This past weekend, we saw the first rumblings that the federal government may become involved in the fermented cod liver oil conflict that has created an uproar within the Weston A. Price Foundation. Food Safety News, an influential online publication about tainted food, called on the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to follow up on the Kaayla Daniel report indicating Green Pasture fermented cod liver oil may be rancid, and mislabeled. It’s not yet clear whether the government will take FSN up on its suggestion, but what is clear is that the publication has dared the government to explore further the Daniel report, with an eye to possibly taking action against Green Pasture, the producer of FCLO, and the recipient of ongoing backing from WAPF.
By the end of this week, we will almost certainly see the ouster of that report’s author, nutritionist Kaayla Daniel, as a WAPF vice president and director. That’s because a special board meeting is scheduled for Sunday for the singular purpose of booting her out of the organization. She would become the second high-ranking casualty of the FCLO uproar, following naturopathic physician Ron Schmid out through what has become a veritable WAPF revolving door.
Out of the ongoing WAPF carnage associated with the WAPF-Green Pasture fiasco, a new organization is taking shape. The two WAPF loyalists being booted out, Schmid and Daniel, are launching a new foundation, The Foundation for Ancestral Wisdom. The organization is planning a day-long conference Saturday November 21 in Massachusetts, to be followed by a Sunday morning meeting for attendees, speakers, and sponsors to settle on the foundation’s mission and principles, vote in a nine-member board, and then given input to the board as it selects officers. The conference’s title: “The First Annual Conference of the Foundation for Ancestral Wisdom”. Its theme: “Bringing Together the Paleo, Primal and Weston Price Communities.”
In a letter to potential attendees and conference sponsors, Schmid and Daniel describe the new organization’s mission as “to bring together the paleo, primal, Weston Price and Francis Pottenger, Jr., communities, united by the belief that the writings of Dr. Weston Price form the core (but not the full extent) of the nutritional wisdom we need to live in optimal health. The research and ideas of others who have enlarged and updated nutritional knowledge for the modern world will be encouraged for presentation and open debate.”
The letter also promised “democratic governance” and a board that “shall be responsive to the needs of the membership. Open discussion of any issue will be encouraged among members and the Board.”
Finally, and perhaps most telling in the aftermath of the WAPF-GP experience, Schmid and Daniel promise, “The foundation will under no circumstances officially endorse or promote any individual, product or company in any way, financially or otherwise.”
I have provided input to Schmid and Daniel over the past few days as they have made their initial plans. There seemed to be no inclination to actually launch a new organization until last week, when Daniel received notification from WAPF that a “special meeting of the board” was being called via conference call for 8 pm September 20 by directors Cherie Calvert and Tom Cowan. “The purpose of this meeting is to remove Kaayla Daniel as a director of the foundation.”
To Daniel, the use of directors Calvert and Cowan to call the special meeting is a smokescreen for Sally Fallon Morell, the founder and president, who dictates the organization’s policies. Daniel says the seeds for her ouster from the organization were planted last fall, when she first raised her concerns to Fallon Morell about Green Pasture’s products, and received a “chilly reception.” The two had been very close, with Fallon Morell WAPF’s president and Daniel its vice president; the two had in 2014 co-authored a book, Nourishing Broth. Fallon Morell also wrote the Forewords to Schmid’s two books, The Untold Story of Milk and his upcoming Primal Nutrition.
Daniel says the falling out between the three (Fallon Morell, Schmid, Daniel) has now spread to a “widespread outcry among chapter leaders about Sally’s so-called ‘gag order’ to prevent criticism of the fermented cod liver oil and of the WAPF’s response. Some plan to ignore the order; others say they are up and quitting those positions.”
In explaining her decision to join in the establishment of the new Foundation for Ancestral Living, Daniel says further: “It seems clear that the Weston A. Price Foundation will remain closed to important outside views and opinions. It has remained closed to the Paleo and primal communities for several years now. It has remained closed to individuals who have been expressing concerns about the safety of fermented cod liver oil.”
Schmid says individuals interested in attending or sponsoring the Nov. 21 conference may learn more by viewing the announcement on his own company’s web site, www.drrons.com, or emailing nick@drrons.com; he promises a website for the foundation and conference shortly (www.foundationforancestralwisdom.org) and online signup for the conference by Oct. 1.
It will be interesting to see what develops with this new foundation. It sounds like they have a good base plan already. Wish I lived closer to MA, I’d check it out in person!
But the people are problematic. Anyone that needs to be kicked out because of autocratic pressures put on those under here – especially when wrong, but authoritarian by all accounts – is someone to avoid in my mind.
“autocratic pressures put on those under here”
Brad – Would you mind clarifying what this is in reference to? Just curious.
I took it to mean Sally’s threats to chapter leaders, including threats of legal action if they didn’t do what she said, but perhaps he was thinking of something else when he said that.
Thanks, Food Safety News! As if FDA and DOJ could manage to honestly, objectively investigate anything. These are the same folks who fast track every whim drug of big pharma and think GMOs don’t need labelling. Yeah, there’s a credible resource I can count on to protect my family’s health! Talk about a revolving door; they can’t even find anyone willing to take Hamburg’s place.
I think it was inevitable that this rift would result in the development of a group to embrace some of these important principles that WAPF leadership seem to dismiss or reject. I will follow with interest, though, like D. Smith, don’t live close enough to MA to check it out in person.
David, I am struggling to see how you can be doing journalism on this topic, when at least in my inbox, it appears you are deeply embedded in one side of the issue/one perspective, one group of people,
This is for the the launch of a Foundation and conference that is clearly meant to be competition to WAPF. You are listed as a founding member (since all in attendance will be considered founding members) along with the email being crafted and sent out by you, Dr. Ron, and Kaayla.
Sincerely,
Kaayla Daniel, PhD
David Gumpert
Ron Schmid, ND
***
Given this, I see why people think and have claimed that all of this is little more than an organized, premediated blitz with ulterior motives.
I have no way of knowing if these accusations are true or correct, but if you want to do journalism, journalists are supposed to maintain a fair degree of independence to ensure objectivity and fair treatment of all parties. It appears at best you are severely compromised in this area and on these issues.
This is not to say that a new foundation may not be beneficial or needed, more so, just your role in all this is puzzling/concerning to us who want objective coverage or who think people come here expecting objective coverage and not knowing that is not what they may be receiving on this issue.
@ John: This particular article is written up on a BLOG. This is not an article for a newspaper or a magazine, so David is allowed to view things however he wishes. If you have a differing opinion than his, fine, but he is allowed to have an opinion as well, especially on his own blawg, for Pete’s sake.
What would the ulterior motive be, if I may be so bold as to ask? Can you explain? If exposing a bad product is a “blitz” then I’m all for a blitz in this instance. If Wetzel has nothing to fear by being “exposed” then it shouldn’t matter a bit.
I never implied he cannot have an opinion. I merely am pointing out that a lot of people have criticized WAPF for their handling of the GPP issue as driven by conflict of interest. If David is a founding board member of a competing organization that stands to benefit from WAPF taking a hit (and perhaps, an unfair hit at that), how is he not just as much embroiled in a conflict of interest?
David has blocked some comments that bring up conflict of interest issues surrounding Kaayla and others, yet has freely allowed such comments and totally unfounded ones about Christ Masterjohn to and others to be posted. Why the uneven treatment of the two sides of the issue? Why is one side allowed to be portrayed as biased, blinded by economic incentives (again, mainly supported by unfounded or incorrect information and accusations), etc., while those things on the other side are kept hidden or not allowed to be discussed? Why is nothing from the other side or perspective appearing in any of the blog posts?
You all are assuming that GPP is guilty, with no trail. The comments of this blog have become little more than a medieval mob it seems, and remind me much of this Monty Python clip,
You are arguing what is, so far, still a moot point. An “unfair hit to WAPF” has yet to be proven.
GP will get their “trial” and could easily prove their “innocence” if they would submit past testing information, and work on providing further, newer testing info. It’s pretty simple, as Amanda Rose pointed out here recently, to provide the deets, which could have been directly sent to David G. End of the whole mess. Maybe you could find out from Wetzel why he hasn’t/isn’t doing that?
Judging before the evidence is in is certainly unfair to any organization or person. There is an old adage, “A lie is twice around the world before the truth has tied its shoes.” Chris M. has put out a worthy analysis of a number of Kaayla’s claims. A lot of the criticisms levied at WAPF here are truly non-sensical at best.
Chris M. raised a number of areas where we all await more answers. I think the difference is a lot of people are not awaiting answers – they have declared themselves judge, jury, and executioners. GPP and WAPF are “acting guilty,” whatever that means, etc. This is the main reason Kaayla and Dr. Ron were treated the way they were – they had already decided GPP was rancid, misbranded, and the like. End of story. Perhaps they are right, perhaps they are wrong. Taking sides and forming a mob mentality is certain to ensure that regardless of who is right, those involved won’t “hear it” regardless of the actual evidence presented.
But I will get on my WAPF/GPP batphone ASAP to appease the masses. Or, I can give people time to answer the various issues raised (since, btw, testing, etc. doesn’t happen magically overnight), and see if the answers pass muster or not.
Or I can do what the mob does, rush to conclusions, make sweeping generalizations and statements, take pot shots at people they do not personally know or things they don’t understand or have context for, and the like.
That is one of the main issues I see here – how many of you actually personally know the people involved? I personally know each and everyone. I had lunch with Kaayla a few months ago at a conference. I trade emails at times with Dr. Ron.
All are my friends, and I think all should be treated justly and fairly as I would want to be.
But it is pretty clear that such an approach is neither good for ratings or the general approach of modern people. Again, I refer back to the Monty Python clip. Either way, I have other things to attend to this weekend speaking at a conference, and thus will continue to wait patiently to see the chips fall instead of rushing to judgment.
But I think a lot of people will rue how this situation has been handled on all sides in the coming weeks, months, and years.
D Smith, Dave Wetzel has provided past testing AND will be releasing new test results from samples sent just after these accusations began. The tests do not happen over night and they are still awaiting review by the lab analyst as well as several other researchers.
John, there is no board yet, so I’m not “a founding board member…” Matter of board members will be decided at the Nov. 22 governance session that follows the Nov. 21 conference.
I must say that to accuse me of having “blocked some comments that bring up conflict of interest issues surrounding Kaayla and others…” is grasping at very flimsy straws. I blocked a couple comments early on in this controversy (which I previously discussed here in response to allegations from Victor, but I’ll go through again) that suggested that there was a grand conspiracy around the allegations against GP and WAPF. Now, nothing wrong with that, except the comments accused one company by name of having produced a product that killed two (named) individuals. When I asked the commenter if there was any legal action or government action making those allegations that we could tie the accusations to (I was looking for an excuse to publish the comments), she said there wasn’t. So it was entirely from the commenter’s imagination (or perhaps the minds of some of her friends as well). Unfortunately, making such accusations is potentially a violation of libel law. This commenter also suggested that Kaayla Daniel had some kind of involvement with a competing company (to GP) that would explain why she produced the report. Once again, no evidence, just something apparently from this commenter’s imagination or gossip of some sort. BTW, I even asked Daniel if anything to her involvement, of any sort, with another producer of cod liver oil, and she vehemently denied it. So, once again, defamation of that sort is potentially libelous, in my judgment.
I explained to the commenter in detail what the problems were, gave her opportunities to re-word her comments to leave out names, or else come up with some evidence, and she pulled the comments. I told her she was free to take her comments elsewhere on the Internet, and see if someone else would publish them, but I wasn’t going to open myself to the potential liability. Maybe you want to publish them on the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund site, and I’ll provide a link.
Why is a comment that claims Chris Masterjohn’s report/position is only because of his WAPF connections allowed, if you block things like the above without evidence? There have been tons of similar comments that have not been blocked. Again, my concern is the uneven treatment of comments and the seemingly one-sided nature of the blog posts. Even if not purposefully, it certainly fuels those who say there is something more behind this than just a desire to give all parties an opportunity to get to the truth.
Per FTCLDF, it has nothing to do with all this, and will have zero to do with all this. It would be a needless distraction from a far more important mission and purpose. As the saying goes, not our monkeys, not our circus.
The email I received said anyone who attends will be a founding board member, and you are listed as a speaker and the email was sent out with your name on it. So perhaps board member is wrong word, but you will be a founding voting member of a new organization that was specifically created to compete with WAPF. How, given the nature of the coverage of this by you, the timing of various things, the one sided nature of the comments being moderated and help to particular standards, this does not lead people to have concerns for trusting your coverage on this is no mystery.
It’s simple, John. Chris Masterjohn was honest and upfront in his report and said he is paid by WAPF. If he had said that he was an outsider, writing independently, and then someone wrote in a comment, “Masterjohn is receiving side payments from WAPF for writing the report. A good friend who is in the know told me…” well, I wouldn’t allow that comment because the commenter is essentially accusing Masterjohn of fraud. The ultimate defense against libel is truth.
In the things I blocked, people were making potentially criminal accusations without a shred of evidence.
If Dave Wetzel is testing every batch of his CLO and/or FCLO all he has to do is turn over the testing information, and this will all be settled. People like John, as far as I can see, have some sort of agenda because I’ve mentioned this issue with Wetzel (about turning over his test results) several times before and John tends to just pfffft over them, but boy when he gets on a roll about what David G is doing wrong, well, that’s where his finger pointing becomes a real exercise for him.
John has still not answered my question from several days ago about why Wetzel won’t release test results (regarding rancidity, purity – and whatever else he tests for) if he has them. If he doesn’t test and have the results, how does he standardize his batches? Does this mean he only tests certain runs of batches, but not all of them? Not a very comforting thought, considering the size of his operation and now the allegations against him. Whaddaya say, John? Any answers for us?
BTW, David G. has always been very fair about not censoring this blog’s comments. John is only seeing what John wants to see, I fear.
What is up with the crazy demands and tone? Dave Wetzel has posted test results on the website, so your question doesn’t make sense. Not only tests, but discussions about the results are posted on the site.
If you have some specific request for testing, you should define exactly what tests you are looking for, and what your reference in the industry is. Is there some other product that established certain expectations for you?
I’m still waiting to see the test results that have you all in a frenzy. Nearly ten years on the market, a top CLO in the world, and you can’t find any bad tests? Nothing? Yea, me neither. Wow, I knew Green Pasture was awesome, but you guys have really shined a light on it. You may have scared away some people with your fear mongering, but in the end you will have every scientist confirming the GP FCLO is a great product. It is already happening.
Let’s see a side-by-side comparison, then, with a brand of CLO made in the traditional way, no fermentation necessary. Weston A. Price didn’t ferment his CLO, nor did he recommend it. Fermentation happened during the Industrial Revolution to preserve a product not meant for consumption. Just like there are two raw milks (one for pasteurization and one for consumption) there are also two CLOs. I’d like to see this analysis done for the FCLO from Green Pastures. It seems like the canaries of the population (autistic kids and immunocompromised adults) cannot tolerate the Green Pastures Product. But they do well with this one. http://www.rositarealfoods.com/cod-liver-oil/16-rosita-real-foods-evclo-nutritional-analysis
There are side-by-side comparisons, with nice colored graphs, sitting on the Green Pasture website. So do you imply that there are not?
The author of the GAPS diet, Dr. Campbell-McBride, is clearly one of the leading experts on autism, and she recommends the Green Pasture FCLO. As do others that also have firsthand experience. Your link contains nothing about autism or immunocompromised adults.
Your insinuations are false, so why make them?
Yes, look closely at the GPP test results and consider which other leading brands may have been used in this comparison.
Seeing what I want to see? I probably see more than most, if not almost anyone, on this blog, since again, I know these people in person. While you all found out about this a few weeks ago, I have known since much earlier in the year, March or so, maybe earlier. I was informed personally by the people involved.
As far as I know, Dave and WAPF have released substantial test results over the years, at least a number of rounds of testing done a number of times. And if Dave is doing more testing, then it will be released when the testing is finished. As a few people have pointed out, such basic things as testing taking time, etc. seem to fall on completely death ears in this particular forum… lynch mobs cannot be troubled to with facts and innocent until proven guilty when we have people to tar and feather… what is really funny is why are you asking me? Dave has given you all his direct phone number, you can call and ask yourself, instead of perpetuating the 2nd and 3rd stupidity that people take as facts in the comments section of late.
Per the censorship, when people can make unfounded statements about Chris M. WAPF, and GPP, yet David moderates out of existence similar statements about Daniels, etc. that is pretty blatant.
I also enjoy seeing the ad hominem you have put into your comments above. As me and a few others have said, we await actual results, and have no bias any direction in terms of what those results mean/say. It seems around here if you desire to be patient, wait for actual evidence, etc. the lynch mob will immediately turn on you as well and shout you down… how dare you all for wisdom and patience and impartiality… off with their heads!
Again, the Monty Python video is only too surreal as to how this has been handled…
I couldn’t agree with you more about the Monty Python video John. I laughed until I cried lol And the rest of your post is pretty good too 😉
Dave Wetzel will be releasing test data from product that was sent out for testing just after the release of Dr. Daniel’s report. These tests take time to do an to analyze. Several researchers will be weighing in as well.
@ Carrie Hahn: “Dave Wetzel will be releasing test data from product that was sent out for testing just after the release of Dr. Daniel’s report. These tests take time to do an to analyze.”
That was almost a month ago.
“Several researchers will be weighing in as well.”
I’m sure they will. Will we all be privy to the entire “weigh-in” or will we get cherry-picked info? It all remains to be seen.
@D Smith…..Do you know how long it takes to process these samples for nutritional content? Are you experienced with such testing? Previously GPP posted results and analysis in their entirety so I do not know what you are referring to when you say “cherry picked info.”
Except for the tat bioassay, I haven’t seen a single report on the GPP site that was posted on its entirety, just extracted results and comments, mostly with no lab info, methodology, or dates. Do you have some in mind? Can you provide links?
Mr. Gumpert continues to block any comment I make in regard to what Kaayla Daniel told me about a particular brand of probiotic that was taken by a certain person. You see, if I mention the name of the product or any of the people involved in Dr. Daniel’s accusations, he has threatened to ban me from this blog.
@ Carrie Hahn: David has given you an explanation more than once for why he doesn’t want you to post that info. I’ve seen it and so have others, yet you continue (evidently) to try to post it. If this was your blog, what would you do in the face of the potential liability issues?
There are numerous libelous statements on several of these blog posts that have not been banned. If I were a journalist, I would want to disseminate information from all sides of an issue.
Carrie, libel is a judgment call–no absolutes. I’ve tried to explain some of the major criteria to you, and refer you to information sources, but you seem uninterested in learning. A blog that is one-sided in its presentation of information is not necessarily guilty of libel.
Not sure what a probiotic issue from years ago has to do with the current situation, but if it is important to you, perhaps you could post the info on your own blog, accepting the legal liability, and then link to it. Mr. Gumpert might find that acceptable.
Steve, I have made that same proposal–post the info elsewhere and link to it.
you say that this is a blog and therefore not expected to be objective, but i can tell by reading many of the comments and by the shit storm i kicked when i asked a perfectly innocent question, that many people read this blog as though it were fact.
i will also submit that this issue isn’t really important enough outside the traditional food world, which is small, to have any objective journalists writing about it in newspapers and magazines. if i’m wrong, please tell me but everything i’ve seen has been a blog- chris kresser, chris masterjohn, various nutritional mamas, david gumpert.
as to your last point- you know that is not true. people say all the time “i don’t mind the NSA listening in my phone calls; i have nothing to hide” but the truth is, we all have something that can be used against us by someone and a business can be brought down by gossip, innuendo and lies.
now, before pete starts accusing me of being sally fallon in disguise, i really don’t mean to start any such thing. i’m not saying that anyone is lying. the product in question may be complete trash, it may be completely wonderful or it may be somewhere on a spectrum. the owner of the company may have held true to his founding principals or he may have sold out and gone for the money. either way and whatever the truth is, an innocent company can be brought down by mere speculation. that is a fact sadly.
you yourself said “if exposing a bad product is a ‘blitz'” which seems to indicate that you have already decided that it is a bad product even while asserting that wetzel has nothing to fear.
i suspect that the poor people at Morningside Dairy were completely innocent but still had to destroy 50,000 lbs of perfectly good cheese. what did they have to fear? how about losing their livelihood? they were the victims of a witch hunt but i remind everyone that the government does not have the exclusive right to engage in witch hunts.
david’s blog posts were as supportive of Morningside Dairy as they are anti Green Pastures
@ John, Victor, Carolyn: You’re right (all of you) and I’m wrong. I hope everything turns out the way you wish it to. Sorry to have an opinion at all. My bad.
wow! can’t recall anyone saying something so extreme but here is another example of the my way or the high way cancer that is infecting all these “discussions?”
can you not even admit that i made a good point with Morningside Dairy?
Exactly how are David’s posts anti-Green Pastures? Morningside Dairy wasn’t producing a product that was testing bad. Let’s just assume from now on all tests on fclo come back showing non-rancid oil. This still doesn’t explain advertising that lead us all to believe it was north Atlantic cod, the Argentian butter few knew about, the transfats found in the clo, the antibiotic traces found in the butter oil. And why is it taking Dave Wetzel so long to respond to these problems? And what about what about the WAPF promoting something that Weston Price never even bothered to research?
Karen, it is anti-GP the same way your comment is – by spreading falsehoods, making unfounded insinuations, or telling outright lies.
– Antibiotic traces found in butter oil?! No such thing is ever mentioned in the report.
– transfats in the oil? So what?! This is nothing new, and has been explained before.
– Why is Dave Wetzel taking so long to respond? Really? And I suppose your choice of grammar is accidental in its attempt to imply that he has not responded? No. You are intentionally being deceitful. You know very well that Dave Wetzel has responded several times already, and has test data and comments from other scientists on his blog in DIRECT response to this.
“transfats in the oil? So what?! This is nothing new, and has been explained before.”
The only explanation for this I’ve seen so far was by Chris M, and it was rather damning.
False insinuations again. Chris M made no damning comments about trans fats, but does say that some of Daniel’s comments are “wild speculation.” He says it is “highly plausible” that the trans fats are from microbial activity, which matches what has already been said by Dave Wetzel.
Chris also notes, and concludes:
“I think it is worth noting that the lab test does not seem to distinguish whether the 18:3 trans is all-trans, or is conjugated with alternating cis and trans double bonds. I think further elucidating the nature of the fatty acid may help shed light on where it comes from.”
And this was the ‘evidence’ that Dr. Daniel used to allege that the FCLO contained vegetable oil. A month later there are still no experts or data to support her “wild speculation”
Victor is a demogog who is lying. Chris actually said Daniel’s theory of the clo being cut with veggie oil was reasonable, only calling wild speculation the part about cattlelick tub livers being a a ruse.
Chris calls microbial production of the trans fats “quite plausible”, but offers no justification nor science for this. However he calls fraud the “simpler” explination, “well established from common experience”.
Quite a different picture than Vic here paints. Looking at Chris Ms statements, and applying occams razor, it is not only reasonable to.conclude GP is cutting fclo with veggie oil, it is the best explination. And if what Karen said below is true about gmo antibiotic residue, I don’t have the report handy right now, then the ONLY reasonable explination is adulteration.
But don’t expect Vic to assent to that, people like him will say anything to defend GP. One comes to different cnclusions reading Chris Me reporrt when one is looking to justify GP vs trying to figure out the truth or trying to fgure out why people are being made sick by this product.
This btw, isn’t the only damming thing in Chris’ report. But that doesn’t stop the zealots from trumpeting it as a knockdown of Daniels report.
Ok, I checked th e Daniels report and Karen is wrong on the GMO thing. Page 68 documents that the BUTTER had no detectable levels of gmos or antibiotic residue, meaning it most likely was not from conventional cows and that with the CLA levels indicate it most likely is from grassfed cows. Her problem with the butter is it tests rancid and is from Argentina, not the Great Plains as advertised (still to this day by some vendors I might add).
So no slam.dunk here on veggie oil adulteration, though per Chris Masterjohn and Occoms Razor, the fclo is most likely cut with veggie oil based on the trasfats content of the.fclo found by Dr. Daniels.
This is hysterical Pete. Even after checking Daniel’s report and finding yourself to be wrong, you just flip back over to Masterjohn’s report and say I am lying? It is not my desire to drag you through the mud, but since you insist…
Chris Masterjohn:
“I published a clear conclusion that I don’t believe the oil is rancid in the sense of having undergone lipid peroxidation. Personally, I have tried to avoid making specific product recommendations, but I feel comfortable expressing my confidence that the oil is probably beneficial for people who tolerate it well.”
And I already previously pasted this comment from him:
“…I find the antagonistic tone of the report to be unfortunate, and many of the accusations reach beyond what the evidence should allow for. If this report stands on its own, I do not think Green Pasture gets a fair hearing…”
But go ahead and keep challenging me on this idea Pete, and I will be more than happy to keep copying and pasting supportive comments from Dr. Masterjohn. He has a lot more to say on the subject.
I’m not painting any pictures. I’m just pulling back the curtain to show you the truth. Take a look.
Again you are deceptive, moving the goal posts, and not even addressing what I was talking about. I was speaking of adulteration with vegetable oil, not rancidity.
Funny how you ignore the damning substance of his paper and skip to the conclusion you want to hear.
Until we see some pretty good science demonstrating how the manufacture of this product generates trans-fats, the best answer is that it is adulterated.
Victor look in Kaayla’s report page 68. You will see where she mentions Lab#8 showed GMO and antibiotic residue. Did you actually read the report?
Are you kidding? Are you attempting to mislead everyone here?
The comment on page 68 is actually confirming that there are no GMO or antibiotic traces. It is also talking about the Butter Oil, and not the FCLO. In any case, here is the entire paragraph, so that people can see who is lying:
“Can anything good be said about the product? Yes. Testing at Lab #8 showed non-detectable GMOs and antibiotic residue. Both would have shown up in butter from factory-farmed cows fed corn and soy and treated with antibiotics. So the butter purchased by Green Pasture could very well be coming from grass-fed cows, as the excellent Vitamin K2 levels would also suggest.”
I can see your confusion however, as Dr. Daniel uses unusual wording. However, if you read the entire paragraph, the meaning is crystal clear.
You have been duped by Dr. Daniel, so take your anger out on her, not me.
Victor, this is my point to David about his handling. He does not allows non-provable or possibly slanderous statements about KD and the like… but the blog comments are FILLED with inaccurate, outright untruthful, or hearsay statements about WAPF, GPP, the reports, etc. that are slanderous to boot.
The disparity is striking.
Carolyn, the case involved Morningland Dairy, not Morningside Dairy. This was a Missouri cheese maker that got hammered by both the FDA and Missouri agriculture officials when listeria was found in their cheese during an inspection. A followup inspection also showed listeria.
This is a classic case of how getting rid of the government is so difficult once it involves itself. There were never any allegations of anyone getting the least bit sick. And Morningland offered to submit to regular inspections of all its cheese. Yet the FDA insisted on a complete recall of a years worth of cheese and Missouri insisted on the destruction of 40,000 pounds of cheese in inventory….and even if Morningland complied, there was no guarantee it could re-open. I thought Morningland was being more than reasonable, but the government officials seemed mainly interested in crippling Morningland. It was a total mess, dragged on for several years, and eventually Morningland was forced out of business. Just look up “Morningland Dairy” in the search function on this blog, and you can read all about it.
John, those are fair questions-concerns. I’ve thought a lot about them myself, and I don’t have a definitive answer about how my journalism intersects with my position or role on the establishment of this new organization. Here are a few thoughts I’ve had about this:
The role of a journalist in controversial situations is something journalists debate among themselves. We were debating it back 40+ years ago when I was at Columbia Journalism School, in connection with all the demonstrations and protests going on in connection with the war in Vietnam. We generally divided on it–those who thought journalists should be entirely “objective” and not let their views be known, and others who thought journalists should feel free to express their views.
In this situation, I’ve tried to report what’s happening as objectively as possible. But I’ve also expressed my dismay about how Sally Fallon Morell and the Weston A. Price Foundation have handled the concerns put forth by Kaayla Daniel as to the safety and integrity of the Green Pasture fermented cod liver oil.
Can I continue to report objectively? I hope so. I do remain a member of the Weston A. Price Foundation–have no intention of dropping my membership. I continue to respect a lot of what it does. I keep the award I received from WAPF for “Integrity in Journalism” in 2008 in a prominent place in my office.
I take issue with your characterization that “all of this is little more than an organized, premediated blitz with ulterior motives.” I can’t know exactly what Ron Schmid and Kaayla Daniel were thinking prior to our discussions beginning last week about starting a new organization, but I do know that I didn’t have any plans, or desire, to be involved in a competitive organization. It was kind of humorous–one of the first things I asked Ron and Kaayla was this, “Isn’t there some way we could work from within WAPF and try to change things?” I forget which one said it, “David, we’ve both been kicked out of WAPF.” Duh. I was the only one of us three retaining a formal connection to WAPF, who hadn’t been thrown out.
Going forward, I hope I can continue to be fair-minded in reporting on this controversy. My desire to be a journalist has always been motivated by a desire to educate people on important issues. In recent years, I’ve wanted to help educate about problems in our food system, and about the potential power of nutrient-dense food to heal and contribute to good health, and about making sure we continue to have access to good food. We’ll see if I can continue doing that.
If you read back David, I don’t say that this is little more than an organized premeditated blitz”, I state clearly that the way you are handling it, and now your involvement with the new foundation, etc. adds a great deal of credence to such a viewpoint that people have expressed in many other places this is being discussed.
To phrase John’s point a little differently, there is just as much credence to accusing you of what those people are saying as you accusing GP and WAPF of what you’re accusing them for.
What if further testing comes out later that absolutely nothing is wrong with the oil and Masterjohn’s analysis is vindicated, David? How will you feel if it turns out you inadvertently contributed to the lynching of a company that was not poisoning people (these are the allegations); that company ends up severely damaged by the hysteria or outright destroyed by the FDA? I am not saying this is the way things will turn out, but the way you are writing and stirring up suspicion and fear, whether you intend to or not–or you think you are doing your journalistic duty or whatever–I really hope you are vindicated, and we have no reason right now to feel sure you will be.
If it turns out FCLO is nutritious and not poisonous, how do WAPF’s actions look? Quite reasonable. They had a director brazenly making specious (not that they can’t be borne out, but they aren’t right now), serious accusations about someone specific’s livelihood. Would it matter if that business was linked to the foundation? If you’re Dr Daniel and disagree with your colleagues, don’t kamikazi them. Gracefully exit, start your own thing and say what you want to say in a respectful and thoughtful manner. But if you want to make these accusations, you need something more solid than possibly misinterpreted tests from labs who didn’t even reveal themselves and one guy who *thinks* one of the things he ate, and not the others, and not anything else he did in his life, caused his heart problems.
This may sound strange, but I’d be thrilled if further extensive credible testing shows nothing wrong with the fermented cod liver oil. My problem has been with the GP and WAPF reactions to the test results reported in Kaayla Daniel’s report. GP should have immediately ordered extensive credible tests and an exploration of the illnesses being reported. WAPF should have temporarily suspended GP from exhibiting, until the testing was completed. That’s just sane precautionary stuff. Once the tests come back clean, and I’m talking about real tests, then everyone breathes a sigh of relief, and goes about their business (though I would hope WAPF would question its special relationship with GP in any event). I don’t wish ill on GP. Moreover, I don’t want to see the government interfere with our right to access products like FCLO. By stonewalling, as both GP and WAPF have done, they have endangered the rights of all of us going forward.
GP and WAPF do not have a problem with the test results, as they line up with previous tests and confirm what Dave Wetzel has already explained. There are no real surprises in the test data, and the results show the FCLO to be GOOD.
The problem is with Dr. Daniel’s insinuations and tone, and the fact that she contradicts her own data.
What data is it exactly that you think warrants your claims David?
david
i enjoy reading your blog and have for some time now but i have to make a comment based on what you said above: “i don’t want to see the government interfere…:
the first sentence of this blog post “This past weekend, we saw the first rumblings that the federal government may become involved in the fermented cod liver oil conflict that has created an uproar” stirs up that very specter. it implies that the government is gearing up, on the case.
then you go on to explain that, not really, just an on-line publication urged (later you soften even that to “suggested”) the government to intervene. how? in person? over drinks? with a big campaign contribution? or just in an on-line article that what percentage of the general population has ever heard of anyway?
my point is that the very first sentence of your blog is alarmist- it got me alarmed. but when you get to the explanation, an objective reader realizes that no, the government isn’t getting involved, may never get involved. it was just a misleading “headline” meant to get attention and stir the emotional pot.
how many petitions signed by millions asking to raise the minimum wage, how many polls showing that 95% of people want GMOs labeled, etc go completely ignored for lifetimes by the federal government?
it may be newsworthy within the small confines of the traditional food movement to mention that an on-line publication suggested that government intervention might be necessary to end the debate but your first sentence wasn’t called for and belies your assertion that you’d “be thrilled” if everything came up roses.
i’ve read your posts on this subject since the beginning and even before i read a single comment or posted one of my own, i noticed that the tone was witch-hunty and somehow different from the tone of your other blogs.
just so i don’t kick up another shit store, which i might anyway, i am not a member of WAPF, and unlike john, who’s comments i enjoy, i don’t know any of the parties involved. i take GPFCLO but i don’t take it religiously or obsessively. i’ve said before that i don’t mind the taste and haven’t noticed any difference in the taste other than normal fluctuations that one would expect in something not made by computer. of course, i said that before and pete accused me of being an apologist for Sally Fallon!
a friend did tell me that people who have taken the stuff since it’s beginnings noticed a change in taste at a certain point. i haven’t taken it that long. i don’t think i take enough of it to kill me should it turn out to be something horrible. again, pete took massive offense at that observation.
BTW, my friend also told me that you quoted one of her comments in such a way as to make it sound as though you had interviewed her and you took it down at her insistence. she also admits that SF is a tyrant and that her position on other diets like Paleo makes no sense (she is a member of WAPF; i am not)
i started taking the stuff when i put myself on the GAPS diet a bit over 2 1/2 years ago. in her books Dr Natasha Campbell McBride basically says that it’s the only brand that is worth anything in the USA. which hasn’t stopped me from taking Westerly Brand capsules which might also be crap as far as i know. but that brings up a question- has anyone asked Dr Campbell MacBride’s opinion on this whole fracas? i’d be curious.
i started the GAPS diet to see if it made any difference in my escalating asthma and steroid dependence. i can happily say that in the past 2 1/2 years i have taken the amount of steroid medication that i formerly took in 2 1/2 months. so i’m going to keep doing what is working for me and i’ll keep tweaking it as i learn about other possibilities
Carolyn — Just on the Food Safety News point, it’s not a big publication but it does have the regulatory ear. As a follower of food safety issues, I found the editorial to be a very big deal. It very well mean that an investigation will follow. An investigation may have followed anyway if consumers have already submitted their concerns to the FDA.
Carolyn, I’ve been expressing concern about the government becoming involved since this began. Probably because I’ve seen more examples of arbitrary government involvement in farming, food and supplement production than I care to remember. If my blog post’s first paragraph sounded alarmist, it was because of what I read in the Food Safety News article. It said that supplements “have long existed in a kind of food safety twilight zone.” In other words, the rules aren’t clear, nor is it clear which agencies have oversight. Could be the FTC, FDA, FBI, etc., etc. Whenever you have a “twilight zone” area of government enforcement, you can expect twilight-zone kinds of experiences, in my experience. Being in a government “twilight zone” isn’t ever fun.
Then there was the conclusion of the article: “This one surely needs to be investigated, and there would be no better place for OCI or FBI agents to begin that than at 4200 Wisconsin Ave. in Washington, D.C., where the WAPF is located.” Here is the link:
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2015/09/letter-from-the-editor-a-superfood-controversy/#.Vfs9K7RFL8k
I read stuff like this and I get concerned. And I get even more concerned when I see WAPF people burying their heads in the sand, as if there’s not a thing to be concerned about. I want to see WAPF and Green Pasture get out ahead of this–commit to seriously investigating safety, labeling, and other allegations, not argue endlessly that Chris Masterjohn or Sally Fallon Morell or Dave Wetzel say it’s okay, and that’s the final word. Getting out ahead is the best way to forestall government involvement.
As for your Q about me suggesting I interviewed someone whom I didn’t interview, no, what happened was that in one of my first posts on this subject, I quoted a few people from comments they put on my Facebook page. I said the comments came from Facebook, and later two of them asked me to remove the comments from the blog, so I complied with their requests.
IT,
If it turns out there is nothing wrong with FCLO then this would be a case of Daniels giving WAPF enough rope to hang themselves.
The questions being asked and concerns presented are entirly reasonable. It is WAPF/GPs actions to.date that are blowing this up.
There are enough voices that have been muted and suppressed by WAPF and many of its organizers. That is no way to run an organization of integrity and transparency. Why suppress information? Show it all and let the cow chips fall where they may. Truth, like raw cream, always rises to the surface.
David Gumpert has once again blocked my post; so who’s suppressing information? And has now threatened to ban me permanently for trying to provide important details.
@ Carrie Hahn: If David G. was blocking you or *banning you* why did THIS post show up? Can you not post one thing that isn’t accusatory?
Yes, I warned Carrie Hahn privately that if she keeps trying to post the same material, which I consider libelous, I will block her from the site.
@ David G: Carrie Hahn apparently doesn’t play well with others, and runs with scissors.
“Truth, like raw cream, always rises to the surface.”
Ha! If only people were so rational we wouldn’t have the majority of the population still buying into vaccine theory etc.
@ Amanda: So does scum. Imagine that. ; )
John, I would be very interested in hearing more of your opinion outside this blog, as I find your comments and connections important. I see Daniel’s report as absolutely bizarre, being well below any professional standards that someone in her standing should put out. I am still waiting to see anything that could justify the continued accusations. The facts and tests certainly do not. Please contact me directly if you think you can enlighten me on this matter.
I find Daniel’s accusations totally unfounded, which seems obvious everywhere but here, as Mr. Gumpert’s blog has somehow become a bastion of support, even with no facts to support it. I look forward to hearing from you.
I am in agreement with John. The torches have all been lit, the pitchforks raised and castle has all but been burned down by the mob. But, ah-ha, we miraculously have a new castle already built. And incidently, getting the gov’t in on this is a real dirty dirty deal for everyone.
Victor, I will consider your request. I am most hopeful that time, more than anything I can offer, will address many of the factually inaccurate things that I have seen posted here. But that may be a misguided hope given the intractable position many seem to have adopted apart from actual evidence.
This sounds great to me. I’m all for it!
This does look intriguing. I live in Vermont, so I might try to make it down for the conference and stick around to help with the organization’s planning. For what it’s worth, I would invite the organizers (if they’re following these comments) to consider a shorter domain name. Might even be worth changing the name of the proposed foundation to facilitate getting a better domain name.
YOU KNEW THIS WAS COMING. oops, darn cap lock. For those that know me here it is, the musical version of goings on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_L_-CKg6pw
I had suggested in a previous post that an alternative foundation might be a plausible well, alternative. Let the chips fall and the beat goes on. Please keep us informed David.
This is intriguing. Perhaps something constructive will come out of this after all.
It is clear that Sally Fallon Morell is doubling down on lunacy. Sarah Pope, a WAPF board member, posted yesterday on her blog The Healthy Home Economist regarding muscle testing, or applied kinesiology(AK). Muscle testing is an extremely dubious practice in the first place with no scientific basis for validity and efficacy. But let’s move past that to the claim from Sarah that, “According to staff at the clinic Biodynamic Wellness, more than 95% of clients muscle test most positively for the fermented cod liver oil (FCLO). These are the results compiled over many years of testing since the product was released in 2007.”
95%? That’s amazing! And who is the Biodynamic Wellness team? Well, it was founded by Kim Schuette, another board member of the Weston A Price Foundation. Kim Schuette is also considerably fond of Green Pastures FCLO. Perhaps the 95% is not so amazing after all. http://www.biodynamicwellness.com/about-us/
Does anyone else see the glaring conflict of interest and dangerous inbreeding of professional recommendations in the board members of the Weston A Price Foundation? Does anyone else observe the gang mentality of the board of directors? Between Sally, Geoffrey, Kim and Sarah you have a tight set basing their beliefs in the efficacy of their strongly endorsed products, such as FCLO, on an extremely questionable practice, muscle testing. This from Wikipedia (and a lot of bona fide citations), “Nearly all AK tests are subjective, relying solely on practitioner assessment of muscle response. Specifically, some studies have shown test-retest reliability, inter-tester reliability, and accuracy to have NO BETTER THAN CHANCE correlations.” That is, a coin flip would be about as diagnostic as applied kinesiology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_kinesiology#Scientific_research
So, for believers in the psuedo-practice of Applied Kinesiology this all makes sense. I have been to an Applied Kinesiologist and been told, “You have to believe it for it to work,” and now this is the backbone of the WAPF board of directors defense of their positions. If it looks like a cult and quacks like a cult and purges like a cult …
Finally, Mr. Gumpert, as a journalist in this realm I would be very interested in your perspectives on muscle testing/applied kinesiology and if you can find any validity to it that would bring credibility to the stand points of the majority of the Weston A Price Foundation board of directors, and their resulting actions to remove a doctor of nutrition from among their midst. I wonder about the mentality of the remaining members of the WAPF BOD, Tom, Cherie and Valerie. Are they so crass about science as to remove a doctor of nutrition from their board in favor of a psuedo-science? And, if so, what does that say about their greater organization in the world of nutrition?
Frankly, these actions by WAPF leadership stink worse than something being hotly debated on this website lately.
Oh wow. All Sarah Pope did was toss another burning hot iron into an already blazing fire with the kinesiology stuff. Why would anyone rely on such a thing, when their nose could tell them in a much more reliable fashion??!! (and that’s not sarcasm either).
Not the first time WAPF has allowed speakers and exhibitors within the pseudo-science realm. They prohibit multilevel distributors but had Russ Bianci (sp?) push that miracle juice– that was an MLM
Theresa, in case the implications of the name weren’t obvious to you, this new group is taking a big tent approach focused on nutrition. Not medicine, but either way an inclusive approach. There are many many alternative medicine practitioners, doctor and patient alike, in this movement. Probably more who believe in AK and have seen it do amazing things than those staunchly opposed.
If you’re going to start putting out all sorts of litmus tests you’re going to have a hard time putting together a group of people to.accomplish anything.
Theresa, I’ve had a fair amount of personal experience with applied kinesiology, or muscle testing. I worked with a nutritionist, and then an MD, who both used it, over a number of years. The nutritionist used AK to guide me to some supplements that helped me reduce inflammation, as reported in some medical testing, so I was pleased with that. Yet I also wound up taking a supplement that didn’t do well for me. Then, when I visited the MD, his AK led him to throw out about two-thirds of the supplements the nutritionist had suggested. That particular experience didn’t give me a lot of confidence in the process–if one practitioner disagreed with another that often, the whole AK process, or standards, couldn’t be very consistent, I concluded. So I guess you’d say I’m skeptical at this point. Yet I also know a number of people, whose opinions I respect, who use AK regularly and feel they are getting good results.
As backing for the FCLO, no, AK wouldn’t be convincing at all. And it definitely wouldn’t help convince the FDA about FCLO’s safety or benefits.
AK works but it a body’s demand for a supplement can vary by the day or hour or minute so what you may need today, you don’t need tomorrow, which is why you can’t rely on anyone else to do the testing for you. Learn to do it yourself on yourself using a simple push of one finger against another. Other things can influence testing like the tester’s own health, if he/she has a cell phone in their pocket or even a wireless router in the room. Lots of variables, so learn to do it yourself.
As for the FDA, they are pond scum and not to be trusted, period.
I have been a part of many groups and what I see you doing here is just plain stupid. Creating another group as an emotional backlash isn’t likely to accomplish much but cause disillusionment among people.
@ Sean: Why is is stupid? For people who are disillusioned with the recent goings-on on WAPF, this might be just the ticket. I don’t think it’s right to condemn something before it’s even out of the chute.
The disillusionment with WAPF has been going on for a decade over a variety of issues. This isn’t a new thing.
It is hard to believe there is room for yet another organization. It seems redundant. I would rather see the bridges mended instead of burned. These people all have such a wealth of wisdom it is truly a shame they can’t drop their petty bickering. Both Fallon Morell and Daniel have their own agendas, both are very strong-willed women. Sally has often said one life tenet she lives by is to practice forgiveness – it seems this is a good time to do that. I have never heard Kaayla say anything about her personal believes other than to describe herself as naughty and going against status quo. But maybe she can also be someone who can reunite two powerful forces for the good of the ancestral community.
Even the Methodists split from the Lutherans. Evolution happens. When there is no transparency or accountability to provide information freely to members then it’s time for the old guard to move over and make room for the new. A few simple answers would do a lot to separate the wheat from the chaff. Where are the independent test results for the GP CLO from an accredited lab? Why did Weston A. Price never promote ‘fermented’ CLO? Is Chris Masterjohn being funded by WAPF for his lab analysis? What is the deeper connection between Green Pastures and WAPF? We need to know these answers as a starting point.
Fallon started the WAPF out of dissatisfaction with PPNF so this seems fitting given her own history that she would face a mutiny herself.
I don’t know the history of mutinies, so maybe there are definite parallels, with officers that try to protect the crew being ousted or abused before the crew rises up and overthrows the captain. Still it is such an ugly word. Wouldn’t you think that “exodus” would be an appropriate and more pleasing term?
Whatever happened between PPNF and WAPF? I’ve always wondered. PPNF was referenced in my first Nourishing Traditions cookbook but in the next edition it scrubbed out and replaced with WAPF references. My first cookbook also listed Pat Connolly (nutritionist at PPNF) as one of the co-authors along with Mary Enig. Pat Connolly’s name disappeared off the cover of the second edition.
I have that first edition of NT too, Karen. I don’t know what happened, but somewhere in there, Fallon left PPNF and started the WAPF. Nourishing Traditions was also published by some sort of self-publishing house and then Fallon started New Trends Publishing.
As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, WAPF has a duty to the public and its members, to conduct business for the benefit of the organization, its members, and the public. To take action against a single board member for engaging in whistleblowing strikes me as in violation of those duties. I sure hope WAPF has officers and directors liability insurance.
Unfortunately, she wasn’t whistleblowing about things in the WAPF organization. That WAPF seems to be joined to GPP at the hip confuses the situation and is ultimately what is going to cause her to be removed. Her report had nothing to do with WAPF except to say that they wouldn’t do more testing so she did it on her own. They could have let it go there, said the appropriate things like don’t jump to conclusions, this is disturbing, wait and see, more testing, etc., and be completely untarnished. They have instead chosen to act as GPPs PR firm and like any good PR firm in a really bad situation, have tried to spin the story saying things that were sort of true, almost true, and even some straight up plausible untruths. They have tried to limit the flow of information, socially engineer the conversations surrounding this issue, and remove any information which does not coincide with their story they have presented. In the end, by their handling of this, they have bloodied their own nose, and somebody has to pay. Although, I think, even if they had done it all right, and the organization had suffered no loss in reputation with no member outrage, she still would have been canned for stepping out of line. Again just shows you the unnatural relationship between this non-profit, its board members, and a for profit company.
Hi Steve, I value your voice in this continuing debate. I do differ with you. Dr. Daniel brought to the attention of membership, actions that the board of directors was taking to protect it’s relationship with and promotion of a for-profit company that has been giving money to the organization, and all to the detriment of its members and the public.
@ NS: Um, I think that’s exactly what Steve was trying to convey.
Thanks D. Smith, but yes, and no. 🙂 My understanding of whistleblowing is that it has something to do with illegalities. As far as I can tell WAPF has done nothing illegal. If they had and Daniel was blowing the whistle on them, then she would be protected in some measure at least. According to their own 990 filing, WAPF has a whistleblower policy – which is probably another one of those things that we can’t see. There is definitely the possibility that GPP’s labeling issue is illegal, and also the possibility it seems, that their product may be detrimental to some, which I guess could also be a whistleblower issue. But she doesn’t work for GPP, receives no monetary compensation from GPP that we know of and has no reason to fear any repercussions from GPP that we know of, beyond a tort issue. Exposing the “cozy” relationship between GPP and WAPF, as enlightening as that might be for much of the membership, is probably not going to qualify as true, legally-defined whistleblowing.
Hi Steve, what about breach of a fiduciary duty? That is clearly illegal. If Daniel’s actions could be cast in the light of exposing this breach, I think she is protected.
NS – If I had to guess, I would say that the reason that it has taken them this long to setup this meeting is that it took this long to hear back from legal counsel about whether or not she would be able to have a legal recourse against them. The fact that she is unpaid actually hurts her case, because those lost wages would be damages.
@ Steve Tallent: In truth, Steve, I don’t think you could call what Kaayla Daniel did “whistleblowing” because she didn’t do anything against WAPF itself, as an organization, nor even against Green Pastures itself, as a business/organization. Dr. Daniel exposed a product made by Green Pastures that she thought was not the quality, etc., they claimed it to be. Green Pastures makes other products besides the one she was talking about, so that’s not really whistleblowing, per se. In order to be considered a “whistleblower” her complaint would have had to have been against the actual organization of WAPF or the entire company belonging to Dave Wetzel. As far as I can tell, that doesn’t look like her intent.
But in the other post of yours, I thought John was confusing all the *she’s* and *her’s* you used. I could be wrong about that, though.
CORRECTION: Sorry, you weren’t addressing John, but NS.
Dr Kaayla’s report is hardly whistle blowing. Its unscientific and flawed in a number of ways. It is all very bias, and the fact that she goes out to try and prove GP FCLO was rancid, and found it very hard to prove, shows just how unscientific this is. The whole methodology of her report is similar to that of Ancel Keys…
You can read a full analysis of her report here: http://www.thehealthcloud.co.uk/green-pastures-rancid-report-analysis/
This sounds very intriguing. If it is going to be organized with local chapters like WAPF, I could see some local WAPF chapters changing their flag. We don’t have a WAPF chapter very close to us, and really haven’t wanted to be bound by the conventions of WAPF and so have never organized one locally even though there are hundreds of people living this lifestyle and scores who would probably appreciate a support group.
Steve, good Q about chapters. Don’t think things have moved far enough along to determine that. Would probably be something that should be considered at the Nov. 21-22 conference.
Just a side note I’d like to add encouragement to look carefully at the name. It’s a bit cumbersome for an organization I’m hoping will become rock solid and be around for a long time.
See, this is exactly the sort of thing that I meant by “competition” …I don’t care what other cities do, but I would not want *my* local WAPF chapter to “change it’s flag” as you put it. I mean, why would that even be necessary if it’s not a competition? Know what I’m saying?
Again, I don’t see what the competition is? Is it a contest to see who can have more chapters? More members? I don’t see changing flags as a necessity, but I’ve heard of a number of chapter leaders that are starting to chafe under the authoritarian nature of the WAPF chapter system and the rigid restrictions. Regardless of whether there is an alternative, some will be resigning or not be renewing their WAPF membership (which is in essence the same thing). If there is an alternative, they can continue to lead their group and continue the good work in their locality. As long as people are being encouraged and principles of good nutrition promoted, isn’t that more important than what flag is flying?
Just have your own WAPF style meetings. That is what we always did– you can do whatever you want
It’s becoming obvious that some people are becoming confused with the commenters referring to *David*, *Dave*, and “her and she”. We should probably differentiate by saying David G. or David W or Dave W or whatever, as well as when you say “she” or “her” you need to instead say Sally or Kaayla or whatever.
But that’s just my view . . . ;- )
Paleo, Primal, WP….
I can see the wisdom to appealing to numbers with the big tent approach, esp. as people.tend to.drift from one viewpoint to another. But you have a problem.
All these groups base their message on a story, a myth if you will. Yes there is science, but it is the myth that conveys the message and gives the sciense a powerful vehicle. The problem is, often the myth overrides all , with science being mere window dressing while science that disproves or modifies the myth is ignorred or explained away.
Obviously, this is not condusive to finding the truth or ration discussion between differing viewpoints.
We see this at work in WAPF. Not only do they convey a myth, they built up a a secondary myth, about fclo, so powerful it override their original message, that of WAPs teachings, to the point that they’re destroying the organization and peoples reputations in order to defend something Weston Price himself would say is harmful and should not be consumed.
Interesting thoughts. I think I would not use the term “myth” but maybe something like narrative that morphs into an ideology or dogma. But I think there is some interesting food for thought in this observation.
Myth, narrative, story, fable it’s all the same. They historically serve to build community/culture/tribal loyalty and to communicate wisdom down the generations. It’s not just effective, we have a need for these narratives to orient ourselves and align with a tripe.
Good marketers tell a story that taps into this dynamic. They don’t just build a brand or sell a product, they tell a story, preferably one with you as an actor in it. Obviously, GP told a good story.
I use the term myth but don’t take it from that it’s false. The narrative can well be completely true. And to be effective, usually there is at least be a kernel of truth in it.But often it is imperfect.
But my main point is that too often the narrative overrides the truth. We see this when people put faith in the narrative or the tribe and are not willing to adjust, buck or leave it…which is most people.
Actually, sometimes the narrative is completely false, the Big Lie of Nazi fame. A lie so big or obvious but people think it must be true, refusing to believe meone would dare lie that way.
I think we have a few of those floating around this issue.
I completely agree and thought that is where you were going, but with the heated nature of the current discussion, and the use of “myth” so often to mean falsehood, I think narrative is a better term. And I agree with you about the narrative overriding the truth. At that point I would call the narrative “dogma” or “ideology”. Rules are made to protect the ideology. When it is convenient, those same rules are broken to protect the ideology. This is what shocks me. I’ve seen it over and over. I’ve pointed it out. I have never seen an ideologue acknowledge this behavior, much less apologize for it.
I was kicked off of a site I helped found, because I kept pointing out how a favored member consistently broke the stated rules of the message board, verbally abusing other posters, name calling and all of the other typical bullying tactics – all without moderation, yet anybody with an opposing view was heavily moderated. Anybody that tried to resist was instantly curtailed. Several new rules were created to try to keep me from pointing out what this person was doing, but I remained within them and continued to point out the double standard. The bully of course violated each of the new rules, again without moderation, continued his bullying, and eventually I was kicked to the curb for “causing strife and dissension” – but not for violating the stated rules of the site.
What we ‘re seeing and you experienced is classic herd mentality. The truth isn’t a primary concern, but rather ones status in the herd. Members will defend their tribe regardless the truth, which is why you’ll see their stance on issues change as that of the groups changes. And why they seem impervious to logic. They’re not having a discussion on issues but demonstrating their loyalty to the group or leader.
This also explains why the reaction to Schmid and Daniels reasonable questions is not to investigate the claims but to cast aspersions and kick them out. Loyalty to the group is primary.
Competition is good!
A few of us have been discussing the proposed name, “Foundation For Ancestral Wisdom.”
It seems the name isn’t quite right for the origin of the organization. It also needs more brand “stickiness.” We want a name that’s easy to remember, a name you could call across a parking lot and people would get the thrust.
The new founders are truth and action oriented, they are progressing way past the stodginess that has plagued WAPF for years. They are embracing a more forward-thing community. Can we think of an alternate name that suits that mission?
I, personally, really like the name ancestral wisdom – because that’s what a lot of people are searching for in today’s hectic world. Drop the “foundation”, though.
Basic Wisdom
Mothering Nature
Homing Instincts
Indigenous 101
I agree about dropping the ‘foundation’. It seems stodgy.
“Wisdom” sounds a little presumptuous and new agey.
Some other words I’ve been playing with:
Norishment Network
Action
New
Progressive
Organization
Community
Strategies in Nourishment
Workshop
Solutions
Ancestral makes it sound like it was in your family past which is fine depending on your concept of family.
Time Tested Here Today. Food As It Ever Was. Grow Your Own. Your Mother Should Know. Eat Well Be Well.
Agree about “ancestral” being one of those words that could have other meanings –plus there is already the Ancestral Health Symposium.
A concern is, if the organization is going to invite cutting edge speakers they might not have an exclusively food-based background the branding of the organization should be broader.
Lynne that’s an excellent point to bring up in terms of the name branding the organization so it’s broad enough to be very inclusive of new ideas.
There really is a need for this beyond providing an alternative to WAPF. Right now I know of very little for the food-based health person. PaleoFX feels like a free-for-all humongous marketing event. It’s too commercial to me. And the Ancestral Health Symposium seems to have disappeared. I really have hopes for this!
How about the name Honor Bound for their organization? Traditional eaters “honored” their foods and herbs before they used them for food or medicine. “Bound”, in this instance, would mean where we’re heading, where we’re going – towards health.
Oh this is great! I didn’t see this whole thread about name for the new organization when I posted earlier. Great minds think alike. I think the current name is too cumbersome. No suggestion for a new one yet but I love that other people are coming up with some. Let’s keep at it.
Institute for Ancestral Wisdom?
Like the “institute” word. 🙂
I don’t know, institute sounds too institutional and like a retard confinement facility. Consortium? Partnership? Commune?
I like the word “Institute” also. Much better than “Foundation”.
Still not sure though about “wisdom”.
Wisdom makes me think teeth and that’s somewhat painful. It also sounds somewhat pretentious as if we know it all already, and yes I know don’t just criticize put forth suggestions, I’m trying and will keep.
OraMouse I agree that word wisdom brings up the same feelings for me. And like you right this minute don’t have any great other suggestions but I’m sure it will evolve if we keep at it.
Why not join forces with the Ancestral Health Symposium people? They had/have a good thing going.
Opening up the debate to govt can in no way help any alternative health community. It will be a foot in the door for idiots like Dickie Durbin – the drug-pusher’s dust bunny – to outlaw supplements because they are unsafe and need regulation.
i know – same old argument, but it is a PR dream – and now you opened this shyte up to govt interference. Truthfully they have no, zero, zip, nada regulatory authority there – the fed govt has 30 and only 30 legitimate areas of responsibility and are literally prohibited from stepping out of those bounds.
They did – and most of the fed govt in illegitimate now. They will take their big stick and pound us if we let them.
@ Brad: Still, we can’t leave potentially bad products in the marketplace. With the advent of the computer and everything being wide open for anyone and everyone to see, there’s no chance of keeping this quiet enough to keep the wolves from the door. Not a chance.
If continuous independent testing between labs (to compare results) isn’t satisfactory for the parties in this matter to settle the issue, there’s not much other choice than to have it regulated somehow. Not that *regulations* will get it right, either, but products which have been questioned need to be reviewed. If not independently, then how? I think they’ve all gone past the idea of testing and agreeing on anything. That’s probably not going to happen at this point. Besides, it wouldn’t be just testing ONE batch of the FCLO, it would be a matter of testing them all, as they’re produced. Don’t know if that’s something feasible or not. If not, it’s a product that probably shouldn’t be consumed by humans. For me, the best tester on the market is a nose….nothing rancid (which would be my biggest and broadest concern) would get past a good sniff test.
I hope the new foundation will serve our needs well. Thank you for keeping us up to date on this!
David, while I have been following all of this basically since the beginning, I have not commented yet. I have major concerns with all parties involved and the fact that instead of handling this behind closed doors and working out their differences, they are now all making a public spectacle of themselves and undermining a movement that already has enough people and government agencies trying to undermine it. My comment for you is this – you seem to be giving Kaayla Daniel a pass on basically starting all of the public spectacle to begin with. Your postings have indicated what she has said to you and you seem to have just accepted what she said at face value and moved on. Hear me out here, because I have great respect for you and your work and I’m not just trying to throw out accusations. Let’s say that when Kaayla presented her concerns, that she was given what I like to call the “Cindy Lou Who” treatment. Anyone who is a fan of the Grinch will know what I mean, but pat her on the head, give her a cup of water and send her to bed. Basically not wanting to listen to her and blowing off her concerns. It’s probably safe to say that all of us have experienced that and know how incredibly frustrating, if not downright infuriating, that can be. Even more so if it occurs at the hands of someone you feel close to, respect and who usually has your back on things. If that was the case when Kaayla presented her concerns, should her next step not have been to let them know how serious she was about this, to the point where she was willing to go public with her report and concerns? Would an ultimatum like that not motivate others to actually sit down and seriously listen to her concerns and address them and do so behind closed doors amongst themselves? Instead, like some dysfunctional Jerry Springer “family,” all of this dirty laundry has been aired in public, because it would appear Kaayla did not do that. She just went ahead and published the bombshell, which basically forced the other parties to respond and try to do damage control. Did they do so in a manner that actually controlled the damage? Nope, but I will say I do not envy any of them for the position that they were put in. It makes me wonder if she really thought out the repercussions of what she was about to do or was this some, “I’m really ticked off,” knee-jerk response? Do I think the issues raised are important and need to be addressed? Absolutely! Do I think it is necessary to do this in public and in all likelihood draw the attention and intervention of some government alphabet agency? Absolutely NOT! If everyone would have put their egos in check and reminded themselves of all they have worked so hard for, they would have worked it out amongst themselves behind closed doors, allowed time for answers to be found and then presented a united front once all of the concerns were addressed and facts made known. Does that mean all should just be robots and act like one big, happy family? Again, absolutely not! We can all be adults and professionals and agree to disagree without trashing each other and possibly removing people’s access to a product that does actually work for a large number of people, myself included. I have agreed with much you have said about how things should be handled, but it should never have gotten to this public spectacle to begin with and unless I hear some compelling argument otherwise, I feel that Dr. Daniel is largely responsible for that. And now to make things worse, she is starting a competing organization. Divide and conquer – the FDA couldn’t have wished for anything better!
Your argument is too late. The barn door has already been opened and the horse is out. The fact of the matter is, WAPF was the only place this information was known to begin with, long before it went public. Dr. Daniel told them of her concerns and was basically told to hush up (as the party line has it). It’s not like WAPF didn’t know of her concerns, because they did. The fact that it exploded into something you don’t like is placed squarely on the shoulders of the WAPF. Not only that, but GP has done little, on a public, formal basis, to assuage the issues which have been raised by Dr. Daniel, regardless of the cheerleaders you see here.
What Dr. Daniel is “largely responsible for” is bringing her concerns to the table and not having them addressed properly. Beyond that, what “they” should have done is now no longer an option.
You should really read the report D, before you make more false statement. Dr. Daniel herself cites countless public blogs for most of her rhetoric. Thus your ‘fact of the matter’ is a complete falsehood.
In addition, most of the test results show nothing new. Others are inconclusive. It is only her inflammatory language and insinuations that have you all behaving like sheep. She cried wolf, and you ran. Stop and take a look. There is no problem there.
@ Victor: Dr. Daniel went to the WAPF BOD in December of 2014, according to everything I’ve read thus far. They were aware of her concerns before the public was aware of them. Stop telling me this is a falsehood, otherwise please tell me who knew before she told WAPF of her concerns. Maybe you were the first to know?
I’m through discussing the testing part of this because for some reason beyond me, you are simply not comprehending the whole issue. You misconstrue everything I say. This is possibly being done on purpose to keep fanning the flames so you can continue arguing. Whatever the reason, you are simply not getting it.
Do I really need to copy and paste all of Dr. Daniel’s references? You make no sense D. Yes, the WAPF was aware of her concerns and responded with more testing which was published in February. Old news.
And if you read the report you will see that Dr. Daniel is pulling comments from disgruntled people on many live blogs. FCLO, like many foods, has alway been incompatible with some people, and they have been discussing some of the issues in various places. Many of those sources are cited in the report, as bloggers are quoted. So what big secret do you think was revealed? There is nothing new here. People have seen the drums of imported butter. They know he gets his Cod from the North Atlantic. The part that is ‘new’ is Dr. Daniel’s hidden intent to publish publicly, and make it so personally scathing and unprofessional. And she used verbiage to make it sound like she had proven something. But she proved nothing, other than the fact that Green Pasture had excellent clean sources for the butter and livers.
I haven’t misconstrued what you said. You are insistent on attacking Green Pastures, and you just keep grasping at different things. Why? Dave Wetzel is a good guy that works hard to put out a good product. Nobody is perfect, but he certainly has no bad intent, and he busts his butt to try to give people a food product that he believes is valuable. And lots of people around the world are very glad that he does.
The major reason I will no longer use GP’s FCLO – even if the rancidity is not really a problem, and Alaskan pollock really IS the same as cod, and it really does have the levels of vitamins that are claimed, and which ever oil Weston Price would have reccommended – is because the livers are not sourced from the North Atlantic – they are from the Pacific, which is very polluted from the nuclear incident in Japan. That bit of information was enough for me to find a new source of cod liver oil, and it is not something that anyone has tried to deny.
I am thankful to Dr. Daniel’s report for pointing this out, because I also assumed that the source was the North Atlantic. So I would disagree that the report proved that GP has excellent clean sources for his products.
Angela, I can understand your concern completely. And, I mistakenly wrote ‘Atlantic’ above when I meant to write Pacific. You present an excellent example of the problem that is happening on this blog, and with Dr. Daniel’s report, and it is this…
The late reports actually show Green Pasture’s fish source to be exceptionally clean, and Dr. Daniel admits that clearly when she says:
“That’s one possible reason FCLO tested at Lab #1 and #2 as low in pesticides, heavy metals (except arsenic) and other toxins. In contrast, most true cod liver oils require extensive processing to reduce toxicity. Cod has also been overfished and is becoming an endangered species.”
So, the tests show it to be cleaner, but the rhetoric has made that difficult to notice. The choice is still yours of course, but it is not about agreeing or disagreeing with the report, as it shows the fish to be clean. Of course we would like to see continued tests in the future to ensure that the fish remain clean from Fukushima, oil spills, or whatever.
Hi Victor! Thanks, but I don’t eat seafood from the Pacific. It is not the pesticides or heavy metals that concern me in this situation, rather radioactive contamination. My mom asked David Wetzel what he was doing about radioactive contamination a couple of years ago, and he replied that he “wasn’t ready to deal with the problem.” I didn’t mind that answer then, because I was still under the impression that it was Atlantic cod. Now that I have realized it’s actually from the Pacific, that’s not good enough for me. When I’m feeding something to my children, I have very high standards. YOU might be perfectly happy with that, but I’m not.
I can respect that Angela. We all have our own preferences and cautions. Obviously it is good information for you, and people like you, and I can see how you appreciate having that info.
I think that information is great to have, but sadly, Dr. Daniel clouded it with insinuations. She could have said simply “The cod tested cleaner than most, and while it shows no signs or radiation exposure, those concerned about Fukushima should note that it comes from Alaska, and not the Atlantic.” Or something to that effect. Dave Wetzel had no bad intentions to deceive or cheat anyone and does not deserve the negative rhetoric.
I live in Tokyo, so obviously I am not too concerned about Fukushima 😉 The Japanese are very good about food safety, and so I put my trust in them (to a limit), as I do in Dave Wetzel at Green Pasture. Heck, I get more radiation from my international flights than anything else lol
I should qualify my statement about trust more – Most supermarket food in Japan is nearly just as bad as in America, and we do a lot of research to find better food sources here. The small farmer is still the best bet, no matter where you live.
To my understanding, the leadership of WAPF had been made aware of the problems with the GP CLO for over a year and chose to ignore them. The organization could have averted the fallout had they initiated the investigation using an accredited lab. As it turns out, one leader (Kaayla) did take the reins to do the investigation the rest of the leadership neglected to do. Kaayla, as Vice President, did the testing knowing the risk to her job. She did it to find answers that we all deserve because we are talking about our collective health. Isn’t that the mission of Weston A. Price Foundation? Shouldn’t any credible organization want to do unbiased testing for the greater good and let the cow chips land where they may? That is unless they’re playing politics as usual.
My point exactly, Rosanne. Thank you for putting it into words better than I did. 😉 And I don’t know about you, but I’m sure ready for those cow chips to land so we can put this whole thing to rest.
Try four years. There is a report of obvious problems with the oil on WAPFs own website as far back as 2010. They’ve been ignoring this for a long time.
I keep thinking there’s a role here for us members. If the BOD is not following the mission of the organization, we members need to take action. As a 501(c)(3) WAPF has responsibilities to members and the public. In exchange for being a non-taxed entity, they have these responsibilities. The relationship with a for profit New Trends Publishing Co, is particularly concerning, Conflict of interest is written all over the place.
Unbelievable. Dr Daniel and Dr Schmidt would not have published their books if it weren’t for NTP. Their content was too controversial for any other publisher so now you attack Sally for trying to get their good work out to the public? This just takes the cake.
Of course Kaayla would have had her work published without Sally. There are controversial publishers on every street corner. I’m one of them. And Ron has had his work published by a non Sally source. Fact check, please.
False Rosanne. How can you NOT know that they responded with more testing which was published in February? It has already been discussed on this blog.
And trying to insinuate something about ‘accredited’ labs?! This is even more ridiculous, as Dr. Daniel does not even reveal the labs or the methods. As a result her test results have much less value than those that are already published with both methods and labs revealed.
The WAPF and Green Pasture are always looking for answers. Dr. Kaayla Daniel certainly was not looking for any, as she contradicts her own test results. What answers are you looking for Rosanne?
Victor, as I stated earlier. I’m looking for the same answers everyone else is, the truth. And as this discussion thread clearly bears out, it has not yet been found.
Victor – “Dr. Daniel does not even reveal the labs or the methods. As a result her test results have much less value than those that are already published with both methods and labs revealed.”
I’ve worked in the natural foods & product industry for three decades, eight years of which have been specifically in the supplements channel.
Laboratories cannot guarantee what has happened to a product before testing, only the value of their test methodologies. Example: What if someone took their competitor’s product, left it in the sun for a week, had the contents tested and then used those results in a smear advertising campaign, including citing the lab’s “good” name?
Thus, if anyone sends in a product for testing, and that person is not the owner or legal representative of the company making the product, It’s standard business procedure to require that the lab’s name is not revealed publicly.
That is why Dr. Daniel blackened out the names of the 10 labs, while showing the test results. However, those names could be given to David Wetzel who could chose to do testing with those labs. As the owner and manufacturer, he would be legally able to reveal the names of the labs he uses when he reveals his test results.
Note: On occasion I have heard of a lab that has not required a third party to sign a nondisclosure agreement regarding test results. This is highly unusual business practice and a big legal risk, in my opinion.
Emma, that sounds fine; however, my comment was to Rosanne, and specifically about her emphasis on ‘accredited’ labs. I do not see how your response has anything to do with Rosanne’s insinuations about accredited labs.
Furthermore, my statement about the tests, which you quote, is still completely true.
The bottom line is that test results without revealed methods and labs carry less weight, and to try to divert from that fact, seems odd to say the least.
I do not disagree with what you wrote, but how is it relevant to my post? My comments are still correct and relevant:
– Insinuated something about ‘accredited labs’ is meaningless.
– Not revealing the labs and methods diminishes the weight of the results.
If anyone here is interested in the truth, we need to dispense with rhetoric, intentional misdirection, trolling, etc.
I don’t even have a problem with most of the test results, as they are in line with previous tests and information. There is nothing to confirm the Green Pasture FCLO as a bad or dangerous product.
So we are to believe that Dr Daniel would not have left GPP products out in the sun for a week before sending it off for testing? Really???? How absurd. And has she released the names of the labs she used to GPP or WAPF? No, she has not and will not.
@ Carrie Hahn: Why would she do that? If someone wants to know the true validity of a product, why would one purposely tamper with it first? Dr. Daniel and Ron Schmid (amongst many) wanted to know the truth. You are way off base here. These ideas are mere speculation.
And, she hasn’t released the name of the labs because she cannot, she had to sign stuff saying she wouldn’t. You know, legalities and all? Have you read any of the details of her report? It doesn’t seem like you’re really up to par.
D. Smith: None of you have answered my core question: Did Dr. Daniel tell the WAPF and GP that she was preparing a report and was prepared to publish it if they and GP did not properly address her questions and concerns? As a nurse, I have been in her shoes on many occasions with both employers and physicians, and I can tell you that no group of people can stonewall or circle the wagons more effectively than physicians can do. Even in the face of gross malpractice, they will protect each other. If I were in her shoes, I would have been jumping up and down on someone’s desk until they understood that if they did not listen to me, things were going to go public. Regardless of what she had done previously and their previous responses, THAT would have gotten their attention. Anyone who is in natural medicine and cares one whit about what all of us are trying to accomplish would understand the seriousness of going public and the subsequent inevitable government intervention that would likely take place and ultimately affect us all. For that reason alone, I would do whatever I could to avoid that unless I was given no other choice. I am not seeing or reading that with her and you also dodged my question regarding that.
@ Julie: How in the world would I know what Dr. Daniel and Sally Fallon talked about, or what Dr. Daniel told WAPF about her questions or concerns? I’m not privy to that information. The closest we’re ever going to get to answering that question, at least for the present time, is by re-reading David G.’s first blog post regarding this situation, here: http://davidgumpert.com/major-falling-out-at-wapf-over-fermented-cod-liver-oil#close
Re-reading all the comments from that first blog post is a good idea, as well.
I didn’t dodge any question intentionally – I didn’t even SEE a question from you regarding that. I did, however, post a response to someone earlier that if this situation had been handled properly from the get-go, I don’t think FDA would have had to become involved (although Bill Marler was going to make sure it did, you can bet on that) but we cannot let a questionable product stay on the market without some sort of oversight, much less should it be “recommended” with such great enthusiasm by a leading health site such as WAPF. It should never have been recommended by them in the first place, as was well stated by Augie – and I agreed. I did state in one of my comments somewhere that WAPF could have “suggested” certain products if people asked questions, but there’s a big difference between making a suggestion and actually endorsing one product over another, since they also list other makers of CLO (although not FCLO). But those are all just my opinion and they chose to handle it differently. Personally, I don’t even believe in fermented liver oil, but again, that’s just me. If I was going to take something I would stick to the tried and true CLO which has been in use for a long time.
I’m sorry if you think I dodged any questions. That’s not my intention, unless I flat-out tell you (or anyone else) that I don’t intend to answer something – for whatever reason. This is quite a hot ticket right now, and I feel like I’m walking on eggshells by trying to state my concerns and yet not actually use words like bogus or liar, etc.
D. Smith: no need to walk on eggshells. As you said, this is a hot topic right now and people are pretty passionate about things. Unfortunately, we are in a limited forum where we cannot, at a minimum, hear the other’s tone of voice, let alone see facial expressions and other body language. It seemed like many of you have read or been privy to far more information than I have seen, which was why I asked the question. I have not seen anything that indicates one way or the other and I have read quite a lot. I think the bottom line for all of this seems to be while we might disagree on some things, most, if not all, of us are unhappy with the fact that this has all become such a public spectacle and is undermining a movement we are all working for or supporting in one way or another (access to real, healthy food; TRUE health care and real wellness). Those who would love to see all of this go away are loving this and it is truly sickening (pun intended).
Julie, you can go to Kaayla Daniel’s blog and ask her directly if she didn’t already say it somewhere. I read her blog but can’t specifically recall what she said about her communications with WAPF.
@ Julie: You can also read this post from David G.’s blog, from October 2014.
http://davidgumpert.com/simmering-cod-liver-oil-imbroglio-heats-up-for-wapf-conference
Again, reading the comment section is enlightening. I no longer take CLO in any form, I use other supplements to get what I need and I still use the horse feed, too, every day, mixed with some hemp seeds. My already compromised immune system loves that combo. ; )
Do you know how many times people have brought their concerns to Sally/WAPF regarding FCLO? I don’t.
According to a comment posted on Gumpert’s blog last year, there was a doctor who tested FCLO and notified WAPF back in 2012 about his concerns. (apparently nothing was done to address his concerns)
Here’s a little snippet of his comment:
“Two years ago [2012] I informed the scientific leader of WAPF that the production methods used by Green Pasture to make fermented cod liver oil will result in oxidized (rancid) polyunsaturated fatty acids and toxic by-products. We ordered a bottle of fermented cod liver oil and had it analyzed by an independent company in Norway. The oxidation level was in the toxic range.”
Full comment:
http://davidgumpert.com/simmering-cod-liver-oil-imbroglio-heats-up-for-wapf-conference#comment-29105
2012? No, far longer….
http://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/cod-liver-oil-basics-and-recommendations/
https://archive.is/QODcz
Claire West says:
October 12, 2010 at 8:28 pm
For a long time I used the regular clo from Green Pastures and then I used the fermented — with no problems until about six months ago: the plain (no antioxidants) fermented smelled and tasted like sludge. I could not get it down
Let’s start here:
conciliatory
/kənˈsɪljətərɪ; -trɪ/
adjective
1. intended to placate or reconcile
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conciliate
If you can’t stay within that simple guideline, please consider taking it somewhere else. I don’t speak for David but it’s getting very tiresome and at the risk of losing long time readers for the sake of leading edge exposé galore. Many if not most of us just don’t care about the personal power play details, we just want to be able to get the food we want.
And now back to your regulat reading istening -:
The various interpretations, opinions and positions taken with respect to the quality of clo or fclo is mind boggling to say the least. For someone such as myself who is an outsider and doesn’t have an axe to grind, it’s enough to cause him or her to pull their hair out.
The one aspect of this debate however, that I find especially troubling is the suppressive stance taken by the WAPF leaders in an attempt to preserve their reputation and that of the product line they’ve endorsed. Indeed, in this attempt to avoid a scandal they have resorted to scandalous behavior and by doing so they have raised the ire of their members and caused themselves more harm then good. This is the crux of the problem; get a handle on it and if there is a measure of humility you may see some resolve.
It is my hope that Corporate Governance is a consideration in any new non-profit nutrition education organization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_governance#Principles
Especially in regards to:
“Role and responsibilities of the board: The board needs sufficient relevant skills and understanding to review and challenge management performance. It also needs adequate size and appropriate levels of independence and commitment.
Integrity and ethical behavior: Integrity should be a fundamental requirement in choosing corporate officers and board members. Organizations should develop a code of conduct for their directors and executives that promotes ethical and responsible decision making.
Disclosure and transparency:Organizations should clarify and make publicly known the roles and responsibilities of board and management to provide stakeholders with a level of accountability. They should also implement procedures to independently verify and safeguard the integrity of the company’s financial reporting. Disclosure of material matters concerning the organization should be timely and balanced to ensure that all investors have access to clear, factual information.”
We don’t need to repeat the same mistakes over and over again.
This is for you Gordon, “Online anonymity is for wimps — and only makes political correctness worse”
http://www.therebel.media/online_anonymity_is_a
Ken, sorry, I don’t agree with what that person said in the link you’ve provided. I’ve kept out of this discussion because I don’t, nor have I ever taken CLO, or FCLO, so it didn’t make sense for me to post anything.
I did see someone’s comment calling political correctness–respectful. HA! I actually think that some of those who use their real names self-censor, so that they don’t insult the PC police, and it can keep them from speaking what is really on their mind. I don’t like trolls either, but don’t paint everybody who uses a moniker with the same broad brush (this wasn’t directed at you, it’s for anyone in general). As for that being said, I’ve pissed off people in emails, and text messages BECAUSE of what I said, and these are people who know me personally. I don’t think it’s anonymity, but it’s more of being behind a keyboard, which can make some of us a little more bold. That’s not to say I won’t make the same sort of comments to someone on the phone, or in person, it’s just that I have no one to argue back with me immediately. I’m free to let the words fly.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not intentionally rude. I’m actually very polite, but if you are rude to me, then game over. I say ‘please’ and ‘thank you’, and will hold a door open for someone behind me, whether they are male or female. I’ve gotten some really nasty glares from old men that I’ve held a door open for. Yeah, I’m saying old men, but I’m not a spring chicken myself, so don’t think I’m just ripping on old people.
I’ve posted some very personal experiences, or have shared stories of those I know. I’ve also wrote about my dairy inspector. Do you really think I want that person to read what I wrote, or by piecing things together, figure out who I’m referring to, with a name attached?
I have friends with a twenty-something techie son who works for a software company. They had a family get together on Christmas Eve, but I’m considered family by extension (four of them plus me). I made the comment about posting things online on a particular blog, and he asked me if I used my real name. I told him “No”, he said, “Good, don’t”. I won’t bother to explain why.
DD, don’t be sorry.
Even though anonymity may not my cup of tea, I consider all opinions shared to be of value and it doesn’t upset me nor do I think any less of an individual if they choose to be anonymous when doing so. I’m certain they have good reason for it, like the fella said in the video, “I get it”.
From my perspective however, when all is said and done, there is no such thing as anonymity.
David, what happened to my comment “awaiting moderation?” I didn’t think there was anything controversial in there but your auto troll filters might have kicked in, should I change my name>
Sorry, Ora. The filters did set it aside, and I missed it earlier. It’s up now.
To Los Tres Amigos
“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.”
—Mahatma Ghandhi
Any thoughts on why there has been no discussion regarding Essential oils added to the FCLO?
@ Kelly: I think people are having problems with the plain FCLO, as well as the flavored, although you bring up a good point. No idea why someone hasn’t looked into it, but maybe they will do it sooner rather than later.
My brain hurts, is it from too much or not enough CLO? Don’t answer it will become self evident as I change the dosage
Kelly color me ignorant but maybe it’s because essential oils are a different subject matter and not necessarily related to CLO, although if you can enlighten me I’m listening
No, they aren’t related to CLO, they are related to the FCLO. Many people use the flavored varieties from GP.
And there are definitely safety issues with the use of essential oils internally – especially with children.
Yes. Essential oils should not be taken internally and GP does not label them properly either. They are listed as “flavoring” under ingredients. Very irresponsible!
Not true. I have a bottle of mint-flavored FCLO at home right now and it says “peppermint oil” under ingredients.
“Cinnamon flavor” on my bottle. Essential oil should be clearly labeled.
Is it possible that the “cinnamon tingle” flavor is made with something other than essential oil?
They add essential oils to the product????
Gee… wonder if we will see a certain pseudo-attorney from Texas will be lurking there… doubt it, but anything is possible. Been wondering about this – its been a Looooong time in coming – say about 15 years. Knew it would take a third-party intervention of some sort, but wasn’t expecting it to be yet another company I trusted that needs formal investigation!!
At least the board is starting clean on this one. Will have to see where the new one goes! Can’t go to the shindig, but will DEFINITELY check it out. Unfortunate that too many warnings go unheeded. I dropped WAPF several years ago after completing a bit of due diligence on their board and watching what FTC was doing, especially in Wisconsin.
Not joining anything new till the dust pan is put away. Getting tired of wasting my time and money.
Masterjohn said he pulled “an all nighter” to analyze Kaayla’s report? That’s all?
Kaayla went into great detail and laid out her case with many findings. Did he think he could just wing it with a few hours of his impressions? And his butt covering non committal blabbering? It sounds teenagey.
It should have taken him days to fact check and question her findings. Not a night. He’s not qualified to evaluate the findings anyway. His PhD is in nutrition, not biochemistry.
Finally Dr. Daniel takes a positive step forward by initiating her own group, instead of complaining about WAPF not living up to her own expectations. This is what she should have done from the beginning instead of dragging WAPF into the controversy. I bet Sally Fallon didn’t feel the need to publicly smear PPNF on her way out…
Hopefully this new foundation will strive to coexist peacefully alongside WAPF, rather than competitively. There’s no reason why they can’t.
I know I’m late to this party, but I was busy. I have been able to read all of the comments though. What I don’t understand is the idea of a “competing organization”. Competing for what? Competing for donations? If that is the case then isn’t every single non-profit and charity competition for every other? Wouldn’t Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund be competition to WAPF? If the idea of the new organization is to spread good information on nutrition, and the charter of WAPF is to do the same, then as long as it getting done, isn’t that what is important? When Sally Fallon created WAPF after leaving PPNF, was that creating competition, or was it a vehicle to execute the mission of education in a different manner. So I ask again, competing for what? For membership? For loyalty? For power? Maybe for eyeballs to market books, blogs, and products to? If WAPF is what it says that it is, and WAPF was not competition for PPFN, then I don’t see how this new organization with a similar mission but different methods, could possibly be construed as competition.
Excellent point, Steve. When it comes to health, all the groups you mentioned share the same mission, which is to educate people on the benefits of real food and provide access to it. The focus on each group shouldn’t change with the addition of a new one. On the contrary. It expands knowledge and options for a broader population. This isn’t a competition. It isn’t a two-party system. Our health belongs to all of us, and the more of us that can get that message out, the healthier the nation and the world will be. This joint mission should be focused on restoring balance to human health and the health of the planet. Any perceived “competition” is a distraction to that end.
It’s not about competition, it’s about choice. It’s not about money, it’s about choice.
It’s about educational choices in nutrition, etc., as I would imagine there will be other discussions besides just foods, superfoods and nutritional aspects of life.
@ Steve: FTCLDF does not compete with WAPF, they are a different organization entirely and offer a completely different service. And no, I don’t think they “compete” as far as money is concerned, either.
So don’t think of it as competition, think of it as another choice of self-education.
Bloggers on the subject of nutrition are a dime a dozen but people with the know-how and credentials who really KNOW what they’re talking about are few and far between. We need people like Kaayla to separate the good advice from the total BS. As you can see, she’s most capable of doing that. It would be my guess, however, that a lot of people will utilize both WAPF and Kaayla’s new outreach.
I see what you’re saying, Steve. Perhaps “rival” would be a better word than competition. My point was that I hope Kaayla does not intend to use this org just to contradict or attack things that WAPF supports. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable thing to wonder about considering the vindictive tone of Kaayla’s report and her own self-proclaimed “naughty” nature.
If a significant thrust of the new org is to attack WAPF by name, that’s not going to be very attractive and the org will not go very far. Given WAPF’s anti-paleo stance and the new org’s intention to embrace paleo and primal, I don’t see how the new org can NOT put out info which would contradict WAPF. And given the current situation and WAPF’s do you scission to go all in for fermented cod liver oil, I can’t imagine that there will not be information put out that would call FCLO into question.
Do you scissors = Decision
Stupid phone.
@ Steve Tallent: ??? I think you’ve been working too hard, Steve!
It was actually “do you scission” in my reply to Amanda, which was supposed to be “decision”. The phone doesn’t understand me sometimes.
Yeah, well that makes sense. Except for the “do you scissors” part. lol
I don’t think of WAPF as “anti-paleo” per se, but they do have differing opinions on certain things… and that’s okay.
Contradiction and competition are two different things. Of course there will be contradiction – every blogger online is contradicting the next one to try to get “hits” to their site.
A difference of opinion is what started this whole thing in the first place. Just because Dr. Daniel is the one who brought it to the attention of WAPF leaders doesn’t make her wrong or “vindictive” as Amanda keeps saying. The “naughty” nature of her blog/work is the fact that she doesn’t always agree with the status quo and when she doesn’t, she says so. Didn’t anyone else pick up on that??
WAPF trumpeted the naughty nature of her approach when it was pointed at their enemies. But when it got directed at them they all sqeeled about tone, and how that somehow invalidated her findings.
I disagree with your interpretation of “naughty” …in Kaayla’s case I think “naughty” refers to her inappropriate, unprofessional, aggressive/vicious personality. Others have mentioned her tendency to make lewd sexual comments during her talks, so this would also support my interpretation that she is “naughty” because she does things that she oughta not do.
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. But hypocrite will squeal nonetheless…
https://archive.is/WfrsA
“Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN (Vice President) is The Naughty Nutritionist™ because of her ability to outrageously and humorously debunk nutritional myths.”
In 2005, Dr. Daniel received the Weston A. Price Foundation’s Integrity in Science Award.
“a natural born entertainer” and a “naughty nutritionist” because of her quirky and naughty sense of humor
So which is it? Does her naughty tone make her unscientific and worthy of dismissal or does her naughty tone make her loved and worthy of an Integrity in Science award. The only difference I can see is whose ox is getting gored.
@ Amanda: I wouldn’t have expected any other conclusion from you, Amanda.
Who are the “others” who have mentioned her making lewd sexual comments? Anything you can verify? No? Well, just more gossip then.
“. . . she does things she oughta not do”? YOUR interpretation by your own admission.
You are taking things out of context. No wonder no one can make you understand the big picture of what’s really going on with GP and WAPF. You stay true to them, Amanda, they need people like you on their side.
I think somebody said that in a comment on this blog, actually.… either that or on another blog. Obviously I can’t verify it since I wasn’t there, but why would somebody just make that up out of nowhere? Can you verify that FCLO made people sick? I doubt it, but that doesn’t stop anyone here from saying so.
I don’t have to verify anything about FCLO – I’m not the one saying that FCLO made people sick – that is coming from the people who actually got sick from it. You, on the other hand, made an uncalled for remark which cannot be verified. Therefore, I will consider it so much bull puckey. Read Kaayla’s bio and that should put things into perspective for you.
lol well you can consider it whatever you like. Doesn’t really matter to me.
By the way, I would defend any small independent business that is as dedicated to promoting health and transparency as Green Pastures is, regardless of what WAPF or anyone else has to say about it. We need businesses like this, and I find it a shame that people would be so quick to crucify one over technicalities.
That’s laughable. GPs approach before this blowup was anything but transparent.
GP’s approach is exactly the same now as it was “before this blowup.”
The amount of information that Dave Wetzel posts to his website and blog about his products is intimidating to say the least… and if that isn’t enough you can ask him questions directly and he will answer them honestly and to the best of his ability. If that’s not transparent, then I don’t know what is.
Can anyone tell me how to stop receiving notifications when comments are posted on here? I’m pretty new to this site and cannot figure it out. Thanks!
When you get a notification, go to the bottom. Click unsubscribe.
I’ve tried that. All it does is take me to the article, it does not unsubscribe me. *sigh*
Amazing. New Lab Results are In! The link to yesterday’s GP’s lab analysis of some FCLO samples was posted here in the comments and no one has commented on the results. The entire issue here is whether FCLO is adulterated and whether Kaayla’s lab results indicated this. WOW — and no comments on this. Weird. http://www.greenpasture.org/public/Blog/index.cfm?ndrx=99
@ Augiefood: Yesterday that part of the report wasn’t there. I don’t know about anyone else, but I didn’t realize it was a roving newsletter. I assumed each new addition produced a new page/link.
Interesting, but inconclusive, to say the least.
Typing this comment took me about 5 minutes because once again the blog comment keystroke letters are moving very slowly. Why does that keep happening? Is it happening to anyone else?
So Augie, can you tell us what it means? Like so much put out by Wetzel, as well as Masterjohn, the language is lab-speak rather than plain English. In particular, what does this mean: “Although the FFA is high in your product (an indicator of primary oxidation), the peroxide value (another indicator of primary oxidation) is low.” I read it to mean that one measurement of rancidity is high, but another is low. The scientist writing this wants us to focus on the low reading. Why? Because she does.
No I don’t know what it means, David G. These labs needs to be reviewed by an expert and give us a “Discussion of Results”.
I too thought that was strange. Additionally, why are they still testing for peroxide when they know that it is a primary indicator of rancidity and everybody, EVERYBODY agrees that this product is WAY past the stage where peroxide markers would be present. Why is it still being bandied about as if it has meaning?
One other thing that I’ve thought strange in this whole thing is that everybody agrees that peroxides are primary indicators of rancidity, but that they decompose into secondary and tertiary oxidation products. I quote from healthcloud, “Anisidine is one of the secondary metabolites mentioned above, and as peroxide levels go down, the levels of anisidine should go up (and then break down into tertiary oxidation products).” So they test for anisidine too. Because there are little or no primary or secondary indicators of rancidity, then it is considered not rancid. What about these tertiary oxidation products? What are they? Why is nobody talking about them? Is there no test for them?
If I may, the issue here is that based on the very technical definition of ‘rancid’ that the lab is attempting to study, there are several different markers that one might look at and those different markers interact with each other in ways that make some of them better than others in certain contexts. In this particular context (i.e. oil derived from a marine fish), free fatty acids is not a particularly good indicator of rancidity, at least not by the technical definition the analyst is using. The fact that the measurement of free fatty acids (FFA) is high therefore doesn’t mean anything, and doesn’t contribute any useful information towards an answer of whether the oil samples were rancid. The peroxide value, which is contextually a better indicator of rancidity, is low and suggests the samples are not rancid.
The fact that there are many definitions of ‘rancid’, including some used in common parlance and others used in biochemistry or food chemistry, is hopelessly muddling this issue. Like I said in another post, unless all parties in this conversation are willing to sit down and agree on a single definition of rancid to test cod liver oil supplements against, then allegations of rancidity and testing done to look at various indicators of rancidity won’t get us any closer to a resolution.
And, to offer some background on myself and why I might have this opinion, I was trained as an environmental chemist and have also studied organic and analytical chemistry as well as biochemistry. I also worked in a lab where I designed methods and instrumentation to analyze organic chemicals in a variety of biological and environmental samples, although I admit we never did any testing on oils derived from marine fish. I say all this in hopes of coaxing people to appreciate that the testing involved in cod liver oil or most any other food or medicine is not as simple as one might prefer. There are always nuances that demand attention in order to fully understand what’s going on.
Eric, I would have agreed with you until a few minutes ago. And I think your angle is the one Masterjohn took.
But doing a little bit of research, there are 3 methods or rancidification or types of rancidity: Hydrolysis, Oxidation, and Microbial Activity. Hydrolysis, will apparently create FFA from PUFAs and create bad odors. Microbial Activity will break down fats, sometimes using lipases, but I’m having a hard time finding out exactly what the effect is. Since there are high levels of FFAs and an overwhelmingly foul odor, it would seem to indicate hydrolysis rancidity. The fact that those FFAs aren’t oxidizing was tentatively attributed to the high levels of Vitamin E present by one of GPP’s scientist testers. Since they are TRYING to do a fermentation process, you would think that without a doubt they would have at least SOME microbial “rancidity” but again, I don’t know the effect of that or how you would test for it, or if it even makes a difference.
It seems like everyone is completely focused on oxidative rancidity. Maybe the others are meaningless, I don’t know. I don’t have a strong science background and sometimes internet research, especially into something so complicated, is way off base. Is there an expert in lipid/oil rancidity out there that we could send a sample to for testing? Seems like that would clear this up.
I agree with everything you say Steve. Again though, the conflict here comes from different definitions of rancidity. There are definitions of ‘rancid’ that would include FCLO. There are also definitions that would exclude it, depending on what indicator of rancidity was being used. Until all parties involved sit down and agree on a definition of rancidity and the indicators they will use to determine it, they are just talking past each other.
There is no objective definition of rancidity. There are many competing or complementary definitions, some used by food science researchers or by chemists, and others used in popular literature or in common parlance. None of these definitions is inherently any better than the others, but they’re all different and require different indicators to trigger them. A food that might be rancid by one definition might not be rancid by others.
That is quite misleading Eric. We all know that the term rancid is often used colloquially to refer to the taste of healthy fermented foods, and FCLO falls quite well under that spectrum of healthy foods, such as natto, kimchi, etc., etc. A chemist only interested in taste would also use this term I guess.
Dr. Daniel (and those supporting her assertions on this blog) intended to show that FCLO was rancid according to a chemist that is concerned with safety. She failed to show that.
By common definitions, as understood by the layperson, the FCLO is similar to other healthy fermented foods.
For a scientist looking to see if the FCLO is rancid in the sense of ‘gone bad’ or is unfit for consumption, he would not be able to conclude that with any tests that we have seen. You have any number for truly rancid food products for comparison, and the FCLO does not match them.
We are not screaming about the dangers of natto and kimchi, and we should not be screaming about FCLO either. Wouldn’t you agree Eric?
@ Victor: You have no understanding of the word rancid. Fermented and rancid are not the same thing nor does fermented food taste rancid – that is an out and out lie. You are out of your mind.
GENERAL QUESTION FOR ANYONE TO ANSWER: Does anyone here use the term rancid when they are referring to fermented foods?
Not me. When I taste a fermented food, I taste tart or sour. Some cultured foods smell like feet to me, but taste fine. Rancid is definitely different.
For what it’s worth, I think the controversy around Green Pasture’s FCLO being rancid is a bit overblown. There are several working definitions of the term ‘rancid’ being thrown around in public and technical discourse. I think it is safe to say that by some definitions FLCO is certainly rancid, and by other definitions it may not be. Unless all parties involved agree to stick to a single, specific definition of ‘rancid’ and focus on analyzing Green Pasture products based on that one precise definition, then people are just talking past each other and wasting their time.
Other issues associated with Dr. Daniel’s report – the potential for FCLO being cut with veg oil, and mislabeling as to where the fish is sourced from and whether GP is entitled to label it as a genuine cod liver oil, and the many cases where people believe they were harmed by consuming GP’s FCLO or other products – are far more important issues, in my view. In the end consumers will have to make their own decisions as to whether the health benefits that might be associated with FLCO from Green Pasture outweigh the drawbacks and risks associated with it.
I’ve certainly heard from folks in my own WAPF chapter who are learning a lot of new information about FCLO and are rethinking whether to continue using it.
I agree that it is overblown by both sides. I think the reason for that is because people are thinking that rancidity is the only thing about the product that could cause health issues. I’m not convinced of that. Now we’re finding out that there are essential oils in the product. Also a lab analysis posted by GPP shows significant vitamin E, a substance that isn’t usually found in CLO, so must be added. What else is being added? How is it being filtered to make sure there are particulates of liver, including proteins which could be causing inflammation, among other things. And who knows what else is in there that is a function of the putrefaction/fermentation process? Whether it is rancid or not, people seem to have been having health issues because of it. Why isn’t there a concentration on that?
How could it be “overblown by both sides” when only one side is claiming the product as rancid? Kaayla’s report is overblown. Chris M’s, not so much…
All good points Steve. In a complex mixture like cod liver oil (or pollack liver oil) there are tens if not hundreds of individual chemical compounds that could collectively lead to inflammation. I don’t expect they will ever be completely characterized. Depending on an individual’s sensitivity, they might experience inflammation or not. This is compounded by the lack of consistency from one batch of FCLO to the next. No surprise at all that people’s reactions to the products can vary dramatically.
No vitamins are added. Ever. To any of the products. Vitamin E is some how created during fermentation. B vitamins have also shown up.
Carrie, since vitamin E is only formed by plants in the sunshine, and no humans, or fish, or bacteria, any other animal or insect can create their own vitamin E while alive, it seems highly unlikely that it would be somehow miraculously created in dead fish tissue, in the dark, in a brine, in a decomposition process with bacteria. Maybe you should ask Dave again? If I’m off base with this, somebody please tell me.
Incorrect Steve. Plants are the best sources, but liver, eggs, etc also provide us with Vitamin E. Just google. Maybe you are confused because all the other CLO products have to add Vitamin E to protect the product. The whole point of Dave Wetzel’s efforts is to maintain the natural vitamins, and enrich the CLO further through fermentation of the livers, which he succeeds in doing.
Victor, just because an animal-derived food has vitamin E in it does not mean that vitamin E was made in that animal’s tissues. It could have been absorbed when the animal ate plant foods, and stored in fatty tissues. Liver, as we all know, accumulates a range of fat soluble vitamins. So do the yolks of eggs.
Actually, I assumed that absorption and storage was the only reason that liver provides Vitamin E. I did not think that the reason it has it was pertinent. Just wanted to make sure everyone understood that liver and other non-plant foods can be a source of vitamin E.
I was not talking about source Victor. I was not talking about where you can find vitamin E. I was specifically addressing Carrie’s claim that Vitamin E, a product of plant synthesis, is somehow created in a “fermentation” of dead meat. But you probably knew that and are merely saying this to confuse the issue and try to tick me off as part of your great experiment.
I’m sure you knew that Carrie confused the B and E, as B is created through fermentation. You have tried to imply before all manor of things about the FCLO, and it seemed that you were trying again to insinuate that the Vit E must have been added. Glad that you understand that the FCLO has naturally occurring vitamins E and B.
How would I know that Carrie confused vitamin B and vitamin E since she referenced both of them as products of fermentation? My understanding is that CLO usually contains very little if any vitamin E. How is it that if it is not a product of fermentation, if no other CLOs have it, that there is so much in FCLO?
Steve and Victor, I have not confused B and E; both have been found in the FCLO. FCLO is not CLO so you cannot compare the two.
If other CLOs and FCLO both start with cod livers, and other CLO doesn’t end up with significant E, and FCLO does, how does that happen?
Sounds terrible and started by a bunch of folks who have had their feelings hurt not to mention an herbalist who didn’t seem to be aware that taking too much cod liver oil can be harmful. Dr Ron is not somebody I would be going to for nutritional advice. I will stick with the Weston price foundation.
Probably no relation but another one of the Daniels is in the news:
http://www.cornucopia.org/2015/09/member-abruptly-resigns-from-key-federal-organic-advisory-panel/?utm_source=eNews&utm_medium=email&utm_content=10.10.15&utm_campaign=NOSBMORE
Those Californians can be slightly flighty, no reference to Mark.