Frequently Asked
Questions
OTHER
FREQUENTLY ASKED TOPICS |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
1. What is a stem cell?
A stem cell is a cell that has the ability to duplicate itself endlessly and to become cells of virtually any organ and tissue of the body. Embryonic stem cells are cells extracted from the blastula, the very early embryo, that have an exceptional ability to duplicate in vitro, that is in a test tube, and to become cells of almost any tissue. Adult stem cells are cells found in an organism after birth. Until very recently, it was believed that adult stem cells could only become blood cells, bone and connective tissue. But recent development over the past 5 years have revealed that adult stem cells have capabilities similar to embryonic stem cells.
[Return to Top]
2. What is the Stem Cell Theory of Renewal?
The Stem Cell Theory of Renewal proposes that stem cells are naturally released by the bone marrow and travel via the bloodstream toward tissues to promote the body’s natural process of renewal. When an organ is subjected to a process that requires renewal, such as the natural aging process, this organ releases compounds that trigger the release of stem cells from the bone marrow. The organ also releases compounds that attracts stem cells to this organ. The released stem cells then follow the concentration gradient of these compounds and leave the blood circulation to migrate to the organ where they proliferate and differentiate into cells of this organ, supporting the natural process of renewal.
[Return to Top]
3. Why do we hear much in the news about embryonic stem cells and very little about adult stem cells?
The first human embryonic stem cells were grown in vitro, in a petri dish, in the mid 1990s. Rapidly, scientists were successful at growing them for many generations and to trigger their differentiation into virtually any kind of cells, i.e. brain cells, heart cells, liver cells, bone cells, pancreatic cells, etc. When scientists tried growing adult stem cells, the endeavor was met with less success, as adult stem cells were difficult to grow in vitro for more than a few generations. This led to the idea that embryonic stem cells have more potential than adult stem cells. In addition, the ethical concerns linked to the use of embryonic stem cells have led to a disproportionate representation of embryonic stem cells in the media.
But recent developments over the past 2-3 years have established that adult stem cells have capabilities comparable to embryonic stem cells in the human body, not in the test tube. Many studies have indicated that simply releasing stem cells from the bone marrow can help support the body’s natural process for renewal of tissues and organs.
[Return to Top]
4. What is the effect of StemEnhance®?
StemEnhance® is a blend of two compounds extracted from the widely consumed aquatic botanical Aphanizomenon flos-aquae (AFA). One extract, which contains an L-selectin ligand, supports the natural release of stem cells (CD34+ cells) from the bone marrow. The other extract, a polysaccharide-rich fraction named Migratose™, may support the migration of stem cells out of the blood into tissues.
[Return to Top]
5. What is the science behind StemEnhance®?
The effect of StemEnhance® on stem cells was tested in a double-blind, placebo controlled, cross over study. In brief, volunteers rested for one hour before the first blood sample, which established the baseline level in the number of circulating stem cells. After the first blood samples, volunteers were given StemEnhance® or placebo. Thereafter, blood samples were taken at 30, 60 and 120 minutes after taking the consumables. The number of circulating stem cells was quantified by analyzing the blood samples using Fluorescence-Activated Cell Sorting (FACS). This was then done again with the volunteers switching groups. So whoever got StemEnhance® got placebo and visa versa. Since the study is blind no one, not even the scientists doing the study know which is placebo and which is StemEnhance®. Consumption of StemEnhance® triggered a significant 25% increase in the number of circulating stem cells. |
|
[Return to Top]
6. What is the recommended amount of StemEnhance® to take?
One gram or 2 capsules of StemEnhance® supports the natural release and therefore increase in the number of circulating stem cells by 25% according to a recent published scientific study. The suggested amount to consume is therefore 2 capsules once or twice a day.
[Return to Top]
7. Can StemEnhance deplete the bone marrow? Do we have a finite number of stem cells?
No, StemEnhance® will not deplete the bone marrow. The bone marrow constantly produces stem cells for the entire life of an individual. Stem cells released by the bone marrow are responsible for the constant renewal of red blood cells and lymphocytes (immune cells).
A 25-30% increase in the number of circulating stem cells is well within physiological range and does not constitute stress on the bone marrow environment. The amount of active bone marrow amounts to about 2,600 g (5.7 lbs), with about 1.5 trillion marrow cells. A 25-30% increase in the number of circulating stem cells triggered by the consumption of 1 gram of StemEnhance® corresponds to approximately 3 million cells, which is a small portion of the stem cells present in the bone marrow. Stem cells that do not reach any tissue or become blood cells return to the bone marrow.
[Return to Top]
8. What happened to stem cells if they do not reach a tissue?
Stem cells released from the bone marrow that do not reach a tissue simply home back to the bone marrow after some time.
[Return to Top]
9. Can stem cells lead to aberrations such as cancer?
Only embryonic stem cells have been associated with the development of aberrant growth. Stem cells present in specialized tissues such as the intestinal mucosa may also play a role in the development of aberrant growth. But stem cells released from the bone have not been associated with such problems.
[Return to Top]
10. Why has STEMTech HealthSciences elected to use the Network Marketing distribution channel?
The Stem Cell Theory of Renewal constitutes a new paradigm in health sciences. Likewise, StemEnhance® is the first product in a novel category of revolutionary products called “stem cells enhancers.” Stem cell enhancers are product that supports stem cell functions in the body. Given the novel nature of both the concept and the product, a significant effort of education is required to help people become aware of this new technology. The power of networking offers a unique opportunity to generate awareness and educate people about this new paradigm. Furthermore, the MLM channel offers unique opportunities for people to develop home-based businesses and create greater financial freedom.
[Return to Top]
11. How does an increase in the number of circulating stem cells lead to optimal health?
Circulating stem cells can reach various organs and become cells of that organ, helping such organ regain and maintain optimal health. Recent studies have suggested that the number of circulating stem cells is a key factor; the higher the number of circulating stem cells the greater is the ability of the body at healing itself.
[Return to Top]
12. What is the optimum way of taken StemEnhance® capsules?
StemEnhance® can be taken with or without food, though some people at times experience some heaviness when taken on an empty stomach. The same experience has been reported when taken with an acidic juice like orange juice. Otherwise, StemEnhance can be taken with any fruit or vegetable juice, or with water.
In our studies, StemEnhance® was always taken in the morning. However, it is quite possible that StemEnhance® might bring greater benefits when taken before sleep, as the body tends to regenerate better during sleep. This being said, this remains to be studied. At this point, with the data available, the best way to take StemEnhance® is to take 2 capsules once or twice a day, in the morning or morning and evening.
[Return to Top]
13. Is StemEnhance FDA approved?
No. FDA does not approve dietary supplements in the same way that FDA approves some drugs and medical devices. Nonetheless, FDA does regulate product quality, product safety, and product claims, and has authority to remove products from the market that are not safe or that make claims that are not substantiated by scientific evidence.
[Return to Top]
14. Is StemEnhance® truly natural? Organic? Non-genetically modified? Farmed?
StemEnhance® is made of two extracts from the aquatic botanicals Aphanizomenon flos-aquae (AFA). AFA grows naturally in a pristine lake of Southern Oregon, it is therefore wildcrafted, not farmed or manipulated in anyway, hence no genetic modification. StemEnhance® is produced by an Organic certified facility and is certified Organic.
[Return to Top]
15. Are there any synthetic ingredients in StemEnhance®? If so, what?
StemEnhance® is made of 100% natural AFA extracts.
[Return to Top]
16. Is StemEnhance® actually patented, or has the company only applied for a patent?
One patent has been issued on StemEnhance® and another one has been filed. The issued patent is a Use Patent that pertains to the use of AFA for supporting stem cell physiology. The second patent is a Composition Patent that pertains to the specific components in AFA responsible stem cell support.
[Return to Top]
17. How is StemEnhance® different from whole AFA?
Whole AFA has been used for more than two decades with a very good track record of safety and health benefits. Whole AFA has been used as a natural anti-inflammatory product, to support the immune system, and to improve mental clarity and mental energy. Over the past few years STEMTech’s scientific team has isolated and identified the various components in AFA responsible for the various health benefits of AFA. In brief, AFA has been found to contain phenylethylamine (PEA) responsible for providing a feeling of mental energy, phycocyanin responsible for the antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties, a polysaccharide responsible for supporting the immune system, and most recently an L-selectin ligand responsible for supporting the release of stem cells from the bone marrow.
StemEnhance is a 5:1 concentrate of AFA that concentrates the four compounds listed above. It is specifically designed and developed to support stem cell physiology, but it also concentrates other compounds unique to AFA, bringing unique support for the whole body.
[Return to Top]
18. What are other ways of increasing your stem cell blood level?
Due to the novelty of the concept of supporting the release of one’s own stem cells, very little scientific work has been done so far to identify compounds or conditions that increase the release of stem cells from the bone marrow. So far, StemEnhance is the only natural compound shown to support the release of stem cells from the bone marrow.
[Return to Top]
19. Why does the label of StemEnhance® say to consult your physician if you are pregnant or nursing? What if I get pregnant while I am taking StemEnhance®?
Many products carry such warnings out of an abundance of caution rather than any known pregnancy risk. We know of no evidence that consuming StemEnhance® during pregnancy creates a health risk.
[Return to Top]
20. Does StemEnhance® contain iodine?
Most people think that all algae are a significant source of iodine. This is not the case with the freshwater algae Aphanizomenon flos-aquae (AFA). The Recommended Daily Allowance of iodine is 150 mcg. AFA has an extremely small amount of iodine, only 0.39 mcg per gram. Marine algae and seaweed by contrast are significant sources of iodine. For example one gram of Kelp of the species Laminaria digitata contains approximately 5000 mcg of iodine. Iodized salt contains 100 mcg per gram and one teaspoon of iodized salt contains 400 mcg of iodine. Other examples of foods that contain iodine are one slice of bread has about 6 mcg and one medium egg has 14 mcg of iodine.
[Return to Top]
21. Can you take StemEnhance if you are being treated by a health care practitioner for a specific ailment or are taking medications of any kind?
As with any dietary supplement it is recommended that if you are being treated by a health care practitioner or are taking medications of any kind that you consult with your practitioner prior to taking StemEnhance.
[Return to Top]
22. Why does the label say for people on anticoagulants to consult their physician prior to taking StemEnhance® and what information does their physician need?
The issue pertains to the anticoagulant medication called Coumadin™ or Warfarin. People on warfarin are usually advised by their prescribing physician to pay attention to the amount of vitamin K in their diet. Like many foods StemEnhance contains naturally occurring vitamin K. So, taking StemEnhance would be just like eating a food with vitamin K like broccoli or spinach. The Recommended Daily Allowance of vitamin K is 80 mcgs. Just let the physician know that 2 capsules of StemEnhance have approximately 40 mcgs of vitamin K, which is ½, the RDA of vitamin K. To give you an example of comparisons to other foods one cup of broccoli, raw, chopped has “about” 110% of the RDA (or 88 mcg) of vitamin K. A ½ cup of spinach, fresh, boiled has about 555% of the RDA (or 444 mcgs) of vitamin K.
[Return to Top]
23. Can StemEnhance® be taking with medications? Please see FAQ regarding StemEnhance® and anticoagulant medications.
As for medications other than anticoagulants, there are no known interactions or contraindications except for a possible theoretical only interaction with anti-depressant medications. StemEnhance contains a naturally occurring nutrient known as PEA (phenylethylamine) as do some other naturally occurring foods. PEA is naturally produced by the brain and known in the literature to support mood and mental energy. PEA is a natural compound made by the brain whenever one feels content and happy; it has been described as “the molecule of joy”. StemEnhance® contains approximately 5 mg per gram of StemEnhance. Interactions with antidepressant medications have not been reported but it is a theoretical consideration and people should consult their healthcare practitioner.
[Return to Top]
24. Can StemEnhance® be taken if you have health conditions?
StemEnhance® contains a naturally occurring nutrient known as PEA (phenylethylamine) as do some other naturally occurring foods. PEA is naturally produced by the brain and known in the literature to support mood and mental energy. PEA is a natural compound made by the brain whenever one feels content and happy; it has been described as “the molecule of joy”. StemEnhance® contains approximately 5 mg per gram of StemEnhance. Due to the PEA content of StemEnhancethere is a theoretical possibility that it may be contraindicated in people with mania or bipolar disorder. This is theoretical only and people should consult their health care practitioner prior to taking StemEnhance. StemEnhancesupports the natural release of our stem cells. There is a theoretical possibility that it may be contraindicated in people having a disease of the bone marrow. This is theoretical only and is not based on any know ill effect. People should consult their health care practitioner prior to taking StemEnhance.
[Return to Top]
25. Can a person of any age take StemEnhance®?
Yes, just follow the directions on the label and do so under adult supervision.
[Return to Top]
26. Are our capsules vegetarian?
Yes. STEMTech HealthSciences uses vegetarian capsules commonly used in the dietary supplement industry. They contain no gelatin of animal by-product of any kind. They are essentially made of cellulose, a polysaccharide fiber found in vegetables.
[Return to Top]
27. Does the radiation done by some shipping services hurt STEMTech products?
As far as we know, our products are not affected by radiation. In addition, STEMTech HealthSciences offers shipment via FeDex, which does not radiate its packages.
[Return to Top]
Response to Mr.
Stephen Barrett of MLM Watch.org
and the National Council Against Health Fraud
Recently, people conducting an Internet search on “stem
cell enhancer” were surprised to find an article
by Stephen Barrett already raising doubts about StemEnhance
and stem cell enhancers. We welcome this opportunity to
provide you with further information on StemEnhance.
Barrett provides a relatively good background history
of StemEnhance and STEMTech HealthSciences (STHS). However
he makes an inaccurate rapprochement between STHS and
Cell Tech. STHS nor Desert Lake Technologies has NEVER
been involved in any lawsuit about false claims. The work
done by STHS and DLT is based on science, it is completely
independent from Cell Tech, and all of our claims are
solidly backed by science.
Barrett also claims that blue-green algae based products
might contain dangerous toxins. (See below for reports
on microcystin and neurotoxicity) There is no excuse at
this point in time, nearly a decade after the industry
has developed a stringent quality control program, to
still repeat such irrelevant allegations. Whereas infection
of beef by E.coli is still responsible for more than 20,000
intoxications and nearly 500 deaths every year, whereas
aflatoxin in corn, peanuts, milk products, spices and
other foodstuff have been responsible for several deaths,
and whereas shellfish toxins are still responsible for
several deaths every year, blue-green algae has been linked
to no ill effect. Like any other food ingredient, if potential
contaminants like heavy metals, pesticides, and shellfish
toxins are present in quantity below levels established
as safe, then the product is deemed safe. Stating that
blue-green algae may be dangerous is akin to stating that
eating a shrimp cocktail or a hamburger at your favorite
restaurant is dangerous. Such a statement reflects a lack
of scientific background and knowledge, or deceptive intent.
Barrett states that before taking any product, it is
advisable to know whether it has been proven safe and
effective for its intended purpose(s), and that with respect
to StemEnhance, the following questions would have to
be answered.
Frequently Asked
Questions
1. What evidence shows that
taking StemEnhance will improve anyone's health?
2. Has any study shown that people improved
their health as a result of taking it?
3. What evidence shows that StemEnhance
is safe for long-term use?
4. How can users be certain that long-term
use will not cause abnormal tissue growth?
5. For whom is the product advisable?
6. Who should not take it?
1. What evidence shows
that taking StemEnhance will improve anyone's health?
Numerous studies performed by various scientific teams
throughout the world, including the National Institute
of Health[1] have clearly established that the higher
the levels of circulating stem cells the better the ability
of the body to maintain optimal health. A recent publication
in the New England Journal of Medicine[2] reported that
the level of stem cells in the blood was one of the best
indicators of cardiovascular health. Elevating the number
of stem cells in the blood has been shown to improve health
in many ways. [3-6] StemEnhance supports the release of
stem cells from the bone marrow and increases the number
of circulating stem cells by 25-30%, which is bound to
assist the body in maintaining optimal health.
As Mr. Barrett must know, given his claimed experience
with the FDA, that we cannot make any health claims linked
to StemEnhance since it is a dietary supplement and not
a drug. Our claims are limited to structure and function
claims, which is what we have solidly documented. StemEnhance
supports the natural release of stem cells from the bone
marrow, thereby assisting the body in maintaining optimal
health. We would be delighted to publish the single patient
outcomes we have documented, but they could be construed
as inferred health claims. Nevertheless, clinical studies
are currently in progress involving specific organs and
system to further document the mechanics of stem cell
physiology, and these studies will be eventually published.
2. Has any study shown
that people improved their health as a result of taking
it?
Numerous empirical reports and testimonials testify to
the health benefits of taking StemEnhance. Many companies
have been shut down by the FDA because of inferred health
claims linked to documentation of improvements with various
diseases. We intend to maintain our message clearly within
the boundaries of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education
Act, and let StemEnhance speaks for itself. We would be
delighted to provide Mr. Barrett with a few bottles of
StemEnhance so he can see the benefits on his own health.
[Return to Top]
3. What evidence shows
that StemEnhance is safe for long-term use?
AFA, the raw ingredient from which StemEnhance is derived,
has been on the marketplace for more than two decades
with a very good track record of safety. A safety study
in mice determined that consumption of the equivalent
of up to 2,000 AFA capsules daily led to no health problems
at all. In fact, the authors claimed that the mice receiving
the highest dose of AFA were less aggressive and looked
healthier. StemEnhance is a 5:1 concentrate of AFA, and
just like 5:1 concentrates of echinacea or grape seed
or ginkgo or wheat grass juice that are as safe as the
whole plant they are derived from, StemEnhance is as safe
as whole AFA. StemEnhance is to whole AFA what carrot
juice is to a whole carrot.
The question may also refer to the safety of increasing
the number of circulating stem cells everyday by 25-30%.
Here also the safety is unquestionable. The normal range
for the number of circulating stem cells is between 1.2
and 5.0 stem cells per µL of blood. An increase
of 30% in the number of circulating stem cells would at
most mean an increase of 1.5 cells per µL, which
is well within normal physiological range. Looking at
this from a different angle, Krause et al. [7] reported
that one single stem cell was enough to reconstitute the
entire hematopoietic (red blood cell) and immune systems.
If one single stem cell can do this, then the billions
of stem cells left in the bone marrow after taking StemEnhance
can maintain a healthy and strong bone marrow.
[Return to Top]
4. How can users be
certain that long-term use will not cause abnormal tissue
growth?
The release of stem cells from the bone marrow and their
migration to tissues is a natural process that happens
everyday. StemEnhance simply supports that natural process
and tips the balance toward health everyday. StemEnhance
does not do anything that the body does not already do
everyday. So far, no instances of cancer or any similar
problem have ever been observed when using in vivo natural
release of stem cells from the bone marrow. Abnormal cellular
growth has only been seen when manipulating stem cells
in test tubes.
[Return to Top]
5. For whom is the product
advisable?
Since StemEnhance supports the natural release of stem
cells from the bone marrow, which is turn travel throughout
the body to maintain the health of various organs and
tissues. StemEnhance is the optimal daily support for
the maintenance of optimal health. It is for everyone
interested in giving their body an extra boost toward
daily renewal of cells throughout the body. It is for
anyone interested in supporting his or her body’s
natural renewal system.
[Return to Top]
6. Who should not take it?
StemEnhance naturally contains a significant amount of
vitamin K. Therefore, anyone taking anticoagulant medication
should consult their doctor in order to adjust the medication,
if necessary. StemEnhance could also be contraindicated
for anyone having a disease of the bone marrow, though
this is solely speculative and is not based on any observation
of ill effect.
AFA contains phenylethylamine (PEA), known as the “molecule
of love” or the “molecule of joy”. PEA
is a natural compound made by the brain whenever one feels
content, happy. Deficiency in PEA has been linked to problems
of concentration and low mood, and oral intake of PEA
has been shown to improve these conditions. StemEnhance
concentrates PEA at about 5mg/g. PEA is responsible for
the immediate feeling of well-being that one experiences
after taking StemEnhance. Because of the effect of PEA
in the brain, StemEnhance could be contraindicated for
people suffering from severe manic depression.
Finally, Barrett states that “A few studies—most
of them done in laboratory animals—have shown that
circulating stem cells from bone marrow can develop into
a few other types of mature cells. As far as I know, however,
no study has demonstrated that increasing the number of
circulating cells is safe or makes people healthier.”
This is certainly the most eloquent expression of Barrett’s
lack of expertise in this field.
Anyone interested to see if there are only “a few
studies” showing that circulating stem cells can
develop into “a few other cell types”, can
simply do a search on Medline to see the thousands of
article on that topic. Or simply refer to the study of
Krause[7] in which bone marrow stem cells were seen to
become functional cells of the skin, liver, colon, intestine,
stomach, esophagus, kidney and lung. Bone marrow stem
cells have also been documented to become brain cells,[8]
heart cells,[1] muscle cells,[9] pancreatic cells[10]…
virtually any cell type in the body. As to the second
statement that to Barrett’s knowledge “no
study has demonstrated that increasing the number of circulating
cells makes people healthier,” one only needs to
refer to the studies by Orlic at the NIH[1] and that of
Werner et al.[2] Barrett could have done a simple search
at the NIH library with the key words “circulating
stem cells healing” (PubMed) and he could have avoided
misleading people as he did.
I believe it is important for the sake of ethics and public
integrity to end this discussion by putting these comments
from Stephen Barrett, as well as all other comments by
him, into a bigger context. Barrett is a retired psychiatrist
who has not had many positive comments about dietary supplements
and over the years have waged a little vendetta against
anything that comes through an Network Marketing. He would
probably be against peanut butter if they were sold through
and MLM. His attacks against natural approaches such as
homeopathy and herbal medicine constituted a rather eloquent
display of his ignorance.
He created the so-called National Council Against Health
Fraud, which ironically is itself rather fraudulent and
misleading, as it does not represent any objective and
expert council, it does not represent any official national
organization, and it provides rather biased information.
Barrett claims to have several links with the FDA and
a great expertise in FDA matter. We will let Judge Fromholz
of the California Superior Court Case shed some light
on Mr. Barrett. As stated by the Judge, Barrett’s
motives appear to be more linked to personal financial
gain than generous public education.
Below is an excerpt from Judges decision rendered against
NCAHF 12/17/01 by Judge Framholz in California Superior
Court. You can read the complete transcript, "A Judges
View of the Quackbusters"
[Return to Top]
“Dr. Barrett was offered on several issues by the
Plaintiff, but the Court found that there was substantial
overlap on the issues that he and Dr. Sampson were asked
to address. “Thus, in order to avoid duplicative
or cumulative evidence (see Cal. Evidence Code §§
352, 411, 723), Dr. Barrett's testimony was limited by
the Court to the sole issue of FDA treatment of homeopathic
drugs. The relevancy of this issue was questionable at
best, since the Plaintiff had previously asserted that
its case did not depend on or seek to establish any violation
of federal food and drug laws or regulations. Nevertheless,
Plaintiff elicited testimony from Dr. Barrett on his experience
with the FDA as it relates to regulation of homeopathic
drugs.
“Dr. Barrett was a psychiatrist who retired in or
about 1993, at which point he contends he allowed his
medical license to lapse. Like Dr. Sampson, he has no
formal training in homeopathic medicine or drugs, although
he claims to have read and written extensively on homeopathy
and other forms of alternative medicine. Dr. Barrett's
claim to expertise on FDA issues arises from his conversations
with FDA agents, his review of professional literature
on the subject and certain continuing education activities.
“As for his credential as an expert on FDA regulation
of homeopathic drugs, the Court finds that Dr. Barrett
lacks sufficient qualifications in this area. Expertise
in FDA regulation suggests a knowledge of how the agency
enforces federal statutes and the
agency's own regulations. Dr. Barrett's purported legal
and regulatory knowledge is not apparent. He is not a
lawyer, although he claims he attended several semesters
of correspondence law school. While Dr. Barrett appears
to have had several past conversations with FDA representatives,
these appear to have been sporadic, mainly at his own
instigation, and principally for the purpose of gathering
information for his various articles and Internet web-sites.
He has never testified before any governmental panel or
agency on issues relating to FDA regulation of drugs.
Presumably his professional continuing education experiences
are outdated given that he has not had a current medical
license in over seven years. For these reasons, there
is no sound basis on which to consider Dr. Barrett qualified
as an expert on the issues he was offered to address.
Moreover, there was no real focus to his testimony with
respect to any of the issues in this case associated with
Defendants' products.
“Furthermore, the Court finds that both Dr. Sampson
and Dr. Barrett are biased heavily in favor of the Plaintiff
and thus the weight to be accorded their testimony is
slight in any event. Both are long-time board members
of the Plaintiff; Dr. Barrett has served as its
Chairman. Both participated in an application to the U.S.
FDA during the early 1990s designed to restrict the sale
of most homeopathic drugs. Dr. Sampson's university course
presents what is effectively a one-sided, critical view
of alternative medicine. Dr. Barrett's heavy activities
in lecturing and writing about alternative medicine similarly
are focused on the eradication of the practices about
which he opines. Both witnesses' fees, as Dr. Barrett
testified, are paid from a fund established by Plaintiff
NCAHF from the proceeds of suits such as the case at bar.
Based on this fact alone, the Court may infer that Dr.
Barrett and Sampson are more likely to receive fees for
testifying on behalf of NCAHF in future cases if the Plaintiff
prevails in the instant action and thereby wins funds
to enrich the litigation fund described by Dr. Barrett.
It is apparent, therefore, that both men have a direct,
personal financial interest in the outcome of this litigation.
Based on all of these factors, Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett
can be described as zealous advocates of the Plaintiff's
position, and therefore not neutral or dispassionate witnesses
or experts. In light of these affiliations and their orientation,
it can fairly be said that Drs. Barrett and Sampson are
themselves the client, and therefore their testimony should
be accorded little, if any, credibility on that basis
as well.”
[Return to Top]
References
[1] Orlic D, Kajstura J, Chimenti S, Limana F, Jakoniuk
I, Quaini F, Nadal-Ginard B, Bodine DM, Leri A. &
Piero Anversa. (2001) Mobilized bone marrow cells repair
the infracted heart, improving function and survival.
PNAS 98(18):10344–10349.
[2] Werner N, Kosiol S, Schiegl T, Ahlers P, Walenta
K, Link A, Bohm M, Nickenig G. (2005) Circulating endothelial
progenitor cells and cardiovascular outcomes. N Engl J
Med. 8;353(10):999-1007.
[3] Bozlar M, Aslan B, Kalaci A, Baktiroglu L, Yanat
AN, Tasci A. (2005) Effects of human granulocyte-colony
stimulating factor on fracture healing in rats. Saudi
Med J. 26(8):1250-4.
[4] Kong D, Melo LG, Gnecchi M, Zhang L, Mostoslavsky
G, Liew CC, Pratt RE, Dzau VJ. (2004) Cytokine-induced
mobilization of circulating endothelial progenitor cells
enhances repair of injured arteries. Circulation. 110(14):2039-46.
[5] Eroglu E, Agalar F, Altuntas I, Eroglu F. (2004)
Effects of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor on wound
healing in a mouse model of burn trauma. Tohoku J Exp
Med. 204(1):11-6.
[6] Tomoda H, Aoki N. Bone marrow stimulation and left
ventricular function in acute myocardial infarction. Clin
Cardiol. 2003 Oct;26(10):455-7.
[7] Krause DS, Theise ND, Collector MI, Henegariu O,
Hwang S, Gardner R, Neutzel S, Sharkis SJ. (2001) Multi-organ,
multi-lineage engraftment by a single bone marrow-derived
stem cell. Cell 105:369-77.
[8] Eglitis MA and Mezey VA. (1997) Hematopoietic cells
differentiate into both microglia and macroglia in the
brains of adult mice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol.
94, pp. 4080–4085.
[9] Camargo FD, Green R, Capetenaki Y, Jackson KA, and
Goodell MA. (2003) Single hematopoietic stem cells generate
skeletal muscle through myeloid intermediates. Nature
9(12):1520-27.
[10] Ianus A, Holz GG, Theise ND, and Hussain MA. (2003)
In vivo derivation of glucosecompetent cells from bone
marrow without evidence of cell fusion. J. Clin. Invest.
111:843-850.
The
Whole Story About Microcystin and AFA
Much has been said and written about microcystin as a
possible contaminant of the cyanophyta Aphanizomenon flos-aquae
(AFA). Everything seen on the media and read on the Internet
spurred from an event that took place in the summer of
1996, in which I was one of the main protagonists. At
the time, the magnitude of the misinformation was such
that we elected not to respond, thinking that such misinformation
could not last. I can tell now that it was ill-advised,
and I decided to tell the whole story.
AFA has been on the marketplace as an exceptional dietary
supplement for more than two decades. During this time,
not one incident remotely linked to microcystin has been
reported… or to any other toxin as a matter of fact.
But the media has established another perceived reality
for AFA, under a unique set of circumstances.
In 1996, I was Director of Research and Development of
a marketing company centered around the sale of AFA. Soon
after my arrival in 1995, I implemented a testing procedure
for a then little-known toxin with the collaboration of
Dr. Wayne Carmichael of Wright State University. The toxin
was microcystin, which is produced by a type of blue-green
algae called Microcystis. Since Microcystis is seen at
times in Klamath Lake during some parts of the summer
and since a new assay had been developed to measure microcystin,
we decided to add this testing to our quality control
program. In order to have records as complete as possible
we tested samples backing as far as 1992. As expected,
microcystin was present in small amounts that presented
no health concern.
However, in the summer of 1996 we observed a bloom of
Microcystis that was somewhat larger than the previous
years. After much discussion with several experts we elected
to be pro-active with the situation and to trigger an
education campaign. Similar to the story with aflatoxin
in peanuts and corn, we decided to educate the local authorities
and to work toward the development of safe limits to ensure
quality and safety. We invited officials at the Oregon
Health Division (OHD) to visit our facilities and to tell
them about microcystin and our Quality Control program.
It was the first time they were hearing about microcystin.
We showed them the test, the inventory of product on hold,
caught by an efficient Quality control program; we showed
them everything.
We thought we had done our duty and acted responsibly;
we were expecting a response from OHD that would honor
the approach we had taken. To our surprise, soon after
the officials at OHD published an article mentioning that
microcystin was a dangerous toxin, that more than 60 people
had died in Brazil from microcystin toxicity. What they
failed to mention was that this incident was linked to
intravenous exposure through dialysis to about 25 gallons
of water contaminated with microcystin. There is a world
of difference between intravenous and oral exposures.
Just think bout having a teaspoon of peanut butter injected
in your vein…
In the same article they mentioned that product containing
as much as 20 ppm of microcystin had been harvested, though
they failed to mention that this product had been caught
by an effective Quality Control program and never reached
any consumer. We were appalled. The moment we tried to
defend our position we became the unconscionable corporate
entity trying to make money by intoxicating people. Nothing
could have been further from the truth. While a safe limit
of 20 ppb had been established for aflatoxin, levels as
high as 300 ppb have been tolerated at times, like in
1988, when a drought threatened farmers in the Midwest.
Salmonella is present in about 0.02% of the eggs consumed
by American, which amounts to a few thousand real exposures
everyday. Contamination of ground beef by E. coli is responsible
for an estimated 20,000 hospitalization and nearly 500
deaths every year. While all of these are tolerated, OHD
triggered an unprecedented misleading bad press for a
product that had no history of ill effect.
Officials at OHD went as far as publishing an appalling
paper in the scientific literature reporting that in spite
of a ruling limiting the amount of microcystin in AFA
at 1 ppm, 85 of the 87 samples taken from the marketplace
contained a level of microcystin superior to 1 ppm. As
with their previous releases, they failed to mention an
important piece of information. The ruling was passed
on October 17, 1997. Between the summer of 1996 and the
date of the ruling, the industry had adopted the safe
limit proposed by two prominent scientists, Dr. Wayne
Carmichael, expert in toxic cyanobacteria at Wright State
University, and Dr. Gary Flamm, former Head Toxicologist
at the FDA in Washington, who both proposed a safe level
of 5 ppm. These testimonials are on records at the Oregon
Department of Agriculture (ODA). The samples tested by
OHD were taken from the marketplace in the months following
the ruling of 1 ppm. However, all the samples came from
product released on the marketplace prior to the ruling,
respecting the interim level of 5 ppm proposed by the
experts. So while the industry was playing by the rules
and respecting experts’ opinion, OHD once again
acted deceptively concluding that the industry ignored
the ruling. The situation was like one day changing the
speed limit on a street and then accusing someone of having
driven too fast the day before. The intent to deceive
was obvious for those knowing the situation in details.
Supported by experts we proposed to have a moratorium at
5 ppm for 2 years while we would pay for studies showing
the safety of low levels of microcystin in AFA. The study
that OHD relied upon for their safety assessment consisted
of mice gavaged daily with pure toxin dissolved in water.
The very process of gavaging a mouse leads to significant
liver injury. In that study, at times control groups showed
greater “toxicity” than the group receiving
the highest level of toxin. The study was obviously flawed.
Beside, using pure toxin was inappropriate. For example,
AFA contains significant levels of silymarin, a bioflavanoid
known to provided 100% protection against microcystin.
To establish the safety of microcystin as a contaminant
of AFA, we have to test microcystin in AFA. OHD refused
any suggestion.
Later on, someone close to the one person leading this
whole vendetta at OHD, Duncan Gilroy, told me that no
reasonable argument could change OHD’s position
because Duncan Gilroy did not like blue-green algae and
had the clear intention of bringing down this industry.
Even after the ruling of 1 ppm, Gilroy kept telling consumer
that no level of microcystin was safe and people should
avoid consuming from blue-green algae. In any industry
if a product is below the level considered safe, the product
is deemed pure and safe for consumption, like corn and
peanuts with aflatoxin, and beef with E. coli.
[Return to Top]
The facts
The blue-green algae harvested from Klamath lake and currently
sold on the market is more than 99% Aphanizomenon flos-aquae.
This blue-green alga from Klamath Lake is absolutely non-toxic,
as demonstrated by many years of extensive testing. During
a few weeks in the summer, Microsystis, a co-occurring
blue-green alga capable of producing the toxin microcystin,
is found as a minor constituent of the Klamath Lake phytoplankton
community. This phenomenon is not recent and Microcystis
has always been present in very small amounts in Klamath
Lake. Despite its presence, Microsystis is not a problem,
since Desert Lake Technologies (DLT) has developed a method
to separate this alga from Aphanizomenon flos-aquae.
In 1995, Dr. Wayne Carmichael from Wright State University
and Dr. Don Anderson from Woodshole Oceanographic Institute
became consultants for a member of the Klamath Lake Algae
industry, on the specific issue of algal toxicity. During
the summer of 1996 a substantial bloom of Microcystis
was unexpectedly observed that started in early July and
continued into the third week of September. In collaboration
with Dr. Jake Kann, Dr. Wayne Carmichael and Dr. Don Anderson,
the situation was brought to the public’s attention,
because of the industry’s commitment to public safety
and public education, which led to the Oregon Health Division's
awareness of the situation.
Because of the existence of only a few proposed guidelines
based on single studies and the uncertainties surrounding
these studies, an unrestricted grant was given to the
University of Illinois for the completion of a comprehensive
risk assessment, reviewing more than 300 scientific articles,
aimed at accurately evaluating the risk associated with
microcystin as a possible contaminant of blue-green algae
products. This risk assessment determined that 10 µg/g
was considered a safe level. A similar safe level (5 µg/g)
was later confirmed by a risk assessment performed by
Dr. Gary Flamm, former head toxicologist at the FDA in
Washington, DC. This safe level of 5 µg/g was also
supported by Dr. Wayne Carmichael in a written testimonial.
Despite the written opinions of many experts and the
significant amount of data indicating that levels of 5
µg/g and even 10 µg/g were safe for human
consumption, even children, the Oregon Department of Agriculture
decided to pass a regulation establishing 1 µg/g
as the maximum acceptable concentration (MAC). The actual
safe level determined by animal studies was between 2,500
and 6,000 µg of microcystin per day. To add a margin
of safety, this safe level was further divided by a factor
of 1,000. The adopted safe level of 1 µg/g is therefore
1,000 times lower than level established as safe in animal
studies, ensuring complete safety for children. Microcystin
is indeed a liver toxin, however, it is completely safe
at the levels currently found in blue-green algae products.
Liver damage only occurs at levels that exceeds 10,000
times the adopted safe level of 1 µg/g. One would
have to eat more than 5,000 capsules per day to reach
such levels.
The industry nonetheless welcomed the regulation and
went immediately into compliance. During the entire process
and after the adoption of the regulation the relationship
between ODA and the blue-green algae industry has been
one of collaboration.
One of the unresolved elements of this regulatory process
was the development of a validated assay to quantify microcystin.
It was believed that such an assay could be developed
in the year following the adoption of the regulation.
However, collaboration between ODA and FDA in Washington
State, as well as with independent universities and institutions,
has failed to produce a validated test for the precise
measurement of microcystin at low levels. Nevertheless,
the tests currently utilized that have been developed
and refined over the past 5 years, an enzyme linked immunosorbent
assay (ELISA) and a protein phosphatase inhibition assay
(PPIA), are precise enough to monitor compliance, even
though levels found in a same sample analyzed on different
occasions, or by different laboratories, can at times
show significant variations.
In conclusion, the blue-green algae industry has been
extremely pro-active with the problem of the presence
of Microcystis in Klamath Lake. Members of the Klamath
Lake Algae industry have worked with the Oregon Department
of Agriculture to raise the regulated level to 5 µg/g.
However, DLT’s position has been to fully integrate
the regulatory level of 1 µg/g, and to develop ways
to reduce microcystin content. As stated before, DLT has
developed and implemented a method to separate Microcystis
for Aphanizomenon flos-aquae. Lots of AFA harvested since 2000 all tested at less than 1 µg/g.
[Return to Top]
Aphanizomenon flos-aquae
Review Of The Literature Regarding Neurotoxicity
Aphanizomenon flos-aquae (Aph. flos-aquae) is a filamentous
blue-green algal species harvested each summer from Upper
Klamath Lake in Klamath Falls, Oregon. Aph. flos-aquae
has been sold as a nutritional food supplement for nearly
20 years. It is known to be rich in certain vitamins (B12,
carotenoids, K) and in trace minerals. The nutritional
benefits of Aph. flos-aquae have been appreciated by over
a million consumers, many of whom reported increased energy
levels, heightened mental clarity, improved memory and
recall, and an overall feeling of well-being.
Aph. flos-aquae from Upper Klamath Lake
To appreciate Aph. flos-aquae from Klamath Lake, it is
important to consider the unique ecosystem in which this
alga “blooms.” Upper Klamath Lake, which covers
approximately 325 km2, has the greatest surface area of
any natural water body in Oregon (Gearheart et al. 1995).
Numerous springs charged with water filtered through miles
of nutrient-rich volcanic soils on the flanks of the Cascade
mountains (Gearheart et al. 1995), and six major tributaries,
contribute 90% of the annual inflow to the lake (1,527,600
mean acre-feet (1929-1993); Gearheart et al. 1995). Overall,
Upper Klamath Lake is described as a very productive eutrophic
lake that is marked by high levels of available nutrients
and plant life. It is this wealth of nutrients that allows
Aph. flos-aquae to grow in such abundance in the wild.
Upper Klamath Lake is one of only a few ecosystems which
supports the recurrent growth of Aph. flos-aquae in such
abundance.
Upper Klamath Lake has sometimes been referred to as
polluted because of the lake’s incredible bounty
of Aph. flos-aquae. The most observable influence of this
blue green algae is the change in the chemical properties
of the water around the blooming algal masses, namely
dissolved oxygen, pH and ammonia. Given summer conditions
and a large algal bloom, water chemistry can change drastically
and these parameters can reach levels that can directly
impact fish species (Monda and Saiki, 1993). Fish will
congregate near inflow areas of better water quality,
yet their density and stressed condition renders them
susceptible to outbreaks of disease and die-offs. In Upper
Klamath Lake such fish kills (1971, 1986, 1995) are generally
attributed to outbreaks of “Columnaris” disease
(Logan and Markle, 1993). These outbreaks have been common
in fish hatcheries under crowded, high temperature conditions
(Piper et al. 1982). Such impact on the survival of fish
has led people unaware of this natural chemistry to state
that Klamath Lake is polluted. Various testing for pesticides,
petro-chemicals and other contaminants over the past 10
years failed to reveal the presence of any such contaminants.
[Return to Top]
Aph. flos-aquae and the issue of neurotoxicity
A few reports of neurotoxicity in the scientific literature
have raised unwarranted concern. Aside from these reports,
nearly ten years of regular testing (more than 300 samples
tested) has failed to reveal the presence of any neurotoxins.
In the late 1990’s two lawsuits were filed against
companies harvesting from Klamath Lake for neurotoxicity.
Both cases were dismissed after considerable effort to
detect neurotoxins proved unsuccessful. Finally, a study
recently published used genetic technologies to determine
that the previous reports of neurotoxicity associated
with Aph. flos aquae had misidentified the algal species
and the toxic algal samples were not Aph. flos aquae but
a species of Anabaena. Below is a brief and more detailed
account of the evolution of the scientific data regarding
the neurotoxicity of Aph. flos aquae.
Klamath Lake
The first article to report toxicity of Aph. flos aquae
summarized a 1960 US Department of Health, Education and
Welfare seminar in which authors Phinney and Peek (1961)
refer to a toxic algal bloom that occurred in Upper Klamath
Lake in the late 1950's. A sample of this algal bloom
was sent to Dr. Paul Gorham, then at the National Research
Council, Ottawa, Canada, for toxicological analysis. Although
Phinney and Peek reported:
"no concrete evidence was obtained as to the effect
of this toxin on the biota of the Lake and River, but
experiments with mice proved that ingestion of the algal
material was quickly lethal and intraperitoneal injection
of the aqueous extract almost instantaneous in causing
death",
Gorham determined that the sample was not pure Aph. flos-aquae,
but actually consisted of equal parts of Aph. flos-aquae
and Microcystis - an algae known to produce microcystins.
Gorham concluded that the toxicity came not from the Aph.
flos-aquae, but from the Microcystis (Gorham, 1964; Carmichael
and Gorham, 1980; Gorham, personal communication to W.W.C.,
1995).
The second article concerning Klamath Lake was a preliminary
summary of a toxicity test on Upper Klamath Lake Aph.
flos-aquae published by Gentile (1971) in a review article
on blue-green and green algal toxins. A mouse assay (n=1)
was performed on a colony isolate of Aph. flos-aquae cultured
for a short period of time in a laboratory. Signs of poisoning
in the mouse were reported as similar to that of a Kezar
Lake, New Hampshire (see below) Aph. flos-aquae sample
later shown to produce a toxin with similarities to saxitoxin
and its derivatives.
In both articles, several elements did cast significant
uncertainty concerning this possible neurotoxicity of
Upper Klamath Lake Aph. flos-aquae. These include:
1) lack of taxonomic verification of Aph. flos-aquae as
the dominant alga in the tested culture;
2) lack of a complete mouse bioassay which would have
established the minimum lethal dose, LD50 and toxicity
compared to known saxitoxin standards; and
3) lack of a confirmation of toxicity by other laboratories
working with these neurotoxins.
For these reasons, it could not be concluded that Aph.
flos-aquae from Upper Klamath Lake produced a neurotoxin.
As quoted by Gentile (personal communication to W.W.C.,
March 27, 1996), “This anecdotal toxicity test on
Upper Klamath Lake Aph. flos-aquae should be rigorously
restudied before it can be concluded that the alga produces
a toxin”. Periodic toxicity tests in the 1980’s
plus frequent regular testing since 1991 have failed to
reveal any neurotoxins in Upper Klamath Lake Aph. flos-aquae
(Carmichael et al., 2000).
[Return to Top]
Aph. flos-aquae samples from other locations
In spite of the complete absence of neurotoxicity as tested
numerous times using HPLC and mouse bioassay, doubts regarding
the possible neurotoxicity of Klamath Lake Aph. flos-aquae
persisted because of the discovery of three samples of
Aph. flos-aquae found elsewhere (USA and Finland) that
contained neurotoxicity.
Sawyer et al. (1968) and Gentile and Maloney (1969) reported
toxicity of an atypical non-colony forming Aph. flos-aquae
that killed fish and laboratory mice. This Aph. flos-aquae
came from Kezar Lake in New Hampshire. More recently,
Rapala et al. (1993) reported toxicity of Aph. flos-aquae
isolated from water blooms in Finland. These studies establish
that Aph. flos-aquae is toxic only in some geographical
locations. This study also demonstrated that it was not
possible, under the experimental conditions, to manipulate
a non-toxic strain of Aph. flos-aquae to become toxic.
At this point in time, the general consensus among scientists
was that some strains of Aph. flos-aquae were capable
of producing neurotoxins but most strains, include the
Klamath Lake strain, were non-toxic.
One aspect that caught the attention of several scientists
was the mention in the aforementioned articles that the
toxic samples of Aph. flos-aquae were “atypical
non-colony forming Aph. flos-aquae”. In other words,
the toxic strains that were originally identified and
classified as Aph. flos-aquae were not typical of Aph.
flos-aquae and the original identification could have
been inaccurate. Indeed, the boundary between Aph. flos-aquae
and some Anabaena species is very unclear and misidentification
of the algal species can be problematic. Anabaena spp.
is known to produce various kinds of neurotoxins.
Recent developments in genetics have provided the tools
to determine, using genetic similarities, whether the
toxic strains of Aph. flos-aquae are the same species
as the strain showed to be non-toxic. Recently, Li et
al. (2000) have shown that all the toxic strains of Aph.
flos-aquae are genetically dissimilar to the non-toxic
strains and most likely belong to the Anabaena genera.
[Return to Top]
Court Cases
It is interesting to briefly discuss two instances in
which lawsuits were filed around the issue of neurotoxicity
of Klamath Lake Aph. flos-aquae.
In the first one a man, Mr. Fineman, claimed that consumption
of Aph. flos-aquae triggered neuropathy. The case revealed
that Mr. Fineman had been suffering from diabetes since
early childhood and had had many episodes of developing
neuropathy. After two years of contracting with various
laboratories throughout the world to detect and identify
a neurotoxin in Aph. flos-aquae, Mr. Fineman had to withdraw
the suit because of lack of evidence. The court obliged
Mr. Fineman to published the following statement:
"I, Samuel Fineman, brought a lawsuit against Cell
Tech and the Kollmans because I thought I had been harmed
by some substance in Cell Tech's products. Testing and
investigation (including testing for neurotoxins) did
not confirm the presence of any such substance. Accordingly,
I have withdrawn my lawsuit in its entirety."
In a second case, the aforementioned company Cell Tech
filed a lawsuit against an individual, Mark Thorson, who
had relentlessly published over the Internet that Aph.
flos-aquae from Klamath Lake contained a neurotoxin similar
to cocaine and dangerous to consumers. Once again, after
considerable effort to prove his allegations, Mr. Thorson
lost his case. He was also asked to published the following
statement over the Internet:
“During the last several years, I have from time
to time posted to this
and other newsgroups a file of information called "An
Anatoxin-a Primer." I now retract the statements
made in the Anatoxin-a Primer.
The Anatoxin-a Primer implied that Super Blue Green Algae
from Klamath Lake, produced by Cell Tech, contains anatoxin-a
(a neurotoxin I characterized as addictive), and that
Cell Tech deliberately avoids testing for this toxin because
anatoxin-a is responsible for the effects reported by
SBGA users. I have since been advised that Cell Tech conducts
regular tests that would disclose anatoxin-a, and that
this toxin has never been found in Super Blue Green Algae.
I had no basis for the suggestions I made in the Anatoxin-a
Primer, and I hereby retract it in full.”
These two cases are interesting as they both relied on
the explicit demonstration that Aph. flos-aquae from Klamath
Lake contained a neurotoxin. In both cases, many laboratories
throughout the world with the capability and the expertise
to detect and quantify neurotoxins were contracted to
find neurotoxins in Aph. flos-aquae from Klamath Lake,
with no success.
Summary
In summary, the few instances of reports of neurotoxicity
of Aph. flos-aquae pertained not to Aph. flos-aquae but
to species believed to be Anabaena spp. All samples shown
to be Aph. flos-aquae by PCR technology (genetics) were
all reported to be non-toxic. In addition, two significant
legal suits failed to detect the presence of any neurotoxin
in Aph. flos-aquae from Upper Klamath Lake.
Taken altogether, the available data demonstrate the non-toxicity
of Aph. flos-aquae from Upper Klamath Lake.
[Return to Top]
REFERENCES
Carmichael, W.W., Drapeau, C., and Anderson, D.M. (2000)
Harvesting of Aphanizomenon flos-aquae Ralfs ex Born.
& Flah. Var. flos-aquae (Cyanobacteria) from Klamath
Lake for human dietary use, J. App. Phyco., vol. 12, pp.
585-595.
Carmichael, W.W., and P.R. Gorham. (1980) Freshwater
cyanophyte toxins, In: Algae Biomass, Elsevier, New York,
pp. 437-448.
Gearheart, R.A., J.K Anderson, M.G. Forbes, M. Osburn,
and D. Oros. (1995) Watershed strategies for improving
water quality in Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon. Humboldt
State University, Environmental Resources Engineering
Department. 3 Volumes.
Gentile, J.H., and T.E. Maloney. (1969) Toxicity and
environmental requirements of a strain of Aphanizomenon
flos aquae (L.) Ralfs, Can. J. Microbiol., vol. 15 (2),
pp. 165-173.
Gentile, J.H. (1971) Blue green and green algal toxins.
In: Microbial Toxins, Vol. 7, Academic Press, New York,
pp. 27-67.
Gorham, P.R. (1964) Toxic Algae. In: Algae and Man, Plenum
Press, New York, pp. 307-306.
Logan, D.J., and D.F. Markle (1993) Fish faunal survey
of Agency Lake and northern Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon.
In Environmental research in the Klamath Basin, Oregon
- 1992 Annual Report. S.G. Campbell (ed.) p. 341.
Monda, D.P. and M.K. Saiki. (1993) Tolerance of Juvenile
Lost River and Shortnose suckers to high pH, ammonia concentration,
and temperature, and to low dissolved oxygen concentration.
In Environmental research in the Klamath Basin, Oregon
- 1992 Annual Report. S.G. Campbell (ed.) p. 341.
Piper, R.G, I.B. McElwain, L.E. Orme, J.P. McCraren,
L.G. Fowler, and J.R. Leonard. (1982) Fish Hatchery Management.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Washington D.C. p. 517.
Phinney, H.K. and Peek, C.A. (1961) Klamath Lake, an
instance of natural enrichment. In Transactions of the
seminar on Algae and Metropolitan Wastes. U.S. Public
Health Service, pp. 22-27.
Rapala, J., Sivonen, K., Luukkainen, R., and S.I. Niemela.
(1993) Anatoxin-a concentration in Anabaena and Aphanizomenon
under different environmental conditions and comparison
of growth by toxic and non-toxic Anabaena strains - a
laboratory study, J. Applied Phycol., vol. 5, pp. 581-591.
Li, R., Carmichael, W.W., Liu, Y., and Watanabe, M.M.
(2000) Taxonomic re-evaluation of Aphanizomenon flos-aquae
NH-5 based on morphological and 16 rRNA gene sequences,
Hydrobiologica, vol. 438, pp. 99-105.
Sawyer, P.J., Gentile J.H., and J.J. Sasner. (1968) Demonstration
of a toxin from Aphanizomenon flos-aquae (L.) Ralfs, Can.
J. Microbiol., vol. 14, pp. 1199-1204.
QUALITY
AND SAFETY OF
KLAMATH LAKE BLUE-GREEN ALGAE
Overview
Klamath Lake Algae is a nutritional food supplement which
is harvested each summer from Upper Klamath Lake in Klamath
Falls, Oregon and consists almost exclusively of the filamentous
blue-green algal species Aphanizomenon flos-aquae. Aph.
flos-aquae is a nutrient dense food rich in vitamins,
minerals, essential amino acids, and proteins. The nutritional
benefits of Klamath Lake Algae mostly reported are increased
energy levels, heightened mental clarity, improved memory
and recall, relief of inflammatory conditions and an overall
feeling of well-being.
Klamath Lake Algae from Upper Klamath Lake is absolutely
non-toxic. However, like many other agricultural products,
Klamath Lake Algae may contain naturally occurring compounds,
microorganisms or by-products of human activity that need
to be monitored and controlled. Each batch (lot) of Klamath
Lake Algae is subjected to a battery of scientific tests
to ensure that the algae consistently meets the highest
standards of safety and purity. As a result of these tests,
Klamath Lake Algae is one of the purest and safest foods
available.
[Return to Top]
Klamath Lake Algae in Upper Klamath Lake
To appreciate Klamath Lake Algae, one first should consider
the unique ecosystem in which the algae “blooms.”
Upper Klamath Lake, which covers approximately 125 square
miles, has the greatest surface area of any natural water
body in Oregon (Gearheart et al. 1995). Numerous springs
charged with water filtered through miles of nutrient-rich
volcanic soils on the flanks of the Cascade mountains
(Gearheart et al. 1995), and six major tributaries, contribute
90% of the annual inflow to the lake (1,527,600 mean acre-feet
(1929-1993); Gearheart et al. 1995). Overall, Upper Klamath
Lake is described as a very productive eutrophic lake
that is marked by high levels of available nutrients and
plant life. It is this wealth of nutrients that allows
Aph. flos-aquae to grow in such abundance in the wild.
Upper Klamath Lake is one of only a few ecosystems which
supports the recurrent growth of Aph. flos-aquae in such
abundance.
Historically, Upper Klamath Lake was a highly productive
(eutrophic) and diverse ecosystem due to a naturally high
inflow of nutrients (Gearheart et al. 1995). Though the
term eutrophic is often associated with adverse water
quality conditions, in reality, a body of water may be
ecologically “healthy” and eutrophic. In their
1967 report, Miller and Tash described a nutrient-rich
sediment layer many feet deep in Upper Klamath Lake. They
reported that the principal nutrients in Upper Klamath
Lake were supplied through natural geological processes
in quantities sufficient to maintain dense algal blooms,
however they did not include nutrient loading which resulted
from either local or upper watershed non-point sources
(mostly poor forestry and agricultural land management;
Gearheart et al. 1995). Current information indicates
that human activities have increased nutrient loading
to the lake over historical background levels (Bortleson
and Fretwell 1993; Gearheart et al. 1995). However, much
of the current debate centers on the effect of additional
nutrients on an already productive environment. Both internal
and external nutrient loading can influence nutrient concentrations
in the lake (Bortleson and Fretwell 1993) and probably
the composition of the planktonic community, however the
paucity of long-term scientific data makes it difficult
to determine actual causes. Kaffka et al. (1995) remarked
that phosphorous concentrations in available studies were
above levels that many limnologists think are limiting
to algal growth, and concluded that anthropogenic (human)
influences in the Basin were of little consequence compared
to natural enrichment processes. However, during periods
of intense algal blooms in Upper Klamath Lake, dissolved
phosphorus concentrations are reduced to levels which
are known to be limiting (Gearheart et al. 1995). Other
biologists (Gearheart et al. 1995; Bortleson and Fretwell
1993; Kann and Smith 1993; Miller and Tash 1967) have
documented increases in productivity and algal growth
over the past century. Bortleson and Fretwell (1993) noted
that these increases in productivity were detrimental
to fish populations and that such productive systems have
the potential to increase the magnitude of algal blooms,
furthering the detriments to fish. To counteract these
potential changes, most Klamath Basin biologists have
expressed support for efforts to restore natural conditions
through wetland restoration and initiation of appropriate
land management practices in the watershed.
Since agricultural and forestry managed land border the
Upper Klamath Lake watershed (although more than 70% of
the watershed is in federal ownership), runoff from these
activities does enter Upper Klamath Lake. Though questions
about the effect of nutrient loading (sometimes technically
referred to as “non-point” source pollution)
on lake water quality and lake productivity exist, this
does not affect the safety and purity of Aph. flos aquae
for human consumption. Although highly charged emotionally
and politically, the word “polluted,” in the
Upper Klamath Lake ecosystem, describes a condition in
which concentrations of dissolved nutrients (phosphorus
and nitrogen) have increased to higher than historic levels.
These nutrients have subsequently impacted the aquatic
community of the lake by enhancing algal growth and by
affecting related chemical properties (dissolved oxygen,
pH, ammonia, etc.) of the lake water. When Upper Klamath
Lake is said to be polluted, the term usually refers to
the amount of nutrients present, their influence on algal
growth, and the impact of this algal growth on lake’s
aquatic life. Upper Klamath Lake water is practically
free of contaminants and man made toxicological pollutants.
The nutrients which enter Upper Klamath Lake are the same
materials which are referred to as fertilizer when found
in topsoil (nitrogen and phosphorus compounds). While
not recommended for direct human consumption, they are
absolutely necessary components of a growing medium for
all plant matter, including algae in Upper Klamath Lake.
Upper Klamath Lake is for the algae what a rich soil is
for any vegetable.
One of the reasons Upper Klamath Lake is sometimes referred
to as polluted or believed to be polluted, regardless
of its nutrient source, is because of the lake’s
incredible bounty of Aph. flos-aquae. Such abundant algal
growth is customarily associated with pollution. The most
observable influence of abundant algal growth is the change
in the chemical properties of the water around the blooming
algal masses. In the presence of sunlight, algae utilize
carbon dioxide and produce oxygen as a by-product of photosynthesis
(the conversion of light energy to chemical energy). Due
to the limited solubility of oxygen in water at high temperatures,
relatively little oxygen dissolves in the water and the
remainder is released into the atmosphere. During the
night, however, algae do not photosynthesize but instead
consume oxygen and decrease the amount of dissolved oxygen
in the water. When the algal bloom declines and cells
begin to die, nightly oxygen demand of the remaining algae,
combined with oxygen demand of decaying material in the
water, can reduce oxygen levels in Upper Klamath Lake
to levels which affect the health of aquatic animals.
The fluctuation in carbon dioxide in turn drives changes
in lake pH which may directly or indirectly influence
the health of fish in the area. Given summer conditions
and a large algal bloom, water chemistry can change drastically
and dissolved oxygen, pH and ammonia may reach levels
which can directly impact fish species (Monda and Saiki,
1993). If fish are not directly affected, they may be
stressed by environmental conditions and their resistance
to commonly rejected parasites and diseases reduced. These
fish will then congregate in and/or near inflow areas
of better water quality, yet their density and stressed
condition renders them susceptible to outbreaks of disease
and die-offs. In Upper Klamath Lake such fish kills (1971,
1986, 1995) are generally attributed to outbreaks of “Columnaris”
disease (Logan and Markle, 1993). These outbreaks have
been common in fish hatcheries under crowded, high temperature
conditions (Piper et al. 1982), and are caused by a common
bacteria which specifically affects fish. Under given
circumstances, Columnaris, which is normally under control,
may take an explosive course and cause catastrophic losses
in one or two days after first appearing (Piper et al.
1982).
While the algal species that is now indirectly associated
with these fish kills in Upper Klamath Lake is Aph. flos-aquae,
this type of reaction to high temperatures and photosynthetically
changed water conditions is not restricted to this time
or location or to this species. The first reported fish
kill in Upper Klamath Lake was reported by Gilbert in
June of 1894 (Logan and Markle 1993). While this mortality
may have been partly a result of post spawning stress,
it is also likely that hot calm conditions and the resulting
algal blooms could have degraded water conditions and
contributed to this occurrence. While this implies that
algal blooms in Upper Klamath Lake are natural and occurred
before any large-scale anthropogenic activity around the
lake, reported fish kills seem to have increased in frequency
through time. Summer fish kills have also occurred in
numerous nutrient rich lakes in Canada (Barica 1975).
In an effort to assist recovery of diminished native Upper
Klamath Lake fish stocks, extensive cooperative work between
local environmental agencies has been initiated to explore
and enact actions which will ultimately ameliorate conditions
which result in these fish kills.
[Return to Top]
REFERENCES
Barica, J. 1975. Summerkill risk in prairie ponds and
possibilities of its prediction. Journal Fisheries Research
Board of Canada. Vol 32, pp. 1283-1288.
Bortleson G.C., and M.O. Fretwell. 1993. A review of
possible causes of nutrient enrichment and decline of
endangered sucker populations in the Upper Klamath Lake,
Oregon. U.S.G.S. Water-Resources Investigations Report
93-4087, p. 24.
Gearheart, R.A., J.K Anderson, M.G. Forbes, M. Osburn,
and D. Oros. 1995. Watershed strategies for improving
water quality in Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon. Humboldt
State University, Environmental Resources Engineering
Department. 3 Volumes.
Kaffka, S.R., Lu, T.X., and H.L. Carlson. 1995. An assessment
of the effects of agriculture on water quality in the
Tule lake Region of California. Research Progress Report
108. Univ. Of California. p. 85.
Kann, J. and V.H. Smith. 1993. Chlorophyll as a predictor
of elevated pH in a hypertrophic Lake: Estimating the
probability of exceeding critical values for fish success.
Klamath Tribes Research Report: KT-93-02. The Klamath
Tribes, Chiloquin, Oregon. p. 22.
Logan, D.J., and D.F. Markle 1993. Fish faunal survey
of Agency Lake and northern Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon.
In Environmental research in the Klamath Basin, Oregon
- 1992 Annual Report. S.G. Campbell (ed.) p. 341.
Matsunaga, S., Moore, R.E., Niernezura, W.P., and W.W.
Carmichael. 1989. Anatoxin-a(s) a potent anticholinesterase
from Anabaena flos-aquae, J. Amer. Chem. Soc., vol. 111,
pp. 8021-8023.
Miller, W.F, and J.C. Tash. 1967. Interim report: Upper
Klamath Lake Studies, Oregon, Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration. p. 37.
Monda, D.P. and M.K. Saiki. 1993. Tolerance of Juvenile
Lost River and Shortnose suckers to high pH, ammonia concentration,
and temperature, and to low dissolved oxygen concentration.
In Environmental research in the Klamath Basin, Oregon
- 1992 Annual Report. S.G. Campbell (ed.) p. 341.
Oshima, Y., Sugino, K., and T. Yasumoto. 1989. Latest
advances in HPLC analysis of paralytic shellfish toxins.
In: Mycotoxins and phycotoxins, Natoris, S., Hashimoto,
K., and Ueno, T. [Eds], Elsevier, New York, pp. 319-326.
Piper, R.G, I.B. McElwain, L.E. Orme, J.P. McCraren,
L.G. Fowler, and J.R. Leonard. 1982. Fish Hatchery Management.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Washington D.C. p. 517.
|
