a cod “Genus” but each of them is a different species, as I have stated many times. So it doesn’t matter whether you were referring to Pacific Cod, or Atlantic Cod, or Greenland Cod, or Alaska Pollock, the statement that any one of those are members of “the cod species (not the “family” or “genus”)” is categorically incorrect. A correct statement would be that they are all different species under the genus “Gadus”. If somebody told you otherwise, you should inform them of the truth.
Amanda: Where coyotes and manzanita (Arctostaphylos sp.) coexist in the wild, coyote scat is rich in partially-digested manzanita berries. I’ve seen it many times. I do not know, but suspect that other wild canids, and feral domestic dogs seek out a wider variety of foods than raw meaty bones (and anyone who has lived with a dog knows they readily graze the kitchen floor for anything remotely edible).
Gary, I would not argue against that point. In fact, I already stated that dogs will eat whatever is around if they can’t find prey. This does not mean that dogs are not carnivores. It means that they are not ‘obligate carnivores’.
Amanda: Yes, you are correct; cats are obligate carnivores. I say that as a slave to two cats who are driving me to the poorhouse with their demand for pastured beef and chicken (they also get some egg with the finely-chopped shell, a bit of ground sunflower seed, dulse, and gelatin, and a pinch of calcium ascorbate, and sometimes tinned sardines (though they’re not too crazy about fish). Important to note, too, that no herbivore is 100% herbivorous-grazers consume insects when they graze, nor is any carnivore 100% carnivorous-wild felids eat the intestinal contents of their prey with gusto.
Dogs are finicky eaters when it comes to anything other then meat and cow shit. They are basically carnivores and all carnivores, wolves, coyotes and cats included will eat pretty much anything if they are hungry enough. I had a dog that hated peas and if he accidently licked one up he would spit it out. The peas he left behind the other dog would eagerly clean up.
Bill, yes, Alaska Pollack and Pacific Cod and Atlantic Cod all below to the family Gadidae. But they also all belong in the genus Gadus, which means they all belong to the same subset of the family Gadidae.
They are not the same species. That’s the point. Wikipedia mentioned some disagreement about whether they are the same genus or just the same family, which other commentators have clarified. I am not expert but simply looked it up as instructed by someone shouting out “WRONG.” It would be nice to have a factually-oriented inquiry because I don’t know which side is right. But some people want to choose sides and start hurling talking points.
Legally the FDA does not allow pollock to be labeled as cod. Go to the FDA’s “:Guidance for Industry: The Seafood List – FDA’s Guide to Acceptable Market Names for Seafood Sold in Interstate Commerce” and click on one of the numerous links to “The Seafood List.” Type in pollock then “Show Items”. Cod does NOT show up under the heading, “Acceptable Market Name(s)”. Legally, it is fraud.
Lynn, “legally” the FDA also does not allow the labeling of GMOs …or the sale of raw milk …or the labeling of proper nutritional information on food / supplements. What is your point? Since when have we in the real food community ever cared about what the FDA advises?
Yep, I don’t care much about what the FDA advises. My point is 1. I thought I was buying cod liver oil and personally feel the label should have told me I wasn’t, or that it might be a mixture of cod & pollock depending on availability, and 2. It was legally fraud to not have that on the label. Some folks could care less, some say pollock liver has more nutrition than cod liver in some seasons (like spawning), whatever. I feel I was misled, just as many Brits were in 2013 when the fish in some fish and chips was listed as cod when it was in fact haddock or pollock or whiting.
So, you admit that you couldn’t care less about what the FDA says, despite the fact that you’ve been complaining about *the possibility* that GP *may* not be following FDA labeling guidelines. Yep. Makes perfect sense.
Do you prefer that sawdust is not added to your sprouted wheat?
Bill, that is an absurd comparison and you know it. Sawdust is not even edible… much less a type of grain.
Amanda, I think you should stop flinging WRONG around because it seems to be boomeranging and smacking you. In 1997 William D. Cusick wrote a book called “Canine Nutrition Choosing the Best Food for Your Breed”, a comprehensive study of specialized nutritional needs that vary from breed to breed. Cusick is not a dog food manufacturer. Perhaps you are ignorant of the research that shows not if a breed’s characteristics affect its nutritional requirements, but how much they affect that breed’s nutritional requirements. Or you may disagree, but then we’re talking opinion, not fact.
Wow… Congratulations, Lynn. You managed to find ONE book by one guy who claims that dogs have different nutritional needs. Talk about opinions.
Here’s four other sources that categorically disagree with that opinion (one being the Price-Pottenger Foundation):
http://feline-nutrition.org/nutrition/proper-feeding-from-pottengers-cats
http://rawfed.com/myths/cats.html
http://www.rawmeatybones.com/articles/Nexus07_pub_articletext.pdf
http://truthaboutpetfood2.com/pet-food-and-rendering-plants
Amanda, I cited the book by Cusick because it’s on my shelf. It’s also now available for free as a pdf download. Mr. Cusick says his work is based on the National Research Council’s 1985 report, Nutrient Requirements of Dogs, where he says not one research study showed two breeds to have the same nutritional requirements for any one nutrient.
Not much is available about Mr. Cusick’s background other than he appears to have been a chemist or biochemist. Rather than focusing on him, I think it’s more important to look at his source, the NRC report. Looking it up just now, I see that report is available on the internet. Perhaps you can find some fallacious reasoning in the report, or find that Mr. Cusick misrepresented that research.
As for our discussion now, your first two links are about cats. I don’t see that cat feeding has any bearing on a discussion about dietary needs of different dog breeds, nor does pet food and rendering plants. Dr. Lonsdale’s opinion piece talks more about feeding in general, and the disadvantages of commercial pet food. I’m not saying I do, but there are many that disagree with his approach. Nothing you have linked to has dissuaded me from the view that perhaps the information Mr. Cusick presents about different dog breeds needing different diets is correct. I’m not saying I agree with his recommendations, because I am not going to feed my dog wheat, soy, or oats as he recommends. I recognize his recommendations are opinions only, not facts.
My issue is what you have presented as fact has either been
1) outright incorrect (saying Alaska Pollock is the same species as cod, when it’s the same genus). Even Pacific cod is a different species than Atlantic cod. Or
2) in the realm of opinion, such as whether different dog breeds need different diets.
I think this issue is peripheral to the main topic at hand, FCLO, and I will not continue discussing it here.
Lynn, apparently you didn’t even read the sources that I linked to, as they are not just about cats, and Tom Lonsdale’s expose makes it very clear that ALL dogs are carnivores and require a diet of raw meat and bones to maintain their health. But if you’d prefer not to discuss this any further then that’s fine with me.
…and you know that this author has no financial ties to petfood manufacturers how??
Can you show me that section on the FDA website please?
Steve Tallent, that reference to the FDA website is in regard to fish. If you are selling fish you cannot say it’s cod if it’s pollock. Call the FDA and ask them about cod liver oil specifically.
Yes, and while you are on the phone with the FDA, perhaps you could report Green Pastures for fraud. FDA loves this kind of thing.
@Ellen – while I was on the phone with the FDA, they did tell me the process for reporting just such an incident as this, walked me through their website to get exactly the contact information that I needed. However, (and I did not tell them this), I chose not to do this. The last thing that we need is the FDA having another example to “prove” the need for more controls over the nutritional supplement industry. We need to be self-regulating. Sounds like Dr. Daniel tried to do that in the right way for a couple of years without success. And then she did it this way, which I certainly don’t condone as the best way. For anybody that says that the WAPF took her concerns seriously, did their due diligence, and she just went off the rails, why then are they now saying there should be and will be more testing? If 1) there was no need for further investigation and testing before, and 2) her recently revealed findings are completely without merit, is there any need for further testing?
The answer to your question is simple: The WAPF is not saying that there “should be” or that there “needs to be” more testing. They are saying that they will be doing more testing now in order to prove that Kaayla’s questionable findings are false. Because, despite her “report” being riddled with inaccuracies, some people have actually bought into her accusations “hook, line, and sinker”…
“They are saying that they will be doing more testing now in order to prove that Kaayla’s questionable findings are false.”
This is pretty much a prime example of what many have been having a problem with this whole time. It appears that conclusions have already been reached by WAPF, it is just a matter of gathering information that will support that position and suppressing any information which undermines it. How many test results would they have to get back that showed negative things before they made a public announcement? Or would they just go to Wetzel and see if he could change his process? Or would they just ignore it or let Wetzel come up with a plausible explanation? At this point, I really don’t know what they would do. Their reaction to this has not been a normal one and I have found nothing that would explain it.
Please list the negative test results here Steve. It isn’t that hard if you have them. Just list your accusation, and the test results that support it. Copy and Paste it into a comment. And give us a link to the reference that you copied it from. I would love to see it. I have not seen anything yet, here or elsewhere. I’ll check back in a day to read your answers. Thanks.
troll
One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. ‘you’re nothing but a fanboy’ is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevance to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.
Not sure why you wouldn’t call yourself to verify your own claims, but I took up your challenge and did call the FDA – twice, navigated their menu system. First time was told that if it was a food (as Dave Wetzel states), then it would be governed by the Seafood List. If it was a dietary supplement, then it would be governed by the dietary supplement labeling guidelines and the rep wasn’t sure if the Seafood List would apply. I read through the pertinent issues of the dietary supplement labeling guidelines, a lengthy, multipart document that I’m not unfamiliar with in my business, but couldn’t find pertinent information one way or the other. Called back and was finally was directed to Dale Wohlers in their Seafood Safety division. First he said he was not an expert on this as typically they would be concerned with a safety issue like an allergy and that CLOs are usually so refined there is no potential of that. He said this was a labeling issue and would be handled by their dietary supplement division. He was going to contact the that division for more info and get back to me in a few hours. As we talked though and he got the facts of the case, “Alaska Pollock” in the product, “Cod” on the label, he used the words “misleading” multiple times, and finally, “mislabeled” – without my prompting. I just let him talk. He said that the Acceptable Market Names on the Seafood List would apply. Again, he said he is not an expert. Maybe the Dietary Supplement division will have a different story.
I just thought I’d toss it out there that there is more than one Amanda posting here. The drink’s on me, Steve Tallent, should we ever cross paths.
Sounds good. I’m a lightweight though, so it’ll have to be a small one. 🙂 We’re planning to be at Mother Earth News Fair in Seven Springs, PA, later on this month. If that works out well, we might do some more of those.
I would also like to add Maureen, that the GPP labels did at one time list that the HVBO came from cows grazing on the great plains, but around 2012 when the Midwest experience a severe drought, GPP was forced to look for other sources to meet the high demand for this product. They were out of HVBO and BIR for several months because of this shortage and this is well documented through blog posts on their website. The labels were later updated and the reference to milk from the Great Plains was removed.
if what you say is so, Carrie Hahn, about Green Pastures disclosing what it was doing = getting butter from elsewhere = then I stand corrected. In this information environment of the internet, such disclosure is ‘close enough to qualify’, as having acted in good faith.
Somebody can correct me if I’m wrong, but they didn’t disclose that they were looking elsewhere or that they were getting it elsewhere, they just removed that reference from their labels and their website.
Gordon, my timeline might not be right, but GPP did have a lot of challenges with raw milk supply. They will be releasing more details soon and I know this is one of the many issues from Kaayla’s paper that they will be addressing.
Carrie, if you don’t mind my asking, how do you know? And do you know when “soon” might be?
Because I asked. Soon, is all I was told.
I asked too. I didn’t get a response. Maybe they are mad at me?
So sad, so true. I’d thought about joining the WAPF but no longer will consider it.
Rigidity in thought = stagnation = rot.
It sure is hard to watch things unfold in this manner! Thank you for keeping us informed on this important topic.
Hi David,
Clearly, some people have felt hurt around this matter no matter what their perspective is.
You assert that “the wounds won’t heal soon” and I am quite weary of putting that onto our community as an negative affirmation. I wonder if you may be saying that your own wounds in this matter may not heal soon? I hope this framework by which to forgive may be of value: http://www.drwaynedyer.com/blog/how-to-forgive-someone-in-15-steps/
I am utilizing it myself.
I think these words have quite true: “Conflict cannot survive without your participation.” – Wayne Dyer
I personally think that if you have concerns, it may be most efficient to direct them to the Foundation directly in the form of direct questions rather than accusations. I encourage you to ask what you need clarity about and make requests for the actions you seek.
Hi Sandrine,
I read the Wayne Dyer suggestions on forgiving and, like much of what he has written, they are well taken. They take on more poignancy because he died today, at age 75.
I personally have not felt anger toward anyone over this cod liver oil situation. Perhaps dismay would be more my feeling. As I said in other places on this comment page, neither I nor Kaayla Daniel nor Ron Schmid are the first to raise concerns about possible adverse health problems from FCLO. The site “Nourished and Nurtured” first raised them in early 2013, and the post drew more than 250 responses.
http://nourishedandnurtured.blogspot.ca/2013/01/why-we-stopped-taking-fermented-cod.html
There have been periodic concerns raised in Facebook comments since then. I raised them again nearly a year ago in a blog post, which I ended by asking for more research. Nothing ever happened from my raising the issue and, according to Kaayla Daniel, from her raising the issue directly to WAPF directors.
http://davidgumpert.com/simmering-cod-liver-oil-imbroglio-heats-up-for-wapf-conference
I’d say that Ron Schmid’s experience (getting sick, and then being booted out of the WAPF conference) was kind of the straw that broke the camel’s back for me. I am dismayed that after all the complaints about FCLO and then the convincing Daniel test results, the reaction at WAPF continues to be one of hunkering down. At the least, I would expect a request for Green Pasture to provide some sort of health and safety warning about potential problems from using too much of the product, along with followup research into the cause of the bad reactions.
I also truly worry, as I said in my post, that we could all be penalized by this situation if the FDA were to become involved. (And once again, please understand I am not giving them any ideas–the FDA and other government agencies very closely monitor situations involving complaints about supplements and food.) If the FDA gets involved, and possibly Congress after that in trying to limit our access to supplements (as Congress has attempted previously, unsuccessfully), we could all pay a dear price in accessing such items because of the insistence by WAPF that it’s “the messengers” like Daniel and Schmid who are at fault.
Personally, I have tried to focus on the facts, and keep my language non-accusatory. I wish we could all just shake hands, as it were, and part friends over this. I’m not sure it would take that much–just some kind of acknowledgment that there is a potential problem here, and that we need to come together and figure out what it is. But as I said in the post, I don’t see signs of that happening, and the longer this drags on with accusations and counter-accusations, the harder the feelings become. Thank you again for sharing your concerns, and for pushing toward healing.
David, thank you very much for your response, all your writings are absolutely right on.
I’m very sad that the foundation didn’t pledge allegiance to its members during this whole situation and they choose to endorse GP without condition. If they would have kept their focus on the members that would have been a great example of an independent group ability to self regulate themselves. Now with their reaction it is like they are calling for government regulations. This is certainly not a very mature handling of the situation.
I’m also disappointed and surprised by the various ways people are perceiving each party. Many people are reading malintention in either one side or the other of the discussion. We all perceive the world around us through the lenses of our life baggage. I’m thinking of a great book that would have help all parties navigate this hard time. “Crucial Conversations, Tools For Talking When Stakes Are High”.
Thanks again for reporting.
Marie, you really need to speak for yourself here and not for “the members” as a whole. I know that I myself, as a WAPF member, and many other WAPF members I know (both in my local chapter as well as abroad) are in full agreement with Sally Fallon’s handling of this situation… and in fact are hoping that she will go even further in removing Kaayla Daniel from the Board of Directors for this stunt.
there’s more than just a “potential problem here”. Negotiators from Canada and the US of A spend vast amounts of time and bureaucratic energy, hammering-out regulations to do with “Country of Origin” labeling for meat products. That’s so unscrupulous producers won’t take advantage of the good faith which USED TO BE presumed in America.
…. As Wise as they think they are in their own Tradition, the directing mind of the WA Price Foundation blundered on this one … failing to grasp that – in this information age – transparency is everything.
… I have high regard for Dave Wetzel for his initiative getting Xfactor butter oil available. And even more for his work proving that feeding soil bacteria with milk improves pasture. But he made a big mistake by hiding the fact that Green Pastures had out-sourced its butter supply. It takes a big person to admit an error. A good start to ending this strife, would be for him and Sally Fallon to apologize to the general community – just on this one important point. From the little I know about them, they have what it takes
Interesting that in Sally Fallon’s Q&A, she asks whether everyone should take GP FCLO, and she says, NO, that they can take any CLO recommended by WAPF… (Helpful link supplied by her.) In other words, any CLO for which someone is paying WAPF?
The WAPF’s recommendations of GP’s Blue Ice FCLO predates the company sponsoring the Wise Traditions conference. The amount of money involved is not huge for either GP or WAPF. The exposure is, of course, very valuable, which is why so many companies like to sponsor the conferences. Would you prefer to pay higher prices for tickets and have no companies present, no chance to meet the vendors and sample their products, ask them questions? Because that would be the alternative. There is no way that all the products recommended by WAPF are only from companies that advertise with them. You don’t have to trust their recommendations, but if you don’t, why do you even care about this issue? Even good-faith recommendations should be taken at face value. None of us should outsource all our decision-making to any person or organization. Do your own research.
Your comment is totally out of line. Unless you have some evidence you would like to present…..
Thanks for this David. My wife and I both have had vast experiences with personality-based fundamentalist organizations. We are all too familiar with the way that conflict is handled dissenters kicked to the curb with seemingly legitimate reasons given to supporters. Most of these supporters buy into the rhetoric, shun the dissenters, and the group becomes ever more insular. Anybody that has any future cautions or concerns has learned to keep silent for fear of losing position, reputation and relationships. The personality grows in boldness and tolerance diminishes as the power base is solidified. Eventually just about everybody gets burnt and cast aside for some infraction or other (whether real or invented), and the organization implodes. A lot of people get hurt along the way though.
Trenchant observation, Steve. Don’t know if you’re old enough to remember Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer, but some of those who are commenting in favor of GP sound like such folks, although I’m happy to report that most of the people I’ve met at the conferences are fully capable of independent, analytical thinking (not too many sheeple). Like me, I suspect these folks are not at all satisfied with the responses so far. Eerie parallels here, though with the cult of vaccination, and CDC obfuscation, stonewalling, and burial of inconvenient findings. Lab analyses are a good first step, but are incapable of saying much about safety or effectiveness on a population level (efficacy is a term used in vaccine licensing, and it simply means the ability to produce a desired result, that of sufficiently raising antibody titers-not providing actual immunity). There are simply too many unknown chemical compounds in FCLO. Only an RTC with sufficiently large cohorts over sufficient time, controlling for a single variable, can truly address these concerns, and who’s going to pay for it? The NIH (stands for Never Investigate Hazards)? In your dreams. So we’re stuck with either beliefs or gut feelings. My gut feeling is stick with food.
I don’t know whether you’re referring to me, as I’ve been active on this forum, but I’m not defending GP or the WAPF, per se, I’m just against faulty logic, misrepresentation of facts, hysterical overreaction and rushing to judgment, as I’ve seen all over the Internet in the past week. I’m also not a fan of fundamentalist organizations with a tinge of personality cult to them, but, I also don’t believe in conflating the issues and focusing on personal flaws instead of facts. I’m personally trying to sort out the facts and listen to good points from all sides of this issue, and it is distressing to see so much use of logical fallacies and rushing to judgment.
Jeanmarie: I’m certainly not referring to you. You are clearly as fully capable of independent, analytical thinking as are most of those I’ve met who are involved in WAPF, and I find your posts add to the discussion. Keep it up.
One major difference here is that, unlike with vaccination, nobody is being forced or otherwise coerced to buy or use FCLO. Likewise, nobody is being fear mongered that they are putting their own health or the health of others at great risk if they don’t start taking FCLO. Another major difference is that the scientific evidence against vaccination is both well documented as well as transparent. So far we have hearsay and a lot of accusations based on one woman’s questionable findings made public under suspicious motives. Show us some kind of legit evidence to backup these accusations and I will gladly change my tune. Until then I’m afraid this outrage is much ado about nothing. On the flip side, I’m curious if some of you would admit to overreacting if further testing/research proves the majority of these allegations to be false (again). Something tells me not to hold my breath on that one…
My concerns are the deceptive (or at the very least misleading) marketing practices and the labeling issues. These have not been addressed to my satisfaction (have not been addressed at ALL by GPP). Testing is not going to make those go away. Information is changing on both GPP and WAPF sites to fit current story lines and whole articles are disappearing which might cause recriminations. This has the look and feel of a coverup. What is there to cover up? I have no idea. I do know that if we saw Merck or Mansanto act like this in the wake of allegations, WAPF among others would be crying “foul!” When you can’t get a straight answer or an answer at all, when the answers that you are getting from different people in the know are conflicting, when information is being covered up, disappearing, and/or changed, it does not make for an environment where, “just trust us” is going to work for me.
Sorry, meant RCT. Gettin’ old.
Through my career I have known well over 100 trade and professional associations and worked with many of them. Never, ever do they recommend a particular brand. Any suggestion to do so would never be tolerated by their board or members. They do not recommend or rate or prefer one brand over another because it is not within their charter as a tax-exempt trade or professional association and if they did there would be a huge amount of fighting. If WAPF was not doing this then this type of fight and hurt feelings would not be happening. It is not necessary and should stop
I’m guessing the WAPF may want to rethink some of their policies after this brouhaha, especially if it actually does turn out that some of Kaayla Daniels’ allegations are borne out. I may be wrong, but it’s been my impression over the years that the product recommendations from WAPF are in response to members’ requests for guidance in choosing nutrient-dense foods: “Help! What can I buy?” WAPF is hardly unique in seeking company sponsorships to help defray the costs of holding its conferences. WAPF is not a trade or professional organization, it is an educational organization. It may be that a well-intended service to members (sorting out which are the truly good, trustworthy producers of nutrient-dense foods and associated products) is backfiring enough to not be worth the risk. That would be a shame, in my opinion. I think they probably need to add language to the effect that “These are good-faith recommendations based on our personal experience, listed ingredients, and members’ recommendations, and are only meant to be a starting point for your own research. The WAPF does not take responsibility for members’ shopping choices.”
I think this falls under anti-competitive laws and I think it is outside your legal charter and if so it exposes WAPF to losing the tax-exempt status. Further it is impossible to maintain the list because of changing factors etc. What some associations do is write recommended specifications for products (such as organic certification). An example would be the raw milk production practices and standards they have published. It is not necessary to recommend brands and they should consider dropping this activity.
The could develop generic standards. These would be sent out to the board (or others) for review and written comment before a final standard is adopted which can be revised from time to time. This is the way it is done in professional associations and in government regulatory development and industry standard setting and quality management/best practice organizations for which I have direct experience.
David
First we got a bunch of people with egos getting in the way – Sally Fallon, Kaayla Daniel, Ron Schmid, Dave Wetzel. You would think that they would be sitting around the table and talking and figuring out the situation. But instead they are all over the internet blog discussing it.
I’m not sure about your neutrality or fairness. I have seen Chris MasterJohn and Sally Fallon has written some good response and I’m not sure why they are not being mentioned in your blog and only see a few tidbit in the comment seciton.
First, I agree that there are questions about dosage, type of fish, testing, but I think we missing out the bigger picture here….
1) Dosage – it has always been known that some people can’t tolerate Cod liver. I know WAPF has mentioned it several times here and there and even Dr. Price. The takeaway here is we now know and should publicize that we don’t know the exact dose and everyone is different and the safe side is minimum dose.
2) Type of fish – I don’t know if other brands like Carlson uses exclusively cod too. Is it a mislabeling? I think the best thing Dave can do is simply either call it Fish liver oil unless he uses cod. Furthermore can testing be done to see if there are differences in vitamin A/D and such with Pollock and Cod? If none, there may be no issue!
3) Ron Schmid – I think he truly did violate the WAPF guidelines of attacking other vendors and such as Sally Fallon mentioned. I’m not really sure why Sally, Kaayla and Ron and folks could have met, issue an apology and move on pledging to work together to defuse tension and come to a better understanding.
4) WAPF has long ago endorsed many cod liver oil – it starts their recomendation with the least processed one, the one that use natural vitamins and all. People are saying why aren’t they testing GP. I think the question can be is why aren’t they testing all the Cod Liver oil and such? The reason is they can’t. I don’t think they have a big budget to do all these intensive testing and all. Only organizations that are giving billions like the pharmaceutical, supplement or government agencies like FDA have the money to do these kinds of things.
5) WAPF – You can’t throw the baby out with the bath water. If you look at their dietary guidelines and dangers and journals and all on the website – you have to admit that they are NOT rigid and have lots of great information and resources. They just are NOT a big money organization. You can see their budget and all on the website and it’s peanuts. It is backed by many who believe in whole food, natural health, community and action. This is why this whole thing is a sad as it’s tearing up the community over stuff like cod liver dosage…
David – you should be focusing your energy on trying to build the community and pull it together. From your writing, it seems you focusing more on dividing it. The only thing I see to hear both sides and such are in the comment section.
Obviously there are ego and anger with everyone. The only way forward is for you, Sally, Kaayla, Dave, Ron, Chris and all to come together to the table and agree to hash it out and issue a joint statement that will address every issue and admit that mistakes were made and make amend and apology and move forward.
Regardless of what anyone else says I do know that my cats refuse to even consider consuming fermented cod liver oil, let alone my kids and the rest of my family. It doesn’t pass the smell test.
I am not a cat person, however I share your cat’s aversion to cod liver oil , fermented or not.
I think this subject needs some oxygen and time to rest….talk about torturing a now dead horse!! Ugly and divisive…
Onto some great news!!
Let me share some exciting new information coming from our dear friend Dr. Joe Heckman at Rutgers. In order to not offend anyone at various government agencies….I will walk lightly as I share this breaking news for fear of the invitation being rejected.
I have been invited to defend raw milk and co present with Dr. Heckman at the 2016 IAFP conference. The International Association of Food Protection is an amalgamation of domestic and international food safety experts. A featured subject for the 2016 conference is “raw milk” and will festure a grand debate between both sides of the food safety argument.
I am both honored and excited to be invited by Dr. Heckman to be his debate and presentation partner as we defend raw milk as an emerging very safe and very nutritious food with plenty of benefits. It has become very clear as pasteurized milk fails in the market place…that raw milk is emerging to again take its rightful place after 100 years of oppression. If we can put a man on the moon….we can put safe delicious raw milk in a cup. Technology and understanding of conditions and special standards reduce risk to a minimum. Arguably at a risk legel far below processed dairy products. This is going to be fun. The hard safety data is now in…and the emerging market news is undeniable.
FYI the UN has raw milk production standards for human consumption
Exciting news Mark! Thanks for sharing!
1) Chris Masterjohn’s report may be scientifically accurate, I don’t really know because I don’t have enough of a science background. (Although it seems even the scientists can’t agree on some of this.) If it is accurate, what he told us was, testing won’t tell us anything. If it shows high peroxides, an early sign of rancidity, well that could just be K2. If it shows this, well that could be good, or bad. He didn’t say that Dr. Daniel’s conclusions were all wrong, but that there could be other explanations for . . . anything and everything, and that it was not good to jump to conclusions. He said their COULD be problems, but gave GPP plausible deniability for everything – including the transfats, which should never appear in CLO.
2) Does it strike anybody else as ludicrous, that in spite of WAPF discounting and discrediting and explaining away every single significant point that Kaayla Daniel was trying to make, they have pledged to do more testing, which was all she asked them to do in the first place???
3) I’ve heard of 3 incidents where Sally has invoked this vendor policy. All three involved FCLO. Maybe that’s just a coincidence. I’ve been a vendor. Somehow I don’t think Sally would rush to my defense in the same way.
Sandrine’s experience with FCLO:
http://onibasu.com/archives/cl/36509.html
The thing is most people don’t realize that everyone is different. Stress for example depletes Vitamin D. Those who live higher up in the Northern Hemisphere or don’t go out in the middle of clear day don’t get enough vitamin D. Also if you have gall bladder problems or stones, you may not metabolize it efficiently. Really everyone is different…. even Dr. Price observed some do not recover from cod liver oil hence came up with the activator X discovery (Vitamin K2). Really the only statement we can all make is Vitamin D and A are important and to eat a whole food diet, get sunshine on certain conditions, keep stress level low and such. Nothing is 100% guarantee…
A sometimetimes I don’t know what to feel but I usually instinctively know what to eat science is great but nobody know you like you do
Augie,
Please provide the link showing the UN standards for raw milk for human consumption. Thx.
I am not sure bu this may be it https://books.google.com/books?id=a3RzdQi9vxkC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=united+nations+food+agriculture+who+standards+for+raw+milk+production+food&source=bl&ots=H0wzbd3iSy&sig=b2YrKtU7kFyOGdhGrXt4MyU-EWQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CFIQ6AEwCGoVChMIpoCx8u3axwIVBtSACh0H0Q1f#v=onepage&q=united%20nations%20food%20agriculture%20who%20standards%20for%20raw%20milk%20production%20food&f=false
http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sfp/mr/mr03_en.pdf
Sally told me I can’t have the board meeting minutes. It took almost two weeks, and yes, she personally replied to my emailed request. Does that seem strange to you?
Why do you need board meeting minutes?
Well, a discussion broke out on Sarah Pope’s page early last week. There was speculation that something happened in that meeting that would cause Kaayla Daniel to prevent her findings in the manner in which she did. Sarah didn’t want to talk about it, but it seemed like from her response there was something. She said that the board meeting minutes were open to the public if you send a request. So I did send a request to try to get a better understanding of possible underlying motivations. They won’t even tell me the date of the board meeting. 🙂
Steve — It was Carrie here who suggested above that you get official documents. Perhaps she could request the minutes. She is (or at least was) a chapter leader.
Perhaps. I doubt, at this point, whether they would give them to anybody but a board member, and then only because they have to legally.
I tried posting this yesterday but it never appeared. Any member is entitled to a copy of the minutes. The request is made to the secretary of the board and that is the proper officer to respond to any requests for minutes. I think the language is something like you can request minutes for “any proper purpose.” I think it s an easy argument that it’s a proper purpose for members to want to understand the issue of endorsement of products and testing of endorsed products, and how the board is making decisions. After all a non-profit is answerable to its members and to the public. The board has a fiduciary duty to work for the organization not for any personal or private interest. And any conflict of interest must be dealt with very carefully. For example if a board member has a personal interest in a subject matter, they must recuse themselves from the discussion and voting on an issue. To review the minutes is an important way for members to give oversight to BOD performance.
If you can find a specific law regarding this that I can cite, I would love to be able to request these again with more standing and let them take THAT to the lawyers and see what they get back. I might not be able to request them, don’t know if I’m a member. Pretty sure my wife is still a member though. We just got a Journal. I can’t find anything with google searches, but I might not be using the right keywords.
Hi Steve, go to the attorney general’s office of the state in which WAPF is incorporated.They should be able to point you in the right direction. But you shouldn’t have to cite a specific law. you may also need to get a copy of the bylaws.
I seriously doubt that WAPF is getting lawyered up over this. They’re not on trial here and it really isn’t that serious.
That’s not what Sally Fallon-morell told me in her response to my request for meeting minutes. Is it possible that she knows something you do not about this situarion?
She told you that she was contacting her lawyers?
No. She told me that she HAD consulted them already. After saying that you doubted they were lawyering up insinuating that they had no need to stating they had done nothing wrong, now that you know that they have, I can’t wait to see how you flip your own script and justify the activity. 🙂
Why don’t you just copy/paste Sally’s response here and quote her directly, instead of paraphrasing what she said in your own words, because I’m still not understanding what you’re saying she contacted her lawyers about.
Is it really so hard to believe that a large organization or business would seek legal advice when having to handle an ordeal such as this? Huge accusations have been made and the prudent thing to do would be to get legal council.
No, I don’t think it is hard to believe they would contact lawyers. Others don’t think that WAPF has done anything wrong and that they wouldn’t need to contact a lawyer. If I was them I would be worried about litigation due to people being harmed by taking the levels of FCLO they had been recommending. Most lawyers would probably advise them to do exactly what they have done – admit to nothing, pretend it never happened, pretend it was always this way, bury any information that it was ever any other way, point to test results “proving” safety. That would cover their backsides. But that doesn’t make them a trustworthy organization.
Steve – I don’t know whether Sally Fallon contacted lawyers or not (or what for if she did), but I do know that seeking legal council does not automatically imply “guilt” as you seem to be insinuating. I find it funny that you keep accusing them of attempting to bury evidence just because they deleted information off of their website… as if Sally Fallon (and other board members) were somehow oblivious to the existence of the Internet Archive. Also, there is no valid legal standing for anyone to sue the WAPF over alleged harm caused by this product because the information on their site is not meant to be taken as medical advice, nor has the foundation ever represented it as such.
That’s a very good point, Carrie. I just found Steve’s assertion hard to believe within the context that he brought it up.
Well, here it is, the changing of the script that I was waiting for.
1) Blame me for things that you said. I did not say that contacting lawyers automatically implied guilt. Never did I say that. Not even anything close to that. You created that implication, but in the negative, by saying that you seriously doubted that they would be “lawyering up” because they weren’t on trial and it wasn’t serious. Therefore if they did lawyer up . . . .
2) Call me a liar. Please don’t try to say that you didn’t. “hard to believe” and “I don’t know whether Sally contacted lawyers or not” = “I don’t believe it” = “he’s making it up” = “he’s lying”. I suppose you didn’t bother to actually go look for the email that I posted on healthy home economist blog post before making these claims.
lol Steve, I know you desperately want to believe that I am some sort of mind-control victim rattling off a GP/WAPF-approved “script” over here, but I’m afraid that is not the case. In this particular instance, I just happen to be WRONG 😉 in my interpretation of what you said. My sincere apologies for that.
However, I don’t agree with your idea that I was the one who implied guilt. That is a conclusion based off of your own interpretation of what I said, rather than my actual words.
“I know you desperately want to believe that I am some sort of mind-control victim rattling off a GP/WAPF-approved “script” over here, but I’m afraid that is not the case.” I don’t believe this at all. I believe you are writing your own script in defense of WAPF/GPP. Whenever that script doesn’t work the way you wanted, you re-write on the fly.
You didn’t say that lawyering up made them guilty. But the way you worded your defense of them saying that they didn’t need to lawyer up because they weren’t guilty, unintentionally implied that they were if they did. It’s obvious that the implication was there, otherwise you wouldn’t have tried to attribute it to me. It was a product of your own creation.
“the way you worded your defense of them saying that they didn’t need to lawyer up because they weren’t guilty, unintentionally implied that they were if they did.”
Uh, yeah… except that’s actually not how I worded it. I said they’re “not on trial here” …which, by the way, is not synonymous with being guilty. So, again, that would be your interpretation.
Let’s try again. “The way you worded your defense of them saying that you didn’t think they would be lawyering up because they weren’t on trial and it wasn’t that serious, unintentionally implied that they were and it was if they did.” How is that?
Yes, but that isn’t what you’ve been arguing. You’re just moving the goal posts now that you’re stuck between a rock and a hard place. Still, I’m glad to see that you’ve finally abandoned your argument that I ever implied WAPF was “guilty” of wrongdoing, since clearly I never did.
As for calling you a liar, that’s not what I said. I said I didn’t know… which is true. I don’t know. I couldn’t possibly know that since I was not a party to this conversation. I did not re-read all the comments on Sarah Pope’s blog again, but I did skim through the comment section briefly to look for it and I didn’t find what you’re talking about… so, if it’s there I must have missed it. Not sure why you can’t simply paste it here instead of sending me on a wild goose chase to find it?
You said, “I just found Steve’s assertion hard to believe”, as in, “he’s not telling the truth”. True, you haven’t called me a liar, just strongly hinted at it.
I didn’t send you on a wild goose chase. I just didn’t do the work for you. I’m tired of researching and gathering information to put forward into this discussion and have you sit back like a judge and find fault, make excuses, tear apart, and otherwise poo-poo anything that you don’t like, and as often as not, being eventually proven wrong. As far as I can tell you have done almost no research, and brought no original source material to this discussion at all, except for links that talk about dogs being carnivores (which isn’t even germane). The information is posted, under my name, exactly where I said it was. It took me less than 1 minute to find it just now and confirm that it was indeed still there. Again, by saying above “if it is there”, you’re not CALLING me a liar, just hinting at it.
Tired of researching, you say? Um, who asked you to do any research? We’re talking about a conversation that you’ve apparently got sitting right in your own email inbox, and actually I wouldn’t be surprised if you had the relevant portion already copy/pasted into a separate note sitting on your desktop for even easier access (perhaps in a file with all the other bits of “evidence” that you seem to be collecting for your “case” against WAPF). Sorry, but I don’t think that a few clicks of the mouse qualifies as “research” and certainly not as “work”…in fact, it took more work for you to type up that lame excuse than it would have taken for you to simply copy/paste the quote here. So, there must be some other reason that you don’t care to divulge for why you don’t want to post it here. Perhaps it’s because your own version of what Sally said better supports your own argument?
PS – of course it took you less than a minute to find your own comment in that discussion. You are the one who typed it, after all.
It did take me longer to type “my excuse” than it would have to find the email and copy/paste. But I have chosen not to, and it is for the reasons I stated. If it is actually important to you, do some legwork. If it isn’t, then that’s two of us and we need never mention it again.
It will be amazing to see how you can hint at but not quite come out and say that I am lying. What exactly did I say that Sally said? I said that she said that they had contacted them [lawyers]. What was the context? The context was releasing board meeting minutes to the public. I count 8 messages in a row and one more that are specifically talking about meeting minutes. Now, it is quite possible that you missed all of that as in spite of all of that you seemed to not understand the context as you said to Carrie. Go back and reread. It’s all there.
To be VERY specific she said, “We have consulted with our legal counsel . . . .”
And yes, it did take me less than 1 minute to find my own comment, but not because I wrote it. It’s because I know how to use the browser search feature. Type “Steve”. Five references to Steve on that page.
Email is posted on healthy home economist blog in the comments on the article regarding this situation.
Finding anything at Sarah’s blog is next to impossible. It’s the worst format ever.
And, once you’ve logged in here it’s difficult to post because it “meters” the letters as you type and puts out one letter about every 3-5 seconds. Is this happening to anyone else? How can I log out each time? That’s the only way to get it to work the right way. WHY is it doing this? I just spent about 7 minutes typing this message. It’s crazy.
Any 501(c)(3) must make available board minutes to any member of the organization “if requested for a proper purpose” It should be the secretary of the board who responds to a member’s request for minutes.
I am saddened by the derogatory tone that has come to characterize most of this discussion. We would be saying the same things to each other if we were meeting to face to face? I like to think all of the actors involved are people of good will and acting in my best interests, until proven otherwise. I particularly hate to see David Gumpert’s integrity as a journalist impugned. I have followed his The Complete Patient blog from its early days and I’ve read and lent out his first book. It’s a free blog and I’m not sure what gain he derives from the time and money he spends on it. I don’t know of anyone else that covers the issues of raw milk and now CLO as he has, and he provides a service I appreciate. I’m all for correcting factual errors, but I suggest that the attack dog mode isn’t serving this community well.
I am a very interested party in the FCLO issue. I started taking 3/4 tsp. Blue Ice CLO and 1/2 tsp. Butter Oil in 2005, then FCLO and BO when FCLO was introduced, and for the last 2 years I have used 2 tsp. daily of the Blue Ice Infused FCLO/BO/Skate oil/Coconut OIl. I was aghast when I read Dr. Daniel’s report. I wondered about the effect of all the rancid and transfat oils I have consumed in FCLO for 10 years, the possibility that I was deficient in Vitamins A, D, K because the potency was far less than I had been led to believe, and all for a product that came at a high price. The Atlantic cod/Pacific cod/Pollock issue was a much lesser concern for me. Furthermore, after reading about the changes in recommended dosing levels, I believe I oversupplemented my 30 lb. dog this last year with 1 tsp. daily of the Blue Ice Infused product and his current symptoms and lab tests can be explained by hypervitaminosis A.
I’ve used Nourishing Traditions as my kitchen guidebook since 2002, attended a Nourishing Traditions conference in Denver in 2005, and joined up as a WAPF member a few years later. I don’t recall reading any cautions about not taking CLO/FCLO daily throughout the year. I thought I was doing a wonderful thing, because I don’t get much sun exposure. Now, I just don’t know.
I read the reports and conflicting arguments from Kaayla Daniel, David Wetzel, Chris Masterjohn, Chris Kresser, Sally Fallon Morrell, Sally Pope, and other bloggers/commenters, and I don’t know enough to sort them all out. I don’t know if there is one overarching expert that can rule from high and set us all straight, as Amanda Rose suggests, because there seem to be multiple fields of expertise involved. I am heartened by the bioassay results that David Wetzel reports, because I suspect bioassay results come closer to the truth than in vitro lab testing. I’m glad Kaayla Daniel started the ball rolling and that more investigations appear to be forthcoming. I do think GP should have let its customers know it was sourcing Argentenian butter and Pollock and Pacific Cod rather than Atlantic Cod, but that wouldn’t have stopped me from buying their product. But now we have to wonder what all we’re not being told. I still don’t think personal attacks have a place in this discussion.
I give my cats salmon oil sometimes (although I’m still on the fence as to whether or not it’s really necessary), but I’ve never heard of anyone administering FCLO to dogs. Does WAPF recommend this product for pets?
Amanda,
I don’t think I’ve ever seen WAPF recommend FCLO to pets. And to be clear, I was giving the Blue Ice Infused product, which is a blend of half virgin coconut oil and half FCLO/BO/Skate Oil. I was mixing the Blue Ice Infused with powdered Surthrival colostrum and adding that to my dog’s raw food meals.
I started adding the Blue Ice product because my dog was gnawing on his paws incessantly. I have read that Omega-3s are good for taming hypersensitivity reactions. I have seen salmon oil recommended for dogs, but I had the Blue Ice Infused product on hand, so I thought I would try it. I started the Blue Ice Infused product around the same time as switching to about a 90% raw diet for my dog. Fortunately the gnawing has markedly diminished in the 16 months since I made the switch. If the Blue Ice Infused product helped or hurt that hypersensitivity, I don’t know. I do think the raw diet was instrumental.
You previously accused me of not reading the links you gave me earlier about animal feeding. Not so. I still don’t think they had any bearing on the topic that was at hand then, but I did read them. In one of the feline links, they talked about cod liver oil and how they didn’t recommend it (for cats) because it was too high in Vitamin A. When I first read that, I sort of dismissed their argument, because every other CLO except GP’s adds synthetic forms of vitamins back in, so I didn’t think that argument applied to GP’s CLO. They did recommend salmon oil. When I started dosing my dog, I went by what I had seen recommended for children’s dosing. And with all the recent discussion about changes in dosing recommendations, I realized that I may well have been overdosing my dog with the Vitamin A in the Blue Ice product. It’s hard to know how much you’re giving when the label doesn’t give any indication of the mg. of the amount of Vitamin A/D/K in it, like the GP CLO used to.
I’m suspicious that my dog has experienced hypervitaminosis A because of the change in his lab work. 16 months ago his labs were all normal. I took him back to the vet recently because he seemed to have lost a lot of zest, slept most of the time, and didn’t want to run strenuously like he used to. His ALKP and GGT liver test results were high, indicating his liver wasn’t happy. His reticulocyte count doubled, meaning he’s producing a lot of immature red blood cells. According to a thesis I read about hypervitaminosis A in canines, those are about the only changes that will show up in blood work. A blood test for Vitamin A is not meaningful. A liver biopsy and bone x-rays showing skeletal changes are needed to conclusively diagnose hypervitaminosis A, and I’m not going there. I stopped the Blue Ice Infused product a month ago, because an advisor was concerned that CLO might be high in arsenic. My dog has rebounded since then.
I emailed David Wetzel about my arsenic concern, and he called me personally to allay that concern. But it was only because I read one of the links you provided, Amanda, that the idea of hypervitaminosis A entered my consciousness. So ironically, I have you to thank for perhaps leading me to the solution of the mystery of what was going wrong with my dog.
Well I’m glad to hear that you solved the mystery and that your pooch is on the up-and-up, for whatever reason.
I have to say though that I’m a bit puzzled to learn that you happen to have your own dog on a raw diet (assuming that means a raw *meat* diet) and yet you argue that dogs are not carnivores. If you don’t believe that your dog is a carnivore then on what basis did you decide to switch him to a 90% raw meat diet?
Amanda, I never argued that dogs are not carnivores. You sure have a way of twisting people’s words. The argument was whether different breeds have different nutritional needs or not.
OK, but doesn’t one imply the other? In other words, if all dogs are indeed carnivores, then their diet would be that of a wolf… no matter what the breed …right? As far as I know, the raw dog diet protocol does not differ from breed to breed. In fact, the only time you ever hear about breed-specific dietary needs for dogs is when it applies to petfood products.
Pet food manufactureres certainly do their best to sell their products by duping the public into believing the weirdest nonsense.
A raw food diet with meaty bones is best, but in the winter where we live it’s not always possible to do this because he’s not eating raw bones indoors! No way. He does not like frozen bones or chicken wings and stuff and sometimes they freeze solid within an hour of putting them out for him. We feed high quality food indoors during the winter months and feed him avocado oil on his food a couple of times every week, as well as sprinkling a capsule of acidophilus on his food about three times every week. Our first Cocker lived to be 18 y/o with this same feeding program, and the Cocker we have now was 10 this year and still acts like a pup. Since I myself don’t use CLO it would never have occurred to me to feed it to my dog. He loves pastured egg yolks mixed into his food occasionally, as well. He also gets a capsule of salmon oil, which I open and squeeze onto his food occasionally, but it gives him such awful breath, not to mention flatulence, so then I have to feed him a charcoal bone. I think those are good for him, regardless, and he gets them as an occasional treat just because.
Amanda, prior to switching my dog to a different diet, I was feeding him the very best premium kibble I could find. So his positive response to the change in his diet could be just that he’s no longer being fed a commercial kibble. And the diet I have him on now includes a lot of starch free non-thermal Wysong freeze-dried Archetype, of different meats, in addition to Tropical Traditions Pastured Organic Raw Chicken Steaks with organic coconut added. Plus he gets a lot of pastured raw milk kefir which he consumes ad libitum. None of which may meet your criterion for a raw meat diet, so I may have mischaracterized his current diet.
As I said before, I don’t think this blog is the place for a discussion of dog feeding requirements, unless David G. expands into that arena. I haven’t read the National Research Council 1985 Report that Cusick bases his work on, so I’m not going to argue back with you, especially after I find you putting words in my mouth. I wrote about my dog’s Hypervitaminosis A because it affects humans as well as dogs and many other species, and it’s a stealth disorder. So there may be some relevance in that for human CLO/FCLO users and readers of this blog.
Lynn, you may not have noticed but I bought a dog/cat food store in downtown hometown that was going out of business and have run it for the last 3 going on four years. I’ve learned a lot about dogs mostly from the and owners dogs themselves. Dog feeding requirements, your dog will let you know.
Sometimes, it’s best to just walk away. If you’re not happy, leave. Or stop reading and posting for your health.
Ora Moose, given that I care about the future of this blog and WAPF and the community represented therein, rather than walking away, I think it best to try to positively effect the discourse. I was inspired by listening to the message of Dr. Wayne Dyer.
Lynn, I didn’t mean to be so ah.. I too care very much about the future of this blog and try to lighten it up once in a while glad David’s not a heavy handed editor/censor. I just saying, it sometimes gets too intense in here for those of us on the outside of the industry just a simple individual consumer.
People, do not disregard your own experience in favor of anyone else’s opinions or any tests. Do not even be swayed. Always proceed with caution, and never give too much weight to even your own opinions. Listen to your body. User your intuition. Weigh ALL the evidence.
Remember that you are here (discussing/using this food source) because it came from the wisdom of human experience. It did not come from lab experiments and test results, as our modern processed foods do. And this is the crucial principal that is actually under attack right now.
Let me restate that, since it is so very important:
– We are all here because we understand that thousands of years of human experience and wisdom provide more truth than our modern science.
– We are here because we know that this year’s science proves one thing – that last year’s science was wrong. This cycle is unending.
– We are here because we know from experience that our modern food sources are vastly inferior to the ancient ones of our ancestors.
– We are here because we know that Big Business will do anything to make a buck; and that includes lying, cheating, deceiving, and poisoning.
– We are here because Dr. Weston A. Price (and others) showed us the above truths beyond a shadow of a doubt. And he showed us that, on occasion, science does reveal some truths that stand the test of time.
The test of time is key. It defines the wisdom of the ancients, the wisdom of our elders, and marks the weakness of our science. Time reveals the truths. Not peer reviewed double blind experiments, not these debates, or any such other modern concoctions of information seeking. Certainly some science stands the test of time, but the vast majority of it is proven wrong, regardless of what was promised or believed. Science it great, but it must be kept in perspective.
Dave Wetzel built his products on the wisdom of the ancients, and his products have been standing well against the test of time for around a decade now. Dave has also been a great contributor to the science, and neither his science nor his products have shown any evidence of fallacy, malintent, or deficiency. Certainly nobody is perfect, and we must all remain vigilant and continue to seek understanding. But there is and was no wrong doing on the part of Dave Wetzel or Sally Fallon Morell. Their behavior and their contributions to society are exceptional. A decade of evidence stands in their favor.
Now of course things change. So again, we must remain vigilant. Questions and inquiries are great tools for vigilance. Accusations are not.
Dr. Daniel did not get any ball rolling, as the efforts and research from Dave Wetzel and WAPF was never at a standstill. The evidence is all out there.
Dr. Daniel emphatically stated that Dave Wetzel was fermenting oil, and not livers, while photos of him holding a jar of fermenting cod livers sat on his site. The accusation is beyond absurd. As are her other accusations. This would all be comical if it were not so sad.
Look at the facts. Think for yourself.
Dr. Daniel did not invent the idea that Wetzel was fermenting oil. Up until two or three years ago, that is what he said he was doing. Just one of the many stories that changed when too bright a light was directed upon them and they were exposed as untrue or impossible.
Kinda like the answer to this question is on their site. “Do you solar activate your oils as Dr. Price did early in the 20th century?”
For quite a while the answer to this question was: “We solar activate all our products as Dr Weston A Price did. Solar activation is simply exposing the product to the sun. Our Plant is a solar plant and we ensure that all our oils are exposed the the sun, moon and stars.”
The new answer, within the last few months is: “Our plant is exposed the sun but this does not equate to solar activation as Dr. Price discusses. Dr. Price had a specific protocol and definition for the term solar activation and it does not occur unless uv rays are directly exposed to the products. In our plant the products are not exposed to solar uv.”
In light of the second answer, why would you ever post the first answer??? Did you not even KNOW how Price solar activated his products? Did you just hear about it and say, “Hey, we have a sun roof, let’s tell everybody that we solar activate the product and that makes it even MORE special.” I don’t know what happened, but it seems kinda shoddy, and unfortunately, not at all unusual for them.
Dave Wetzel explains this in his blog. He says:
“5-7 years ago I put an article out describing our manufacturing plant and how we used the sun to assist in heating the plant and used sunlight for lighting the plant. The roof is a clear span that allows complete sun exposure.
I was asked a question, if our products are exposed to the sun like Weston Price discussed long ago. All I found for reference was exposure to sun so I confirmed this was the case, our products are exposed to the sun and posted this on our website.
I was speaking with the organization that catalogs Dr. Price’s research last week and this topic came up. My understanding is the information is not published but they have some information on the process he used to expose products to the sun and it is nothing like our building allows for sun exposure. Protected sun exposure is not the same as solar activated as Dr. Price used.
Just like one cannot get a suntan through glass and other materials our products are not exposed as Dr. Price exposed products to the sun. In our plant the sun has to travel through several layers of clear or opaque material to reach the floor and products. The barrier the sun passes eliminates all aspects of sun exposure as Dr. Price discussed. The suns energy does heat and light the plant but does not activate as Dr. Price describes.
The organization indicated that they might publish a paper in future describing the process Dr. Price used for sun activation. As far as I know, this would be the first time detailed information on Dr. Price’s use of the sun would be published. I think this topic is fascinating and look forward to reading the paper when published.”
http://www.greenpasture.org/fermented-cod-liver-oil-butter-oil-vitamin-d-vitamin-a/using-the-suns-energy/
Perhaps it was a stupid assumption to make on his part, but seems to be an honest mistake nonetheless… and at least he had the integrity to correct himself once he realized that he had spoken in error.
I am confused though about the idea that sun exposure through glass somehow protects from UV rays. I would have thought that the opposite is true, as I specifically recall getting what I called a “drivers tan” just on the tops of my thighs from when I used to drive my car around wearing shorts.
As you know, you get UVA and UVB from the sun. I believe that when you are out in the actual sunshine, the two balance each other when hitting our skin. UVA goes through glass, whereas, UVB not so much. The UVA penetrates deeper into the skin tissue and has the potential to cause damage. UVB is the one that promotes Vitamin D. Also, what people put on their skin, soaps, creams/lotions, and their overall health, etc may enhance damage.
You’re right to be confused Amanda. I’m a little confused as well, although Sylvia’s explanation jives with what I’ve heard in the past. I would imagine it depends upon the material as to what and how much is filtered. I know with my plastic lenses for my glasses, they sell me a UV coating – which costs more than the lenses – but even without the coating, that portion won’t get as tanned (or burned) as the rest of my face. And you’re right about getting burned through glass. I doubt that his facilities roof is made of glass though. Without knowing what materials and what coatings are on them, it is difficult to know what is being filtered. But if all of the UV is being filtered as he has said, one still has to wonder how he thought having a product inside behind clear and/or opaque barriers would be the same as putting it directly in the sun. Yes, I believe that he made an honest mistake. I believe that he has been and is currently making . . . a lot of honest mistakes.
Rigidity creates fragility.
I wouldn’t say the problem is rigidity about food ideology. The problem is them being rigid about certain other things, like being able to adjust to new situations and respond appropriately to them. We haven’t stopped needing animal fats and preformed fat-soluble vitamins just because Green Pastures is a sham. The trouble is we also need our advocacy groups to be REAL advocates for the end consumer and not protectionist about specific vendors or industries. Because the whole point of advocating for real food is that it BENEFITS PEOPLE.
Though, while we’re at it, let’s talk WAPF, shall we. We’re all focused on this CLA thing. I want to know why they push grain and legume based meals so hard. If you actually read Price’s work that is NOT what he concluded about what made healthy diets. He noted that healthy traditional cultures ate (1) grass-fed dairy fat and/or (2) animal organs and/or (3) animal fat and/or (4) bird and fish eggs and/or (5) shellfish and other sea foods or a combination of some or all. And if you look at his numbers on the traditional cultures he studied, he showed that cultural groups consuming grains had more dental caries than cultural groups that were nearly or wholly carnivorous. The TAKEAWAY from this should be something more like “eat more liver and eggs,” not “here is yet another recipe for sourdough, be sure to soak the grain first.” And we wonder why people aren’t getting better. Soooo… WAPF… Time to change direction maybe? We need a definitive voice to stand against the plants-only-diet crowd, because God knows the Paleo community ain’t it.
CLA = CLO… Brain cramp there.
“We need a definitive voice to stand against the plants-only-diet crowd, because God knows the Paleo community ain’t it.”
Dana, the WAPF is what it is and many people like it that way… but of course it isn’t possible to please everyone all the time. So, if you feel that something is lacking, why don’t you go ahead and do something about it? Why don’t you take it upon yourself to be that voice? You know, be the change you want to see?
The WAPF is the best advocate we have for real food, and the best advocate we have for the work of Dr. Weston A. Price. Surely you know that, or you would have offered an alternative. Why continue with false accusations and misinformation? What is the point?
Your comments about grains are incorrect, as Dr. Price showed us how many cultures (naturally) process a great variety of grains to make them beneficial. And yes, he also showed us the great danger that ‘unprocessed’ grains pose to our health.
Dr. Price and the WAPF warn that grains are bad, unless processed properly. All the documentation and Dr. Price’s book is clear on this. Perhaps your confusion is caused by the great many blogs that provide guidance on the proper process of grains. This is simply because people love grains, and grains can be a very cost effective source of nutrition. The key is in proper handling, and so blogs have emerged to meet the demand for that information.
The dietary guidelines put out by WAPF are perfectly in line with Dr. Price’s work.
Except for using CLO as a daily dietary supplement . . . .
Steve, your exception is actually a highlight. Using CLO, especially in combination with High Vitamin Butter Oil for daily supplementation is one of the pinnacles of Dr. Price’s work, as it highlighted the complex nutritional codependencies that he discovered, and provided a ‘temporary fix’ for those that could not achieve an optimum diet. These foods (not supplements) were shown by Dr. Price to be highly effective in supplementing otherwise deficient diets.
And yes, temporary is the hope, but that depends on your ability to achieve optimum nutrition elsewhere. And there are cultures that relied on such things as staple foods.
From my understanding of it, Dr. Price did not recommend CLO of any kind as a long term dietary solution. Also from my understanding, Dr. Price said that HVBO mitigated the toxic effects of CLO, but did not entirely negate them – which would be why CLO would only be a temporary recommendation – a medicine or therapy, as it were.
You should actually read Dr. Price’s work before you give us ‘your understanding’ of it. Like your other comments, you are just trolling here. You are incorrect again. But you give me an excuse to cut paste a few quotes from the actual book, so thank you for that…
From Chapter 15…
“I suggested an improved nutrition and provided fat-soluble vitamins consisting of a mixture of a high vitamin butter oil and high vitamin cod liver oil”
The above quote was in regard to treating a monkey that was beyond saving, so let’s disregard that one. Lots more though…
“The important change that I made in this boy’s dietary program was the removal of the white flour products and in their stead the use of freshly cracked or ground wheat and oats used with whole milk to which was added a small amount of specially high vitamin butter produced by cows pasturing on green wheat. Small doses of a high-vitamin, natural cod liver oil were also added.”
From Fig93.
“…After reinforcing his nutrition with butter vitamins the healing at the right occurred in thirty days. Whole milk replaced skim milk and a whole wheat gruel made from freshly ground whole wheat replaced white bread.”
Notice that your other comments about grains are also shown as more trolling. There are many more examples like this throughout the ONE book, in at least five different chapters. Yet you and countless other people keep trolling and giving opinions and insinuations about a book that you obviously never read. It is available free online, and easy enough to search. Warnings about over dosing, guidance for dosage, usage with various people and animals, etc., etc. are all there for everyone to see.
Nothing new here. This stuff is a hundred years old, and the WAPF and Green Pasture have years of documents referencing it. All of your accusations and insinuations are still completely unfounded.
You can stop using the word trolling. “I do not think that word means what you think it means”. I didn’t even say anything about grains.
From wikipedia: “In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[3]”
I didn’t start the argument. I’m sorry if my on-topic, non-inflammatory, comments upset you. I don’t think there is anything I can do about that.
Thank you for your promptings to actually look up things that he said though.
“While it [CLO] has great value, it may contain and probably often does contain substances which are undesirable; therefore, it should be given in small doses, and only products of the highest natural vitamin content be used.”
“Except in the late stages of pregnancy I do not prescribe more than half a teaspoonful [of CLO and HVBO mixed] with each of three meals a day.” I can’t find any reference to the ratio that he used, but assuming 50/50, this dosage of CLO, buffered by HVBO, would still be 25% less than the un-buffered dosage recommended by WAPF. Perhaps you can find the mixture ratio that he used.
Also, while you are looking, can you find any information that would indicate why Price’s statements, “The available evidence indicates that fish oils that have been exposed to the air may develop toxic substances.” and “As stated elsewhere fish oils should be stored in small containers to avoid exposure to the air. Rancid fats and oils destroy vitamins A and E, (5) the former in the stomach.” do not apply to FCLO?
Yes, Steve, you are starting to get it – this information is everywhere. Warnings, dosages, benefits, etc., etc. THAT is the point – this is nothing new. All these things are reiterated by Dave Wetzel on the Green Pasture site, and by WAPF. Yet you continue to make accusations that are unfounded. When one accusation gets shut down by fact, you move to another. You are aggressively promoting false accusations with your own insinuations and opinions that oppose the facts.
I could say that you are an innocent bystander that has been swept up by the false accusations of Dr. Daniel and Mr. Gumpert; however, you are much too active and aggressive to be considered innocent. Put a fraction of that energy into more research, and you will realize that you have been misled by Mr. Gumpert.
Oops, I attributed someone else’s grain comment to you. Sorry about that.
What accusations have I made that are unfounded? What false accusations have I been aggressively promoting? Where have I been shut down by fact and moved on?
If you want to accuse somebody of those things, why don’t you call out Amanda? Or does it not matter if somebody is doing all of those things as long as they are promoting your agenda?
I was wrong in saying that Price said HVBO mitigated the toxic effects of CLO. Either I remembered it wrongly, or it was a different passage that I cannot find. What he did say was that it worked synergistically with CLO so that much lower doses could be used, helping to avoid the possibility of toxicity.
And since your understanding of Price’s work is so great, please give us a passage where he recommends long-term daily supplementation with CLO for people that are not treating some kind of debilitating condition, i.e. – normal people.
Since these warnings of Dr. Price are so ubiquitous, and as you say they are reiterated by Dave Wetzel on his site and also on the WAPF site, please show me several examples of Wetzel and WAPF saying that GPP products could be toxic in high doses, that they could develop toxic substances if exposed to air, that they should be stored in small containers, that they could go rancid, that they may – and probably often do – contain substances which are undesirable. I don’t want to see where Wetzel or WAPF quoted Dr. Price, show me where they have applied these warnings and directions to GPP products.
LOL Do the work yourself. My postings are already all over these blogs and elsewhere. I have ignored your many posts, as I saw them as merely trolling. Not you, nor Mr. Gumpert, nor Dr. Daniel has shown any evidence to confirm your accusations or insinuations. Yet you continue to insinuate and take things out of context.
I just handed you a quote, and you still twisted it to support your own belief. Dr. Price established diets for recovery and sustainable living with CLO. He did not just recommend them for short amounts of time. You still didn’t read anything lol Fishing for comments is not reading.
I am no expert, and you should not trust me or anyone else. Your problem is that you have jumped on someone else’s bandwagon. Don’t listen to me. Go and find the facts to support your own assertions. Hint: you will come up empty. If you really learn about the situation you will change your perspective.
Perhaps the most comical thing of all about this current dosage/dangerous thread is that you are all here (discussing CLO) because you are (hopefully) aware that the modern ‘FDA Approved’ foods are poisoning you. Your mainstream foods, drugs, TV commercials, etc., are a comedy of dosage nightmares and poisons, and yet you act like Green Pastures is somehow negligent, and attempt to leverage the FDA against the GP products. Dave Wetzel is one of your greatest allies, and you are attacking him because of a bogus report from Dr. Daniel?
Innocent until proven guilty. Not one accusation has been proven. Not a single one.
“Do the work yourself.” That’s what I thought. I’ve been around enough to know that when somebody won’t support their assertions with evidence that they don’t have or can’t find evidence that suits their purposes. None of your posts so far have address the questions that I have asked of you. Meanwhile you call me a troll, and accuse me of unfounded and false accusations – yet you can’t even produce one.
Green Pasture is Innocent until proven guilty Steve. Ten years of raving reviews, global distributors, tons of articles, and firmly established as the top CLO producer in the world. Not to mention that no government has ever found them guilty of anything that you insinuate, while your beloved Corganics has had a government instruct consumers to throw away their product for failing safety tests! And they haven’t even been around that long.
It has been a couple of weeks already, and despite all your trolling, no tests or experts have been able to confirm any of your accusations, or those of Mr. Gumpert or Dr. Daniel. The Internet is loaded with information that contradicts all your comments, and sometimes you even contradict yourself.
Innocent until proven guilty.
1) FCLO has not been on sale for 10 years, so that’s an exaggeration, or as you might put it, a “false claim”.
2) What exactly is it that you are thinking think I’ve insinuated? I believe that the only accusations I’ve made are that GPP and WAPF are active guilty, they are covering things up, and that GPP has mislabeled products. The first two are admittedly subjective. The third, not so much. Pretty sure that my research into this, including speaking to the FDA, is much more compelling than opinions that you and others have brought to that debate. I have not seen a shred of evidence from any of you. I have seen that you don’t care what the FDA or USDA or any other government regulatory agency has to say. When you fly, do you tell the TSA agent that you don’t want to take off your shoes? Do you refuse to put your toiletries into a plastic bag? Do you tell them to show you that law? Do you explain how stupid it is, that you despise big government, and ask him how putting your toothbrush in a plastic bag is going to make anybody safer? I would imagine that you do not. Why not? Consequences. There are consequences for breaking a government law, regulation or even a rule. I think that’s where GPP finds themselves. Some people are really not happy about it, even if you don’t care or think it is stupid.
3) Corganics is not “my beloved”. I think I have mentioned them once or twice on here to say that I sell a few of their products, but I make much more money selling GPP products.
4) If you had done any kind of research worth calling research, you wouldn’t have brought up that bogus Rosita incident. You would know that repeating a story that you heard, or read in a foreign newspaper posted online and roughly translated into English, makes you look like the brainwashed follower grasping at straws you are accusing so many of being.
5) Spreading an unsubstantiated rumor about Rosita and Corganics just exposes your “It’s us against Big Pharma, Big Ag and the government – we should be supporting Green Pasture” as so much rhetoric – useful to try to rally support for, or at least try to take the heat off, your beloved GPP, but ultimately not really what you actually believe.
6) I don’t know if it is irony or something else, but I had the thought as I was reading your last few posts, that it is just this kind of talk from somebody like you – an unequivocal defense of any and all things Green Pasture, a complete disregard for any harm that may have come to anybody, and a complete dismissal of any claim without a court ruling (and probably then even) – that will exasperate somebody so much that they will report GPP to their district attorney for fraud, or to the FDA for mislabeling. Their sense of justice will be so offended that they will seek it (justice) outside of our little community. The other side of that is that people like Kaayla Daniel or David Gumpert, by giving a hearing to claims, by having empathy for those that believe they were injured, by investigating, by spreading the word, by putting their reputations and perhaps their money and/or careers on the line, and attempting to “police” this company as it were, will keep the actual police away. If people feel like GPP is being held accountable, claims are being investigated, and this is being handled appropriately “in-house”, they will be much less likely to feel like they need to seek legal or government assistance. Is that irony? Perhaps a wordsmith could tell us.
He didn’t say FCLO. He said CLO. This is better than reality TV ! Amen to listening to your body. I will continue using FCLO because it makes me feel amazingly healthy!
Victor, Innocent until proven guilty is a legal standard that applies only in criminal proceedings. It is nonsensical to apply it in this instance.
Victor, I am a big believer in food rights. I even wrote a book, “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Food Rights”. I’m very aware of problems with mainstream foods and drugs. I’m also well aware that I live in a country where Big Ag and Big Food corporations dominate, and set much of the regulatory agenda. The FDA carries out that agenda, in part by going after small farms and small food/supplement producers. My book is full of examples of what happens.
To suggest, as you do in your last paragraph, that Green Pasture should be allowed a free ride on safety because the corporate businesses are much worse is to miss the point here. If the FDA decides to get involved, it will seek out any and all possible violations of rules/laws, no matter how small. It cares not a bit that other companies are much worse. If GP gets into trouble with the authorities, it won’t be because of anything I or Kaayla Daniel or anyone else did or said. It will be because of consumer complaints, and an FDA decision to make an example of this company. I have been trying to encourage WAPF and GP to get off the defensive/denial track and onto an open and transparent track, to head off regulatory actions. If they don’t change course, I’m afraid we will all lose on the rights front.
A “sham?” Based on the kangaroo court going on in social media this is how you have come to this decision, Dana? How pathetic.
I find it shocking that there has been no discussion about the Essential Oils that Dave Wetzel uses in the various flavored FCLO. In general it is NOT recommended that essential oils be consumed, especially for children. How do we know that the essential oils aren’t also to blame for the reported health concerns that some have experienced?
Hey can I say something? There I just did, so sue me or keep the change. Wait is this still a raw milk and food blog? smells fishy around here l8tely, not meant to be a criticism of David G just the current commentatorers. Watch out for the swirlpools and ssharks, they’re right behind you. Trout or consequences.