GP-FCLOlabelIt was such a wonderful narrative that Green Pasture had going for its fermented cod liver oil over previous years. That it was produced from cod from the arctic. That solar heating activated the fermentation. That all suppliers had the so-called “Good Housekeeping” seal of approval courtesy of the Marine Stewardship Council.

But the suspicions that had been building for a couple years unraveled in significant fashion with the release by then-Weston A. Price Foundation vice president Kaayla Daniel of her explosive report, “Hook, Line, and Stinker” in late August.

Gradually, over the last month, as the old narrative has collapsed,  it has been revised….or deleted completely, as Green Pasture sketches a new FCLO narrative.

One reader who has been monitoring Green Pasture closely highlighted below three of the key changes from assertions I linked to above (PPNF is Price Pottenger Nutrition Foundation and MSC is Marine Stewardship Council):




So now Green Pasture sketches a new FCLO narrative. But you have to read very carefully, because this new narrative clearly has a lot of help from lawyers. After the Daniel report included genetic evidence GP was using pollock, GP a few days ago issued a “clarification,” in which it says GP is now using only Pacific cod. But the phrasing admits it was using pollock, suggesting it was okay because the substitution wasn’t about saving money: “In the past when we have used some Alaska pollock, it has been because we were unable to obtain enough Pacific cod. Despite some unfounded rumors, we do not benefit from any cost savings based on species alone.” Yes, those damned rumor mongers are at fault, to suggest it was to save money.  The implication is, We didn’t do it to save money, so therefore we weren’t doing anything wrong. Get it?

There’s more legalese, in this statement about use of Pacific cod: “As noted on the label we are using Gadus macrocephalus (Pacific cod) as this was in excellent supply in the past year.” What happens when the supply situation changes? Presumably changes in fish supplying the liver oil will be reported in the fine print on the label, so users better read closely.  And to concerns about GP importing fish livers, “We currently do not import livers because we prefer to use sources closer to United States waters.” The reference to “currently” is also a lawyer’s way of leaving open the possibility of importing it sometime in the future.

Then there are new lab test reports that GP supporters have been linking to all over Facebook in recent days. I’ve asked these people to explain in plain English what they mean, because there is little approaching understandable English from the scientists. Like this, from Dr. Vicki Schlegel, “Bottom line, the FFA test for your product is not a good indicator of oxidation.” Now that’s a resounding “bottom line” endorsement.

The only interpretation with even a bit of understandable English is this, from Dr. Subramaniam Sathivel: “In conclusion, the data shows that your cod liver oil is a good quality oil and a good source of omega-3.” But then this qualifier: “Again, free fatty acids in the oil are not compounds resulting from lipid oxidation reactions. In other words, they are not aldehydes.” Huh?

When you’re hit with a public relations crisis of the sort that has hit Green Pasture and its nonprofit booster, Weston A. Price Foundation–where you are basically caught doing things you shouldn’t have done (like mislabeling your product, producing your product in ways not sanctioned by the nonprofit’s namesake, and claiming a connection with a major industry association), you basically have two options for getting through it in one piece:

  1. You admit you screwed up, and explain how you’ll make sure the problem(s) will never happen again;
  2. You underwrite an investigation by independent outsiders, and you agree to abide by the results.

Ongoing denial and stonewalling and revisionism aren’t productive options—at least if you want to keep anything resembling your previous base of support. Yet that is what has been happening with the brouhaha over fermented cod liver oil produced by GP, and heartily endorsed by WAPF. Ongoing denial and reliance on legalese and lab-ese invite suspicions that you are covering up not only the stuff you have been accused of, but much worse. The much worse is the growing suspicion of collusion between GP and WAPF. Why? Because WAPF continues to heartily endorse a product that has more credibility holes that a nice chunk of raw milk Swiss cheese.

Once you see a few holes, you start looking at everything else more closely. I wonder about Sally Fallon Morell’s claim, in her Q&A from a couple weeks back, that she and the WAPF receive “no compensation” beyond $20,610 in sponsorship fees. But what about other exchanges of $$$? Donations? Dividends? Commissions to WAPF chapter leaders for FCLO sales?

The problem is that the original denials of questionable behavior, and the subsequent web site changes at GP, invite a perception that the organization in question isn’t playing it straight. Perception becomes reality, whether deserved or not.

It takes years for a small company and small nonprofit based largely on trust to build up the kind of trust WAPF and GP had. It takes just a few weeks for it to crumble away in a change of perception.