Someone wrote on a Facebook food site about what a relief it’s been the last couple of weeks to have a break in the fermented cod liver oil controversy. While there definitely has been less discussion, on this blog and elsewhere, it’s not as if the problems associated with fermented cod liver oil produced by Green Pasture have disappeared.
Kaayla Daniel, the nutritionist and former Weston A. Price Foundation vice president and director, who initiated the uproar in late August with publication of her study concluding that the Green Pasture product is rancid, not always made from cod livers, and lacking in key vitamins, has posted on her blog three cases of people with heart problems that they think may have been caused by FCLO (which she calls “rancid pollock liver oil”). She says she’s aware of a couple dozen such cases in total.
Meanwhile, the chief promoters of FCLO—Dave Wetzel of Green Pasture and Sally Fallon of the Weston A. Price Foundation—go dancing along like contestants on “Dancing with the Stars”, as if nothing is amiss. Green Pasture has a big promo going on at its web site (“Wise Traditions Conference Giveaway”) to award one lucky person free transportation/hotel accommodations/admittance fee (one of these) to attend the Weston A. Price Foundation annual conference Nov. 13-17. All this, presumably so they can then buy lots of the Green Pasture product, and encourage others to do the same.
I haven’t seen a word of acknowledgment or concern from either Dave Wetzel or Sally Fallon Morell about the illnesses that have cropped up—no commitment to investigate further, no expressions of concern for the people likely made ill, no warnings about potential dangers to upcoming conference attendees who will find Green Pasture with its dominating conference exhibit. It’s not as if Fallon Morell never takes strong stands against certain foods most of us take for granted. This from her on the WAPF site: “We do not allow products with chocolate at our conference or in our shopping guide.” So, rancid fish oil is okay, but cacao, a plant-based food enjoyed the world over, and thought to provide health benefits, is out.
If it seem as if I’m trying to reignite the torrid debate about FCLO that went on for several weeks here, I’m not. No, I just want to say how profoundly discouraging, even depressing, I have found the reactions of Wetzel and Fallon Morell, along with those of their many followers who similarly express not an iota of concern or caring about people who may well have become ill from FCLO.
The bulk of my discouragement is with WAPF, because it has the power to change this situation around. If Sally Fallon Morell told Dave Wetzel to engage in serious outside testing, and issue warnings about the potential dangers of his product, or lose WAPF as a backer, you can be sure he would comply. Wetzel is behaving like a lot of business people do in such situations—they don’t take common-sense precautions until and unless they are forced to do so, whether by partners or by government.
What matters here much more than my personal feelings, though, are the significant public messages communicated by the failure to take a hard look at this product, and alert people who trust WAPF, about the potential dangers. Here are seven comforting images I had about WAPF that have been shattered as a result of the Weston A. Price Foundation’s shame.
- That WAPF offers trusted guidance about nutrient-dense food. Someone commented here early on that he was relieved to discover Sally Fallon Morell, and her well-reasoned answers to all the contradictory information spewed about food and health. It certainly is comforting to realize that nutrient-dense food like raw milk and pastured beef and fermented food can significantly improve our health, and that one resource can tell you everything you need to know. But if she can’t allow the possibility that she may have screwed up this once, with so many case examples coming forth, well, I for one start wondering about all the endorsements she has made. Fallon Morell has despaired more than once that government regulators refuse to take seriously the many testimonials raw milk drinkers offer about their improved health. Yet here she is doing the same thing—ignoring testimonials of health issues put forth by consumers of FCLO.
- That WAPF is free from the financial conflicts of interest that plague the conventional food system. Yet here we have a cozy sweetheart financial arrangement between WAPF and Green Pasture whereby WAPF and many of its chapter leaders continue to encourage people to buy a product that could be making some people sick. It makes one wonder what other financial conflicts of interest fester beneath the surface at WAPF.
- That WAPF is open-minded about food and health. Yet here they are stuck in their ideologies and financially-based prejudices. WAPF is in the untenable position of defending to the death a product that looks to be rancid and which organization namesake Dr. Weston A. Price never embraced, and actually warned against. Why? Because Sally Fallon Morell and Dave Wetzel say so, that’s why.
- That WAPF is humanitarian, concerned about the long-term safety of its members, and especially their children. Yet in its black-and-white view of the world, a rancid fish product could never be unsafe, while vaccinations and genetically-modified (GMO) food are completely unsafe. When I realize that FCLO could be creating heart problems in a significant number of users—a possibility that is completely denied or ignored by its promoters—it’s enough to get people wondering if, just maybe, WAPF’s condemnation of vaccines or embracing of cholesterol could be flawed. Once you lose a little credibility, you actually lose a whole lot of credibility.
- That WAPF wouldn’t get stuck in endless, irrational denial, like the government and its Big Ag partners do. I must say, that when I read in comments on my blog some of the emotional denials of any possibility that FCLO is dangerous, despite reputable lab testing, I feel like I’m reading FDA dairy chief John Sheehan’s denials that European research on raw milk could have any validity. There’s the same twisting of facts and misrepresentation of lab or research results to always come up with the exact same conclusion (that FCLO is fine, or that raw milk is iso risky it should never be consumed by anyone anywhere).
- That WAPF would never use as its primary evidence, paid-for scientists, the way Monsanto and other backers of GMO foods do. Yet here we’ve seen the main, most often cited, scientific source of authority being Chris Masterjohn, in significant measure bought and paid for by WAPF.
- That we can police ourselves to ensure safe food. I have long felt that small local food producers can police themselves on food safety issues more effectively than the government can, or will. Now I’m not so sure. And that’s because the Weston A. Price Foundation and its partner, Green Pasture, missed a huge opportunity to demonstrate in real time that small food producers are different than big ones and, when push comes to shove, will put safety concerns ahead of financial ones.
Part of the reason I’m so discouraged about all this is that I’ve been on WAPF’s side on major food issues, especially raw milk. This controversy reinforces the wisdom of Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures Dairy Co. to create a separate organization, the Raw Milk Institute, to develop safety-based standards for raw milk, apart from WAPF. Otherwise, I highly doubt WAPF would ever have admitted to any concerns about illnesses from raw milk, or taken any action to encourage dairy farm safety standards.
Just before the WAPF board met late last month to carry out Sally Fallon Morell’s orders to remove Kaayla Daniel from the organization for issuing her FCLO report, I asked board members to consider having a serious debate on the real problem here. But the WAPF board seems not to have any semblance of backbone to question the supreme leader. Rather, it behaves as if it is part of a cult.
Yes, the FCLO issue seems to have died down. But that doesn’t mean we can’t all benefit from serious time spent looking in the mirror, and asking ourselves what we are, or aren’t, doing to ensure that people we care about aren’t consuming questionable food.
David,
It seems you have already decided about GP and its products and that that judgment continues to bias your coverage of this. You assume that the FCLO is to blame for particular illnesses. This is not to say that it isn’t, but it is an assumption, not a proven fact.
“no commitment to investigate further” – didn’t WAPF in their statement commit to this? Didn’t GP just release additional test results and statements by a number of scientists? Doesn’t testing take time (didn’t KD take well over a year or so to do her’s and her report)? Shouldn’t WAPF and GP be given at least a few months to do testing? Does none of the many tests results both already have count for anything
I also find it sad that anytime anyone raises the inconsistencies with your handling of this, you call them “GP sympathizers or supporters.” Many of us I bet are neither, we just don’t grasp the rush to judgment when people hold conflicting opinions and all we have is conflicting data. We would love to see additional testing and discussion of the issues involved since many of them appear very technical and open to debate. You continue to treat this as an open and shut case when it is clearly not.
“That WAPF is free from the financial conflicts of interest that plague the conventional food system.”
I find this one pretty ironic… isn’t your new foundation getting sponsorships and the like in the EXACT same fashion as WAPF and the companies that sponsored its events??? Again, not saying this is wrong or inappropriate, but it strikes me as possibly to probably hypocritical of you to take this line of attack against WAPF. Pretty sure WAPF fully disclosed and people posted the financial relationship between them and GP, and given their total revenues, it was fairly minuscule.
Your comments about Chris Masterjohn, IMO, clearly cross a line. You owe that man an apology. It is sad that to defend your opinion, you are willing to publicly defame others, again, without evidence.
I would comment more, but it is only a matter of time before the mob reassembles itself to cry “off with their head” to anyone who takes a reasonable and rationale approach to this issue.
Raul – I would appreciate you sharing perhaps, what David did well in this piece. Your comments don’t appear to be balanced, as they more critical in nature than appreciative of David’s position and sharing. He, we’ve all been good friends of the WAPF movement for over a decade, and come to this discussion with heavy hearts. Maybe you too? A little compassion goes a long way Raul. Thank you.
“Rush to judgment”? People who take FCLO are getting heart problems, and people who stop taking it are getting better, and you are accusing me of making a “rush to judgment”? Mind you, I haven’t asked that the product be banned, that sales be halted (though the latter step would be a welcome move, pending more complete and impartial investigation). All I’m asking is that Weston A. Price Foundation demand that Green Pasture commit to serious (impartial) testing by outsiders, that it insist on some kind of warning to members in connection with the huge exhibit at its major conference, that it express some concern about the fact that people seem to be getting sick in connection with the product. In other words, that WAPF accept some reasonable degree of accountability and responsibility….instead of doing the exact opposite, which is to promote this stuff to the hilt.
When I talk about “the GP sympathizers or supporters,” (and I’m trying to avoid naming people and getting into personal accusations), I mean those who go on endlessly about varying interpretations of lipid data, when that’s not the problem here. The problem is that people are getting sick, and they refuse to discuss that. Their refusal to address this issue (as you have once again, here) just tells me they/you don’t care about that.
Chris Masterjohn? I don’t owe him anything. He’s a great guy, and I have a lot of respect for him. But he is the one who says he’s on the WAPF payroll (look at the link in my post): “I have had a contractual relationship with the Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF) for years, in which I receive compensation as an independent contractor for various forms of writing, speaking, and consulting. This constitutes a minor but significant proportion of my income. WAPF also paid for a semester of undergraduate courses I needed to apply for graduate programs in 2006 and funded my postdoctoral research at the University of Illinois.” I am not blaming Masterjohn for the mis-use of his writings–indeed, I admire his honesty, which stands in contrast to others benefiting from the FCLO fiasco–I am accusing WAPF and other apologists. It’s the same tactic Monsanto uses to defend GMOs, what many of us get all over Monsanto and other Big Ag companies about.
As for the new Foundation for Nutritional Wisdom (www.ffnw.org), it’s not doing the same thing as WAPF in terms of sponsorship. That is, it’s not allowing any sponsors that produce products with serious questions about their safety. FFNW wouldn’t allow Green Pasture to exhibit, or otherwise sponsor anything, no matter how much money it offered, until it committed to the kind of investigation and warnings I discuss above. And no, WAPF hasn’t answered questions about the full extent of its financial relationship with GP. It has been very specific and narrow in disclosing particular connections.
Thank you once again David….am very glad to see this subject isn’t going away. It shouldn’t.
Because Chris is hired by WAPF does not mean he would skew research to benefit them. EVERY scientist works for someone. I have been hired many times to complete candid studies of organizational morale, culture, leadership, etc. Because they paid me doesn’t mean that I skewed my findings to support what they would CHOOSE to see. I agree that saying Chris is “bought and paid for” by WAPF with the implication that his findings will, thus, automatically support their desired outcomes is out of line. His disclosure of their relationship is above board, but does not mean he is admitting to being “bought and paid for” in the light you are portraying him.
I’d also like to find a health product that doesn’t, somewhere, have serious questions being asked about its safety. Its a bold testimony to state what a newly formed organization would or would not do so definitively. For me, the original poster observed a legitimate bias. I observed the same thing. I perceive assumptions and rushing to judgment on some issues, as well. I suppose the difference is that I believe David is a vested party in this whole situation (he, too, believes he experienced negative health issues from using the FCLO) and I don’t know that its his goal to provide an objective perspective as much as it is to inform people of the mistakes and manipulations that have been exposed by the way the WAPF has responded to this particular challenge.
I don’t think either side has built a perfect case in this situation. Some of Kayla’s research has been challenged by reasonable and qualified people. Some of the premises of the new group, such as the nothing that they will not allow sponsors that produce products with “serious questions about their safety” will be hard to guarantee. How does one determine when a question about safety is serious? It requires discernment and research. Will the public always agree with where the organization comes down on a “serious problem”? Who’s to say?
When I read David’s comment ” All I’m asking is that Weston A. Price Foundation demand that Green Pasture commit to serious (impartial) testing by outsiders, that it insist on some kind of warning to members in connection with the huge exhibit at its major conference, that it express some concern about the fact that people seem to be getting sick in connection with the product.”, I wonder if he really believes that people “SEEM to be getting sick” or that they “ARE getting sick”. For me, that is an important distinction that the original poster brought up. From everything I have read on this blog, I can see how the poster could perceive hat David actually BELIEVES that people ARE getting sick because of FCLO. I have often read his words the same way, and also thought he might be more forthright in owning and expressing his opinions. It’s HIS blog and he is not obligated to be objective, as being objective is not a standard of blog writing.
Masterjohn didn’t actually DO any research on this FCLO issue. And IMO, the credibility of his entire “examination of the facts” was brought into question when he explained away a damning test result as an aberration when he couldn’t figure out a way to throw any doubt upon it. And that was what he was doing in his whole piece – just creating doubt. He didn’t actually say anything one way or another, just created plausible doubt – like any good defense attorney.
It is my understanding that WAPF is creating its own lab. Guess who is going to run it? That “small, but significant” portion of his income from WAPF is soon to be not so small. Not only that, but because of the exposure that he gets through WAPF, he is able to pick up more clients. He owes a lot to them.
David, Many of us agree that WAPF is due for reform, and we should keep up pressure. But the Foundation for Ancestral Wisdom should not focus on that, but as stated, to bring WAPF and Paleo together. Make FFAW a positive addition to disseminating nutritional knowledge. I look forward to being a member of FFAW in addition to PPNF and WAPF.
Ira, you are correct. The new foundation shouldn’t be focused on reforming WAPF, and it isn’t. It is, as you suggest, focused on bringing together different segments of the movement for nutrient-dense food. That’s why I intentionally didn’t mention the new organization in my post.
““no commitment to investigate further” – didn’t WAPF in their statement commit to this? Didn’t GP just release additional test results and statements by a number of scientists? Doesn’t testing take time (didn’t KD take well over a year or so to do her’s and her report)? Shouldn’t WAPF and GP be given at least a few months to do testing? Does none of the many tests results both already have count for anything”
There was no indication in Sally’s response to this that they would be investigating health concerns. None. There has been no indication from GP or WAPF that they are even considering the possibility of health concerns with this product. None. So no. There is no commitment to investigate further. The only investigation they are interested in doing is to show that there is “no rancidity” in the product, by which they mean, no oxidation. The product IS rancid. There is no doubt about that. Not a single scientist has said that the product is NOT rancid. What they have said is that the product is not OXIDIZES. A significant distinction.
“I also find it sad that anytime anyone raises the inconsistencies with your handling of this, you call them “GP sympathizers or supporters.””
I’ve read every article David has done on this and almost every comment on all of the articles, and I don’t ever remember David saying anything like that. Could you please point out where he did so?
““That WAPF is free from the financial conflicts of interest that plague the conventional food system.”
I find this one pretty ironic… isn’t your new foundation getting sponsorships and the like in the EXACT same fashion as WAPF and the companies that sponsored its events??? Again, not saying this is wrong or inappropriate, but it strikes me as possibly to probably hypocritical of you to take this line of attack against WAPF.”
This is a good point. How do you function as an organization like this and yet remain free of compromising entanglements? I am going to have to think about this more. Technically, I have a conflict in this matter as I sell GP products, but I don’t feel like it keeps me from seeing GPs warts. Technically WAPF had a conflict when it came to Dr. Ron, as he had a significant sponsorship, but that didn’t stop them from giving him the boot. I guess when it seems you are compromising core principles, or acting out of character, then your conflict of interest is truly a conflict.
“Pretty sure WAPF fully disclosed and people posted the financial relationship between them and GP, and given their total revenues, it was fairly minuscule.”
I’m pretty sure that WAPF mostly disclosed the financial relationship between them and GP, but I’m pretty sure that there is more financial relationship between David Wetzel and WAPF that was not disclosed, and I wouldn’t call that full disclosure. I have a hard time believing that David Wetzel would give $5k per year to Nourishing Our Children and give nothing to the parent organization that he owes so much to. What do you think?
Thank you, David, for stating with clarity truths that many of us have sadly arrived at. What saddens me most now is how many people are mired in inertia, in an unwillingness to come to grips with what is so apparent when one gives careful consideration to the facts you present above. “FCLO” is so obviously an old-fashioned con, garnering millions for its slick promoter. The WAPF and most of its many supporters have no interest in the truth. It shouldn’t surprise us, really. The saying goes that money makes the world go round. The speakers, the sponsors, the chapter leaders who go on promoting “FCLO,” the Board and the WAPF leadership, the hired “scientists” – all have a vested interest in not rocking Sally’s boat. But saddest of all is the plight of the members whose motives are pure, but who will go on trusting. Question authority, people. Please.
David – you have a knack for hitting the nail on the head. It’s bothered me to see a pattern of WAPF adopting the very tactics they rail against. Talk about Ancel Keys cherry picking data – WAPF used the test results that prove their theory and disregard the impartial results Kaayla reported! As you noted, they use their own paid scientists to prop up their position, just like Big Pharma does. Although Chris Masterjohn seemed to damn FCLO with faint praise. His lab must have cost WAPF a fortune. $85,000 raised through this front page button https://donatenow.networkforgood.org/WAPFresearchlab?code=wapfsite
When incidents (raw milk illnesses, FCLO issues, or even serious Pulmonary Embolisms) are reported, they sweep them under the rug, instead of showing compassion or at the very least, curiosity and reconsidering their position. Gosh, I even read that Sally told an audience of grass-fed beef farmers that it was ok to feed grain to their meticulously pastured cows, so the finished product would have more marbling and better texture. What? If the FDA changed it’s standards for “grass-fed, grass-finished beef”, we’d all be up in arms! Something’s wrong at WAPF, really wrong. Sally doesn’t look well, maybe something is up with her. Or maybe, she needs to lay off of the FCLO. Sorry to say that, but the thought did occur to me when I saw her in person, She didn’t appear to enjoy radiant good health.
Sally does not look well at all….her face and body are bloated and she looks hypothyroid. I know lots of women in their 60s that don’t look like this. Nope Sally doesn’t have radiant healthy look at all. Kaayla Daniels is close to Sally age and she doesn’t look bloated and inflamed. So what’s up???
oh, come on. this comment is the kind of thing high-school girls do to each other … the worst so far in the litany of personal attacks as this topic heads to the bottom of the barrel. And I don’t mean = of fermented fish guts. Karen …would you say such a thing to Sally Fallon, in person? Of course not. Bad communications corrupt good morals
… I never liked cod liver oil when I was forced to take it. I haven’t had even one spoonful for the last half-century. This discussion about Green Pastures and W A Price certainly is worthwhile dissuading me that I need it at all, as long as I”m getting lots of REAL MILK.
… the line on personal attacks has to be drawn somewhere. Sally Fallon is one of the true leaders in modern America. When someone in her position stumbles on the Big Stage of celebrity, that does not undo the tremendous good they’ve done.
… for a bit of comic relief = I want someone on this forum to come up with a sympathetic cartoon of her, head and hands fastened in the Pillory Gazingstock Stock, and send to Mr Gumpert as the image for this portion of his blog
Gordon, reading your message, I had to wonder if you would chide Karen or David in the same manner if they were sitting in front of you at a diner for dinner? Unlikely, you too enjoy the benefits of sitting behind a firewall. Many of us don’t like face to face confrontation or giving a critique, so we don’t do it gracefully.
I would not call what Karen said a personal attack, but an observation, an astute one. Inflammation does appear as puffy skin and extra weight.
But, you made fun of Karen, and belittled her remarks (and high school girls to boot!) How is that good manners? Let’s mentor one another with our kind actions.
Many of us old-timers have been watching WAPF unravel for years.
We have cringed and watched (but not spoken out) Sally’s intolerance, coldness and unfair treatment of associates, chapter leaders, members, sponsors, authors and colleagues. Many more got heartsick when she ostracized whole communities like Paleo.
This is more than a stumble, these are the actions of a self-described dictator out of control.
No one I know wants the ire (or axe) directed at them, so we remained quiet. Sad, because that poor behavior just continued unabated.
I imagine it took David a lot of courage to speak out. Me? I’m still unable to sign my name, sadly enough.
Here’s a cartoon for you. I apologize in advance, but it’s what came to me as I thought about Sally’s intolerance. One of my employees gave it to me when I was a manager, so I know the feeling. It’s not easy being a leader, but if we have heart, have compassion and have kindness, we all fare better.
http://www.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/p/beatings-will-continue-until-morale-improves-10/
Mary Enig seemed to keep her “under control.” But when Mary could not longer play an active part, that’s when it seems these things started to happen.
Never thought of that Aurjan. Good point!
I have noticed in a few people close to me that as they age they develop the “always right” syndrome. The DSM probably has a name for it. Even Sally Fallon Morrell is, apparently, falling victim to the pathologies of our time. Sad.
For the rest of the board, they have no excuse. Where is Cowan on all of this? (I have seen FCLO in his office.) All of the others are brainless “yes-men” with god-knows-what personal agendas.
WAPF is in trouble without Sally; there are no other leaders (without Kaayla Daniel).
Too bad for all the good Sally has done, for WAPF to end this way, mired conflict of interest — just like the majority of charities and corporations.
Dear Oxidized. I have chalked this symptoms up to poor brain plasticity. Rigid thinking!
Once set on a course of action, they. will, not. detour. at. all. costs. full. steam. ahead. babies. be. damned. trance like actually.
I’m glad to that Kaayla wasn’t a “yes-man”. She likes red 4′ high heels too much.
4″ heels of course, not 4 foot! HA!
Gordon….hey there’s no personal attack on Sally. I’ve seen her at WAP conferences and events for years. Sally used to look radiantly healthy and now she doesn’t. She looks bloated and inflamed. It’s a hypothyroid or poor kidney functioning look. So what’s up with this? Rancid oils are reported to damage both these organs. Gotta wonder because something looks like it’s going on with Sally that’s not just aging. I don’t see it in other women I followed over the years.
I agree on Sally’s appearance. First I just assumed her body couldn’t handle all the fats she was force feeding in,but later she talked about taking various supplements,etc for joints and digestion. So it’s clear that something is not working.
What’s this about an $85,000 lab for Chris Masterjohn paid for by WAPF?
Oh yes, see their fundraising portal link on their home page. This was only part of the money they raised to pay for the lab for Chris’ work…..on fat research of all things.
i may or may not have been at that talk with the grain finished comment, i believe it was a conference in Texas where i heard Sally say the same thing. seriously, it boggled my mind when it was said.
Since the “discussions” here on this blog stopped so abruptly makes me think people who are on facebook and other social media (joining in on WAPF/GP type conversations) likely were warned, or possibly monitored each other (read: chapter leaders), to pass a message not to post here because at this blog we keep questioning the FCLO, and that looks bad for GP and WAPF both. They probably feel that by seemingly ignoring the banter it will make the problem disappear.
I’ve lost all faith in WAPF and it’s BOD. I wonder what Mary Enig would have to say about this mess, were she still around.
One thing is for sure, WAPF and GP are going to be ramping up the PR train in short order, so we can expect a lot of fallout from this, and they will likely use this blog as their whipping boy. It’s not over, for sure. The sad part is, of course, a lot of people won’t realize they have had problems from FCLO until it’s really too late to do much about it, thus no blame can be laid at GP’s door. So all they have to do is keep singing the same song no matter how sickening it gets (pun intended). I would imagine they are aware of that tactic and will use it to the hilt.
you are absolutely correct, people have been told not to make public statements and have been harassed and threatened if they do. it is a shame that WAPF is choosing to treat their people in such a manner from members to chapter leaders. but if the breast milk fight prior to this taught us anything it is that chapter leaders are disposable as are members that question the board.
@What’s in a name?: Oh yeah? What breast milk fight did they have?! Guess I don’t know anything about that, since I dis-membered myself from WAPF a couple of years ago. I also do not have a facebook account or any other social media account, other than my own forum where I vent, regularly!
I’ve given their recipe for homemade baby formula to a few people in the past, but none of them ever used the CLO in it. In fact, they told me right away they would leave it out and asked if it would make a difference. I always told them I couldn’t see how it would affect the “recipe” much and they could always add the vitamin D drops for babies if they were really concerned, but I never actually recommended they do that. Should have been plenty of A & D supplied by the liver used in the recipe. These were usually clients of mine who had either adopted a child or couldn’t breastfeed for some other reason, so I was able to follow up with them. Sadly, few of them stuck with making their own for very long because finding decent liver isn’t easy to do. A few were even wary about using liver at all because they were afraid it was toxic.
We stopped commenting because of the cognitive dissidence and idiotic comments by the haters of GPP and WAPF. And Tom Cowan is smart to avoid this negative energy.
I still recommend the Real Milk Finder on realmilk.com, and strongly support FTCLDF, but I no longer refer people to WAPF for nutrition information. They have lost a significant amount of credibility with me, and I don’t even take cod liver oil of any kind. It’s the response that bothers me. It’s 100% ok and even admirable to stick to your guns on an issue as long as you can prove that you are right. That has not happened here. On top of that, the potential financial influences create a murky picture. What I find depressing is that this organization, which promotes raw milk and traditional foods ( all of which we produce on our farm), had the standing to take on the ‘diet dictocrats’, government entities, etc, can no longer be pointed to or relied on to do so without some serious conflicts of interest. Basically – they had it all – a powerful movement and voice for a population waking up. Had they only taken the concerns seriously – paused for more research – warning their trusting followers that they had their best good in mind while they sorted this out – they could have come up victorious, an even stronger as an advocate for food rights and leapt ahead as an authority on nutrition. Please excuse any typos – I am posting on a phone with a cracked screen!
WAPF is very good at circling the wagons and shutting out any cries of dissent. I disagreed with them publicly a few years ago, and they threw back their collective heads and howled, and then promptly ostracized me and shut me out of any discussions. They did not like it when science showed the flaws in their reasoning. They never do.
Sad, really.
In this instance, they will simply ignore from now on, and pretend that none of this exists, knowing that in the internet world, short memories predominate.
There need to be more courageous voices out there explaining the facts to those who are searching for valid information, so they can be headed off before they fall into the trap of using a product that is not only NOT what it says it is, but is not something they’d put in their body if they DID know what it was.
Another issue is the composition and route to seating of those on the BOD of WAPF. Who elected Sally as President, I don’t remember the ballot? Who voted for anyone on the Board? How does anyone get to be on the BOD? Does anyone know the answer to these? I suspect Sally is self-appointed (for life?) and that the Board is self-perpetuating, nominations and exclusions coming only from within, am I right?
And what about her husband, Geoffrey, who is in his 80’s being a vote on the Board, what qualifies him especially after the comments about his behavior at conferences. ?
What is this behavior you speak of? We had an exhibit table at one conference where we could see his table and I have to say that my folks were really weirded out by his energy healing, especially the attention that he paid to genitalia, but we’d never seen that before (or since) and for all we knew that was the way it was done.
Earlier on this blog I suggested *in vivo* studies should be made on the effects of the fclo product upon rats or rabbits or such. But wait, we can test it on humans in real time because of the WAPF true believers that are still taking doses of the GP product. We can observe their health. I am another person that rather suddenly developed heart arrhythmia while taking fclo and am slowly recovering without it. But of course there are those that can say there is no proof. I concur.
I have an intuition that we will see the results of toxic doses more readily in the elderly. Sadly, my mother died in Oct 2013, of heart failure leaving a half case of GP fclo bottles in the refrigerator. Sure she was old, but a few years earlier she was traveling by herself and was in good enough health to expect to live at least another decade or so longer and told us so.
Was Mary Enig taking fclo too? In the recommended tablespoon(s) dosage? I thought I would Websearch for Sally Fallon’s age. It is published with her birth name, of course, as the Birth Record: “Sally Caroline Wetzel was born on June 22, 1948 in Los Angeles County, California.” The “Wetzel” name was a surprise. I don’t know where that leads. “You can look it up.”
Oh Bob, I feel what you are saying.I am sorry for your loss.
I bought FCLO for years for all my family, including my elderly mother, who had open heart surgery and three weeks in ICU. I can’t even bear to think that my proselytizing had anything to do with that. But, it might have! Why didn’t we demand long term studies?
Wetzel, as in David Wetzel? Any relation you think?
‘“Sally Caroline Wetzel was born on June 22, 1948 in Los Angeles County, California.” The “Wetzel” name was a surprise.’
That is just fascinating. I don’t know where it leads, either, but I know where it makes me wonder.
Another twist just too odd to ignore! You can’t make this stuff up. So now there’s a chance Sally Fallon Morrell nee Sally Wetzel is related to David Wetzel? Tyrannocaster you are not alone. A lot of us are now wondering where this leads.
I had asked around previously if there was any relation between Sally and D. Wetzel and was told there was none, and was told a story of them meeting after David went to one of Sally’s talks. I’m wondering if that might be more of the same, “sorta the truth, but not the whole truth” types of things.
It sure seems fishy! Now I would like to see both of their genealogy charts!
There is no relation between Dave Wentzel and Sally Fallon. NONE. Why don’t you ask them yourselves. This came up on a previous blog and someone actually looked into their genealogy. More wild assumptions. And Mary Enig died of complications from diabetes. She never really adopted the WAPF diet and had a huge sugar addiction. If you had ever met her you would know this.
Could you please provide actual evidence that Sally Wetzel Fallon and Dave Wetzel are not related?
We’d love to take your word for it but that hasn’t worked out well for WAPF recently.
L, while it is in keeping with the rules of argument that the person making a claim should provide evidence of such a claim it is difficult, if not impossible to prove a negative. In this case, it is not impossible as genealogies could be disclosed, but how far back do they have to go? What would satisfy the curious? Personally, I am satisfied that they are not closely related by the research that I did yesterday, certainly nothing closer than first cousins. Although it is curious that they were both born in California, CA is a big place and a lot of people are born there.
But does it really matter if they are related? Does it matter if what we are seeing is nepotism, cronyism, favoritism, or a financial arrangement? Despite whatever WAPF may say to the contrary, their relationship with GPP is not the same as their relationship with other vendors. I have not seen a single post from another vendor on the WAPF website that is promoting their own product. Have you? There are numerous from Dave Wetzel.
Steve, according to the classical rules of argumentation, when someone asserts a non-relationship–which you refer to as a “proving a negative,” this actually functions as asserting a positive. Because they are offering up what they declare as a positive fact.
Asking if the Wetzel/Wetzel connection really matters is a way of closing down enquiry. So we won’t know whether it matters or not until we know the details of Sally Wetzel Moran Morrell’s relationship with another Wetzel with whom she has questionable dealings.
Asking questions always matters, especially when there has been prima facie appearance of harm.
The question was whether Mary Enig took fclo and if not why not. Your post prompts one to ask, “How many (still living) upper eschalon WAPF persons don’t really adopt the WAPF diet?”
From my understanding of this article, the biggest complaint of the Weston A. Price Foundation is that they didn’t issue a response to Dr. Daniel’s report. However, did any of you see this detailed response by WAPF on Dr. Daniel’s report??…
http://www.westonaprice.org/uncategorized/questions-and-answers-about-fermented-cod-liver-oil-fclo/
Yeah, you missed the point of this article, and the 5 or 6 articles that preceded it on the same topic. We’re all well aware of that piece. We’ve already pointed out all of its flaws in different places. For a couple of them, you can just look at my comment that is still showing under the article. Another is not disclosing how much money Wetzel personally gives to WAPF. And there are more.
Wow, kind of like the Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture when it came to fracking money. My watershed moment came when one of the board members said, “not all farmers think fracking is bad.” Lots more money in my pockets now I don’t support these two hypocritical organizations anymore.
“…and especially their children.”
In my opinion the WAPF leadership’s decision to defend the well being of any vendor over its own children is the most baffling and unforgivable aspect of this entire affair… and more than anything else the reason Vital Choice has chosen to boycott this year’s conference. At this point, all things considered, any reasonable, OBJECTIVE person would consider the integrity of the product suspect and possibly unsafe. What possible reason would anyone continue to endorse feeding it to children??
[quote from Randy Hartnell]: ” At this point, all things considered, any reasonable, OBJECTIVE person would consider the integrity of the product suspect and possibly unsafe. What possible reason would anyone continue to endorse feeding it to children??”[end quote]
I’m pretty sure I asked that same question in the very first article David G. posted on his blog about this subject. Until or unless further studies are done to verify its safety, no one should consume it, is what I said, or something to that effect. That’s only common sense where I come from, but then common sense is in short supply these days. No one wants to do their own objective thinking, they want someone else to handle it for them. We need more companies like Vital Choice who do what they say they’re going to do because they have integrity.
Much the same question could be asked of prescription drugs and vaccinations, but people take that stuff all the time “because the doctor is my friend and he would never mislead me or give me something harmful, would he”? Yeah, right. This is the same scenario. WAPF would never steer us wrong, would they? Good questions to be asking, although too few people do. Sally impresses me as the type of person who does not like to be questioned in any way.
Do a web search on how many people die daily from prescribed drugs and hospital *mis-treatment* or watch youtube videos of things like Marketing Madness and many others, or read books like Dr. Carolyn Dean’s “Death By Medicine”. It would seem mankind strives to use everything but what nature intended – and that’s why we are in trouble. That’s why I support real food and real milk.
It’s still listed as an ingredient in their baby formula, with no per weight guidelines, and for a very small baby, the per weight dosage would be in line with WAPF’s previous dosage guidelines of 1-2TBS per that it is trying to pretend it didn’t recommend now. Can you imagine the effect of giving those high doses to children who are already compromised in some way?
Given GPP won’t state the actual amount of vitamins in FCLO, and that based on tests there are either very high or very low levels (depending on which side you ask) I find it hard to swallow that it should be recommended for infant formula. Not when a baby could be consuming insufficient or toxic amounts of it
Ha Pete! That’s rich! It’s indeed hard to swallow! Have you ever tasted the stuff?
Yes, thank you! To me, this is one of the biggest issues. The baby formula. Often used by mothers who are in panic to give their babies a healthy alternative to commercial soy formula. They put their trust in WAPF and this formula recipe. Not something to be taken lightly, yet WAPF and GP show no concern for the amounts, or the Essential Oils in the product. Shameful!!!
Oh Randy, thank you for thinking of the children.
This has got to be square in the sights of anyone creating an organization for health. When I heard that autistic children couldn’t tolerate FCLO, I tossed mine and my those I’d bought for my children and mother.
These sweet children are “canaries in the mine”. We ignore their communications at our own risk. I was glad to hear that Rosita brand is easily tolerated.
I remember my father’s words…”You owe it to your sons to do your own research. Don’t believe what others say, their lives are too precious for that”. So, we stopped conventional medicine, fast food and vaccines…and now FCLO.
For all those folks that think FCLO works wonders, ever consider you might get ten fold benefit if you try another brand, like Rosita? Maybe you are selling yourself short.
The range of disagreement on this subject is dizzying.
I share Gordon’s experience and opinion on clo, “I never liked cod liver oil when I was forced to take it. I haven’t had even one spoonful for the last half-century. This discussion about Green Pastures and W A Price certainly is worthwhile dissuading me that I need it at all, as long as I’m getting lots of REAL MILK”.
Why not just eat fish? Look at the Japanese who eat it daily- they have the highest life expectancy in the world and high levels of health. All the other societies who live on fish have not developed mercury poisoning or compromised cognitive function. Some experts believe that the fish danger is also a con to push the fish oil. Michael A. Crawford, PhD says there is not a shred of real evidence that sea fish is harmful, even to pregnant moms. They need the DHA, EPA and vitamins A and D it provides. .
I have often wondered why WAPF, being a group that promotes traditional foods, does not promote fish. Fish oil was a food of some few Scandinavians..that’s the main oil they had…. and they mostly used it for lighting and leather production.
Aurjan thank you for citing Dr. Crawford, who is a member of London’s Royal Society of Medicine “Hall of Fame,” was awarded the UK’s “Brain of the Year” last year, Founded the Institute for Brain Chemistry and Human Nutrition, has published several hundred peer reviewed scientific papers…and is among the world’s foremost experts on this topic. For anyone interested, here’s the interview Aurjan referenced: https://youtu.be/3AxBxpB-fEw
Randy: Thanks! Dr. Crawford drives the final nail in the coffin of the mercury-in-fish stupidity. Also good to hear him elucidate the Bristol study, since it’s behind a pay wall. Eat your fish, folks! Just not RPLO.
Yes, he is great contributor to our knowledge of nutrition and has a long history of omega 3 research, books, papers; dedicated his entire career to the study of fats, specifically in relation to the brain. There are a series of videos of his online. His book, “The Driving Force,” a really great read, discusses in detail the work of WAP. In the video Randy referenced, he makes his point on eating fish much more eloquently than I can.
Um, Japans ability to reproduce itself is rapidly declining. Its hard to point to them as a good example of long term health when they may be all but extinct in a few generations.
Whether that has to do with fish consumption or not, something is seriously amiss there.
I hope you have a better example.
We do eat fish and it’s a real treat!
The bulk of the fish we consume is of fresh water origin such as pickerel, or Walleye, as you Americans like to call it. On special occasions we eat shrimp, salmon or lobster.
Honestly, isn’t it over the top to call these “images” SHATTERED? I never bought into FCLO, but all this based on people who “think” that they “may” have gotten sick from it? And how did you or anyone for that matter ever get the idea that WAPF would be “free” from ideologies? Isn’t it time people make decisions based on wider levels of information , WAPF was never on a pedestal for me.
I could not agree with you more. I am so very discouraged. I have lost all confidence in WPF. I have thrown out my FCLO – I developed heart arrhythmia and went through some very scary testing. Recently, I have started losing my hair and eyebrows, which I understand is a strong sign of thyroid problems. Now in the replies to your post, I realize that is yet another symptom of ingesting rancid oils. ALL because of my trust and belief in WPF. I only took the FCLO religiously for a year, then the second year I slacked off (thanks heavens), but I did take a higher dose because of WPF’s recommendation. I am APPALLED that the foundation, ie, Sally Fallon Moran, would not immediately put a hold on using and recommending this product until this is sorted out. You all are so right about her using the very tactics that she has denigrated in the past. I have opted out of all the blogs I have followed that are standing with her – and there are quit a few. Nothing they have to say to me means anything anymore. I will no longer have anything to do with WPF – not even read their recommendations. It concerns me greatly that so many people might not know about this controversy. I feel this conversation should be somehow injected into a more mainstream one so that people will be alerted. Is the Paleo community talking about this? The Real Food community? The word seriously needs to be out.
Thanks so much David, for saying you are now questioning Weston Price, or Sally on everything they recommend. I have also been doing that and it is good to know I am not the only one. The person I buy my raw milk from told me that one of the farmers she knows who lives near Sally Fallon’s farm told her that Sally gives her milk cows grain. Now it is all hearsay I know, but it fits in with Sally saying that meat cows should have grain when being finished or what ever they call it for the last days of a cow before being butchered, which by the way, I know conventional farmers put the “finishing cows into tiny corrals so they cannot even turn around to get the marbled fat. I have seen these poor creatures mooing and groaning, trying to move, it is animal cruelty, wonder if Sally advocates that as well. Cannot understand Sarah Pope continuing on Sally’s bandwagon, I have sometimes disagreed with her, but thought her heart was in the right place, cannot get it out of my mind that she has children and she says she is continuing on with taking FCLO, that the tests Weston Price had done showed that it was very healthy and was not rancid. Her father was a regular doctor and she would proudly tell about how he would never prescribe a medication that had not been on the market for at least ten years and had a good track record, and that he would also let a patient go for a while with a fever or other symptoms to let the body heal itself before intervening with medicine. She seems intelligent and diligent about health, and aggressive about the horrors of vaccination and school lunch requirements, and yet she seems not one bit concerned that she is possibly harming her kids by giving them FCLO, and by example encouraging her blog audience to do the same. I do not have time to go into detail, but the responses I got from Weston Price when I challenged them on their denial and such were scary, sort of steppford wife kind of thing, deliberately misunderstanding what I said and in a creepy way saying that I just did not understand. It was frightening, emotionally dead people there it feels like. Bless you and Kaayla and Dr Ron, and Randy, Hartnell, and Steve Tallent and all the rest of you who are finding your way through tangled web. Thanks again Dave!
Would love to see the exact back and forth of your messages with WAPF. I know how easy it is for there to be a misunderstanding or for different parties to walk away from an exchange with different perspectives on what happened. It is one reason why I wanted to see the actual board meeting minutes to see, at least as far as it was written down, exactly what happened in that board meeting, rather than hearing different sides of the story. But, they wouldn’t let me see them. Pretty sure they made a brand new policy after consulting with lawyers just so that I couldn’t see them. Anyway, if you feel like sharing, it might be enlightening to some.
Steve Tallent, I just tried to forward the email replies from Weston Price to David Grumpert so he could forward them to you, sorry I cannot cut and paste, and they would not go through, a few days ago I tried as well, finally sent them to Dr Ron and he did get them, Shall I forward them to your website? Cannot do it today, out of time again, but will try to do it tomorrow.
Sure. Send them to our customer service, or Steve at our domain name.
Sally’s farm runs Jersey’s. Those are not easy beasts to run 100% grassfed. In most cases its not even doable in the short to mid term without compromising cow health.
Popular breed, but poor choice for 100% grassfed. It can be done, but its a 10+ year project at the minimum.
That said, I’m shocked to hear she’s saying its ok to feed beef cows grain, even recommending it. But then there are many beef producers who built a name with grassfed but were never 100% grassfed or who compromised on that in order to build their supply. Its actually really hard to find truly 100% forage fed beef.
Sorry, I don’t see why WAPF should be “ashamed” for doing what they believe is right. I am fine with a multiplicity of views and for each dissenting organization to establish their own priorities and allow the
participating or non-participating public to vote with their dollars etc.
What I don’t understand is, if the “naughty nutritionist” faction has their own independent organization… why
are they continuing to whine and throw darts?
If you do have the high moral ground why not act with confidence and dignity and direct your efforts to building your superior organization and what is inferior (if it in fact, is inferior) will fall away. Let the best life-serving, sincere organization (or both, if applicable) win.
This insistence on keeping the complaining front and center suggests that the real imperative here is to attempt to destroy WAPF so that you don’t have to keep working so hard to build an equivalent organization in its stead. Your problem is that WAPF has a long history of integrity so now you continue the strategy of divide and conquer by re-hashing what you have already stated and with which arguments you did not prevail.
Now you are resorting to ad hominen attacks and character assassinations which reads like poor sports at best, and as a sneak attack by divide and conquer, Codex Alimentarius sponsors at worst.
WAPF had a right to remove a board member who, in their collective judgement, did not have the best interests of the WAPF at heart.
Maybe they were right, maybe wrong, but if they were wrong, the only true proof of that would be the dignified example Ms Daniels HAS YET to establish by demonstrating her ability to create and MAINTAIN an organization of demonstrable integrity for even one entire year. I truly wish people of good will all the best in all of their endeavors.
Again – the elephants in the room that continue unaddressed are looking for other reasons for several people developing heart problems while using a product. Was it indisputably CAUSATIVE and what efforts were made to eliminate all other possible risk factors. Dr. Ron is a longtime distance runner and there exists plenty of evidence that in spite of diet, long distance running puts undue stress on the heart as well as other organ systems. Also, all people who come to a WAPF nutritional ideology have arrived there from a lifetime and generations of other dietary regimens. As a result, they may just have weaker hearts than others.
Of course it is important to determine if the GP product is contaminated, to what extent, and whether radioactive waste from Fukushima or contamination from other industrial chemicals being dumped into our oceans is affecting the Cod Liver Oil. As long as this is about a genuine desire to protect our food sources and not looking for a scapegoat I admire the efforts of all parties.
I do not appreciate the attempts to SMEAR WAPF for not rolling over to a faction that seems more determined to create division than to improve oversight. The word “shame” is out of line. The camp that is claiming the moral high ground has yet to prove its own sustained integrity.
Then you are wasting time on the wrong blog.
Oh, Oxidized… I see… only people who agree with you should express themselves on this blog. I see that the format here is on the level of a high school “slam book” with popularity ratings for opinions. Of course these ratings have no context because they are anonymous. You, “oxidized” hide your identity behind an adjective which probably is a fair description of your condition. – but does not say much for your courage. I respect people with differing opinions who reveal their identity and have their own salient points to express. Your comment expresses nothing more than a mean spirit.
Wow, I didn’t realize that this was the “haters of GPP and WAPF.” I thought we were supposed to have constructive dialogue here, but obviously this group is incapable of that. Still, no one wants to talk about the rancidity of Rosita CLO…now why is that? You villainize one company but not another? Did they ever come out with a public statement about that? No. Definitely something fishy about that.
Open discussion and constructive dialogue do not require the amount of sarcasm and contempt we’ve seen from you three ladies, in particular. Besides, AFAIC, there’s just not a lot left to say about this that hasn’t been said a dozen times. Everyone has their own feelings and beliefs about this subject, and that’s likely how it will stay. No amount of venom from either side is going to change that. I think this discussion has run its course.
And the personal attacks, the name calling, and the false accusations get old really fast as well. I’m still waiting for somebody to actually back up one of their accusations against me. As soon as I ask for an example, Carrie, Amanda, Victor, they move right along to the next thing they can say to try to undermine or discredit my words and opinion. But, from what I gather, this is just an extension of what is going on behind closed doors in WAPF groups.
On the other hand, it’s not like Kayla Daniel and others calling FCLO rancid pollock liver oil is in the best taste either. I mean, it is rancid (hydrolyzed if nothing else), but according to the rumor mill, it has only ever been a small percentage Pollock, but either way, it is an intentionally derogatory term. At least it isn’t calling a person names. The name calling and character assassination coming out of WAPF circles towards a number of people is simply startling, especially when they are preaching and expecting solidarity and respect for leaders of the real food (by that they mean Sally and Dave and others in their good graces.)
The problem is, that WAPF has established what is sees as right through years and years of criticizing the actions of the FDA, the CDC, and other groups and organizations. For instance, there was an action alert sent out recently that read, “As you know, attacks on our right to exempt our children and ourselves from vaccines are rife nationwide. At the same time, CDC continues to conceal vaccine dangers, vaccine failures, and the connection between vaccines and autism as well as a myriad of other chronic illnesses and disabilities.”
Your paragraph about causation, is exactly the tactic that is being criticized as “concealing the connection between vaccines and autism”. We want the FDA to explore that. They ignore it. We want WAPF to explore the connection between FCLO and heart (and other health) problems. WAPF is ignoring it. It is EXACTLY the same thing. THIS is what they have to be ashamed about. Yes, it is possible that all of these heart problems and FCLO are a coincidence. Yes, it is possible that scores of thousands of babies and children have their first seizure within minutes or hours of having a vaccine. But shouldn’t we know for sure? Shouldn’t we find out? CDC won’t look into it because there is an ideology to protect that universal vaccination is for the greater good and nothing can be said or done that would diminish public trust in vaccines. WAPF won’t look into it because there is an ideology to protect. Exactly what that ideology is, I don’t know. But NOTHING can be done or said that might diminish public trust in FCLO. If that means that they have to censor sources of information, threaten chapter leaders, remove sponsors and board members and chapter leaders, conceal information including portions of test results, remove incriminating evidence from their website, threaten litigation, etc. then that’s what they are doing.
The shame lies in the fact that they did not once show any circumspection regarding FCLO. They could have said that they were concerned about the people that were reporting illnesses that they thought were related to FCLO. They didn’t. They could have said that possible FCLO related conditions need to be and would be explored. They didn’t. They could have said they would investigate issues of rancidity, instead, they proclaimed it not rancid – something NONE of the scientists commenting would do. They could have told the truth about labeling laws, instead, they falsely said that GPP followed all labeling laws. They could have done a lot of things that would have shown some degree of objectivity. They couldn’t have done a better job for GPP if they were a paid PR firm. How is that not shameful?
Mr. Steve Tallent… I truly appreciate your thoughtful comments. And I respect your right to disagree with me because you make a good case for your point of view that is worth thinking about. As it so happens, I do not see the exact correlation between WAPF and the FCLO and the vaccine issue. The vaccine issue is one that I have devoted a lot of thought and research into because my first child (a daughter) had a severe reaction to the MMR shot and developed epiglottitis which required an emergency tracheotomy to save her life. I read a wonderful book ” Immunization, The Reality Behind the Myth” by Walene James. It became very clear to me that if the intent of the producers of “vaccines” was to strengthen the immune system of anyone, they would cease to use a method that bypasses the entire immune system’s series of checks and balances that prevent ANY substance other than water to have access to the bloodstream (and thus the reproductive machinery of the interior cells of the body) without having to get past skin, mucous membranes, stomach acid, all of which shields alert the liver and a host of immune defenses to the presence of foreign potentially dangerous invaders. Not to sound too religious about it, but the blood of our children is sacred territory and deserves to be defended from an army of legislation aimed at injecting genetically mutant material in a soup of toxic chemicals into everyone’s blood stream. You don’t have to be a scientist to understand that the intent of this campaign is not a concern for the well being of humanity.
Vaccines however are being imposed in a tyrannical way. WAPF is not FORCING anyone to take any kind of cod liver oil, Green Pasture’s or any one else’s. Their recommendations are provided as the current dominant view held by the board members. And I say this as an interested observer on the outside of this rancorous dispute. I can’t call myself entirely objective because I love the way in which nutrient dense food and freedom from fear of healthy saturated fat has improved my life. I only follow ANY ideology to the extent that I recognize measurable results for the better personally. I tried taking CLO and FCLO but did not observe it to have demonstrable benefits for me and so I discontinued the use of it. Overall however, my health measurably improved and continues to improve through following the main concepts, so I continue. WAPF has freely provided me with a WEALTH of information that has become the foundation of my dietary choices, washing away years of dangerous “health” information (Veganism, Vegetarianism, Soy, Fear of Saturated Fat, Fear of Meat, etc) that would have destroyed my health by now had I not finally learned about the discoveries of one of the greatest health heroes, Dr. Weston A. Price.
I also know that the non-profit foundation that has made this knowledge available is a threat to a huge industry and an agenda that would like to remove every last independent farmer, organic food producer, and source of real food from our access and poison every inch of viable farmland with glyphosate and GMO pollen while poisoning every last available drop of clean water with glyphosate, fluoride, chlorine and god knows what else can be fracked into our water. ANY effort to create division over something which should be able to be sorted out with good will, should be viewed with great skepticism as to the genuine intent. Another of our greatest teachers gave us this piece of wisdom to help us divine the truth when it may be obscure… “By their works, you shall know them”. For this reason, I await the further demonstration of the sincere intentions of Ms. Daniels to sustain efforts to be a part of advancing the cause of the real food movement.
My issue with the dispute many bloggers here have with WAPF is that the approach taken does not bear out their stated intent. The emphasis appears to be on a power struggle to topple the leadership of WAPF. I admit, that I am a grateful, long time admirer of WAPF and that I have had consistently good impressions from my limited and distant exposure to Sally Fallon via reading “Nourishing Traditions” and hearing her interviewed on podcasts. She has never come across as a “political” personality to me and my impression is that the power she acquired came about as a complement to her work to increase public knowledge about nutrient-dense foods. The contention here is that Sally Fallon is acting from ulterior motives in this brouhaha over FCLO. While I am determined to make a point of learning more about the background of this, I admit to having very little direct knowledge of anyone involved in this dog and pony show. I am more concerned with the importance of the big message of nutrient dense food and its critical relationship with the future of human and animal survivability and ability to thrive and evolve going forward. We certainly need more people getting out the BIG messages and working to keep REAL FOOD a top priority with activists who will fight to keep real organic, pasture feeding, farmers and food producers and their struggles visible and winnable with wide based support. If WAPF is truly deviating from the higher purpose of their reason for being, and this new organization is sincere about their standards and committed to maintaining the high ground… the new group will surely win the day. The sour grapes critique that I hear from them is not encouraging about the actual motives. The method being employed bespeaks a desire to destroy WAPF if the critics cannot prevail in their complaint. I would have a lot more respect for Ms. Daniels if she would work to build such a strong and admirable organization that WAPF would have no choice but to make amends if they are in the wrong. The actions of WAPF to this point make clear that the approach employed to bring this issue to their attention appeared to be geared towards undermining WAPF as a whole.
It is probably true that WAPF needs to be more transparent than they have been in terms of the efforts made and intended to verify the purity of GP FCLO and other good points brought up by other posters on this board (ie. your comment about Weston Price’ concerns about over reliance on CLO, the interesting comment by Sheena about Adele Davis cautions that CLO could be problematic in a diet that is deficient in Vitamin E, and my comments regarding the documented ill effects of over exercise on heart health and heart failure, regardless of diet.
Thanks for your thoughts, Laurie. Obviously any analogy taken to an extreme will fall apart. My comparison of WAPF/FCLO to CDC/FDA/Vaccines was only intended to extend to their response to criticisms and health concerns. The response is the same. Again this is the response that WAPF has vilified (and rightly so) and now is shocked and hurt at the response they are getting when they have employed it themselves.
I hope the new organization does good work and is not bent on undermining any other group. Obviously a group will put out information sometimes that will contradict information being put out from another group. I hope that this is as far as it goes and isn’t specifically targeted.
Laurie: I suspect that there are many like me who greatly appreciate much of what the WAPF has done over the years. I’ve gained a vast amount of knowledge about food and its relationship to physiological processes and health. I’ve shared this knowledge with my physician, and anyone else who would listen. I’ve met many wonderful people whom I look forward to seeing again at each year’s conference. Probably the greatest lesson I learned, decades ago, in my callow youth, was skepticism. To question everything. The lure of riches or power can compromise even the righteous, and has for millennia. Three things have cast me into the group who have left, or will be leaving the WAPF for the new organization: 1. Dr. Price explicitly warned of the dangers of consuming what, in his day, was essentially the same product as Green Pastures’. 2. The presence of 3.22% trans fat (not vaccenic acid, a wholesome, nutritious trans fat produced by ruminants) in an oil which should contain no more than trace amounts, if any. 3. Randy Hartnell’s letter in response to a customer query and later posted on this blog. Want integrity? Randy’s got it. Some of the comments here do make me wince. Some certainly aren’t helpful or respectful of others, but I am doubtful that anyone commenting here is seeking to destroy the WAPF. It is fact the intransigence of the leadership that has alienated many, the dismissal without any apparent empathy of real people who connect their declining health to the consumption of this product that that has damaged this fine organization, not those who comment here. I very much appreciate David Gumpert’s bringing this to our attention. This certainly is not a smear, but a lively discussion about a product about which we really knew little. This is not a game or a contest in which there is a winner and a loser, and everyone goes home until next season. It is fundamentally about trust, which is the entire foundation of legitimacy for the WAPF. We trusted, and that trust has been violated.
Your blanket statement “Also, all people who come to a WAPF nutritional ideology have arrived there from a lifetime and generations of other dietary regimens. As a result, they may just have weaker hearts than others.” displays ignorance. I have grown up with now WAPF-approved foods before Sally Fallon started WAPF and continue to this day. There are people on this planet who have eaten and still eat properly prepared foods without Sally’s help.
I am flattered that you had to work so hard to emphasize the wrong point from the above. I did not say that no one else had nutrient dense food in their historical legacy… only that there were many roads to what the WAPF specifically advocated as guidelines derived from Weston A. Price’s research and subsequent research based on it. I did not delineate all other diets as necessarily being inferior… only those that had negative impact on the offspring and specifically the constitutional strength of their heart as a result.
“Also, all people who come to a WAPF nutritional ideology have arrived there from a lifetime and generations of other dietary regimens. As a result, they may just have weaker hearts than others.”
If it is true that this is the case, and that means they are predisposed to having heart problems, and Dr. Price warned against too much CLO because it could cause heart problems, and WAPF was recommending 1-3 tablespoons of FCLO for years, then wouldn’t the honorable thing to do be to admit that their recommendation was too high? Wouldn’t it be responsible to announce that they have changed their recommendations? Isn’t it irresponsible to continue to recommend dosages that are twice the manufacturers recommendations? Wouldn’t it be right (and humanitarian) to issue a warning that people with heart conditions, or a family history of heart conditions, should not take FCLO (or CLO in general), and that anybody that develops any kind of heart conditions should cease taking FCLO? It seems like it to me. And not doing so . . . well not doing so is something that they should be ashamed of. There are only a few reasons that I can think of for not doing so and they involve pride and money – neither of which should be placed above human health and safety, especially by a group advocating health through real foods.
I wonder if the heart problems are not specific to GP’s FCLO but to taking cod liver oil within a diet depleted of vitamin E. Adelle Davis wrote about this long before GP existed.
Weston Price wrote about it too. He attributed it to toxins in CLO. I have assumed that he was not able at that time to identify or remove the toxins in question. It could be that we are still not able to identify the toxins or the substances that act against the heart are identifiable, but not known as the culprits. This toxin issue is why he was happy to find that pairing CLO with butter oil had a synergistic effect and he was able to use much less CLO and achieve the same results. I have not found that he recommended CLO as a daily supplement though. He seemed to treat it as a medicine. And people have a problem that WAPF and GPP have not treated it as a medicine, or as a supplement, but have called it a food, said it was safe, incapable of going bad, and implied that more is better, with recommendations to take it daily – which is weird for a product that is principally fats and fat soluble vitamins, because those would be stored and weekly would work just as well as daily – unless of course, you were worried about a large weekly dose of toxins in the product overwhelming the immune system.
It is an interesting note that organic dairymen in CA that produce branded grass fed milk to Organic Valley….actually feed huge amounts of Mollases as a replacement for corn or grain. Be ware that grass is not a sole food source with enough energy to support cows producing low risk raw milk. 100 % grass fed does not mean that the cows do not get minerals, extra energy, dry forage supplements etc.
When an investigator looks deeply into 100% grass fed claims….you often find a contrasting truth. Grain is fed during milking time…extra dried forage is provided on top of pasturing.
I am proud to say that OPDC does supplement our pasture feeding program with a combination of extra dried organic alfalfa and limited amounts of organic molases and organic grain ( all USDA certified and expensive ) We consider our pasture based system with its supplements as essential to cow health and food safety. A skinny cow is a cow in trouble and a cow that sheds pathogens. Who ever started the idea that limited small amounts of organic grain or corn is bad….needs to get a grip on reality. Cows need the energy….just like nursing moms need extra energy or breast milk production drops or stops all together!
I do agree that some special rare breeds of cows ( and only some of those cows….might be able to do it ) can produce milk on just grass. Those cows are not Holsteins or Jerseys. In Australia….the amounts of Chilean nitrates needed to keep grass growing fast enough….made the grass fed only dairies not eligible for organic certification. I deeply believe that most 100% grass fed dairy claims are ( when actually investigated ) misleading. How are cows in New York supposed to be 100% grass fed….when the snow is 4 feet deep for six months of the year and the cows are locked inside barns (yes…there is one organic dairy making this claim).
You just can not cheat energy requirements. Dairy cows are not beef cows. No dairyman should be ashamed of pasturing their cows and …..providing additional alfalfa and supplemental minerals and small amounts of grain or corn ( or other organic energy source ) to assure good health and body condition. That is called responsible husbandry, earth friendly, cow friendly, people nourishing, low risk, raw milk production.
It’s the same with beef cattle. In the area of the country where I live, there is just no way to 100% pasture-feed anything – not dairy cattle, not beef cattle, not chickens or any other fowl, etc. They must be fed grasses and hays in the winter months, there’s just no way around it. Although we raised Hereford beef cattle as much as possible on pasture, there was always hay and mixed grasses/hays in the loft, along with a huge silage pile just outside the barn. Mostly, though, whenever possible they were pasture fed and sometimes sold during that pastured part of the year, or at a dispersion sale in late fall/early winter. The only stock we really kept during winter months were the Hereford breeder bulls and my gramma’s 3-4 milk cows (generally Jersey or Guernsey, occasionally a Dexter). It’s really rather unrealistic to think of any animal being 100% pastured. This is where “city folks” need to do more research about their foods.
D. Smith,
100% grassfed beef can be produced virtually anywhere.
Keep in mind, 100% grassfed isn’t limited to grass. Read that ‘forage fed’. So pasture, hay, annual forage crops (including grain crops up to dough stage). It is expected that includes salt, mineral, etc.
But molasses, DDG, grain containing siliage, mature grain crops, these are all out.
But what can’t be done:
Year round finishing of beeves in many climates, you have to work with nature
The use of inappropriate genetics. You can’t take standard feedlot genetics and expect them to finish out on scrub pasture. Just won’t happen.
And year round pasturing can be and is done anywhere in the lower 48, excepting maybe desert climates of the SW and maybe heavy lake effect snow areas. Thats not to say you won’t have hay on hand for when there is heavy snow cover, but it is done by producers all over the country.
@ Pete: I was talking about pastures, you know, green lush pastures where the cows are grazing. I take things more literally than others, I guess, because to me there is a difference between pasture fed and grass fed. Yes, they are basically the same thing, but green lush pastures are not the same thing as dried hay grass. We used them all on my Dad’s farm when I was growing up and helping with chores, but used very little silage but had it on hand just in case of a terrible winter and perchance we ran out of dried stuff, and we had plenty of terrible winters where we made it through without using any silage at all. Other than some oats for the horses, I don’t think we used much grain outside of the emergency use of silage in severe conditions. We had nothing called “organic” grains back then (1950’s and 1960’s) in my area, but I do recall hearing about them in the 1970’s. I think my Dad bought grain from neighbors because we did not raise grain at all, we baled mixed grasses.
Mark,
I agree, many of the grass fed dairy claims are misleading; cows do need the energy especially when they reside in colder climates. That being said however, be careful not to overdue it, especially with sweeteners such as molasses that have a tendency to lower the cows gut ph. An overly acidic environment in the gut can lead to serious digestive problems, which in turn increases their vulnerability to dysentery, mastitis and can affect the quality of the milk.
My preference is to avoid, molasses and/or corn syrup altogether, especially prepared rations that more often then not include the above sweeteners to name a few.
You’re projecting Mark. Just because you couldn’t do it, just because you were fraudulent about your 100% grassfed claims doesn’t mean its true for all other dairymen.
“Be ware that grass is not a sole food source with enough energy to support cows producing low risk raw milk.”
This is categorically false. If you have appropriate genetics and well managed, nutrient dense pasture, grass alone is sufficient. It can be and is done all over the country.
But you can’t do it overnight, you can’t do it with confinement genetics, and you can’t push maximum milk production with it.. Likely all reasons why Mark got away from 100% grassfed.
But there are producers doing it, even with Jersey’s and Holsteins. It is much much easier to do with heritage breeds though; which is fine as they’re often healthier animals anyway. But not fine if you depend on buying replacements or expansion cows from confinement dairies.
So what else in his comment is also untrue?
Cows in heavy snow areas? Mark is smart enough to know that 100% grassfed includes GRASS HAY and alfalfa. This is pure outright deception on his part.
It is true that OV allows molasses feed and that as such it really isn’t 100% grassfed. But ‘huge’ across the board? I’d have to see data substantiating that. The only reason they have this is because confinement Holstein and Jersey cows arn’t capable of true 100% grassfed production out of the box. But marketing trumps truth.
“Be ware that grass is not a sole food source with enough energy to support cows producing low risk raw milk. …I am proud to say that OPDC does supplement our pasture feeding program with a combination of extra dried organic alfalfa and limited amounts of organic molases and organic grain ”
Need grain for low risk raw milk? Proud? Remember, this is the same guy who for years on this blog claimed that the only way to have healthy cows and produce perfectly safe raw milk was 100% grassfed. That you wouldn’t get sick from such milk.
Until someone did get sick from his milk, pathogens were found on his farm, and he got exposed here feeding grain and lying to his customers saying it was 100% grassfed.
if = as you say Pete = ‘someone did get sick from his milk’, then please supply the name address and contact information / date etc. regarding that incident, or incidents
perhaps you’re referring to the urban myth merchandised by the perennial complainer, Mary M McG? She saddles up her One-Trick Pony and trots it out on various cyberfora when she needs some attention. Go look at the paperwork for her legal claim ; there never was any proof of her son getting sick from raw milk from Organic Pastures. All there is, is : guilt by association. OPD settled out of Court because it was cheaper than contending with the vipers. Contending with the nay-sayers is a lot more wearing than doing the simple dairying, proving that raw milk dairying can be done safely.
“pathogens found on his farm”?! shocking!! I doubt if you can find a single farm in the entire state of California, which does NOT have “pathogens” … if you were to look hard enough. You reaching that far down for some manure to sling, doesn’t add to your own credibility
You probably should take a look at all of that paperwork, Gordon. It sounds like you would be surprised.
Amanda Rose ; I take your point : when I get down that way, I shall go to the Court Registry where the case was filed, and see what’s available to the public. Well do I recall Sgt Friday on Dragnet saying his trademark line “Just the facts, ma’am”
My understanding is: Organic Pastures settled out of Court with Mary McGonnigle Martin’s family with no real evidence of a direct cause of illness to the son, from raw milk which he’d consumed. Thus, the claim was only guilt by association handled masterfully by one of the top guns in the legal racket. And that’s not an insult : carrion eaters do have their place in the ecology. If they do their job honestly
… I’m particularly sensitive to assertion that ‘some little kid is lying near-death in a hospital bed, after drinking raw milk from Dairy X’, because we endured that rank fraud perpetrated by the govt. here in BC, in 2009.
…this goes to the crux of the whole issue : I always tell people right off the bat = “yes, people do get sick from drinking raw milk”. I qualify, saying “it’s extremely rare”. So for opponents of REAL MILK to keep on waving the bogey-man of a particular case, as though such experience ought to then stifle supply of REAL MILK, everywhere, is illogical in the face of the proven risks from other perfectly-legal foodstuffs.
… Especially irksome, is the tactics used by people such as Mary McG Martin … simpering on this forum as though she’s in favour of raw milk, if regulated, then singing the very opposite song, to govt. committees in other states where she thinks she wouldn’t be noticed
I thought that it was more substantiated, e coli 0157:H7. But again maybe you can check the actual documents…
Coming from someone who has been buying raw milk for years, isn’t this an issue related to modern circumstances? Normally kids would be able to handle the occasional pathogen in raw milk. Lots — or most? — kids these days have compromised immune systems, guts, etc. that cannot handle the exposure.
Yet one more thing that parents have to deal with, research the entire issue and decide if their child could be at risk. Looking at the numbers from Stephanie Seneff it’s not an easy decision.
Oxidized, Shawna,
This is what happens when people play God with nature and are arrogant enough to think that they can, or are actually in control of microorganisms that have an innate objective to do whatever is necessary in order to survive and complete their designated task.
The list of wayward microbes is growing from STEC to MRSA, C. difficile and necrotizing fasciitis etc. And why is this the case? Does anyone want to hazard a guess as to what’s next?
http://www.clinicaladvisor.com/web-exclusives/cdc-ranks-antibiotic-resistant-infections/article/311923/
Gordon, your comments always make me laugh. You’re really a very pathetic man. It must be very hard to live life filled with so much anger. Just to set the record straight, two families sued OPDC. The other child has permanent kidney damage. Also, when someone sues a business, the attornies for the insurance company make all the decisions about the law suit, not the business owner. The insurance company is the one who pays out the money, so they make all the legal decisions.
people like you are the products of the racketeers who usurped the brand-name “Christianity” … then brainwashed the pew-warmers + paying customers to believe ‘there is no place for righteous indignation’. Read your Bible, ma’am … and ALL of it. It says = ‘A double-minded woman is un-stable in all her ways’. That’d be vouz … simpering on this forum as though you agree with Mark McAfee then showing up in the next state, with your trite bleeding-heart act advocating just the opposite. I am plenty outraged at idiots in high places, who gave me 3 months in gaol, for doing good = organizing a system to get REAL MILK to those who want it, in the face of bigots like you. Definition of “bigot”, being : one who refuses to change his position in the face of overwhelming evidence.
…. but it’s OK. Pastor Pete Peters used to say “what’s the first thing you need to be an Overcomer?” To which he’d answer : “something to overcome”. People like you are sent to wear us out, but you won’t. The Campaign for REAL MILK is a resounding success, despite you doing your damn’dest to hinder us
“Who ever started the idea that limited small amounts of organic grain or corn is bad….needs to get a grip on reality.” — Mark McAfee, 2015
I am just saving this quote for posterity. I wonder who used to make the claim that 100 grass fed milk was the only milk that was safe? I wonder who it was who made that claim, marked his labels as 100% grass fed, and grained the cows at the same time.
Amanda, the learning curve has been steep for raw milk producers. I too used to believe that 100% grass fed cattle were incapable of carrying E coli 0157H7. That is what I was told . There was one particularly popular study from Cornell about the prevalence of STEC in grass fed beef cattle being much lower than their grain fed counterparts. But now we know better. We see studies now where STEC has been found in 100% grass fed herds. Although more is typically found on CAFOs than in low-density grazed herds, making a case that STEC prevalence may have more to do with over crowding than diet. In any case, that information is informing the practices of raw milk farmers, who are more likely to assume that manure from any cow or goat, grass fed or not, could contain pathogenic E Coli.
I also used to believe that a dairy cow could survive on grass alone, until we nearly starved our first family milk cow to death (poor dear…she was the cow with 9 lives thankfully.) Seems that it is more complicated than just feeding your cow grass, and as Pete says has to do with breed and genetics, the kind of pasture, soils, etc. If there is anything I have learned in the last almost 10 years of small-scale farming, it is to resist the tendency to over-simplify biology.
Oxidized, the thing is that children, just by nature of being children, have weaker immune systems than adults. So I don’t think you can point to some children with weaker immune systems as the cause of E Coli illness. All children are vulnerable to serious illness by E Coli 0157H7, even hearty farm kids who drink raw milk from grass-fed cows. Pathogenic E Coli just does not belong in raw milk at all. Any parent who is not confident that their farmer understands and respects the pathogen, and has a plan to consistently manage that risk, should seriously consider abstaining from raw milk.
I regret that we, the raw milk community, have lacked good information, and I am sorry for every incidence of illness in a child that has resulted. I do think though that as we know better, we are doing better.
Many people have found out the hard way, as did you. But its one thing to learn a lesson the hard way and go back to grain and another to tout 100% grass fed as perfectly safe and the only way while you feed cows grain and tell people its 100% gf. And then turn around and say 100% grassfed can’t be done and is unsafe?
You will notice Marks practices and claims are ever shifting but one thing never changes…his way is uniquely safe and good and the other ways unsafe and wrong.
But contra Mark 100%gf milk can be done,is done all over the us, and when done right is vastly more nutricious, the cows healthier and, quite possibly, more safe.
David, again, I am so sorry. WAPF is far from the only trusted organization to pull this… OCA has a few skeletons in their closet, as does Cornucopia… and a few others to boot. And, not one of them has any problem handling things in the exact same manner as Sally. She’s just one of many.
Unfortunately, 6 of the 7 haven’t been an issue for me in about 10 years – to varying degrees. I mourned them long ago. As for #1, so long as links and bibliographies were included in articles, I could go there and do the reading myself to see why certain conclusions were drawn, and so I still trust much of the information I received from the organization.
Number 7 is a very sharp double-edged sword though…. if we aren’t energetic enough to study the people and their associations, backgrounds etc, then we will forever be running into this very problem. People would rather throw cash and faith at ANY organization than do in-depth research into who they really are, what they do rather than what their PR people say they do AS an organization, and what they do outside of the organization.
My advice is the same as it has been for the past 20 years…. Due diligence is required in ALL things, most especially when it comes to the health and safety of one’s family, and the security of one’s finances.
Fool me once, shame on you… Fool me twice, shame on me.
Whilst I cannot comment on the WAPF politics, heresay and rumours, I think it is unfair to say that FCLO is rancid. Even Dr.Kaayla’s report didn’t prove that, and she went out of her way to try and prove it (something which in itself isn’t scientific). By taking sides like this and slandering products with very little scientific basis, you are just as bad as you say the WAPF are.
Look at the science and what we know – FCLO isn’t rancid and has no rancid biomarkers. Many people I know love it and benefit from it. It has helped many. Sure its not for everyone, very few things are.
WAPF may be a political mess, and although GP and WAPF are closely entwined, you cannot judge GP based on WAPF behaviour.
There are 3 types of rancidity. They are testing for 1 type – oxidation. The product is CLEARLY hydrolyzed, and probably also has microbial rancidity as well. The product is UNDOUBTEDLY rancid. Not one of the scientists has said that the product is not rancid. They have gone out of their way to only talk about the oxidation. The other forms of rancidity may not be dangerous and may only have to do with flavor, I don’t know for sure, but the product is absolutely rancid. So, not unfair.
GPP has done enough on its own to merit some judgement – principle among them being flouting the labeling laws. They even have an article on their website that explains why they think labeling laws don’t apply to them.
You still haven’t actually proven that the product is rancid Steve… You say that it is UNDOUBTEDLY, but please can you provide the actual evidence? Lab reports suggest otherwise, which I have always thought to be a clear indicator of the chemicals present in a substance.
In argument, whoever is putting for the assertion has to prove the assertion. You have stated that FCLO isn’t rancid and has no rancid biomarkers. These lab reports GPP is using, test only for oxidation. There are two other forms of rancidity: hydrolization and microbial. Here is what Masterjohn said, “Perusing food industry-oriented textbooks suggests that the overwhelming if not exclusive concern about rancidity is its effect on flavor. For example, this book refers to lipid peroxidation products as “off-flavor volatiles.” The quote above about hydrolytic and microbial rancidity is explicitly concerned with flavor.” Then he goes on to ask the questions, “Is FCLO rancid?” Then he starts with, “In asking the question of whether the fermented cod liver oil is rancid, my concern is specifically whether it demonstrates a history of lipid peroxidation. ” This means, he is ignoring the other forms of rancidity that have mostly to do with flavor. If he had any indication that these other types of rancidity weren’t present he could have just said, “Not rancid at all.” He didn’t say that. He said instead (emphasis mine), “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.” He provides this quote to justify ignoring the other two forms of rancidity, “The term rancidity is used in the dairy field to indicate hydrolytic deterioration; in other fields it denotes microbial deterioration, and to the fat chemist it means autoxidation.” Basically he said, sure it tastes awful and that means it is hydrolized and probably has microbial activity rancidity as well, but I’m ignoring that and only focusing on oxidation.
Not a single scientist that GPP has trotted out has said that the product is not rancid. How could it not have microbial rancidity when you are ADDING microbial organisms to the product and expecting them to do something. Yes, they will eat whatever sugars are there, but they will also break down the fats to some extent in microbial rancidity. Why do you think that Dave Wetzel and others have talked about stinky cheeses and other stuff. They are rancid too, some people eat them and don’t call them rancid. That’s the treatment that he wants for FCLO.
Let me be VERY clear about this. THEY ARE NOT TESTING FOR MARKERS OF HYDROLYTIC OR MICROBIAL RANCIDITY. Since they are not testing for those things, they cannot conclusively say that the product is not rancid. And when they SAY that it is not rancid, what they MEAN is not OXIDIZED. The flavors say that the product IS rancid, even if not oxidized.
I’m not saying that the product is dangerous because of rancidity. Saying that the product is not rancid is deceptive and disingenuous at best. Please provide proof of your assertion that the product is not rancid and include proof for all forms of rancidity.
@ Steve Tallent: As I’ve stated here before, it’s all in the wording and the PR. Very few people seem to be picking up on that fact.
Steve, you seem like the kind of guy who would be interested in this. This is probably the most fascinating 43 minutes I’ve spent in the past few days. I hope you get a chance to view it and enjoy the innovative part of his future plans for clean water, health strategies, energy ideas, etc. I love the “in my garage” mentality!
Wouldn’t it be a great place to work?
Excellent!
It is that simple.
Hi Steve,
Thanks for your detailed response – I do see what you are saying. For me, in the context of health supplements, rancidity is a damage of the nutrients/ creation of toxic chemicals. In the context FCLO rancidity, I assumed (wrongly) that people were referring to the presence of oxidative rancidity bio-markers that Dr.Kaayla had tested for as this is what instigated the debate on FCLO rancidity. In this context, rancidity is a bad thing.
You are probably right in that there is some microbial hydrolysis, and this is what probably makes the FFAs which have been found in FCLO. In this context, rancidity can be interpreted as a good thing, because the triglycerides have been broken down, and are ready for absorption (which is what would happen in the digestive system anyway).
In the context of fat rancidity, I think that most people would make the assumption that you are taking about oxidative rancidity, because fats will rarely undergo hydrolytic/ microbial rancidity.
Strictly speaking, people should specify the type of rancidity they are talking about (I’m guilty of not doing so), because as I understand it, rancidity can be bad (oxidative), and not bad (hydrolytic), so saying a fat is just rancid doesn’t offer any insight into the health implications of the product.
So yes, there probably is some hydroytic rancidity, which I don’t understand to be harmful. Oxidative rancidity is the harmful one, and there is no evidence to suggest that FCLO is oxidised.
Craig, you’re right on most points. However, it is not unusual for fats to undergo hydrolytic and to a lesser extent microbial rancidity. It just usually goes hand in hand with oxidation, and oxidation is considered to be the dangerous one. However, it is NOT good to have a lot of Free Fatty Acids. Yes, they do get broken down into FFAs by the body before use, but they get broken down as they are ready to be used. FFAs are highly sensitive to oxidation and can be easily damaged when exposed to heat, light, and oxygen. So while you might open a brand new bottle and have no oxidation, a one month old bottle may have significantly more oxidation. And this is especially problematic because GPP doesn’t believe it to be possible and doesn’t recommend refrigerating their products.
Ok, so it seems to be an issue of storage recommendations rather than product quality. I would be really interested to see a lab test on FCLO after its been opened at room temp for a month. I agree that there should be some oxidised fats there.
Kaayla “says she’s aware of a couple dozen such cases in total”… other than Dr. Ron, who are these people? Does Kaayla even know who they are? Have these “couple dozen” people contacted Dave Wetzel directly to report their situation? or are they just anonymous voices making unverified claims from behind an alias? Because if that’s the case, as I suspect it is, then why should WAPF force GP to issue a warning based off of internet hearsay? That just doesn’t make sense.
Amanda, many people who experience health problems from questionable sources are reluctant to go public, for any number of reasons. They feel angry, or ashamed (that they took a recommended product that seemed to work for some other people, but didn’t for them), or humiliated (that they were “taken” by misleading promotion), or any number of other feelings. Our health care laws respect such feelings and thus provide for many safeguards of patient privacy.
Still and all, I’d estimate that since Kaayla Daniel’s report came out in late August, at least half a dozen consumers of FCLO have described on this blog heart issues that they now think were likely caused by FCLO. There were two in just the last few days. This from Nancy:
“I am so very discouraged. I have lost all confidence in WPF. I have thrown out my FCLO – I developed heart arrhythmia and went through some very scary testing. Recently, I have started losing my hair and eyebrows, which I understand is a strong sign of thyroid problems. Now in the replies to your post, I realize that is yet another symptom of ingesting rancid oils. ALL because of my trust and belief in WPF. I only took the FCLO religiously for a year, then the second year I slacked off (thanks heavens), but I did take a higher dose because of WPF’s recommendation. I am APPALLED that the foundation, ie, Sally Fallon Moran, would not immediately put a hold on using and recommending this product until this is sorted out.”
Bob Thorson said: “I am another person that rather suddenly developed heart arrhythmia while taking fclo and am slowly recovering without it.”
I am sure you will have an answer to these and other cases–they’re not 100% certain it was the FCLO, they haven’t provided a notarized doctor’s letter, or whatever.
I would add that you can safely assume that for each person who goes public, as these people have, that there are many dozens who don’t read my blog or the few other Internet sources where this has been publicized, and thus are oblivious of the concerns and controversy that have raged here.
Based on the few dozen that have come forward to Kaayla Daniel, or on this blog, or on other blogs….together with the evidence Daniel came up with in her study of rancidity, both Green Pasture and Weston A. Price Foundation should, at a minimum, issue warnings. Not only have they not issued warnings, but Sally Fallon Morell and WAPF are doing the exact opposite–they are encouraging consumption of FCLO AND Fallon Morell/WAPF are seeking to BLOCK and PENALIZE chapter leaders who link to my warnings. So they are trying to PREVENT people from learning about warnings. How would you characterize such behavior? Destructive? Negative? Inconsiderate? Shameful? Hurtful?….or worse?
How would I characterize such behavior? I’d say that it’s perfectly fair, considering that Sally asked them not to promote the slander coming from your corner while representing the WAPF… and then they chose to do so anyway. What happened next should have been expected. WAPF is not a democratic organization (never was) and I see nothing wrong with that. Then again, I also happen to admire the Amish way of life a great deal for the simple fact that the Amish people have been flourishing as a community, in both health and spirit, in a way that makes the rest of us “English” folk seem lost in comparison. So, say what you will about “shunning,” but clearly the Amish are doing something right!
Amanda,
The Amish as well as Mennonites originally grew out of the Anabaptist movement, which itself, was a response to the excesses of the Catholic Church. Over the years they have divided into many splinter subgroups due to doctrinal disputes.
Have you ever taken the time to observe the many different religious factions that exist in the world today? Each and every one of them is more or less the result of some form of shunning and or excommunication!
Shunning and or excommunication are generally the result of legalistic tendencies by humans who are prone to be consumed with their own self-righteousness. In fact, what happened to Jesus Christ and the many people who followed in his footsteps are extreme examples of shunning and/or excommunication.
Shunning = to persistently “avoid, ignore, or reject someone or something” out of caution or due to a deep seated aversion or dislike.
Excommunication = to “officially” exclude someone from participation in the activities of a religious institution.
The Amish way is indeed admirable in many respects; that being said however, all people including the Amish people are cut from the same cloth.
I would add that shunning requires a basic belief that “you are better than they are.” Almost always what does that mean besides incongruous self deception, never mind the reach that is religious belief group think
The Amish existing as an anachronism in our modern world demonstrates that shunning, however you may feel about it, works. However it may be abused, it is not without Biblical precedent.
Separating oneself (a Biblical principle) is different than shunning someone. I would even say that avoiding someone is different than shunning them. The act of shunning, is not just avoiding contact, but actively seeking to try to make the person that you are shunning sorry they did whatever led to the shunning — to teach them a lesson, and by this example, to keep others in line. Separating oneself could be as simple as not eating the same types of foods as another person. It could involve a sense of superiority or a basic belief that you are better, or that you are doing better, but it doesn’t have to. The Amish separate themselves by the lifestyle that they lead. Shunning involves judging and an element of punishment. Shunning is what the Amish, and many others do as retribution if somebody steps out of line.
Steve you know what they say ignorance is bliss, no wonder I’m so happy… jk, jk.
But yes remember the opposite of love is not hate, just apathy. You don’t exist (not meant to be a direct reply to Steve, I actually very much enjoy your commentary here.) You’ll know when you’ve been shunned or I just disappear and move on, no last minute hugs
Interesting read from Slate
“Clean water may be the biggest lifesaver in history. Some historians attribute one-half of the overall reduction in mortality, two-thirds of the reduction in child mortality, and three-fourths of the reduction in infant mortality to clean water.”
No mention of milk sadly
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science_of_longevity/2013/09/life_expectancy_history_public_health_and_medical_advances_that_lead_to.2.html
Thanks Ken… I am well aware of how the Amish came to be. My point is simply that the Amish have managed to maintain an idyllic way of life that modern people could only dream of attaining. But that simple life of peace and harmony was long ago sacrificed for want of convenience and excess. Our modern culture is now plagued by war, violent crimes, loneliness, dishonesty, starvation, disease, depression, corruption, broken homes, etc. etc… and constantly we ask “what will it take to end the madness and suffering?” Well, just take a look at how the Amish have been doing it. It takes self-discipline and for people to live by a strict code of values and be held accountable by their communities if they should deviate from that. The practice of shunning is not meant to make people feel bad… it is meant to show them that if they continue to disregard the values that their community lives by they will be cast out of the community and will have to make it in the outside world alone. The Amish have no other choice but to follow through with this if they want to maintain their precious way of life in this backwards world… and precious indeed it is.
If you think the Amish life is idyllic, you are very mistaken. But even if it were, attributing it to the practice of shunning is akin to saying that he Beatles were a good band because they took drugs. Or if I have misrepresented your position, let me try it again – it’s like saying that because the Beatles were a popular band and took drugs – a lot of drugs, that maybe we should take a lot of drugs if we want to have a popular band.
Steve, if living in peace and harmony within a close-knit community of people who are always there to help one another when any one of them is in need (for instance, if an Amish person’s house burns down the entire community comes together to build them a new house from scratch), having ample access to untainted food and water, not suffering from rampant dis-ease and acts of violence etc. …if that is not idyllic then I’m afraid I don’t know what is. Of course it takes hard work and sacrifice in order to have those things, but nobody said that it would be easy. Nothing truly worthwhile ever is. And yes, they wouldn’t be able to preserve their communities in this modern world if they allowed members of their community to deviate from Amish values.
We have a very close friend who grew up Amish and her mother died of cancer, also before 60. In the Amish community near us illnesses sweep through like a grim reaper – like very aggressive, and pernicious ones. Measles and mumps and chicken pox are rampant. A couple of years ago the wife/mother of a family we know there died of cancer. She wasn’t yet 60. Many of the women in that community and in another community near us suffer from malnourishment because they are constantly pregnant and nursing for decades at a time, in spite of their “untainted food”. They also use commercial fertilizer, pesticides and weedkiller on many of the Amish farms in our area – and GMO seeds. Untainted water is only available if there is a very good spring on the property – not always the case when most farms are only 10-40 acres. The midwives from The Farm (http://thefarmmidwives.org/) service the Amish community in their area for free because the need is so great. They’ve been doing it for like 30 years. While the mortality rate has dropped significantly, they still have just shocking stories to tell, many of the problems caused by inadequate nutrition.
We have lots of Amish customers. LOTS. From communities all over the states. They purchase our immune boosters to fight their illnesses, and our multivitamins to fill in the gaps in their nutrition. We have one Amish reseller that just bought 4 cases of one of our children’s multi because the teacher in their area said that the kids on it don’t get sick as much as the other kids, and is wanting all of the kids to get on it so the parents are all stocking up. If their nutrition was from food was so idyllic, a daily multi wouldn’t make such a big difference.
There is less peace and harmony than you would like to portray. You only get the benefit of the community if you do EXACTLY as the community tells you to do. Our friend who grew up Amish, her dad was one of the leaders, and she has all sorts of stories of abuse of authority, double standards. She and some other siblings left the community (we all see movies about how Amish kids are allowed to decided to stay or to leave, right) and her dad, the enforcer of their church, put all of the children under church discipline. Bring on the shunning! Nobody in the community was allowed to speak to them, have them over, meet their eye, etc. If they show up in your driveway, you just act like they aren’t there. He told his wife that she couldn’t see or speak to her children that had left – and she said that wasn’t going to work. So, he put her under church discipline. She cooked for him, cleaned for him, and he wouldn’t speak to her, or look at her. If he had something to say to her, he would have somebody over to the house as an intermediary. Not sure exactly how that worked because technically, only an “English” person would be able to speak to both of them. He treated her that way for years, until she died of cancer, just because she wanted to have a relationship with her children. Ah, sweet Amish peace and harmony! She speaks of backbiting and hypocrisy. We hear about that in regards to our local community as well. Basically, they have most of the same social problems that we have and a few that we don’t. They are people just like we are and have all of the passions and character qualities (good and bad) as the rest of us, and the resulting conditions (good and bad).
You’re up now. Tell us the stories about the Amish you know living disease free into their 100s in perfect community peace and harmony.
Also, Steve, if you’ve never visited Amish Country before you really should get around to doing so at some point. It is a beeyoutiful place. 😉
I just cannot stop laughing at Amanda! I have been thinking and thinking about this, honestly if I did not believe better of the three Amigos I would swear they hired her to make Weston Price and Green Pastures look bad, honest. If I were part of either organization, I would find a way of getting hold of her and begging her to stop posting comments. She sounds like the worst aspects of both Sally’s and Dave W.s character or personalities that friends of mine have experienced first hand. Cold, self righteous, indignant to be questioned, and their own pie in the sky theories they expect everyone adhere to strictly, or be horsewhipped and shunned. Barn building anyone? Keep it up dear Amanda, I do love a good laugh! Oh PS, you were part of the reason I just joined up with the new Ancestral Foundation group, honest!
Joy: You made my day! Yes, we need to laugh more, laugh at the looniness displayed by the true believers. I suspect the majority of the folks who’ve joined this community over the years are the type who know how to think for themselves, how to remain skeptical, and how to laugh when the occasion warrants it. Thanks!
Ah Joy, you bring a good laugh with your message! I couldn’t figure out why someone from WAPF didn’t pull the plug on her antics long ago. Her demeanor does have a tendency to make them look bad.
OTOH, maybe she’s just an entertainment vampire.
Thanks D. Smith and Gary, I just realized how great these blog comments are for the future. Others who come after us….I mean other good people who later begin to question the ethics and
edicts of the board at Weston Price will have a kind of safety net we all are building. They will have all of our different ways of looking at what I call the bad stuff going on at Weston Price. And they will feel support and maybe not so alone or so confused as I felt when I read Dr. Daniel’s report. Yes, David Gumpert’s and Dr. Daniel’s articles were helpful, as was Dr. Ron’s statement on his website, but reading the comments here and on
Kaayla’s website really helped me see clearly. My heart aches a lot though for all those Weston Price people out there who are still taking FCLO for any reason and do not understand the potential danger to their health. And some of them must be still taking the high doses Weston Price first suggested too, since Weston Price never bothered to let people know they changed their dosage recommendation. They just did it. I learned about this because Amanda Rose was so smart in looking all this up in the early days of our blog comments. I worry so about the children, still being forced to take it. I am wondering if it might be true, ( I think it was Pete who said it) that there are slow infiltrations of an organization by forces who do not want people to be healthy. Honestly it is close to murder to continue to promote a supplement or food as they call it, when there is even a question of it being harmful. And as far as I am concerned , with all I have read, FCLO is harmful to health. and probably a slow killer, I wonder about all these children fed it for years and years, and that the damage will not show up for years or the deaths at a young adult age will not be traced back to FCLO. Yeah it is not only close to murder it is murder. Oh gosh, I sure did not mean to go down this road when I started this comment. I guess it is not being able to figure out a way to warn people about FCLO and feeling so helpless and knowing Sally is busy trying to smother any negative information about FCLO, so that some people who are busy or not paying attention will not have the opportunity to make up their own minds. Well here is to the internet and word of mouth!!
Thanks Joy. Your murder analogy had me in stitches as well, honest! Speaking of which, I wonder, how does one make a “murderer” look bad? I don’t know… but if you’d like to divulge on that, I’m ALL ears. Should be a real hoot! 😉
I leave right near one. Yes. Beautiful. But not problem free by any measure, and not a justification for the practice of shunning.
I never said that the Amish are “problem free” …only that their way of life is idyllic in comparison to ours… which it is, in my opinion. When I say “tainted food” I am mainly referring to the fact that they use traditional farming techniques and not factory farming. Your anecdotal stories of Amish life do not match those that I have heard. Even the few ex-Amish that I’ve encountered have spoken fondly of the communities that they left behind, but that ultimately they chose to leave due to the strict rules. Also, it is well known that cancer rates among the Amish are drastically lower than in the rest of the country, despite the two Amish cases (or was it one case?) that you heard of.
Oh, and the fact that the Amish are not dependent on the government is an idyllic situation all by itself.
Amanda, It was you who used the Amish to justify and demonstrate the effectiveness of shunning.
So, if we consider alone the merits of shunning, it is clear that the practice has not been effective at nurturing conformity and unity amongst their ranks. The hundreds of church splinter groups are a testimony to that fact.
My farm is completely surrounded by Amish and in truth I couldn’t ask for better neighbors. That being said however, what you see on the surface is merely cosmetic; under that surface they are like any other human being with the same vices; they just work much harder at keeping those vices under control and/or hidden, which can be good or bad depending on ones perspective. Their life is far from uncomplicated, and in the eyes of those who have been shunned and/or excommunicated, it’s certainly not ideal. No matter how you cut it, a free thinking individual’s idiosyncrasies are not meant to be, nor can they be, totally controlled, based on someone’s concept of an ideal.
With organizations or institutions such as the Amish or the WAPF, one can expect dissension. Using hard line, shunning tactics on the other hand, is not an appropriate way of dealing with those differences of opinion.
Trying to control people and prevent them from exercising their freewill is an age-old problem that inevitably leads to oppressive behavior on the part of those who are hell-bent on control, with tyranny the ultimate result. Indeed it is a balancing act between vice and virtue that human beings are in a continual struggle with and cannot seem to get quite right.
Ken, I agree that the Amish are not perfect people without problems.
Not every Amish community is the same. They vary in their farming practices, nutritional habits, health, and beliefs/practices. I could point to similar or worse health issues amoung the general populous.
But its ludicrous to say shunning hasn’t been effective in preserving their culture. The fact of the matter is they are just about the only community world wide that has resisted modern Western culture. You might not like shunning, nor find it pleasant, but to be effective it can’t be nice.
Shunning may indeed have preserved their. But I don’t think their culture is idyllic. The original contention was that since they had an idyllic lifestyle and culture, and they practiced shunning, that maybe we all should take a lesson from them and practice shunning so that we might have a more idyllic lifestyle, as if shunning was causation for community, for peace and harmony, and for beautiful farms. I don’t think it is, do you?
“The original contention was that since they had an idyllic lifestyle and culture, and they practiced shunning, that maybe we all should take a lesson from them and practice shunning so that we might have a more idyllic lifestyle”
Actually no. I never contended any such thing. Good to know that you’ve now conceded to the fact that the practice of shunning has indeed been essential to the preservation of Amish culture.
Amanda,
I have close friends who are shunned members of an old order Mennonite community, because they chose to be vocal and address certain realities and injustices within their church, such as, the failure to constructively deal with abuse (sexual and spousal). In essence they ran into a brick wall and became the subject of vindictive rumors. They would undoubtedly agree with you that the community they once belonged to is indeed “close knit”. As to whether or not there is “harmony” and “support for one another” within that community, I am quite certain that they would disagree on that point.
You know, I read over your original statement and you didn’t explicitly contend that. I inferred it from what you said. So you could have implied it, but it’s easy enough to deny it now, so we’ll just say that you didn’t. But then again, what you said was just silly and bears no resemblance to reality. “the simple fact that the Amish people have been flourishing as a community, in both health and spirit,” This is not fact, because it is not true. If it were true the Amish, with the multitude of children that they produce, would be growing at a prodigious rate, doubling or tripling their population every generation. We don’t see that. The children are leaving. More are leaving than staying, because they are not flourishing in spirit in their communities, they are not living harmonious lives, and not that it is one of their reasons for leaving, but they are not flourishing in health either. They are chafing under unfair rules meant to keep them in subjugation and disgusted with hypocrisy. I didn’t even get into the rumors of sexual misconduct coming out of some of the communities. The Amish are dying out. They are become increasingly LESS self sufficient. And like I said, they have most of the problems that we have and others that we don’t. People are people and human nature isn’t perfected just by cutting off the electricity and refusing to talk to your wife who wants to have a relationship with her children that have left the community.
That’s not to say that there are not some communities and families that are flourishing. We personally know some families that are at least. And where there are good rulers, the people tend to do better. It was true in the time when Solomon wrote his proverbs (they didn’t have electricity either), all the way until today.
Has anyone looked at a more modern Amish cookbook lately? Canned soups, velveeta cheese, canned evaporated milk, canned sweet milk (condensed) . . . I was appalled at some of the things they have adopted in the past couple of decades. I doubt their elders (the ones now dead and gone) would have approved.
The fact is, to all of you discussing this issue, unless you’re actually Amish, you really don’t know anything for sure. You can read all the books and articles in the world and it won’t tell you what life in an Amish community is REALLY like. You can guesstimate, you can know people who are Amish who talk to you about their lives, but unless you’ve actually lived it, you’re all just using hearsay – and guesswork.
What WAPF did is plain and simple. It is WRONG and you can call it anything else you like, but wrong is the most accurate term. Wrong decisions. Wrong actions. Nothing they’ve done will soon be mended for many.
I can confirm the canned foods, and I will add refined sugars, in some cases a lot of refined sugars. Honestly, I was shocked. Seeing Amish buggies hitched up at Wal-mart the first time was also surprising. My mental picture at that time of the Amish life did not include GMO Round Up sprayed crops, refined foods, and Wal-mart.
But again, this isn’t all Amish. They are just like the rest of us. Some of them eat healthier than others. Some of them grow their crops differently than others. There is a big difference among folks in just the community near us. Some I would get raw milk from. Others, I won’t.
I’m not sure that the statistics back your assertion steve. Last I heard the population is expanding well. But it could have changed or be local effects. But I highly doubt they are dying out. The rest of the white European population IS dying out. But last I heard the Amish were expanding.
Shunning is simply a tool, it can be used for good or ill. Hypocricy has killed many a church. It may be abused but it is still biblical and their implementation of it closer to the original than what 99.999% of other churches practice.
Your problem is not with the doctrinal practice, but its abuse for preserving corruption and sin instead of saving souls and ending sin.
Electricity et al, these things don’t purify hearts, they work to isolate from the world to preserve culture. They help but they’re not magic.
“Your problem is not with the doctrinal practice, but its abuse for preserving corruption and sin instead of saving souls and ending sin.”
Indeed. So back on topic, are Sally and company excommunicating and shunning people in an attempt to metaphorically “save souls and end sin” or is for some less praiseworthy reason, like monetary gain, or because folks have said that the leader’s baby was ugly?
“folks have said that the leader’s baby was ugly”
WHAT? I can’t believe that somebody would actually say such a thing. Wow.
But to answer your question, Steve, I will go ahead and quote Laurie here since she has already worded it better than I could.
“the reasoning of Sally Fallon-Morell’s use of legal sanctions to make it very clear that while the Santa Cruz organization is free to continue to practice the ideology of WAPF or whatever inspires their beliefs, they may not fly the WAPF flag and disrespect the process that the WAPF board has chosen to address the resolution of this issue. I do not see it as a “fear” campaign meant to intimidate anyone. As a leader and with the agreement of the majority of the board, Mrs.Fallon-Morell must make decisions about what is best for the purposes of WAPF, as a whole. As a leader it is her job NOT to ignore flagrant disrespect or concede to behavior that is divisive where constructive options exist. Disagreement is one thing and public airings of dis-RESPECT are another. Division will occur in any organization, community and/or family but the way a leader handles it will determine whether or not the organization and its greater purpose survive the growth process.”
” ‘folks have said that the leader’s baby was ugly’
WHAT? I can’t believe that somebody would actually say such a thing. Wow.”
Haha. Amanda, you crack me up. It’s a metaphor. I’m sure with a little bit of Internet research you can find a lot of examples and more explanation, but here’s the #1 Google result for “calling a baby ugly” http://simpleprogrammer.com/2012/10/07/calling-someones-baby-ugly/
“When you are criticizing someone’s work, especially if significant effort has been put into it, you are basically calling their baby ugly. (And it goes double if their “baby” has some kind of mental or physical deformity.)” I would say it has less to do with “effort” specifically and more to do with “investment” whether that is money, time, effort, energy, emotional, or reputation.
Result #3 is representative as well: http://www.evancarmichael.com/Sales/475/Dont-Make-this-Sales-Mistake-Never-Call-Someones-Baby-Ugly.html
In case it is not yet clear, FCLO are the baby in this metaphor.
And yes, I read the response above before, but it doesn’t answer the question of whether this is being done to metaphorically “save souls and end sin” or is for some less praiseworthy reason.
I also don’t see how issuing threats of legal action, which predated this Santa Cruz thing, can be construed as anything BUT a “fear” campaign. Why do you threaten legal action? What feelings are you trying to evoke in the hearers with those words? Safety? Well-being? Harmony? No. Trepidation. Fear. They are spreading fear among WAPF organizers to try to suppress a message in order protect not WAPF or its mission, but GPPs bottom line.
I do agree with this that Laurie said though, “. . . the way a leader handles it will determine whether or not the organization and its greater purpose survive the growth process.” Even if WAPF loses a huge amount of membership and support over the next few years, I don’t think the faithful will ever attribute it to how the leader handled this situation. Instead, they will attribute it to an orchestrated attack by bitter people. Funny isn’t it because none of this was really about WAPF. It was about GPP. WAPF could have stayed out of it, or even been a in it but taken a more neutral role, but didn’t.
Steve, In claiming that the reason for WAPF asserting that it would defend its handling of the situation, within the time frame that it requires to investigate the redacted lab reports which had been assembled over at least an equivalent amount of time in stealth, clearly reads to me that WAPF is putting forth the message that it will not concede to destructive name-calling, infighting, and strong arm techniques being employed by would-be “shamers”. Now some of the people who are opposed to the WAPF policy make good arguments for their point of view and perform a valuable service. There are so many articulate and intelligent people on this board that it would do credit to those who oppose WAPF policy to practice restraint as well as to open their minds to considering other possible causes for health problems being experienced by some people who have used the GP product. For one thing, we could all become more aware of the dramatic increases in environmental toxicity and the ever increasing difficulty of obtaining food of genuine quality regardless of our efforts.
I have been looking into the interesting research of Carey Reams again after a cursory perusal of it some 9 years ago in which some relevant information about other factors not dealt with directly by the diet advocated by Weston A. Price, may well be complicating the challenge of maintaining organ health in current times. Dr. Reams who pioneered (to my knowledge) the concept of the theory of “biological ionization” or (RBTI – “Reams Theory of Biological Ionization”) which identified subtle indicators of digestion (of proteins, for example) which require the presence of sugars naturally occurring in fully mineralized (high brix) plants grown in soil replete with all of the necessary minerals and undamaged life force. When there are insufficient plant generated, naturally occurring sugars along with plant mineral content, our bodies compel us to take in supplementary sugars which drain off existing mineral stores in our livers to complete the digestive process. When a high protein diet is consumed there is the danger of the development of nitrate buildup in the blood which thickens the blood and adds strain to the heart as it labors harder to do its job. The development of these problems can be measured by some non-invasive tests that are performed to measure ph in the urine and saliva, as well as several other parameters of urine that indicate the remedies that may reverse developing organ damage. Cod Liver oil is even discussed in Dr. Ream’s work as when it is appropriate as a dietary supplement and when tests indicate that it can exacerbate unknown – because not diagnosed by mainstream methodology – health problems.
“In claiming that the reason for WAPF asserting that it would defend its handling of the situation, within the time frame that it requires to investigate the redacted lab reports which had been assembled over at least an equivalent amount of time in stealth, clearly reads to me that WAPF is putting forth the message that it will not concede to destructive name-calling, infighting, and strong arm techniques being employed by would-be “shamers”.”
I’ve read this a dozen times, and still don’t know what it means.
the mention of Carey Reams’ theory is fascinating. A new copy of his book is $999 on Amazon! A bit steep for me … My instincts tell me his work is most helpful in our Campaign for REAL MILK. If someone can point me to a website on which it’s published in its entirety, or has a copy they’ll lend me, I’d be most grateful
Gordon, this site has information and an e-book about Reams’ work: http://advancedideals.org/015_book_information.html
Gordon, I loved learning about Reams theories but it was always too complicated for me to put into action. In terms of soil fertility check out this site for a good introduction…..after all the cows are what they eat. http://highbrixgardens.com/dr-carey-reams.html
And of course AcresUSA is filled with getting high brix information.
“Haha. Amanda, you crack me up. It’s a metaphor.”
oh… lol oops!
Steve – I don’t know what gives you the idea that that the Amish are “dying out” …that simply is not true. They may not be doubling and tripling at the rate that you mentioned, but their communities certainly have been growing (not shrinking) as time goes by. At what rate, I’m not sure… but they are flourishing none the less.
Their population numbers may be growing at the same time, their self-sufficiency is diminishing, and their hypocrisy is growing. It isn’t the same in all communities I’m sure. But around here, the Amish have phones – a phone box out in their field that is often shared by several families. They don’t have electricity in the house, but they have it on the porch and that is where the fridge is. A number of farms have tractors. If they have a business, they can own all sorts of things, vehicles, cell phones, power tools, etc. Maybe they are making these changes to make life easier, maybe to keep the next generation around, maybe a combination of factors. But that means that their culture is diminishing.
The old order Amish are the ones that continue to reject all modern devices and such to this day. The new order communities have allowed limited usage of certain conveniences in a specific capacity, but even then their culture has remained largely intact. To say that some Amish have become more modern over the years is entirely different than claiming that the Amish are “dying out” due to oppression.
Weston Price must be rolling over in his grave… his original book changed my life. Dr. Daniels has paid a price for telling the truth more than once. Bless the truth tellers.
In light of the myth that he used to relish eating raw road-kilI, I just wanna know : “what would Aajonus say?” ! … his comments on swallowing the oil rendered from fermented fish guts, should be worth good for a laugh.
That is funny! I think I remember reading something in Aajonus’s book about him eating roadkill… but I can’t recall if he cooked it or not. Probably not, knowing Aajonus! LOL
The coyote made me do it.
direct from Green Pastures, today we get a report by a scientist who investigated their fermented cod liver oil – the first few sentences of which leave me more confused than ever :
… “The key assertion of Dr. Daniel, that fermented cod liver oil (FCLO) as manufactured by Green Pastures cannot be from the fermentation of cod liver oil (CLO) or fats, is confirmed. Fermentation experts would all agree with Dr. Daniel that oils/fats cannot be fermented. However, Green Pastures does not claim, neither do they advertise, that their product is produced by the fermentation of CLO but by that of the carbohydrates found in the whole cod livers themselves.”
… Publicizing this report, Dave Weitzel demonstrates good faith. The butter oil, yes. He’s a world leader with that miraculous stuff. But I won’t be ingesting anything rendered from rotting fish guts.
I looked more closely at this latest report from Green Pasture, and it is critical of Kaayla Daniel’s findings in a number of key areas.
http://www.greenpasture.org/fermented-cod-liver-oil-butter-oil-vitamin-d-vitamin-a/scientific-analysis-of-dr-jacob-friest/
But then I searched out the author of the report, a scientist by the name of Jacob Friest, and learned on LinkedIn that he seems to have no credentials to speak of in the area of nutrition or lipid sciences. Looks like he’s 3 years out of Univ of Nebraska, degree in organic chemistry. He now works for the huge pharmaceutical, Novartis.
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/jacob-friest/56/344/77
David, thanks for checking out the author. This may be the first report he’s written on this subject from his Linkedin profile. You’d think GP would have realized we’d check.
Oh, wait. They didn’t think anybody would check before. They must think everybody is a fool-me -twice kind of person. Can the GP story get any more improbable?
Dave chose his products and Dave explained his process. And Friest trusts Dave’s explanations and assurances “Green Pastures has assured me that…….” and “After questioning David Wetzel about Green Pastures fermentation process……”
How come Friest isn’t doing his own research?
Friest can’t keep his own personal opinions out of his report “yet she’s quick to disregard this testing”, ” she simply discredits all other testing to support a hypothesis” and “…her analysis……have misled the public.
How come Friest has to include his own conjectures into his research?
He didn’t test end products but Dave took samples from the vat, at what stage? Who knows. And we see the same lab Dave always uses, ent by Dave. Nothing independent here.
Pete you’re right…samples are useless if they not independently obtained. This is crazy.
When I was researching FCLO several years ago and considering taking it, I had serious concerns over the sourcing of the cod liver. The main reason I don’t take CLO of any kind is that I’m not convinced any of it on the market is actually from Atlantic cod. Cod stocks have been in serious peril for many years now from overfishing. Much of the fresh fish labeled as cod being sold is also not Atlantic cod, but they can get away with it legally because the cod family of fish is pretty broad, and legally sellers don’t have to be species specific with fish labeling. There is simply not enough true Atlantic cod to supply the demand for CLO. Fish oils are so delicate that they go rancid easily if not stored properly. Fermenting makes them even more susceptible to oxidation. Inferior CLO such as pollock don’t have the antioxidant levels of true Atlantic cod oil, so fermenting pollock oil is a really bad idea.
Now, if I can figure ALL this out with my laymen scientific research skills, why can’t the WAPF?
Outstanding article Dave. Keep it up! I say this as a former WAPF Chapter Leader. I, like you feel burned by my trust in the foundation.