Crusador Interviews Fat & Oils Expert Udo Erasmus

May 17, 2007

When it comes to the subject of fats and oils, no name stands out more prominently than Udo Erasmus. It was Udo’s tireless work into fats and oils in the early 1980’s that revolutionized a whole new industry. Since his first publication in 1986, Udo has become an international authority on the subject of fats that heal and fats that kill. In his best-selling book, Udo says:

“Healing fats are required, together with other nutrients, to prevent and reverse so-called “incurable” degenerative disease: heart disease, cancer, and Type II diabetes. Healing fats help reverse arthritis, obesity, PMS, allergies, asthma, skin conditions, fatigue, yeast and fungal infections, addictions, certain types of mental illness, and many other conditions. Good fats also enhance athletic performance, skin beauty, longevity, and energy levels. Contrary to popular belief based on advertising hype, the most dangerous fats are typically found in margarine, shortening, and heated oils.”

In this interview, Udo exposes the manufacturing process that turns healing fats into killing fats. He also explains the effects of these damaged fats on human health, and discloses information that enables you to choose health-promoting oils such as the all-important Omega-3’s and Omega-6’s.

Crusador: Udo, tell us a little bit about your background and how you’ve become one of the most respected authorities on the subject of fats and oils? 

I got poisoned by pesticides back in 1980. Medical doctors couldn’t help me, and since I’m not a very good victim, I decided I would figure out how to help myself. I had, by the way, taken a year of medicine as part of my training at the University of British Columbia because I wanted to learn about health. I realized very quickly that medicine teaches only about disease.

I knew that fats and cancer have a relationship, so I got focused on health. Pesticides and cancer also have a relationship; 60% of the pesticides we spray are carcinogenic. Because of the cancer connection, I thought I needed to understand fats, so I researched the literature and dug out everything I could find on fats.

Thinking that I had cancer from being exposed to pesticides, I spent almost six years studying fats.  I was surprised to find out how much damage is done to oils by the processing that is used to make cooking oils, fish oils, and even borage oil, but particularly cooking oils, because that’s what people consume the most.

It goes like this: in order to give a long shelf life to an oil that by nature has a short shelf life, the oil industry treats that oil with corrosive base (NaOH), then with window-washing acid (H3PO4), in order to remove substances in the oil that are good for health, but shorten shelf life. The oil is then bleached, which turns it rancid. Then, to blow-off the rancidity, the oil is heated to frying temperature. When that’s done, you have a supermarket cooking oil. That’s been done to all oils normally used, except for extra virgin olive oil. Research says about 0.5 to 1% of the oil molecules are changed and damaged during this processing. They become cyclized, cross-linked, fragmented, bond-shifted, and polymerized. The problem is that when you change a molecule from natural to unnatural you usually change it from healthy to toxic.

Crusador:  It seems like a lot more than 1% is damaged when you talk about all the chemicals that are used to obtain the oil.

No, it’s only 0.5 to 1%, which doesn’t sound like much, but it’s a problem of major proportions. Let me start to explain this problem with a story. One day, I asked a chemist at the American Oil Chemists’ Society, “When you know how much damage is done to oils by processing, why do you do it?” He said: “This treatment removes 50% of the pesticides present in the oil.” I thought to myself: The other 50% stays in the oil.

So I asked him: “Why don’t you start with organically grown seeds that are free of pesticides?” There was a long silence at the other end of the phone. When he came back to me, he was really angry, and said, “I don’t know what your problem is. The oil is still 99% good – it’s only one percent damaged.

If you got 99% on an exam in school, you’d be pretty happy, wouldn’t you?” I wrote a few exams in which I got 100%, so I was not as impressed with 99% as he was! But then I thought “Gee, maybe he’s overreacting because I’ve overreacted.” It occurred to me to do the math. How many toxic molecules (and research shows them to be very toxic) do you get in oil that is 1% damaged by processing?

In science there is a special number — six followed by 23 zeros, called Avogadro’s Number – which is the number of molecules contained in the number of grams of that substance that are equivalent to its molecular weight. It’s a little bit technical for non-chemists, but the math (I’ve rounded the numbers to make it a bit easier) based on this number is easy to follow.

First Question: How may oil molecules are in a liter (quart) of oil? The molecular weight of an oil (triglyceride) molecule is about 1,000. A liter of oil (close to 1,000 grams) contains about 6 followed by 23 zeros molecule. A number with 23 zeros is huge.

Second Question: How many oil molecules are in one tablespoon? There are about 100 tablespoons in a quart of oil. To get the number of molecules in 1% of the oil, you knock two zeros off the 23, which leaves you with six followed by 21 zeros. Still a huge number.

Third Question: How many toxic molecules are in a tablespoon of oil that is 1% damaged by processing? To get that number, you knock off two more zeros, leaving six followed by 19 zeros as the number of toxic molecules in one tablespoon of oil that is 1% damaged by processing. These numbers apply to our usual food oils.

That’s a humungous number of toxic molecules. The number is incomprehensibly large, so let me break it down for you. One million toxic molecules for every one of your body’s 60 trillion cells are present in just one tablespoon of food oil that’s 1% damaged by processing.

Crusador: Are you talking about trans fats, Udo?

No, I’m not. Trans fats make up only about 1 to 2% of the toxic molecules in processed oils. I’m talking about other, more toxic molecules: cyclized, cross-linked, fragmented, bond-shifted oils, polymerized – all kinds of different damaged oil molecules; everything except extra virgin olive oil.

Crusador:  How could it be possible that there are no trans fats in a product that contains highly processed vegetable oils such as canola and soy?”

Because the oil itself, even by the processing that I’ve just described, will have less than a half percent of trans fats. The regulations state that if there’s less than 0.5% trans fats in a product, you can round it to: “No trans fats.” You have to have more than half a percent before you have to put trans fats on the label. But the amount of trans fats is not that big. The other damaged molecules in processed oils are much more toxic than trans fatty acids. They’re more toxic because the body can actually burn trans fatty acids, but it doesn’t know what to do with cyclized and cross-linked molecules. Sometimes they get polymerized, which means you have a whole lot of cross-linked molecules, and the body doesn’t know what to do with that. In fact, that’s how you get brown spots on your skin. They are called ‘liver spots’ or lipofuscin.

But let me go back to the million toxic molecules per cell – why are they a problem? Your genetic program is fixed, but how it works is really flexible. If you give it the right molecules from nature, it will build healthy cells, tissues, glands, and organs.  If you give it unnatural, synthetic, toxic molecules, this same genetic program can build tumors, deposits in arteries, pain in joints with swelling and inflammation, and the other molecular reactions that we call “disease.” This means that your genetic program is your program not only for health, but also for disease.

When a doctor says your problem is genetic, he’s right because almost everything that goes on in your body is genetic. But when he says you can’t do anything about it (so shut up and take his pill) he’s usually wrong, because the body is unbelievably responsive to changes in environmental molecular input. If your genetic program has food, water, air and light to work with, it does a good job and you end up with a healthy body. If your genes must contend with pesticides, plastics, pharmaceutical drugs, industrial chemicals, heavy metals, smoke, alcohol, and wrecked food molecules, then their functions will be affected in a way that produces disease. That is why environmental issues cannot be separated from health issues. Today, most of the molecules that change gene expression in the direction of disease are man-made, whether they come from processed foods, pharmaceutical drugs (with their side effects), pesticides or plastics. These synthetic, man-made molecules, are apt to interfere with the specific gene expression required for building a working body. 

How many toxic molecules per cell does it take to change gene expression? In genetics, we learned that in bacteria, only two molecules per cell are required to change gene expression. Bacterial cells are smaller than human cells – maybe 100 times smaller – so human cells might require two hundred molecules, maybe even 1,000 molecules to change gene expression – but we’re getting a million toxic molecules for each cell in the body in just a tablespoon. Most people use two or three tablespoons a day. If these oils are fried, they are even more damaged. 

When I learned about this damage from processing, I concluded that we should make oils with health rather than shelf life in mind. In 1983, as my first effort to make a positive difference, instead of just complaining about how bad oils are, I developed methods for creating healthy oils. Now, several oil manufacturers use the methods I developed and taught them.

Crusador:  Can you elaborate on that method at all?

Fundamentally, the oils need to be protected from light, oxygen, and heat while they’re being filtered, and while they’re being filled. They also need to be put in dark glass containers and refrigerated.

The second piece of important information that I found is about essential fatty acids. I knew that the word “essential”, when applied to nutrients, has a very specific meaning. An essential nutrient is one that the body must have for health, cannot itself make, and must therefore obtain from outside. Insufficiency (deficiency) of an essential nutrient leads to deterioration of health. Deficiency worsens with time. The symptoms of deficiency are degenerative in nature. Too little, for too long, of an essential nutrient leads to death. If enough of the essential nutrient is re-introduced into the diet, symptoms of the deficiency can be reversed.
 
That definition fits 20 minerals, 14 vitamins, 8 essential amino acids from proteins, and 2 essential fatty acids from fats.

The two essential fatty acids are called omega-6 (n-6) and omega-3 (n-3). N-6 (linoleic acid; LA) was established as “essential” in 1930, but n-3 (alpha-linolenic acid; ALA) essentiality for humans was established only in 1981, the year after I was poisoned and began to study fats. The timing was perfect to get in on applying this new information about n-3 being essential, which very few people knew at that time.

I also found out that our intake of n-6 has doubled over the past 100 years, albeit in a partially damaged form due to the destructive processing used, and that our intake of n-3 is down to 16% of the amount present in diets 150 years ago. Even in 1850, people were already not getting enough n-3 for best of health. Probably 95-99% of the population gets too little n-3 in their diet.

One of the main reasons for its decrease in the diet is that n-3 is quite sensitive to destruction by light, oxygen and heat. N-3 is five times more sensitive to damage than the n-6. If you process n-3 the same way as n-6 cooking oils, you do even more damage to n-3 oils than what has been done to n-6 oils.

Not a great deal of research had been done on n-3 in 1981. But, I wanted to know what health benefits people would experience if they increased their consumption of this essential fatty acid (n-3).

In 1986, using methods for making oils with health rather than shelf life in mind, I developed flax oil with a small group of people untrained in science but willing to work.

Why did I choose to make flax oil? Flax oil is the richest source of n-3 available to us. It contains almost twice the amount of n-3 than the n-3 rich fish oils. A second reason for starting with flax oil is that n-3 is the most sensitive of the essential nutrients and the most easily damaged oil. If I could successfully make flax oil with health in mind, any other oils I might want to make would be a piece of cake.

After the oil became available, I observed several pleasant changes in myself and in others. First, our skin became soft, smooth, and velvety. Second, we had more mental and physical stamina. After a few months, people reported that they seemed to be able to process better, solve problems faster, and that they felt smarter. Third, people reported that their mood was better, and that they suffered less from low mood and depression.

Over the past 20 years a great deal of research has been done on n-3. That research can be summed up in one sentence. Increasing intake of n-3 in the diet improves almost all of the degenerative conditions of our time. This is because they are essential for health. Every cell, tissue, gland, and organ must have them to function normally, and most people don’t get enough.

The third important thing I learned was that I became n-6 deficient by using flax oil as the only source of fat in my diet. This happened because flax is three and a half to four times richer in n-3 than n-6. N-3 and n-6 compete in the body for space on enzymes that convert these essential fatty acids into derivatives and hormones.

Too much n-3 crowds out n-6. Too much n-6 crowds out n-3. Flax oil has so much n-3 and so little n-6 that after a few months of exclusive use of this oil, n-6 deficiency results. I got dry eyes, skipped heart beats, heart beat abnormalities, and thin dry papery skin. Others reported more infections, eczema and psoriasis-like skin problems. And new research indicates that the high n-3, low n-6 ratio of flax can also increase cancer due to immune system deterioration from an n-6 deficiency. One can reverse all of these symptoms by changing the ratio (decreasing n-3 or increasing n-6 over what flax oil supplies). 

The traditional Inuit (Eskimo) diet provides the highest in n-3/n-6 ratio in the world. It is two and a half times richer in n-3 than n-6. Three and a half to four times is too high.  I did the experiment on myself and that’s when I realized we should be getting more n-6, also made with health rather than shelf life in mind. So, we have n-6 in the blend I formulated in quantities sufficient to prevent n-6 deficiencies but still emphasize n-3 because they also offer great health benefits.
 
Some people say that we should use flax oil because people get lots of n-6. You know they’re not interested in health when they say that, because the n-6 they’re recommending are damaged, provide toxic molecules (1 million for every one of the body’s 60 trillion cells), and increase inflammation and cancer.

To improve their health, I want people off those “white” oils just as I want people to avoid white sugar and white flour. To improve their health, I want people to use oils made with health in mind with the ratio on n-3 & n-6 that is optimal, just like I want them to use molasses and stevia instead of sugar.

People should refrain from cooking with oils made with health in mind. They can put these good oils on hot soup and steamed vegetables, but they should never be used for frying because frying overheats oils and makes them very toxic. Frying is a health-destroying habit, no matter what oil you use – even if it’s butter or coconut fat. If food turns brown during the cooking process, it has dried out, been overheated, and become toxic. The toxic molecules change the expression of many genes in the direction of inflammation and cancer. When you exceed a safe temperature and turn food brown you not only change the chemistry food and you’ve also damaged the oil.

Crusador:  There are two types of N-3’s on the market – alpha-linolenic acid and linoleic acid.

“LA” is linoleic acid, the n-6 essential fatty acid. “ALA” is alpha-linolenic acid. ALA is the seed n-3 – the basic 18-carbon, three double bond n-3. The other type of n-3 that you refer to is what is loosely known as the fish n-3: EPA and DHA. They have 20 carbons, five double bonds and 22 carbons, six double bonds, respectively. EPA and DHA are derivatives of the basic 18-carbon oils.

I say “loosely known as fish n-3” because the truth is that EPA and DHA are found, not only in fish, but also in krill and algae. They are also found in whale, seal, polar bear, and other polar creatures. The human body has a system of genes and enzymes whose job it is to convert ALA to EPA and DHA. The conversion requires several tightly controlled steps. I say this because there is controversy regarding this issue. Those who sell fish oils generally say that the body cannot do the conversion. It is not a new controversy, but let me shed some light on it.

From the time I started working with seed oils, and perhaps even before, the fish oil industry has said that the body can’t convert ALA to EPA and DHA. I would ask them: “Show me the studies” because I had read a lot of important research on fats and had never come across research that showed that the body can’t convert. Then they would change the story and say: “Well, the body of some people can’t convert.” When I asked for those studies, they’d say: “Well, the body of some people can’t convert enough.” And when I’d ask to see that research, they would say, “The body of some people can’t convert enough, maybe.” There were never studies that showed that the body can’t convert ALA to EPA and DHA.

The conversion issue is important, because DHA is required for brain function, vision, and sperm. If conversion was impossible and we did not have a source of DHA in the diet, we could not think, see, or reproduce.

Crusador:  Can you explain trans fats and the hydrogenation process so that our readers understand the difference?

The toxicity produced by the processing of cooking oils goes far beyond the problem of hydrogenation. Hydrogenation has been getting quite a bit of attention, while the overall toxicity within cooking oils has been almost completely neglected.

Fundamentally, when oil is hydrogenated, hydrogen is bubbled through the oil with the goal of changing liquid oil, which has a relatively short shelf life, into a plastic, spreadable fat that has an increased shelf life. Bubbling hydrogen gas through the oil in the presence of a nickel aluminum catalyst does two things: it destroys double bonds and twists the molecules. You go from an n-3 [Omega-3] to a trans fat to a damaged n-6 [Omega-6] to an n-9 [Omega-9] with one double bond to a saturated fat. If you completely hydrogenate oil, it will become a saturated solid fat – so hard that you’d need a chisel to break out pieces of it. Its melting point is about 70°C (158°F), which is substantially higher than body temperature (97°F).

Crusador:  Are hydrogenated fats and trans fats the same thing?

Not exactly! Completely hydrogenated fat contains no trans fats. You can only have trans fats in partially hydrogenated oils, which still contains double bonds in the molecule. It is a twist of the molecule around the double bond that makes a trans fatty acid. Without a double bond, a fat cannot be cis (natural) or trans (twisted) anymore.

Crusador:  We hear that hydrogenated fats and trans fats actually solidify the body’s cells – that the solidification process that occurs to the oils causes cells to solidify as well. Is there any truth to that?

That’s a simplistic way of explaining it. Trans fats do make membranes harder, which means the body will take cholesterol out of the membranes. Consequently, the body will need more n-3 and n-6 to return the membrane to its proper flexibility. Harvard studies show that trans fats double the risk of heart attack and increase risk of diabetes.

Crusador:  What’s the difference between saturated, polyunsaturated, and monounsaturated fat?

Saturated just means not essential (body can make it), no double bonds (a hard fat like butter, beef fat, pork fat). Monounsaturated means not essential, one double bond (olive oil, also in butter, beef and pork fat). Polyunsaturated means two or more double bonds. Usually, polyunsaturated is used to mean essential n-6, and “super-unsaturated” is sometimes used to mean essential n-3.

Fat molecules are bent by the double bonds they contain. They are made more liquid. The more double bonds a fatty acid has, the more liquid it is and the more chemically active it is.

Saturated fat is about two and a half times more stable than monounsaturated fat, which is two and a half times more stable than polyunsaturated fat, which is five times more stable than the seed n-3 super-unsaturated fats (ALA), which is five times more stable than fish n-3 (EPA and DHA).

The stability/chemical activity of oils determines the shelf life of fats and oils, as well as the energy levels that they can bring about in the body. The less stable the oil, the higher the energy it can produce in the body, and the more care it requires during processing.

Crusador:  We’re told to limit and avoid saturated fats and that saturated fats are bad for us. Is this true?

That’s true if the diet does not contain enough n-3, but false if n-3 intake is optimized. Saturated fats are a part of every cell membrane; they are good fuel; and the body can burn them. Ideally, saturated fats from animal sources (milk, cheese, eggs, chicken, beef etc…) should come from grass-fed, free-range, organic farms. Saturated fats have been given a bad reputation, but in conjunction with healthy n-3 fats, saturated fats from healthy sources can be very healthy. 

Here’s the story of saturated fats in context: In an n-3 deficient diet, saturated fats will make platelets stickier and will increase insulin-resistance. That means greater risk of heart attack, stroke, embolism, and diabetes. But n-3 makes platelets less sticky and decreases insulin sensitivity. Saturated fats and n-3 have opposite effects. In our fat consumption, we should first consume an optimal ratio of undamaged n-3 and n-6 essential fats, emphasizing n-3 because n-3 is too low in most people’s diets. As long as n-3 wins the competition, saturated fats won’t hurt you. And, for carbohydrate addicts, fats are better fuel than carbs, because fats won’t cause the blood sugar swings that lead to carb addiction.

Crusador:  What’s in your oil blend and why do you feel it is the most efficient?

The ratio comes from two considerations. One is the Eskimo diet. I wouldn’t go higher than two and a half times more n-3 than n-6 because there is no traditional diet higher than that. The second consideration is that we have gotten consistently better results from oils richer in n-3, provided they have enough n-6 not to make you deficient. My formula includes flax for n-3, sesame and evening primrose oils for n-6, rice germ and oat germ oils, and other minor ingredients. Then there are GMO-free lecithin and medium-chain triglycerides from coconut, and tocotrienols, which are antioxidants.

A wide range of ratios work for healthy people provided they get enough of both essential fatty acids for the needs of the body. If you’re deficient in n-3, you’re going to get deficiency symptoms. If you become n-6 deficient, you get a whole other set of symptoms, all of those are in my book. In order to achieve optimal health, both n-3 and n-6 have to be adequately supplied. If you’re healthy, a wide range of ratios works. But, in our society today, we have doubled n-6 intake and one-sixth n-3 intake compared to the year 1850. The degenerative diseases we die from improve when you increase n-3’s. I bring in enough n-6’s made with health in mind to prevent n-6 deficiency and still emphasize the n-3’s because those are the single most widespread essential nutrient deficiency of our time. I’ve been at this for over twenty years. I’ve been on the road and have talked to a ton of people – basically doing field research, not double blind placebo-controlled studies.

Crusador:  Thank you for spending the time with us on this interview, Udo.

I really appreciate your questions. It’s been a pleasure.