Weston A. Price Foundation: shills and quacks
I've been seeing flyers around lately for a upcoming lecture in D.C. by Weston A. Price Foundation president Sally Fallon. Today I got spam from them about it, which prompts me to post a bit about these shills and quacks.
The Weston A. Price Foundation is one of the primary groups responsible for spreading some of the FUD that you may have heard about soy products. Their interest (both philosophical and financial) is in promoting dairy consumption, specifically raw milk. They make claims about supporting "traditional diets", which would be fine - except that the use of dairy products is fairly new in the 200,000 years history of the human species, dating only to the neolithic revolution of about 10,000 years ago; and of course dairy consumption was just about unknown in many areas of the world where lactose intolerance is common. In fact, Price himself wasn't such an advocate of dairy.
They advocate a diet high in saturated fat, which according to our best scientific knowledge is linked to a higher risk of heart disease and stroke. WAPF simply denies that such a link exists, sort of like how tobacco companies simply denied the link between smoking and lung cancer.
On the soy front, they point to studies where animals were injected with extracts of soy protein and got sick, and ignore studies where humans ate traditional soy foods and improved their health. (It is true, though, that overconsumption of processed soy foods is not healthy. Choose tempeh over TVP.)
There's a good series of articles about WAPF at vegsource.com, and a critique of their FUD about vegetarianism at energygrid.com.
Of course, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and they do have a good point about the prevalence of processed food in the standard Western diet. Apart from that, though, it's mostly nonsense.
Aug 2011 update: after three years of comments -- some insightful, some ridiculous -- I've gotten tired of rebutting the same old WAPF propaganda over and over, so I'm closing comments on this post. A final comment here, and a related post here.


Comments
Weston A. Price and traditional consumption
I have to say that since we changed over to the WAPF way of eating, we are feeling better health-wise. Not perfect. But better. We have been researching THEIR research for over a year now and it really makes a lot of sense. Also, although they CAN, (see their website), bowl you over with a lot of scientific/medical jargon, they also have no problem in breaking it down for the layman. They don't use elitist verbiage to try and scare away those with opposing opinions. That's such a cop-out.
I can't help but wonder if the writer of this article has taken any time past skimming the raw surface, to consider that what they say is right...much more than 'twice a day' as in the clock illustration given.
I know young mothers who have switched, mid-stream, to feeding their babies as advised by "Nourishing Traditions", the encyclopedic book written by your hero, Sally Fallon Morrell. Some of these babies suffered from constant colic, others with failure-to-thrive...and many of them had been prescribed by conventional medicine to switch to soy milk. What a dumb answer. When these moms made the WAPF switch, against the 'sound advice' of their pediatricians, they saw an immediate improvement in the health of their children. And those same children thrive to this day. Not fat. Not sick. Eating meat. And eggs. And the saturated fats so necessary to the development of children.
I will not get into the debate between vegans, vegetarians and meat-eaters. Good grief. Do we not have enough contention in this world? HOWEVER, like another reader who left a comment, I want to be able to eat as I believe is best for me. I want to be able to share what I believe is good, too. And that means, I don't want to have people like you spitting out your contagious and venomous propaganda to those who just might benefit from seeing things from a different angle.
This age is the age of tolerance, and I would venture to guess that you are one who preaches it...Yet...where is yours? There is no one answer to eating. I am partial, yes, to WAPF, but I would not venture to pretend they have all the answers any more than you should venture to pretend you do.
re: Compassionate
Tom,
Clearly you think you're a romantic, however, that's in your own little world and mind. I find it quite hypocritical of you to attack every other human on the basis of diet alone. So if you're an example of a compassionate vegan, what's a mean one like?
Apparently, your diet is not very calming because I find you one stressed individual, who simply felt that you must go on the attack. Obviously your approach doesn't work. Further simply disrespecting everyone because of their food choice is extremely childish considering most of your way of life comes from the very things which you say you abhor. How do you think you get all the finer things in life so you can shrill about them while typing on your keyboard?
If you believe that a grass fed animal herd being milked is cruel then when you sucked your mom's tits was she being cruel to you or did you enjoy it?
Fact is I find your lack of knowledge and reason to be likened to a child who simply cannot believe that they're not right and must throw a tantrum.
Further you're only 40, let's see where you are at 50/60 on your diet. Also, all due respect to your karate (art), I don't see you fighting anyone, you look about as powerful as a stick, maybe you should try UFC to prove your point. I see no big deal in breaking cinder blocks as many little old ladies (non-vegan) can do that without much training.
Aajonus health fell apart on a strict vegan diet, and he bicycled north america for 2.5 years. Then switching to his current raw paleo diet obtained super-health. During his exerice days he was running up to 13 miles, doing 250 pushups 2-3 feet off the ground and 30 handstand pushups daily. So can you do this daily? I doubt it or you'd be bragging about it.
The point is you cannot tell people one diet works for all because it doesn't. To me you're worse then the people you abhor, because with them I know what I'm getting with you, you simply are a hater in sheeps clothing. That's abundantly clear. Recall Hitler was a vegetarian too, obviously he liked animals more than people.
However, you could become the kind ambassador of veganism and do great athletic feats to prove us all wrong.
The world awaits your arrival.........
Veganism and vegetarinism are
Veganism and vegetarinism are senseless when you consider predator-prey relations and when it comes to your need for omega-3s in balence with omega-3s. If you don't listen to me oh well, you will be infertile as a result. Soy is nutriution deficient and a scam.
By the way thanks for censoring the important things I have to say because I don't agree with you!
Darth Chaos is a kook
You know Darth, I would expect you to say such nutfuckery, considering you're one of those nutfuck 9/11 twoofers. You actually believe CSPI advocated trans fats? I read that article, loonwaffle, and they didn't advocate trans fats. Just another example of a nutball 9/11 twoofer who doesn't get anything right. Plus in all of your obesity twoof ramblings, it seems that the only ones you attack as "Food Nazis" are Jews, and you actually have the gall to compare these Jews to Nazis. Fuck you, you anti-semitic America-hate trash.
You're a jerk for not letting
You're a jerk for not letting people even respond as to why price might have been right.
a closing comment
After three years, I'm getting tired of correcting the same mis-information over and over again, so I'm closing comments on this post. But first -- since it is my blog :-) -- a few final words in summary:
Sally Fallon and her Weston A. Price Foundation are to nutrition what Scientology is to mental health. They promote homeopathy and unpasteurized milk, and denigrate vaccination; this tells you all you need to know about their attitude towards science.
As John Robbins points out, WAPF's propaganda have little to do with the work of Weston Price himself. By rights, the group probably ought to be called the Sally Fallon foundation. Price got at least a few things right -- though he knew little about nutrition or anthropology, the link between illness and a diet heavy in processed foods is clear enough that even an amateur like himself could see it clearly. But that has little to do with the WAPF's emotional and financial attachment to flesh foods and dairy.
WAPF's anti-soy propaganda has no scientific basis. The American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines say,
and a review in The Journal of Nutrution notes
That's not to say that you should fill your diet with soy. And you certainly should not load up on processed, chemically extracted soy protein isolate from GMO soybeans; but there is no evidence that reasonable amounts of soy from soy milk, tofu, edamame, miso, or tempeh, from non-GMO is harmful, and plenty of evidence that it helps. For example:
WAPF likes to make much of the phytates found in soy. These do reduce the absorption of some minerals, but are found in a variety of plant foods. If soy is anti-nutritive because of them, so are most other legumes, whole grains, pretty much anything with fiber. But more than that, phytates have antioxidant and anti-tumor properties, decrease cholesterol and triglyceride production, and help reduce the overall glycemic index of meals of which they are a part. There is also evidence that phytates are protective against osteoporosis. The picture that's emerging suggests that rather than being an "anti-nutrient", phytates are actually a vital nutrient.
WAPF's claims that traditional soy foods are fermented is simply untrue. And Fallon's claims that soy makes kids gay and causes learning disabilities ought to be filed under bizarre conspiracy theories, not serious debate.
Now, this is all an odd argument anyway, because you don't have to eat soy to be vegan. I ate very little soy for the first decade or so of my veganism, and only began to incorporate it as the evidence of its benefits mounted. But WAPF's anti-soy FUD well-illustrates their tactics in all areas: ignore science, make vague claims of vast conspiracies of vegetarians, industrial food producers (never mind that the vast majority of soy goes to animal feed, and so "Big Soy" is quite happy to have you eating meat), and government, and romanticize the past.
Another WAPF contention that is simply untrue is their claim that there is no evidence proving a link between saturated fat and heart disease. I've linked to several studies about this in posts above, here and here. We also have evidence that saturated fat blocks insulin and leptin in the brain and has addictive potential. We can rationally argue over how strong the evidence is, or that there are other factors involved; but any claims that there is no evidence for a link between saturated fat intake and heart disease are just plain wrong.
It is, of course, possible to eat an unhealthful vegan diet. Beer and corn chips are vegan -- you can even get them organic!
Vegan diets encompass a large variety, from the Ornish plan to eco-Atkins to raw vegan. It's worth noting that almost all of the folks who tell me how ill they were on a vegan diet and how they're much better now that they're eating animal flesh again, were eating raw vegan. The proper conclusion would be that raw veganism is difficult to do well, and eat some cooked vegetables, legumes, and grains; instead, these folks jumped from the fad of raw veganism to the fad of the WAPF-style diet.
Ideological dishonesty
Gobsmacked ... just gobsmacked by the overweening arrogance and ignorance of vegan contributors here. Why do vegetarians call themselves "vegetarians" when they plainly have no great love of vegetables, but prefer grain and soy? Furthermore, why don't vegetarians expose their real agenda and refer to themselves, far more accurately, as "anti-carnivores"? A little honesty from the vegan/vegetarian ranks would be refreshing.
Thanks Anonymous for talking
Thanks Anonymous for talking right back to this guy. tom, I wish you would do what you say and admit "I don't want to eat meat" You have come up with a hundred excuses and you have been brazen enough to tell a poster _his_ reasons to eat it. You've announced that you know how someone else feels about his own mother and called yourself compassionate. The argument whether we should make someone stop eating meat only assumes hunting equates to murder. Over and over when reminded that killing other species is natural behavior you play warfare/cannibalism is natural behavior and noone has asked you how war/cannibalism and hunting are similar. They're similar in that they're behaviors you don't want people engaged in. You used just what animals do as an argument why we wouldn't eat meat yet an animals sentience why we should spare its life. It's obvious that to you it's worth imitating if it eats plants.
Over and over - yapping about loving an animal and never answer, why should we be compassionate?
Over and over, that animal thinks and loves and - yeah? and? big deal. Well if I kill an animal I might kill someone's mother - there you go. You've said his mother is as important as an animal. She has only the rights of an animal.
Oh, I can hear you respond, I care about her; I think she has the right to graze in the sun free from predators.
Predators? Oh, the animals that are allowed to kill! Let his mother be one of them.
But the woman doesn't need it! Necessity is a different argument from morality. I'm not going to give up something just because I don't need it. Especially when it's cheaper physiologically.
From pointless sympathy to circular morality to slipshod necessity, Swiss goes round and around an endless debate.
Yes, your third argument is sloppy. A 'significant' number of humans do without meat long periods...therefore they all can? A significant number do without meat, and are healthy - implying all of them, but you should say some of them. Fewer as the period stretches on. A 'significant' number...and it occurred to you that the number who are herbivores is the number who CAN be herbivores. Everybody else can't. They eat meat, and they continue to eat meat, in the face of massive propaganda that's into its second century.
Proprietor "unreasonable".org is ironically fitting. Drop evolution if it favors meat - Swiss doesn't want to listen.
Rude Mr. Tom:
To "Shmeep" (who wrote back to Tom's very RUDE comments). Thank you for your original posting. I too attempted full veganism for 1.5 years in my mid twenties. No animal products of any kind. Mostly I followed the writings and diet plans of Dr. Ornish or that other guy, Dr. McDougall.
I had never felt more sickly and "out of sorts" than when I was eating in this manner, as I avoided everything that was not recommended on their vegan/super low fat checklist. I had adopted this diet for animal rights/ethical reasons, but for the well publicized "health" reasons as well (I took the latter to be the added bonus of superior HEALTH and vitality that would result from avoiding all animal/artery clogging fats!).
But I quickly realized that my health was simply going downhill after several months of eating this way. My energy levels crashed. I exercised but never seemed to have enough energy to keep up with the daily routines and I was always hungry. My total cholesterol level went down to 120 and my doctor was wondering what I was up to. I told him that I was simply avoiding any and all animal products.
One day, after a very long bike ride, I became very dizzy from what seemed to be complete and total exhaustion. My highschool friend, who is a pediatrician and was visiting that day, kept asking "what's wrong with you?". Almost a year and a half into my vegan existence, I was thin but totally out of energy. I was always in a type of perpetual brain-fog and could never think clearly.
My friend, concerned at what she was seeing and knowing that I was subsiting on tomatoes, carrots, boiled greens and starchy vegetables or boiled beans, told me "enough already". She went into the kitchen and scrambled up an egg with a small pat of butter. (I was the only vegan in the household, so there WERE animal products, like eggs in the fridge!)
She put the plate down in front of me and said to me, "please just eat this". I told her that I hadn't eaten anything from an animal in well over a year and she told me in an ironic tone, "yes, and I can see the wonders it is doing for your health". The cooked egg sat there for a couple minutes and then I said to myself, 'what the heck'. Within a couple minutes of eating it, I felt much better and the dizzy spell went away.
The next day, I ate a piece of fish that had been cooked up by my aunt, that was as fresh as can be. We lived in a seaside town in Greece and the fresh fish was always available. After eating the fish with a wonderful cucumber side salad, I noted again how much better I was starting to feel after eating this type of food. It was on this second day that I decided to never look back on my attempt at veganism.
Once I reintroduced some animal proteins in the form of some fish and dairy products (mostly pastured eggs and the occasional batch of raw milk) things just immediately turned back around. My energy came right back. Coincidence? Who knows.
In the many years that have transpired since returning to a more omnivore type of diet, I've never felt better and my health is perfectly fine. No more fatigue or those really scary dizzy spells. I have energy to maintain my exercise routine and to chase after 3 very active little kids. My total cholesterol has since bumped up to the 170s but I don't have an irrational fear anymore of these numbers either. Yes, I admit to having read the Good Calories/Bad Calories book. Cholesterol is something our bodies and our brains actually NEED.
I have come to terms with returning to the consumption of meat products by visiting and purchasing only from the biodynamic and sustainable local farmers in my area. I will not purchase any factory farmed, grocery store type of fare.
I've read the writings on both sides of this issue [and all the stuff in between] and have come to my own conclusions. I know what works for me and feel everyone needs to be free to make their own choices: good or bad. The guy who was tongue-lashed (above) by you, Mr. Tom RUDErson, knows what works for him and put forth a very thought provoking post. Tom, you too, know what works for you, but as another writer mentioned higher up in the postings, unless you, TOM, can stop yourself from breathing (and subsequently killing off thousands of tiny microbes) then you have to realize too that all life revolves around the constant cycle of life and death that takes place on this planet all the time.
People don't need to be bullied about the way Tom likes to do on this blog. I believe he will not get far in his ultimate goal of saving the animals from their terrible suffering using his ugly bully tactics and harsh/offensive language. He could go a long way by looking into the ethics behind the more humane farming practices of the smaller family farms, because it is a far better living existence for these animals. People are never going to stop eating meat. It goes back to the days of the cave man.
I read this entire page here today and am pretty horrified at the disrespectful approach Mr. Tom takes toward the meat-eating readers of his blog. He seems full of hate, venom, and dispair.
Good luck Tom, no one is standing in the way of your veganism or vegetarianism, but your mean spirited approach and hateful tactics in your writings gives vegetarians a bad name.
So get your butcher knife sharpened and ready, Tom, and start slicing and dicing my latest post here. For someone who purports to be such a humane pacifist, you sure are one scary dude (who talks about killing people and grabbing their organs to put into coolers etc...) You are guilty of the same hateful and murderous thoughts you assign to all the people out there who eat meat (something that has been taking place for millenia, as you know).
traditional soy foods
Weston A. Price foundation is all FOR "traditional soy foods," as you call them. Because traditional soy foods are fermented. Nothing like what is available at most health food stores nowadays. Modern soy foods are highly processed and contain problematic ingredients, many of which are there because the soy has NOT been fermented. Your comment about dairy consumption beginning only in the last 10,000 years made me laugh. And I guess you've got some sort of proof that people who [supposedly] lived before that time were healthier before dairy was "introduced." Ha! Good one! I think I'll stick with diets that have worked to keep cultures healthy over time. That would most certainly NOT include vegetarianism or veganism OR eating junky, synthetic-laced soy products.
WAPF sense and nonsense
I came to this site because I couldn't find what I wanted on WAPF. At a recent community fair, photos were displayed of people with elongated heads (several photos looked deliberately distorted) and the contention was made that they were that way because of processed foods. They were characterized as ill and "mouth-breathers." Other photos showed people with rounder heads and big smiles -- purportedly eaters of raw milk and additive-free foods.
I'd like to know:
Where did these photos come from? Did someone actually do a study of people brought up on different foods? Is there any way to determine a) how many have elongated heads, b) is there an unusual percentage among those of a certain diet, c) whether their diet or other causes like heredity determined their head shape d) whether that head shape is in fact any sort of diability? (Not counting anyone's aesthetic preferences for round or long faces.)
And why get worked up about it if there's nothing we can do?
Did any of you ... even read
Did any of you ... even read WA Price's book? I have it and it makes me sick to see what we have done to ourselves today. Dr. Price found many primitive diets that the native people stuck too gave them incredible health and virtually no dental problems. When they switched to "WHITE MAN'S FOOD" he noted that poor health deformities and a lot of dental problems!
READ HIS BOOK!
Insane PPL
You people are insane, all legumes are toxic if eaten raw. I once ate lightly cooked soy beans and got terribly ill. THAT'S TOXICITY. But cooked soy beans are healthy.
Well, helpme!?
Did you know that USA and Europe blocked Wikileaks? What do you think about it?
Hih you hear me??
I ate a raw vegan diet for
I ate a raw vegan diet for four years. I felt good initially and finally became sick from nutrient deficiency. Eat the way you wish and let others do the same without your vegan diatribe. WAPF promotes private, small dairy farms. How are they making money by promoting raw milk (unlike raw gurus who sell warehouses full of goods)? I know soy isn't good for thyroid unless it's fermented. Even vegan websites will tell you that!
Vegetarians are as bad as meat-eaters
Another comment: vegetarians who eat dairy, eggs and fish - aren't these folks just giant hypocrites? Where's the compassion for the fish? Why don't they care about the millions of male chicks and male calves slaughtered every year because those male animals can't grow up to produce eggs or milk, like the females? Furthermore, male chicks can't even be used as meat, because egg-laying chickens are a special breed with less meat on them than broiler chickens (but greater egg output).
I respect vegans - at least they practise what they preach. But I have zero respect for vegetarians who consume eggs, dairy, fish, etc, because such vegetarians contribute to the mass slaughter of animals while pretending to be more virtuous than omniovres. Shame!
Dead Thread Resurection
"Consumption of dairy products was unknown for most of the existence of the human species, it began only with the Neolithic revolution. It cames common only in some cultures, and only became a mainstay fairly recently. No other mammal on the planet drinks milk into adulthood, and no other mammal drinks the milk of other species."
---- When milk consumption "appeared on the scene" and the "argument that {dairy consumption is an ancient and traditional} is specious" is irrelevant in light of the fact that milk IS THE ONLY FOOD IN NATURE that is specifically intended to be food for mammals. The substance that we are exclusively fed during the formative period of infancy (a time when we are growing and developing relatively greater in terms of mass and speed than any other time in our lives) is not beneficial to our health? You can split hairs by pointing out that Cow's milk is not Mother's milk but they are still simply variations of the same food.
Tens if not Hundreds of Thousand of people around the world can attest to improvements in their health related to the consumption of foods like raw milk, and other naturally farmed animal products. Probably just as many former vegetarians can attest to the negative effects that excluding animal products from their diet produced. Those numbers are obviously being pulled out of thin air, but I personally know a great number of individuals who fall into both categories.
Consult scientific data and your own food history research all you like; when it comes to practical, personal, real world, and applied observations about the debate which I have taken from my first hand experience and those of my friends and family, the WAP stance takes the cake in my little corner of the universe.
"On the soy front, they
"On the soy front, they point to studies where animals were injected with extracts of soy protein and got sick, and ignore studies where humans ate traditional soy foods and improved their health. (It is true, though, that overconsumption of processed soy foods is not healthy. Choose tempeh over TVP.)"
Thats not true, they say soy is ok when fermented. Asian people have known for a long time to ferment soy before consumption. Sally Fallon agrees with you, I heard it when undergroundwellness interviewed her. Your arguing against nothing.
Soy Irony
I understand the WAPF claims about the anti-nutritive qualities of soy. What occurs to me is that if they are true, the best counter-measures would be bone broth and fatty meat. So maybe unfermented soy is okay if you're an omnivore (like those Okinawans). Just a little food for thought...
Vegetarianism
While vegetarians and vegans are well meaning, caring people it is important to note that of the populations that are naturally, primarily vegetarian, none of them pass up available meat or milk products entirely. Even Buddhist monks encourage younger monks to eat some meat, some times. Tibetans would not be able to withstand the weather up on the Himalayan plateau without copious amounts of yak butter tea. And they eat yak meat -they just have the Muslim butchers slaughter the yaks.
So populations which have evolved foodways over time is one thing: populations claiming 'truth' via 'mental theory' is quite another.
I have never known anyone eating a reasonable diet, even out of a large grocery store, to be malnourished. I have known more than a few vegetarians who nearly killed themselves from eating in accordance with Silly Mental Ideas.
Edamame (which are the younger soy pods) have less antinutrients than soybeans and other soy products. Moderate comsumption is quite safe. No established human populations lived with soy as a mainstay of the diet. All traditional populations fermented soy. NOBODY here making "positive" soy health claims has cited any of the research against soy, particularly absent from those posts is the increasing amount of research which shows soy to be VERY harmful to children. Let me ask you: do you think a product that is so harmful to children is somehow totally safe for repeated adult consumption?
I'm all for a balanced discussion. I'm all for people making their own choices. And for every vegetable-crusading nutball I have but one reply:
Every time you breathe, you kill something.
You aren't going to live without killing something.
Taking the life of something that feeds you, with respect, is making-sacred the interconnection of all life, very much the province of enlightened human living!
And every time I get spammed by PETA and hit up by the Carrot Crusaders - every time you tell me how 'bad' I am for not doing it your way I go out and have a steak. If you are so nasty to people who don't share your views, why would anyone want to join your Team of Nastiness?
PRICE FOUNDATION AND HEALTH
the WESTON A. PRICE FOUNDATION has saved my life.......i was a very sickly person, depressed, feeling lethargic, skin problems, high blood pressure, digestion problems...... depending on pharmaceuticals to "cure" me.......it was a "process"...eating healthier.... unprocessed foods, HEALTHY FATS...animal protein.....and i also elIminated dairy (raw or goats milk products only).....AND NOW I FEEL GREAT, LOOK GREAT AND GETTING ALL SORTS OF COMPLEMENTS ABOUT WHAT I DID BECAUSE OF MY DRASTIC CHANGE IN APPEARANCE (I AM OVER 50 AND DON'T LOOK ANYWHERE NEAR IT!!!!).......WESTIN A. PRICE FOUNDATION taught me how to be aware of how what i put in my mouth affected your health.......YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT....and over a period of 2 years i am not on any more "pharmaceuticals".....THE BEST PART IS MY KIDS SAW THE TRANSFORMATION AND I DON'T NEED TO LECTURE THEM TO EAT ANY PARTICULAR WAY....THEY COPY MY DIET.......SO, "BEFORE YOU SLAM WHAT YOU DON'T BOTHER TO FULLY EDUCATE YOURSELF ON" or choose to believe all the "myths" our FDA wants us to believe without scientific evidence..(protecting BIG PHARMA and BIG FOOD MANUFACTURERS OUT TO MAKE A PROFIT REGARDLESS OF HEALTH)...DON'T MAKE ANY UNINFORMED DECISIONS YET....GO TO ONE OF THESE PRICE FOUNDATION SEMINARS....THEY EDUCATE YOU WITH FACTS AND SCIENTIFIC INFO, YOU CAN TRY VARIOUS FOODS THEY PROMOTE BUT MOST OF ALL YOU WILL ACTUALLY TALK TO HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE WHOSE LIVES HAVE BEEN CHANGED OR THEIR CHILDREN'S LIVES FOR THE BEST......STORIES OF THEIR KIDS DOING MUCH BETTER WHEN REAL DOCTORS DIDN'T HAVE ANYMORE ANSWERS....IT IS AMAZING...PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE FROM ALL WALKS OF LIFE GOING TO THESE SEMINARS WHEN NOTHING ELSE HAS WORKED FOR THEM....I HAVE NEVER MET ANYONE WITH A NEGATIVE RESULT.......ONCE YOU DO THAT...I THINK YOU WILL BE PLEASANTLY ENLIGHTENED AS WELL......P.S. - I ALSO BELIEVE THE FAT AND CHOLESTEROL SCARE IS DUE TO UNHEALTHY PROCESSED FATS AND VEGETABLE OILS (INCLUDING "CONVENTIONAL" ANIMAL FATS, TRANSFATS, ETC.) AND TOO MANY PROCESSED GRAINS AND SUGAR!!!!!!!!! IMPROPER BALANCES OF OMEGA 6/3.... OUR DIET IS FULL OF SUGAR (TURNING INTO FAT IN OUR ARTERIES)....IT'S EASIER FOR THE FDA TO SLAM HEALTHY FATS AND WESTON PRICE!!!!! (IT'S MORE "PROFITABLE" FOR THEM!!!!!)
Price Fixing
Wow. Thanks for this blog! Reading through these posts has been really eye opening. The believers in WAPF are a lot like right wing Christian fundamentalists! What's really creepy is this seeming desire to dissuade people from living the compassionate lifestyle that a well planned vegan diet provides, all the while touting concern for animals.
Their views certainly espouse the commonly claimed as 'biblical' idea that animals are only here to serve us, so get over any recognition that slavery is slavery, and accept that might really does equal right! And do they truly believe that it is sustainable to raise all the grass fed beef and other animal products they think people need, or do they really only care about themselves?
The only way we can maintain the level of consumption of animal products currently in demand in the world (and what a nightmare it is to know that increasing affluence in China and India is only going to increase that demand to horrific levels)is to factory farm it!
And the 'must be afraid of death' put-down is such a desperate argument against the vegan's desire to decrease his or her ecological footprint in the world, help limit animal suffering and enjoy GOOD health... it suggests that the real denial in the room is that of those WaPF believers who claim no need to differentiate between life and death! These necessarily interwoven realities, are certainly NOT the same if you're the one struggling to stay alive, and that awareness is the inspiration for many perfectly healthy vegans aspiring to live more lightly on the planet to approach both life and death with conscientious awareness of the power of their food choices over not just their own lives, but the lives of so many others.
There is no time to waste for serious environmentalists.The real organic wave of the future, building now, is the move away from dependence on not only oil, but on animal agribusiness in all it's polluting forms. There are farmers in the UK and elsewhere in Europe, and more recently in North America, promoting stock-free growing practises which, for one thing, exclude the incredibly wasteful consumption of precious water that livestock raising demands. http://www.goveganic.net/
"which according to our best
"which according to our best scientific knowledge is linked to a higher risk of heart disease and stroke."
That is completely false. In fact there is not one single study proving this, but proving the exact opposite.
It was part of a vegetarian agenda to tell us all that saturated fats were bad.
Omg.
I just came through here via GirlieGirlArmy.com and wanted to just say how scary the comments on this blog post are. None of you really know much of anything, do you? Yet it's the internet, and everyone is a genius/anthropologist/historian/dietitian. Really people?
Sigh.
Agree
I agree, it is something that is suspect with the WAPF.
// Kalorier
Thank you Tom !
Tom, thank you very much for all the excellent comments you've provided. I've been disgusted for years seeing too many caring, thoughtful people having been conditioned by the WAPF's anti-soy, anti-vegetarian agenda. Especially since many of these folks did not know of the true WAPF pro-meat/dairy agenda. Thankfully people are beginning to find out who they really are, that they are behind the vast majority of all the anti-soy/vegan fearmongering that we've seen over the past decade, and that they are just basically another arm of the meat/dairy industries. Whether it's derived from factory farms or family farms, it's all derived from the exploitation and intentional killing of another being against their will, and it all is part of the industry as a whole.
Also, concerning the plant comments above, go out to your garden and pluck an ear of corn, a tomato, a pepper, some broccoli, etc, and watch how the plant is still quite able to continue to live it's full, natural lifespan. Now go out to a field and, if you can catch them naturally, pluck the arm, leg, etc, off of a cow, chicken, pig, bird, etc, and watch what happens as they stumble in agony and then bleed to death.
I had never heard of WAPF
I had never heard of WAPF before I received a pamphlet in the mail from my brother-in-law. He is studying to be a chiropractor and he and his wife have taken it on themselves to enlighten the rest of the family about what they are studying. I usually listen politely to what they have to say and make my own choices. I have always leaned towards vegetarianism. I am not a vegetarian, but I have seen how much my sister has benefited from a vegan diet and have drastically cut the amount of dairy and meat that I consume. I am sure that one day I will take the plunge and become vegan myself. In any case, my vegetarian leanings and consumption of soy products have made my brother and sister in law completely crazy. It is so bad that they will not talk to me because I offended them by not cutting soy from my diet. When my baby was born at a healthy 9 1/2 pounds, they told me that she was so big that she was headed to the Jerry Springer show and it was because I ate soy products when I was pregnant. They are so zealous in their belief that we should eat meat and dairy that they started feeding meat to their own child when he was less than 6 months old ("we eat it, why shouldn't he?"). When my mother in law's cholesterol topped 300 and her doctor wanted to put her on statins, they convinced her to instead eat more eggs, bacon and cheese at every meal! Of course, she took their advise, I think she was afraid to insult them. Now she carries around baggies of cubed pork and cheese for her snacks. She won't even go back to her doctor to get her cholesterol checked since she started her new "diet".
Bottom line, to me, WAPF seems to be a cult to me and extremely dangerous. It reminds me of Scientology whose members shun family who do not adhere to the beliefs and promote dangerous medical treatments. There is no scientific evidence supporting their beliefs, I completely believe that it is a tool of the meat and dairy industry.
Common goal
The WAPF advocates animals raised on open pasture from small, local farms. Thier followers, along with vegetarians and vegans, are such a minority. You would think they could band together to expose the big business meat and dairy industry for what they are - cruel and completely unhealthy.
As a follower of weston a. price, and a former raw food vegan, I see both sides. I do. I feel better when I eat meat and dairy, and I completely understand when people are vegan for years and years and feel great. Does evolution have nothing to do with it? Some cultures are vegetarian, and have been for thousands of years. Others live off of whale blubber and meat and have gotten along great.
Lets all love each other and band together for the common goal of compassion and promotion for a whole-food diet.
Lying is a full time job for
Lying is a full time job for Weston A Price Foundation----they are lobbyists.
You write: "They advocate
You write:
"They advocate a diet high in saturated fat, which according to our best scientific knowledge is linked to a higher risk of heart disease and stroke. WAPF simply denies that such a link exists, sort of like how tobacco companies simply denied the link between smoking and lung cancer."
This is simply false (not to mention poor grammar) and disqualifies your blog from serious consideration. The WAPF devotes pages to detailed critiques of the argument that saturated fat is linked to heart disease or stroke. They cite study after study, and engage in minute analysis of facts. They may very well be wrong, but they are not "simply denying" the link--they purport to disprove it. That being the case, your obligation, if you wish to respond to them, is to respond to their specific points. Have they misprepresented the various studies they cite? Given only one-sided accounts of them? The fact that you say something blatantly false, and do not bother giving a shred of meaningful information, leads me to suspect you don't have much to offer in this discussion.
How about true nutrition?
I am amazed that throughout this entire list that everyone misses one of the most critical points to be made: The fact of the poor nutrition of processed foods. Food giants have engineered processed foods to perform more like drugs than food by skilled manipulation of fat, salt and sugar. They could care less about nutrition and that is why 2/3 of adults in this country are overweight or obese. They eat junk and the body calls for more nutrients to digest the junk. They eat more junk and.... you get the picture. Lots of empty calories.
Pure foods free of GMOs, pesticides, hormones, antibiotics and other synthetic poisons are vital to our bodies. When we ingest poisons the body uses nutrients to isolate those poisons. Often the metabolites from those poisons are more toxic than the originals substance.
What the Weston A. Price Foundation advocates a return to whole UNPROCESSED foods and “the foods of your ancestors”. They are what our bodies have adapted to. Obviously some foods aren’t readily available so we must substitute. But when you substitute you need to use foods similar in content. In any case, they must be nutrient rich. For any of you who don’t know any better, “nutrients” are not synonymous with “calories”. Fats and protein from grass fed animals will provide a wealth of nutrients beside just the fat and protein. Quality fruits, vegetables, grains, legumes and nuts are also vital to good health. Want to know the appropriate ratios of what to eat? Google “Luise Light” and learn her story of dismay as the FDA nutritionist charged with creating the food pyramid.
For those of you citing WAPF followers as “quacks”: I am a Weston Price Chapter leader. I have researched many of their claims and have yet to find legitimate evidence contrary to their claims. I suggest you won’t be able to either.
For those who refuse to consume “land based” animals: Who are you to draw the line between different living things (ie; fish and fowl?) If your personal convictions lead you to avoid meats then fine. Don’t indict everyone else.
For the soy advocates: It is nonsensical to believe that you will get any objective information from the industry. Research is sponsored by those with money. The ones with money and interest are big agribusiness. If a study indicates that their products are less than what they market them as, you will never see that study. That’s why studies on GMOs performed by the industry are 100% favorable and 90% of those performed by independent sources seriously question the safety of GMOs. (Take out the studies by the tainted FDA and that will be nearly 100%.)
Mr. Swiss - Re: “The idea that unfermented soy is poisonous is simply nonsense, as is your attempt to label vegetable oils as "new" or "plastic" – Do you know how modern oils are made? Enjoy the hexane (a known carcinogen) with your next dose of yummy modern oil. Clearly it is a toxin. Also, my small farm is humane, soon to be certified as such. The typical small farmer is MUCH more caring of his animals that the industrial megafarms. To argue otherwise shows you haven't been on many.
Wow, what an angry little
Wow, what an angry little man.
Inuits as example of health? Only to WAPF
Inuits, who meat industry lobbyist like WAPF(ironically and misleadingly) use as an “example of health,” life expectancy is 43.5 years.
Not only that. All the fat they consume is "natural" and unprocessed and their 3rd leading cause of death(suicide is number 1) is ischemic heart disease. Sound familiar?
Inuits have the highest osteoporosis rates in the world!!!
unbelievable behaviour
only in America!
You are basically the essence
You are basically the essence of a shill or quack and have no idea what you are talking about. Fermented soy is the only true healthful form of soy, even the Japanese know this and you know nothing of their dietary heritage. As far as Weston A. Price goes...if these people who believe they are eating soy for their health switch their soy habit for real milk they would live a much healthier life. I have a degree in this "quackary" and wish people like you would stop spreading such unfounded ideas. Also, if you want to talk $ let us look at the large paper trail between the government and the soy industry, ESPECIALLY the wonderful gmo soy they have blessed us with. OPEN YOUR EYES.
Weston A Price Foundation on Soy
It's completely inaccurate to say that the WAPF are anti-soy.
They make it clear that the problem lies in soy that hasn't been adequately prepared, or that has undergone industrial processing. In other words, cheap mass-commodity soy milk (an offshoot of soy processing that's easy to package and sell) is best avoided, whilst traditionally-prepared soy foods like tempeh, miso, natto, shoyu, and tofu that has had a long fermentation period, are fine.
It's quick and easy to find their perspective on soy by reading their articles, which are nuanced and informative.
As far as soy products go,
As far as soy products go, if we are going to truly consent to traditional diets, we can't forget that Asian populations are the ones who have traditionally consumed soy. For the sake of this argument, let's put aside whether or not it was fermented. Asians are, by now in our evolution, adapted to a diet that contains soy. Other ethnicities simply are not. Some ethnicities are not able to tolerate milk, but some absolutely need dairy to thrive because that is how their ancestors evolved and the conditions under which they progressed. If you are a white American, a black American, a Hispanic American (or European) then you will simply not be able to tolerate soy very well, certainly not in large quantities. Wouldn't it be best to research and discover what your own ancestors consumed (i.e. Scots and oats, Swiss and dairy, etc.) and follow that as closely as possible?
However, there is something to be said for soy as Asians consume it, regardless of what your racial/ethnic history is. Soy milk is not a traditional Asian food, and the same applies to most of the soy foods we consume in America.
If you do believe that soy is a sacred food we should consume, that's fine, I can accept that. But the way it is processed and denatured and put into just about everything you buy at the grocery store is an assault of your sacred food. Just as those of us who consider raw dairy from happy cows to be a sacred food that is assaulted by the pasteurization and homogenization processes. I know many vegetarians who do not eat meat for philosophical or religious reasons, and I respect their concern for life; it is inspirational even. But I personally keep my own livestock and I know that my animals are healthy and happy. We do not eat them, we enjoy the gifts they give, raw milk and pastured eggs. It would be cruel to our cows to refuse to milk; I remember weaning my own children, and how painful it was to be bursting with milk and no one to give it to. If we didn't milk the cows, they would suffer. If we didn't use the eggs that our free range chickens give us, the chickens would not be any better off for keeping them to themselves. You do not have to eat meat to keep livestock from suffering. We have never culled any of our chickens, and the hens are older than most (in commercial operations they only live for about a year and then they are no longer meeting the cost/benefit of what it costs to feed them) but even though they are "old" they are supplying us with a fertile, organic nitrogen-rich manure for our garden and they supply us with eggs. We don't eat the fertilized eggs, we let the hens hatch out new babies. Our entire farm operation is in perfect harmony with our vegetarian friends' ideals, and for that they are also able to partake of our farm with a free conscious. Cows are, at this point in our history, so domesticated that if they are not cared for by humans, they will die a very graphic and painful death, usually by starvation but likely also by being hunted by another predator. You can leave a horse out in the wild, and it will go feral and survive just fine. A cow cannot do that. Cows need humans. Perhaps that is a tragedy of our neolithic transition, but it is what it is. If you value life and the life of this species you will understand that they need to be cared for by people. It can be done in an ethical way. I had read of a 90 year old man who had a 30 year old cow and they were both still living together very happily, the cow supplying him with his daily milk and him caring for a cow who lived longer than most.
Anyway, that's my argument, I hope it has been respectful to everyone here. Thank you for taking the time to listen to a differing viewpoint.
Re: Vegetarianism
You comments about Buddhist monks encouraging the eating of meat are inaccurate. Various sects of Buddhism take different stances on the issue -- I address that as part of a work in progress here.
I have never personally known a vegetarian who has harmed themself by failing to eat a nutritious diet, though of course it is possible to eat an unhealthy diet based on vegetable food -- beer and potato chips are, after all, vegetarian. I have personally known many people who greatly harmed their health by overconsumption of animal foods, though of course it is possible to eat an healthy diet containing small amounts of them.
As for soy, the claim that it is harmful for children appears to be nothing but more fearmongering from the dairy industry. The American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines say,
Part of the problem here is an unspoken assumption that flesh and dairy foods have the be replaced in the diet by some high protein source, and that soy should fill that role and be heavily consumed. Nonsense. Since there's no need for flesh foods in the diet, there's no need to replace them. Our dietary protien needs are easily met -- if you are eating enough calories and eating a variety of food, you are getting enough protein. Of course soy is not a mainstay of traditional diets -- grains are the mainstay. Rice, corn, barley, wheat...in the West, we say "our daily bread", while the Chinese characters for breakfast, lunch, and dinner are "morning rice", "afternoon rice", and "evening rice".
But that's not the big issue here. The real issue is the ethical one.
The assertion that "Taking the life of something that feeds you, with respect, is making-sacred the interconnection of all life, very much the province of enlightened human living!", is, to put it bluntly, a steaming pile of bullshit. If I slaughtered and ate your mother, but did it with "respect" and said some prayers before and after, would that be enlightened behavior?
The fact is that there is no way to kill unnecessarily and also with respect.
Inflicting suffering for one's own pleasure -- which is, in the end, the only reason you are still eating meat -- is not enlightened behavior. Killing a conscious, sentient being, one capable of having a self-experience, when easy alternatives exist, is not enlightened behavior.
Our fellow vertebrates are such beings. But we have the option to take our nutrition from plants and fungi, organisms that we know do not have nervous systems or the ability to experience consciousness or suffering.
Death, itself, is not the issue. It's just the cessation of some interesting chemical reactions; after all, a bacterium is "alive". The issue is the capability to have an internal experience, consciousness, subjectivity: what Regan calls being "the subject of a life", what (some) Buddhists call "sentience", or to experience what philosophers call "qualia". To claim that only humans have this property is unscientific, nothing but anthropocentrism applied to ethics.
Tom Swiss - proprietor, unreasonable.org
eat humans not good
I think your comment about eating someone's mother is a little too much. Personally, I don't think killing a human being and killing a pig or a cow is the same. This is what your comment implies. I like the idea of avoiding unnecessary suffering, but I don't think you can say what is necessary and what is unnecessary for everyone. People have to make their own decisions and they may reach conclusions that are different than yours. You've made yourself judge and jury for the human race, it seems. Maybe try to lighten up a little...
I think killing sentient beings is a little too much
I think killing sentient beings is a little too much.
If killing is okay if it is respectful, then why is it not okay to kill human if it's done with "respect"? If all it takes is the proper mental attitude or some prayers or some magical mumbo-jumbo to make it acceptable to kill non-human animals, why doesn't this transfer to the naked ape?
You say that you "don't think killing a human being and killing a pig or a cow is the same." All right: why? What relevant property is possessed by all human beings but is possessed by no nonhuman animals that justifies the unlimited slaughter of the later?
Tom Swiss - proprietor, unreasonable.org
what about...
what about sentient beings that kill other sentient beings? you should begin your crusade amoungst the lions, tigers, bears, and fishes. All are sentient beings that sustain themselves on other sentient beings. It is the circle of life, get over it or get out of the way
Re: what about
Nonsense.
Chimpanzees engage in organized violence -- war -- on each other. Does this somehow justify humans engaging in war as "the circle of life"?
When I had two dogs, the bigger one would often nose the smaller one -- his own mother! -- to eat the food I'd put down for her. Does this someone justify humans stealing from each other? Will you follow my dog's example and steal from your mother, and tell her it's "the circle of life"?
Tom Swiss - proprietor, unreasonable.org
aha
So we ARE superior to other animals.
So we can eat them.
Good good.
Superior?
Does the fact that you are intellectual superior to a mentally retarded child mean that you can eat him?
Does the fact that you and I are ethically superior to some Wall Street corporate criminal scumbag mean that we can eat him? Does the fact that a monk who has renounced all worldly pleasures might be considered ethically superior to either of us mean that he can eat us?
If we are "superior" to other animals -- and that's certainly a highly debatable point, but let's stipulate it for now -- that puts on us an obligation, not a license. As Edgar Kupfer-Koberwitz wrote of his vegetarianism while he was in Dachau,
Tom Swiss - proprietor, unreasonable.org
Why yes, it does! I very
Why yes, it does! I very well can.
:*( I'M JUST TRYING TO DETERMINE WHETHER WE ARE ABOVE OR BESIDE THE ANIMALS AND YOU KEEP SWITCHIN IT UP ON ME :*(
crazy people
If you believe that you have the ethical right to kill and eat mentally retarded children, or corporate criminals, then I don't think we have much basis for further discussion. Best wishes to you, and I hope your therapist is able to find a medication regimen that gets your brain chemistry on an even keel, before you go and do something rash that gets you locked up or killed.
If there are any sane people reading this, though, who are wondering about the "are we above or beside the other animals" question, I'll point out that the question of ranking is meaningless without a criterion, and furthermore is uninformative as to the ethics of killing non-human animals for our benefit.
If we mean to ask if non-human animals are superior to us in terms of ethical behavior, in the sense of whom we ought to emulate, then we end up with a mixed bag. Would you say that Nazis are "ethically superior" to bonobos? I doubt it. Would you say that lions -- a species known to commonly commit infanticide -- are "ethically superior" to Jains, who do their best to preserve all animals' lives? I doubt it.
Hierarchical thinking does not apply here. (Hierarchical thinking does not apply in most cases, but that's a tangential topic.)
Tom Swiss - proprietor, unreasonable.org
omnivore = good
"Inflicting suffering for one's own pleasure -- which is, in the end, the only reason you are still eating meat -- is not enlightened behavior."
It is true that I eat meat for pleasure, it tastes good. That is not the only reason. Animal products are good for you. Grass fred beef and dairy provide you with: omega-3's (the best kind), CLA, and Medium chain triglycerides.
Saturated fat is NOT bad for you.
Dietary Cholesterol is NOT bad for you.
On average, people with high cholesterol live longer.
Whey is the best protein you can get (egg protein is second best).
Vegans can't get any of the better omega-3's, CLA's, dietary cholesterol, whey and/or egg protein.\
I don't have a list of sources (i wouldn't be able to fit them all). google this stuff if you don't believe me.
To Tom Swiss
Let me guess -- You say all this but I'll bet dollars to donuts that you're pro-choice right?
Consciousness
> But we have the option to take our nutrition from plants and fungi, organisms that we know do not have nervous systems or the ability to experience consciousness or suffering.
That is incomplete. In my own experiences as a mystic, Plants and Minerals are mostly certainly conscious. Just because most people are literally too spiritually ignorant, immature, stupid, and/or undeveloped to understand the depth of what consciousness even is, in no way does this imply that Humans and Animals are the _only_ things conscious. In fact, the _whole_ universe is conscious. Spiritual maturing & evolution is about developing your own conscious to be able to understand greater and wider levels.
Diet is simply a _reflection_ of the level of truth you understand and are able to live. Some yogis are able to live thousands of years without eating. Other will find themselves they will get extremely sick unless they eat meat. The "right" answer is doing the best in the present situtation based on what you know, and what your body is capable of, not clinging to one person's ideology or dogma of what they think is right for them and everybody else.
Michaelangelo
mysticism and nonsense
If you think that your experiences as a "mystic" show that plants and rocks are conscious in the same way that you and I and my dog and a cow are, and if you believe that there are some people out there who live thousands of years without eating, then you understand neither mysticism nor science.
If you want to use the word "consciousness" in a weird way such that the whole universe is conscious, fine; there may even be some mythopoetic, metaphorical truth to the statement. But to make ethical decisions based on that, is as wrong-headed as to say, "You and I are one, right? So, no problem if I use your credit cards!"
Your body is capable if living without eating the flesh of other animals. That's biological truth. But if you have some delusional belief that it's spiritually "necessary" to eat meat, then of course you will feel ill if you cease.
Tom Swiss - proprietor, unreasonable.org