Sarah Pope holds up a teaspoon and a dessert spoon in a 2010 video on cod liver oil dosage.
In all the discussion and debate that has raged here and elsewhere over the last two weeks about fermented cod liver oil, one of the most divisive issues has been about recommended dosages. Sally Fallon Morell has declared in her response to the Kaayla Daniel report that the Weston A. Price Foundation recommends only one to two teaspoons of cod liver oil per day, fermented or non-fermented, suggesting that has long been the case. In her view, naturopath Ron Schmid, who has associated his heart problems with his six years of consumption of fermented cod liver oil, has only himself to blame for his serious heart problems, for taking three to nine times the WAPF’s recommended dose.
But as Amanda Rose pointed out in a series of comments following my second post on this subject, the WAPF until August 20 had a long article posted on its site, “Cod Liver Oil: The Number One Superfood”, that recommended one to two tablespoons of cod liver oil; an infant up to six months should be given a teaspoon, and then “two teaspoons from six months to three years, one tablespoon from 4-10 years and two tablespoons thereafter during winter months or when not sunning.” The WAPF removed the 2002 article from its web site a few days after the Kaayla Daniel report came out, 13 years after it was first posted and widely distributed, apparently in response to the questioning by Amanda Rose.
So in the interests of beginning to gain some clarity on the dosage question, I went to a couple of YouTube video presentation by Sarah Pope, a member of the WAPF board, and author of the Healthy Home Economist blog. Part and parcel of explaining recommended cod liver oil dosages, she posed a question about spoon sizes, which I am summarizing in quiz form as follows:
A dessert spoon is the equivalent of:
A. One tablespoon
B. One teaspoon
C. Neither
In a 2010 YouTube video in which she holds up two spoons (as shown in the screen shot above), Pope’s answer is B, one teaspoon. In the video, she advises taking one to two teaspoons a day total of fermented cod liver oil and skate oil, and holds up a conventional teaspoon and dessert spoon, explaining that a dessert spoon is really a full teaspoon; the smaller conventional teaspoon is much less than a teaspoon, she cautions (see the video from the three-minute mark until shortly after the four-minute mark). She does it again in this 2012 video (begin at the 1:30 mark), saying a conventional tablespoon is really a teaspoon, before taking half that spoonful of cod liver oil and another half spoonful of skate liver oil, to total a teaspoon, in her measuring scheme.
So I went searching online, and ask.com has a different answer— C, neither. According to the site, it takes one -and-a-half dessert spoonfuls to make a real tablespoon. So in effect, Pope was recommending something between a little under and a little more than a tablespoon, rather than the one to two teaspoons she thought she was recommending.
As Joel Salatin likes to say in his talks, “Y’all with me now?”
But wait, there’s more. With some help from one of this blog’s readers, I was able to dig up a page from the Green Pasture web site, posted in 2012, and since removed, that offers this advice about dosage of its fermented cod liver oil: Infants get a few drops, children three to five get 1/4 to one teaspoon. “Most common range for amount to consume is 1/2 to 2 tsp per day. If taking capsules then 3-6 capsules is most common. I have heard some, guided by practitioners or others, take 1-3 tablespoons per day. This is the exception and not the rule.”
In this 2004 article still up on the WAPF web site, a woman who suffered from heavy menstrual bleeding, Ricki Nunez, stated: “Through the Weston A. Price Foundation, I learned that much higher doses of cod liver oil might help—as high as 90,000 IU. I thought, ‘I don’t know if I can get that down!’ (I have a problem with gag reflex, when it comes to swallowing oil.) The next day, we got a couple of bottles of high vitamin cod liver oil, and I took three full tablespoons, (60,000IU), and continued to take this much for the next three days. After the first day, the bleeding was cut in half! By the third day, it was gone, and has not returned since!”
You still with me?
I inquired with Ron Schmid, the naturopath whose heart problems sparked much of the controversy about FCLO dosages, and this is how he described his reactions to the dosage confusion: “I am not surprised at all. There was lots of talk at the Conferences in the early 2000s about dosages like the one to two tablespoons I was taking; it was common knowledge that I was doing so. It was only after FCLO came out in 2006 that I began on some days to take three tablespoons; maybe twice a week or so. I did not recommend that much to my patients, but people did know I was doing it. I am so sorry now I did not do more research sooner.”
What about the fact that some people, like Ricki Nunez, experienced health improvements from the high doses? “There is no question that many people have felt better taking FCLO. There are certainly nutrients in there that can correct chronic deficiencies and thus help with various conditions. Of course, many people do have immediate adverse reactions, as we have seen in so many reports. But many others tolerate FCLO and have improvements in their health. However, that does not mean that longer term problems may not occur. My case was extreme because of the high doses, but it is logical that in many other people, chronic problems are developing because of the toxic effects. Imagine being on a wonderful natural foods diet and enjoying perfect health. Then your lovely wife starts giving you a new, controversial food supplement every day. Not enough of it that you notice much. But over time, you go downhill, slowly, surely. But since you have some suspicions, you do a careful internet search on the new supplement one night while she’s sleeping soundly. And in the morning you go have a few tests done on it. Lo and behold, you’re hit with the hard truth. It’s mislabeled, not what it purports to be, a lot of people are having bad reactions, and the tests indicate that it is toxic. She’s been so good to me. How could she make such a mistake?”
Obviously, lots of people in addition to Schmid are doing lots of soul searching these days. Mothers are wondering if they did the right thing feeding infants FCLO. Others are very confused, and I’m afraid what I have just written likely won’t ease their confusion.
But isn’t that really the point? It’s up to the WAPF and its favorite sponsor, Green Pasture, to take steps to ease the confusion. Instead of hunkering down, removing contradictory articles from their web sites, giving mixed and even untrue messages to the community, the WAPF in particular should be stepping back, and admitting it may have inadvertently been inconsistent on the subject of FCLO. It’s not so terrible to have made errors in the interests of helping people get well. Most people are forgiving. What they are less forgiving of is being blamed for following recommendations that have shifted without notice.
I sure hope people at WAPF begin to look inward, and seek ways to reassure and inform their community of what they know, and what they don’t know. I can almost guarantee the reactions will be better than what’s been happening the last couple weeks.
As far as I’m concerned a teaspoon = 5 ml and is used for ones cup of tea, hence the name “teaspoon”. A desert spoon is a tablespoon = 15 ml.; anything in between or otherwise is a discombobulation.
This is just my personal opinion and people are, of course, free to do whatever they wish, but IF it were me taking anything by the tablespoon or teaspoon or whatever, I would use a set of measuring spoons, you know, the kind we use for baking.
Just dedicate that particular set of spoons [i]only[/i] for taking liquid supplements.
I don’t think I’d put my trust in using a place-setting type of silverware because those are all manufactured by different companies and some spoons hold more or less than others.
It’s never occurred to me not to use an actual measuring spoon, D. Smith. I do have soup spoons among my flatware that are almost exactly 1/2 tablespoon. Sometimes I use those for approximations but I used an actual tablespoon to determine it in the first place. There are some more modern flatware sets that have pretty large spoons — shovel-like I would say.
Yes, Amanda, if people measure how much liquid is held by their normal, everyday tableware/silverware/flatware using an actual set of measuring spoons it would be much more accurate than just taking a WAG, like Sarah Pope seems to be doing. The way she makes the case, it sounds as if you can just throw some onto a spoon and a particularly accurate dose isn’t the issue. Apparently, from what I’ve been reading here for the past few days, the WHOLE issue is dose.
I don’t take CLO any longer, haven’t for years, but it would seem to me that limiting how long you use it is an important piece to the puzzle, as well. I never thought taking CLO over long periods of time sounded like a good idea, *superfood* or not. I use chia seeds and hemp seeds and other things classified as “superfoods” but I don’t use any of them daily or to excess. In fact, I probably don’t get into using superfoods often enough, but it’s a helluva lot better than overdoing, IMPHHO.
Ha! Shovel-like – – good one. I have a couple of serving spoons from a set of genuine silver flatware given to me by my Mom a few years ago, and those things really could be classified as shovels. 😉
I’ve always gone beyond that and used the syringe that comes with the bottles. But when you see a board member of WAPF (Sarah Pope) showing you in her various videos she just uses flatware most people would think it’s not a big deal to be that exact.
Let’s add to the confusion as it appears Chris Masterjohn thinks 1/2 tsp daily for long periods is best. From his facebook page in reply to someone asking how much: “I think taking 1/2 tsp/d indefinitely (of course listen to your body though) or 1 tsp/d for months is probably fine.” And from Chris’s blog comments it appears he doesn’t take it daily: “I take it in the coldest four months of the year in small doses or when I feel the need for immune support and have no current plans to change that practice.” Chris doesn’t say what his “small doses” are.
So the dosing appears to run the gamut from WAPF originally saying it’s fine to take tbsps to Chris Masterjohn suggesting 1/2 tsp or less and it might be only a few months that you take it. Given that it’s been known for a long time higher doses can cause problems (known way before Dr. Ron’s problem) this seems crazy that clear guidelines have not been given. We’re only figuring this out now?????
@ Karen: People don’t always follow guidelines, but what does it say on the Green Pastures bottle? What sort of directions for consumption do they recommend? Since they are the makers of this stuff, do what it says on the bottle and call it a day.
@D.Smith that’s an interesting point so here it off GP’s site from their FAQs and bottle labels. It’s not completely clear what the exact recommended dose is but the variations are close to what Chris suggests. However in the FAQs they refer back the Healthy Home Economist video and the dosing climbs back up.
Bottle – 2ml (so bit less 1/2 tsp)
Caps – 2 caps (which the bottle says equals 50g)
FAQs:
• What is recommended daily dosing? – “2-3 capsules per 1/2 tsp”
• How much should I take? – “Most will take 1/4-1/2 tsp. But there are some who need to take 1-2 tsp to get the desired amount, including an individual experiencing more stress than the average person. Most times the higher amounts are short lived and in time can be brought down to 1/2 tsp +/-.”
• How best to swallow cod liver video on the FAQ page – we’re back to The Healthy Home Economist recommending that large spoon size Dave Gumpert tries to figure out. She says it 1 tsp.
So GP is very conservative with their recommendations of generally ¼- ½ tsp. WAPF seems to be the root of the confusion over dosing but since GP refers to WAPF so I would think many people, including me, considered 1 tsp or more just fine to take daily.
According this article:
http://blog.ppnf.org/cod-liver-oil-a-historical-perspective/
Dr. Price warned against taking too much cod liver oil because he knew that oxidized/rancid fish oils can be detrimental (irregardless of the vitamin content).
—————————–
Freshness and storage of the oil is important, he continued. Even though an oil may have a high vitamin content, if it is oxidized or rancid, it will not have the desired effects. “The available evidence indicates that fish oils [including cod liver oil] that have been exposed to the air may develop toxic substances.… Rancid fats and oils destroy vitamins A and E, the former in the stomach.”[9(p267)]
Overdosing with cod liver oil (and other fish oils), he cautioned, can be detrimental, possibly resulting in depression or paralysis, and he warned that “serious structural damage can be done to hearts and kidneys.”[9(p267)] In a paper published in the August 1932 Journal of the American Dental Association, he showed pictures depicting “progressive paralysis produced in a chicken and a rabbit, apparently by an overdose of cod liver oil.”[25(p1348)]
Despite these cautions, Price believed in the value of cod liver oil. He described numerous examples of its healing properties—when it is judiciously used—and provided assurance that “cod-liver oil can be given in moderate doses without injury and to great advantage.”[26(p493)] Except for special circumstances, Price recommended that cod liver oil be taken “with the meal rather than before or after, as it aids in the utilization of the minerals in the food.”[26(p493)] He also specified that children should seldom be given amounts greater than one teaspoonful per day for extended periods of time.
—————————–
In the end, Dr. Price recommended 3/4 tsp of cod liver oil per day. More specifically, he recommended 1/2 tsp of a 50/50 mixture of butter oil and cod liver oil with each meal (3x per day). In other words, 1/4 tsp of butter oil + 1/4 tsp cod liver oil with each meal.
The PPNF article also describes the type of cod liver oil Dr. Price used: Squibb and Newfoundland oil.
I had a very hard time finding consistent info on dosage last year when me and my son began taking FCLO. I’m not surprised at all that this is coming to a head…discrepancies (and subsequent cover ups) like this are so damaging to the alternative health community 🙁 It’s already heavily scrutinized by modern medicine trolls and incidents like this just add fuel to the fire
Mindy, thanks for raising this point. One of my big concerns about all this is the loss of credibility that could well occur among the vast majority of high-quality supplement producers that are highly rigorous in their production and dosage recommendations. I’m also concerned that the government may become involved, potentially leading to more regulation of supplements.
I think this is why a lot of people are trying to figure out how to get more out of their everyday foods and meals. There will, at some point, be regulation of supplements and I have no doubt about that. The gubmint ninnies are now in the process of regulating their own regulations, that’s how ludicrous this has become. Also, just a heads-up about purchasing “vitamins” and “supplements”. Always find out who the manufacturer is (many are PHRMA companies) and they make crappy synthetic vitamins. Many of them can even be harmful.
Mindy, you and only you know you or your kids better than anyone else. You know what they say, don’t believe anything you hear and only half if that of what you read. It is a shame that distrust can be planted but that’s internet culture. So there’s this bridge for sale, interested? Medicine trolls sounds like a good name for a rock band.
David, in light of the humongous activity level here in the last couple of weeks, I would suggest you split the blog in two and do the CLO and raw milk subjects separately. My head is spinning and my neck hurts from too many twists in the conversation. Cheese or crackers, anyone?
Interesting suggestion, Bora. Not sure I have the time, or the stomach, for two blogs. 🙂
But David, if the market is bigger for CLO (judging from comments volume here) maybe you should switch gears and write about that, for economic and educational purposes. I’d buy that book.
Actually, its nice to see something discussed on here besides raw milk.
Thanks for bring more attention to this issue, David.
Even Chris Masterjohn’s conclusions in his article, for those who actually bothered to read the whole thing, states that the simplest explanation for the trans fats in FCLO is that it was adulterated. Masterjohn also asserts that he doesn’t know the law when it comes to modern labeling laws regarding cod vs. pollock. He also states that he is in favor of more transparency, lab tests and open conversation. His analysis is ultimately not a slam dunk refutation of Dr. Daniel’s lab reports and analysis as many have claimed. I observe that they didn’t actually read the whole report but got to the long winded details on the “semantics of” and decided to jump to their own conclusions without reading Masterjohn’s conclusions. I wonder if Sally Fallon actually even read the full report before she referred to it as her defense justification for her position because it does not, in fact, back up her assertions. It is disturbing to observe someone else claim that they inquired about the WAPF board meeting minutes and received a personal refusal from Sally Fallon. Which begs the question, where is the rest of the WAPF board of directors in this? Are they strictly window dressing for Sally Fallon’s will? Why have a board at all? Why not dispense with the pretense and call it the Sally Fallon Foundation? The rest of the WAPF board of directors are as much liable to potential loss of credibility and integrity if they do not see the problems and contradictions here. It is OK for a board of directors to over ride the president if they see a genuine contradiction or a potential endangerment to the whole organization or membership. That is supposed to be why there is a board of directors for any organization. I guess one for all and all for one isn’t that great of a maxim when it comes to apologetics and lack of humility to admit mistakes.
It is a legal requirement of the 501c3 that there be a board of directors. If as you say they are “window dressing” for Sally, this would not be the first case of that I have seen in my association with non-profits. But honestly, if I was choosing a board for an organization I created, I would probably stay away from strong-willed, independent leaders who might have their own ideas about how to run “my” organization, and tend to pick people who were passionate, loyal followers. Weston A Price Foundation is Sally’s baby. Would it really surprise anybody if she chose people who would not give her grief and would rubber stamp whatever she wanted to do? After all, the board is just to satisfy a legal requirement. Kinda like I think maybe I’m supposed to keep meeting minutes for the officers meetings for my LLC. Since I’m the only member, the meetings tend to be spur of the moment, more of a monologue than a discussion, and tend to take place in the shower where keeping notes is problematic. On the plus side, there tends to be little dissension. But the State never asks for the minutes, so they may not actually be a requirement in this state. If they ever do ask, we’ll see if I can do some creative writing and file date manipulation. 🙂
I don’t remember if I’ve mentioned the point that high doses are recommended for the pregnancy and breastfeeding diet and that’s basically written off because it’s not “long term.” I was pregnant and breastfeeding for 9 years and that’s with only 2 kiddos. I have friends who were either pregnant or breastfeeding for 25 years. That’s pretty long term.
I don’t know enough about the science to make a decision either way. And IF Sally’s Q&A is accurate, even the scientists in the know are in disagreement on some of these issues.
But I CAN tell A LOT by how different parties handle themselves. And here is what I am seeing from WAPF/GP:
Attack the messenger and ignore message.
Shifting stories
Rely on ones personal anecdote to dismiss others experiences
Deceptive arguments
smoke & mirrors
Ridiculous arguments counter to law and fact
Conspiracy theories
Conflicts of interest
Operating on blind faith
Arguing various logical facilities such as straw men arguments, red herrings, appeals to authority/personality, false dilemma, and more
Personal attacks and retribution
Complete lack of empathy
Lack of transparency
In every case to blame the patient rather than the product
dismiss, dismiss, dismiss
and more
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.
If I could give this a thumbs up a few more times, I would. This is exactly right on. Whether guilty or not, whether there is a problem or not, they are ACTING guilty. I think there is one thing that left out of your list – creating uncertainty or doubt about detractors or detractions. They aren’t trying to get at the truth, just trying to create enough doubt that nobody will believe what a detractor is saying.
My hope is that the Board of Directors (minus the President and Vice-President) will meet in closed session as soon as possible. Clearly the organization is in trouble, and being divided over this supplement. Important topics for the board would be:
Reclassification of Cod Liver Oil from “Our Most Important Superfood” to something like: beneficial supplement
Decide what to do about division between President and Vice-President of the organization (oust one, the other, or both?)
Review and revise Corporate policy regarding compensation and promotion of products/brands.
And perhaps more importantly that all of this, game plan how to save this organization before it is torn apart by this topic.
In my opinion, cod liver oil, whether fermented or distilled, is not worth tearing an organization apart over.
WAPF should never be recommending/rating brands and dosages in the first place. It is dangerous and not necessary
I agree Augie. It does not fit in with their mission statement: http://www.westonaprice.org/about-the-foundation/about-the-foundation/
I think the best case scenario would be to find a full time salaried executive director who does not have any side businesses. This person would be completely devoted to furthering the organization’s mission statement. I believe this would be the least biased way to run the organization. That, combined with a board of directors who watches and guides the executive director.
The weird thing is the lack of professionalism and business acumen. What ever happened to ‘the customer is always right’?
The prior comparisons to religious fanatics have been very apt.
Also they could develop generic quality standards for any food group rather than recommend brands
Sorry this is incorrect. You can only develop quality standards if you are a “trade assn” and WAPF is not one
I’m not sure I agree they shouldn’t be making recommendations. The first thing people ask after reading their info is ‘where can I get this?’. For a large number of things, especially given all the processed denatured versions, people couldn’t find a product but for their advise.
Where things got cagey is when they started taking in lots of money via donations, conference fees and the like and the officials started making money reselling the recommended products.
They cannot recommend brands or develop standards for products per their own attorney so WAPF is violating the IRS codes. they see this?!!! http://www.westonaprice.org/wp-content/uploads/2000/01/wapftaxexemptstatus2.pdf
Of the hundred of comments on various sites I have not seen anyone bring this up– this is amazing.
Augie,
Did I miss the part where the attorney says ‘don’t recommend brands’? I don’t see it.
You’d have to unpack that a bit, I’m not sure its as cut and dry as you make that, esp. the recommend brands part.
That document deals with which chapter they would be organized under and how that affects liability should someone get sick and the determination is made based on a multitude of factors. The ‘develops standards’ would be a major factor.
But recommending brands related to their education is not necessarily the same as promoting a specific industry; especially if the association is not controlled by its business members.
No it does not say “recommend brands”. But it says “no direct benefit” and it cannot set quality standards under the 5013C (which inc brand preference) but it can under a trade assn status
Hmm. I think that recommending brands would probably be indirect benefit. But it seem to be skirting the law when you have a non-profit recommending a for profit who then advertises with and pays sponsorship dollars to the non-profit and whose owner donates to the non-profit whose director and board members are paid out of the non profit who then passes resolutions to protect the for profit business from competitors or detractors, to prevent research monies being spent on safety testings after significant members of their community have expressed concerns, and the cycle just repeats itself. I said on my blog that its always been very incestuous. I’m just not sure that it is illegal. It’s not illegal for certain non-profits to spend 10% of their monies on their mission while the other 90% goes to offices, salaries, and advertising for more monies. It seems wrong. But it is not illegal.
“its always been very incestuous.”
Except that it hasn’t, considering the foundation had been recommending GP’s product long before GP became a WAPF sponsor.
Please provide your supporting information. I thought you said that you have only been around this group for only a few years. You had no idea who was in charge of WAPF in 2002. How do you know when WAPF started promoting GPP products, and when GPP started sponsoring?
I’m assuming that you’re talking about point #7, “That its research and study are not carried on to set standard for or to police an industry . . . .” I would agree that some of their activities tend to stray into that, especially regarding cod liver oil. Their rating system of Best, Good, etc. might actually stray a little too far. They might have a loophole in that they are not setting standards for industry to follow, but instead it is a rating system for members, and that they are not confining themselves to a single industry. If your understanding of this is a little different, please elaborate. I find this very interesting and had not considered this at all. Certainly no other single company has gotten as much exposure from WAPF as this one company. Actually, I think a case could be made that all other companies combined have not gotten as much exposure (free marketing) as this one company. Not sure how that fits in with their charter and their non-profit status.
WAPF cannot recommend brands. They can develop generic standards== eg good, better, best quality stds only if they change the type of org to a “trade association” and even then cannot recommend brands. When members find products that meet the generic criteria and they verbally give testimony to other members then the product would get the word of mouth– I think this would be kosher. Donations, conf fees, exhibit fees and ad space is fine too with either type of org
That’s an interesting find, Augie. As background on that memo, the Marler Clark law firm was researching the feasibility of suing the WAPF over its raw milk behaviors and its case revolved around the WAPF as a trade organization. In fact, much in this CLO controversy mirrors some of those raw milk days. This is a related article I wrote at the Ethicurean many moons ago:
http://www.ethicurean.com/2009/07/20/raw-milk-mem/
As you state Amanda that case was for promoting a product that caused injury. Even if WAPF was a trade association, preferring or recommending brands over another I think is anti-competitive and an IRS violation and just bad taste (no pun here). It is never ever done in the ones I know– if it ever did it would destroy the org. Selling the AHA logo to Kellogs of the world must be something different. I think WAPF should be run by an professional executive director and the shopping guide moved over to New Trends with a review committee; and now would be the time to announce it at the next conf– this is what I would do if I was in charge.
Vote for Augie, get a free banana. JK we all need to laugh more bark less
If the organization would stick to it’s mission statement:
“The Weston A. Price Foundation is a nonprofit, tax-exempt charity founded in 1999 to disseminate the research of nutrition pioneer Dr. Weston Price, whose studies of isolated nonindustrialized peoples established the parameters of human health and determined the optimum characteristics of human diets. Dr. Price’s research demonstrated that humans achieve perfect physical form and perfect health generation after generation only when they consume nutrient-dense whole foods and the vital fat-soluble activators found exclusively in animal fats.”
It could avoid a whole lot of trouble caused by drifting all over the place. That, combined with a full-time salaried Executive Director who is watched over by an active Board of Directors who would hopefully set a policy that anyone who works for the organization as a full time employee, cannot have a side business of selling foods or products related to WAPF (wording needs to be improved). The organization would steer clear of a lot of trouble.
Yes; and that big fund drive (I think it was half million) to share in the lipid lab costs is (was) crazy IMO. Dr Price said Teach teach teach
food-related injury sounds so contrived unless somebody shoved it down your throat. I cringe whenever I see or read Marler Clark and quickly change the subject. I do miss the ethicurean website, any chance of reviving it? It could be better and more relevant than ever.
@ Amanda: It’s funny you should mention that web site because I was just thinking yesterday and wondering if you still had it up and running or what. Then to have Ora ask, too, well it confirms my suspicions about ESP . . . ! I had never been to your site but I recall you mentioning it or posting something from it a couple of years ago, but I never had time to check it out. Interesting!
Ora and D — It’s not my site but I did contribute to it. The editor had a baby and then got a job with Bon Appetit Management Company and so she’s just busy. 🙂
Having babies seems to be a good cover/excuse for just about anything including, why did you pick that guy. Not that we’re complaining after the fact, kids are the best of all life pleasures or the worst depending how you teach them.
Wait, one of my nieces out there in CA Berkeley land has two daughters with no father but who am I to judge, they all seem very happy and functional. Just feel sorry for the guy that missed out glad I didn’t.
I have for the most part refrained from publicly getting involved in this issue, but this article in particular makes at least a brief comment necessary. The articles on the WAPF site were written across well over a decade, during which time the types of CLO and the recommendations have changed. The earlier recommendations if I recall correctly were based on CLOs that were lower in A/D. The issue isn’t so much contradictory articles, but articles that were written about different products produced a decade or more ago.
So I find this article, the methodology, and the handling of this matter pretty poor journalism, when even a cursory read of the various materials would make an average person realize that the recommendations change because the products and people in view are changing.
I have been involved with WAPF for many years, and never did we think we were to take large doses of CLO, FCLO, or any PUFA containing product or food… that is pretty clear from the journal in general and the writings and speakers at the conferences, blogs, etc.
John, I would agree with you that shifting recommendations in WAPF articles on CLO spanning a decade or more are to be expected. It’s just that Sally Fallon Morell, in the Aug. 28 WAPF Q&A, doesn’t say that. Instead, she strongly suggests that WAPF has long had a very precise recommendation, and that anyone who deviated from that was potentially endangering their own health. Here is the part of the Q&A I am referring to:
“What about claims that taking fermented cod liver oil caused someone to have heart failure?
“An individual took 1-2 tablespoons per day of another brand of cod liver oil from 1979 to 2006 and 1-3 tablespoons daily of fermented cod liver oil from 2006 to 2012. This is 3-9 times the recommended dose over many years. 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.
“Doesn’t WAPF recommend high doses of cod liver oil?
“The WAPF recommendation is 1 teaspoon per day high vitamin cod liver oil for a maintenance dose; 2 teaspoons per day for pregnant and lactating women; and higher doses for a short time during periods of stress…”
The WAPF wasn’t nearly so precise in the article it took down, nor was Sarah Pope, a WAPF board member, in her YouTube videos.
I have often had people ask me, after I’ve referred them to an article at WAPF, why the article was from, say, 2002 or 2004 or whatever. They would say to me “but this is 2015 – shouldn’t there have been some sort of update to the most viewed/shared articles, if for no other reason than to say ‘this article has been reviewed and required no updating at this time’ and that way people would know it’s at least been checked over”. Those are some good thoughts. I always defended WAPF by saying that apparently it didn’t need updating or they would have done so. But I’m in agreement with some of my friends whom I’ve sent the articles to, when they say at least the articles should be reviewed and either updated or it should specifically say it didn’t require an update as of such and such a date, more recent than the original article date.
Again, don’t shoot the messenger. Maybe WAPF needs to do some updating in more than one area. I don’t think booting good people off their BOD is going to do much except create more division, both outside and inside the WAPF community. But, that’s just me.
It may be the the organization needs a full time salaried Executive Director to reach our goals for the organization.
David, this argument does not make any sense, regardless of whatever quote you pull from a single document. There are many years of documents talking about the nutritional variability of the FCLO, and thus the idea of any precise dosage is meaningless. You are trying to attack ‘guidelines’ that have always been based on experience and opinions.
Do you not find it ironic that some of your attacks contradict each other? You were supporting Dr. Daniel’s accusation that the FCLO is of little nutritional value, and now you are implying that it is dangerous because its nutritional profile is so potent.
I’m glad you have at least conceded the previous point with your attack on dosage. If you do more research you will find that dosage has always been a topic of debate, and greatly depends on the individual and their diet. There is no issue here at all, as John pointed out.
I think David’s point stands. He and others (like me) aren’t surprised that recommendations have changed. We are surprised, and saddened, that there is no acknowledgement that recommendations have changed, and it seems like the sole purpose of that is to make Dr. Ron (or any others that took their advice through the years) out to be a rogue that won’t listen to any advice but his own, or an idiot that can’t read.
David also made no mention of nutritional profile. You invented that. You assumed that it was implied, because you believe that the product is completely safe other than the possibility of overdosing on vitamin A. And that might be why the WAPF changed their recommendations. But many are concerned that there are other toxic elements within the product now whose effects are cumulative, and so are far more noticeable with larger doses as the body’s capacity to detox is exceeded.
There was a big conflab several years ago, between Dr. Mercola and WAPF, regarding the vitamin A content of CLO. I finally got tired of following the thing because it all became very confusing so I don’t really know how it ended. Anyone remember?
D, I referred to this in point #1 in my “Playing with Fire” post. I included a link to Mercola, in which he says he was thrown off a WAPF board when he disagreed with WAPF’s endorsement of cod liver oil. WAPF issued a Q&A at the time explaining its commitment for cod liver oil. I think that’s where it ended–Mercola and WAPF went their separate ways.
Well, that would make sense and I guess I missed it in your article. I did remember there was a kafuffle about it though. It’s just too bad these things have to cause such derision and division. Thanks for the link.
“There are many years of documents talking about the nutritional variability of the FCLO, and thus the idea of any precise dosage is meaningless”
And yet WAPF and GP themselves give dosage recommendations!
Victor’s brave defense of the indefensible continues unabated.
When Mercola.com comes across new information, he updates old articles, so there is no confusion.
I was just researching what time of the day was best for Vitamin D sunbathing, and he admitted that “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”, and his advice had changed.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/09/04/when-should-you-go-out-in-the-sun.aspx
How humble this man is! This is exactly the kind of information updating I would want from any group I was tuning into for nutrition advice, and it’s exactly what the WAPF organization did not do.
Articles on the Internet are easily updated and changes in doses ought to be announced. It’s also relevant to point out that Dr. Ron took the brands and the doses recommended by the WAPF in the 90s and 00s and now is their poster boy of stupidity.
GPP still says, “I have heard some, guided by practitioners or others, take 1-3 tablespoons per day. This is the exception and not the rule.” “others” could be WAPF among “others”. 🙂 But there still is no mention of this possibly being a toxic dosage.
Very well said John. Your comment should be the final word on this topic.
Money talks… surprise:
“helping him push reporters to write about his studies, including one concluding that organic milk, produced without any G.M.O.-produced feed for the cows, had greater nutritional value.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-in-gmo-lobbying-war-emails-show.html?smid=fb-share&_r=1
Thank you for making us aware of this article!
Dr. Folta’s comment from the above article provided by Ora that, GMO technology is “safe and is used because it helps farmers compete”, is out and out bullshit!!! Compete against who? And how does engineering terminator crops, i.e. monopolizing the seed industry, help farmers?
http://www.banterminator.org/The-Issues/Biosafety/Terminator-Technology-and-Genetic-Contamination
Monsanto have made it their business to manipulate and suppress people and turn one farmer against another. They or their shills are not to be trusted.
Contrary to Charla Lord that “Monsanto’s longstanding partnership with academics helped demystify the science” has rather, corrupted and undermined the credibility of the scientific community.
Besides the unknown long term health risks, there is also their vague claims that GMOs can feed the world a lot better, which is also complete BS and unsubstantiated, see http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/failure-to-yield.pdf
Most of this article has to do with producers of GMO products, rather than organic producers, though. My favorite quote in the article, from an academic who decided to break his ties with industry: “You hang around with skunks long enough, and you start to smell like one.”
Dr. Kevin Folta = Monsanto Shill = a person who endorses a product in public forums with the pretense of sincerity, when in fact he is being paid for his services.
http://gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16340-kevin-folta-received-25-000-from-
monsantohttp://www.nature.com/news/gm-crop-opponents-expand-probe-into-ties-between-scientists-and-industry-1.18146
Nice finds Ken, but I just wanted to correct your second link about monsanto it should be http://www.nature.com/news/gm-crop-opponents-expand-probe-into-ties-between-scientists-and-industry-1.18146?wafflebotCursorId=1439163588704188:0:0
Isn’t it funny how the people who defend GMO companies usually come around to say that there is no evidence to contradict their grandiose claims, could that be because they WON’T allow any truly independent studies to be conducted other than their own, under the pretense of trade secrets?
Let me translate a bit of that article for you:
“Monsanto considers public-private collaborations to be “essential to the advancement of science, innovation and agriculture”. What this really means is, advancement for Monsanto profits.
“At least one institution, the University of Nebraska, has refused to provide documents requested by the group.” Hmm, you don’t think that it might be because they would lose their contributions/ funding?
” e-mails would reveal a similar portrait of “people trying to defend the science against malicious attacks”. Or reveal their relationships with corporations trying to block public from learning truths and refusal to reveal any open information and data, that would be truly malicious.
…and so on
GMO ‘s?….i find it interesting that the ” the Non Project” is now beginning to rival Organic Certification as a market place differentiating certification. Consumers are simply dollar voting against GMO’s and that is the most profound signal that can be sent. GMOs hurt the farmer..the soil, the plant, the animals, export, trade, genetics,the consumer and most of all,…they are dishonest with life. It is my hope that in my life, Monsanto will be brought to justice….either through economics…or outrage.
Kaayla Daniel has a new post on her web site about how dosage recommendations for cod liver oil have varied over the years, generally coming down in recent years. This from the post: “Since the publication of my special report Hook, Line and Stinker on August 23, many people have shared stories of atrial fibrillation, abnormal rhythms and related heart problems that appeared subsequent to FCLO consumption and that have disappeared with the removal of FCLO from their diets.”
http://drkaayladaniel.com/too-much-of-a-not-so-good-thing-and-other-questions-about-dosing/
Thank you for sharing the article David. If fermented cod liver oil was a superfood, I believe we could ingest larger quantities of it. Such as, if blueberries were considered a superfood, you can eat more than one or two berries without ill effect. Same with real milk. You can drink more than a few teaspoons of real milk, because it is a superfood, not a supplement. I believe Weston A. Price Foundation needs to re-classify cod liver oil from a superfood to a supplement. People pay much more attention to dosages with supplements versus foods.
I am reading this article: http://blog.ppnf.org/cod-liver-oil-a-historical-perspective/ and got to the part about Dr. Price’s Research:
“During this time period, Dr. Weston A. Price was conducting numerous animal studies with cod liver oil. The results showed that some types of the oil were very beneficial to immunity and proper physical and mental development, particularly in regard to phosphorus and calcium metabolism regulation (positively affecting bone, dental, blood and brain health).[24(p17-8)] Yet he found that it could also cause great harm, especially when overused. He was careful to note “some dangers that are not usually recognized or properly emphasized in the literature.”[9(p267)]”
and
“Overdosing with cod liver oil (and other fish oils), he cautioned, can be detrimental, possibly resulting in depression or paralysis, and he warned that “serious structural damage can be done to hearts and kidneys.”[9(p267)] In a paper published in the August 1932 Journal of the American Dental Association, he showed pictures depicting “progressive paralysis produced in a chicken and a rabbit, apparently by an overdose of cod liver oil.”[25(p1348)]”
Which I find relevant to this thread.
Boy, the comment section at the article you posted from PPNF is disturbing. Just about as disturbing as all the convoluted information circulating everywhere else right now, too. I’m sure glad I don’t bother with CLO anymore. Anything that contentious sounds like it should be avoided. Even back in Price’s day I’m not sure I would have been too keen on using the stuff. =8-\ It was excellent reading though, thanks for posting the link, Jim.
And now back to your regular raw milk discussion, this article is a couple of years old but I just found it and it resounds with perspectives most of us here hold. Explore her website, she is a very good writer:
Don’t kill the milk
https://driftwoodchronicle.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/244/