1. What are stem cells?

2. What is the difference between embryonic and adult stem cells?

3. Why do we hear more about embryonic stem cells than adult stem cells in the media?

4. Can adult stem cells transform into any cell of the body?

5. Do StemTech or the StemEnhance product contain stem cells?

6. What do StemTech products and in particular StemEnhance do?

7. What role do adult stem cells play in the body?

8. What is the adult stem cell theory of renewal?

9. How often are tissues renewed?

10. How do adult stem cells work in the renewal process?

11. What is the health benefit of taking StemEnhance^®?

12. What is StemEnhance made from and how is it different than just whole Aphanizomenon flos-aquae?

13. What is the key benefit of Mobilin^™?

14. What are the key benefits of Phenylethylamine (PEA) and Phycocyanin?

15. Is StemEnhance Vegetarian? Kosher? Halal? Organic?

16. Is StemEnhance genetically modified?

17. Is the Aphanizomenon flos-aquae (AFA) used in StemEnhance farmed or wild crafted?

18. What is the recommended usage for StemEnhance?

19. What is the optimum way to take StemEnhance?

20. What is the science behind StemEnhance?

21. Will StemEnhance deplete my bone marrow’s supply of adult stem cells?

22. What happens to circulating adult stem cells if they do not reach tissue in need?

23. Does StemEnhance contain iodine?

24. Can adult stem cells lead to abnormal cells such as cancer?

25. Is StemEnhance approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)?

26. Why does the StemEnhance label state “consult your physician if you are pregnant or nursing”? What if I get pregnant while I am taking StemEnhance?

27. Can StemEnhance be taken with other nutrients?

28. Can StemEnhance be taken with other Stemtech adult stem cell nutrition products?

29. Why does the label say that people taking anticoagulants should consult their physician prior to taking StemEnhance, and what information does their physician need?

30. Can StemEnhance be taken with medications?

31. Can someone being treated by a health care practitioner with health conditions take StemEnhance?

32. Can a person of any age take StemEnhance?

33. Does StemTech use vegetarian capsules?

34. Does the x-raying procedure performed by some shipping services damage Stemtech products?

35. Is StemEnhance patented?

36. Why does the color and smell of StemEnhance seem to change? Sometimes it is darker than other times, and has a different odor.

37. Why has StemTech elected to use network marketing as its distribution channel?

 

1. What are stem cells? 

Stem cells are cells that have the ability to duplicate themselves over and over and transform into cells of virtually any tissue of the body. There are two categories of stem cells: embryonic and adult.
Back to FAQs

2. What is the difference between embryonic and adult stem cells?

Embryonic stem cells are stem cells that are found in the embryo and are responsible for becoming all the different cell lines for the development of a baby. Adult stem cells are stem cells found in the body after birth. Until recently, it was believed that adult stem cells could only become blood cells, bone cells and connective tissue. However, recent developments have shown that adult stem cells can become virtually any cell in the body. 
Back to FAQs 3. Why do we hear more about embryonic stem cells than adult stem cells in the media?

Firstly, there is controversy linked to the use of embryonic stem cells and not to the use of adult stem cells. From a research point of view embryonic stem cells were originally thought to be more useful because they were easier to grow and manipulate into other cells outside the body, ie, in a test tube.

 Back to FAQs
 

4. Can adult stem cells transform into any cell of the body? 

Yes, recent scientific studies have shown that adult stem cells can transform into virtually any type of cell in the body. For example adult stem cells came become brain cells, kidney cells, heart cells, muscle cells, etc. 

Back to FAQs
 

5. Do StemTech products or StemEnhance contain stem cells? 

Our products DO NOT contain stem cells of any kind and are not associated with embryonic stem cells or treatments involving any kind of stem cells.

Back to FAQs
 

6. What do StemTech products do?

StemTech's products support the natural release and activity of adult stem cells in the body. 

Back to FAQs
 

7. What role do adult stem cells play in the body?

The US National Institutes of Health states that the role of adult stem cells in the body is that of tissue maintenance and repair. 

Back to FAQs
 

8. What is the adult stem cell theory of renewal?

The Adult Stem Cell Theory of Renewal proposes that adult stem cells are naturally released by the bone marrow and travel through the bloodstream and into tissues to promote the body’s natural process of tissue renewal. 

Back to FAQs
 

9. How often are tissues renewed?

Cells in the body are continually turning over, meaning cells are expiring and new cells are taking their place, contributing to tissue renewal. For example:
Your tissues completely renew themselves over the course of time: 
 
  10. How do adult stem cells work in the renewal process?

When tissues have a need for renewal, adult stem cells work in following manner:
 

1. Messengers are sent by tissues in need requesting the release of adult stem cells from the bone marrow.
2. Adult stem cells circulate in the bloodstream.
3. New messengers attract adult stem cells to migrate into tissues where the adult stem cells reproduce and become new healthy cells of that tissue.

Back to FAQs

  11. What is the health benefit of taking StemEnhance^®?

StemEnhance supports the natural release of your own adult stem cells from the bone marrow into the circulation. Many scientific studies have shown that a greater number of circulating adult stem cells equates to a greater quality of health and well being. 

Back to FAQs

 

12. What is StemEnhance made from and how is it different than just whole Aphanizomenon flos-aquae?

StemEnhance is a all natural, patented blend of proprietary nutrient-dense concentrates of Aphanizomenon flos-aquae (AFA). The Mobilin^™component is rich in a naturally occurring molecule that has been documented to support the release of adult stem cells. Whole AFA, on the other hand, is not concentrated. 

StemEnhance is specifically designed and developed to support adult stem cell physiology, but it also concentrates other beneficial naturally occurring nutrients which include phenylethylamine (PEA), phycocyanin, polyunsaturated fatty acids, chlorophyll, and others thereby providing unique support for the whole body.

Back to FAQs 
 

13. What is the key benefit of Mobilin^™?

The key benefit of Mobilin^™ is that it contains a molecule known as an L-selectin ligand that has been documented in a published scientific study (see FAQ 19) to support the release of adult stem cells from the bone marrow. 

Back to FAQs
 

14. What are the key benefits of Phenylethylamine (PEA) and Phycocyanin? 

Phenylethylamine (PEA), a naturally occurring nutrient found in some foods such as AFA, has been coined as “the molecule of joy.” Phycocyanin is an antioxidant. PEA has been documented to support a healthy mood. A key benefit of PEA is that it is a natural compound made by the brain whenever one feels content and happy. A key benefit of Phycocyanin is that it supports the body in maintaining a healthy inflammatory balance.

Back to FAQs
 

15. Is StemEnhance Vegetarian? Kosher? Halal? Organic? 

StemEnhance is a vegetarian/vegan product that contains no sugar, artificial colors, artificial flavors, soy, dairy, yeast or preservatives. It is certified Kosher and Halal – please click the links to see the certification letters. The StemEnhance AFA concentrate is certified organic and is produced by a certified organic facility. 

Back to FAQs
 

16. Is StemEnhance genetically modified?

No, StemEnhance is not genetically modified. 

Back to FAQs
 

17. Is the Aphanizomenon flos-aquae (AFA) used in StemEnhance farmed or wild crafted?

The AFA used to produce StemEnhance is wild crafted. Wild crafted means that it grows naturally. 

Back to FAQs
 

18. What is the recommended usage for StemEnhance? 

The suggested usage for StemEnhance is two capsules once or twice a day.

Back to FAQs
 

19. What is the optimum way to take StemEnhance?

StemEnhance can be taken any time of day with or without food. 

Back to FAQs
 

20. What is the science behind StemEnhance? 
StemEnhance was tested in a double-blind, placebo controlled, crossover study that was published in the peer reviewed journal, Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine, in September 2007. The study documented that the consumption of one gram (two capsules) of StemEnhance supported the natural release of adult stem cells, significantly increasing the number of circulating adult stem cells in the body approximately three million additional adult stem cells in the circulation. 

Back to FAQs
 

21. Will StemEnhance deplete my bone marrow’s supply of adult stem cells? 

StemEnhance will not deplete the supply of adult stem cells in your bone marrow. The bone marrow continually produces and releases adult stem cells into the bloodstream over the course of your life. In the bone marrow, adult stem cells reproduce though a self preserving mechanism called asymmetrical reproduction. Through this process, anytime an adult stem cell is released from the bone marrow it leaves a sister cell in the bone marrow, maintaining the bone marrow’s adult stem cell population constant. 

The increase in the number of circulating stem cells by an average of approximately 3 million following consumption of one gram (2 capsules) of StemEnhance is well within normal physiological range and does not constitute stress on the bone marrow environment. 
Back to FAQs 22. What happens to circulating adult stem cells if they do not reach tissue in need?

Adult stem cells that are not used to renew tissue simply go back into the bone marrow.

Back to FAQs
 

23. Does StemEnhance contain iodine?

Unlike some seaweeds from the ocean, the Aphanizomenon flos-aquae(AFA) used to create StemEnhance is a freshwater algae and contains a very small amount of iodine - only 0.39 mcg per gram. The Recommended Daily Allowance of iodine is 150 mcg. For further reference, one slice of bread contains roughly 6 mcg of iodine; one medium egg has 14 mcg; and one gram of Kelp (a type of seaweed from the ocean) contains approximately 5000 mcg. 

Back to FAQs
 

24. Can adult stem cells lead to abnormal cells such as cancer? 

Unlike embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells released from the bone marrow have not been found to lead to abnormal cell growth. A study using StemEnhance was published in a scientific journal, Anticancer Research, in January 2009, and provides additional information about this subject. Visit: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19331184 

Back to FAQs
 

25. Is StemEnhance approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)?

StemEnhance is a dietary supplement, not a drug, and is not intended to treat, cure or prevent illness or disease. Its benefits have therefore not been evaluated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). However, the FDA does regulate the labeling and safety of the dietary supplements, such as StemEnhance. StemEnhance is manufactured in a licensed, FDA-inspected facility in accordance with Good Manufacturing Practices.

Back to FAQs
 

26. Why does the StemEnhance label state “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 caution rather than any known pregnancy risk. StemTech is not aware of any evidence that consuming StemEnhance during pregnancy will create a health risk.

Back to FAQs
 

27. Can StemEnhance be taken with other nutrients?

Yes. There are no known nutrient–nutrient interactions with StemEnhance

Back to FAQs
 

28. Can StemEnhance be taken with other Stemtech adult stem cell nutrition products?

Yes, StemTech products are for complete adult stem cell support.

Back to FAQs

  29. Why does the label say that people taking anticoagulants should consult their physician prior to taking StemEnhance, and what information does their physician need?

The statement on the label pertains to the anticoagulant medication called Coumadin^™ or warfarin. People taking warfarin are typically advised by their prescribing physician to pay attention to the amount of vitamin K in their diet. Like many green foods, StemEnhance contains naturally occurring vitamin K.

The US Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) of vitamin K is 80 mcgs. Two capsules of StemEnhance have approximately 40 mcgs of vitamin K. For further reference, half a cup of raw chopped broccoli has roughly 100 mcg of vitamin K and half a cup of boiled spinach has about 540 mcg of vitamin K. 

Back to FAQs
 

30. Can StemEnhance be taken with medications? 

As for medications other than anticoagulants (see FAQ 29 for information on anticoagulant medications), there are no known contraindications associated with taking StemEnhance. However, there is a theoretical possibility of an interaction with anti-depressant medications. 

This is because StemEnhance contains a naturally occurring nutrient known as phenylethylamine (PEA) as do some other naturally occurring foods like chocolate. PEA is a natural compound made by the brain whenever one feels content and happy; it has been described as “the molecule of love.” Consumption of PEA has been documented to support mood. Interactions with antidepressant medications have not been reported, but it is a theoretical consideration and people should consult their healthcare practitioner. 

Back to FAQs
 

31. Can someone being treated by a health care practitioner with health conditions take StemEnhance? 

Due to the naturally occurring nutrient PEA (phenylethylamine) in StemEnhance, there is a theoretical possibility that it may be contraindicated in people with mania or bipolar disorder though this is not based on any known ill effect (see FAQ 30 regarding the benefits of PEA).

There is also a theoretical possibility that StemEnhance may be contraindicated in people having a disease of the bone marrow, though this is not based on any known ill effect. Although there are no known ill effects, it is recommended that people with these conditions consult their health care practitioner prior to taking StemEnhance.

As with any dietary supplement, it is recommended that you consult with your physician prior to using StemEnhance if you are being treated by a health care practitioner or taking medications of any kind. We suggest that you make information like these FAQ’s available to your health care practitioner, so they can make an educated decision. There are no known risks resulting from the use of StemEnhance. 

Back to FAQs
 

32. Can a person of any age take StemEnhance?

Yes, just follow the directions on the label and do so under adult supervision.

Back to FAQs
 

33. Does Stemtech use vegetarian capsules? 

Yes. Stemtech uses vegetarian capsules that are commonly used in the dietary supplement industry. They contain no gelatin or animal by-product of any kind. They are essentially made of cellulose, a polysaccharide fiber found in vegetables. 

Back to FAQs
 

34. Does the x-raying procedure performed by some shipping services damage Stemtech products?

To the best of our knowledge, Stemtech’s products are not affected by the levels of radiation used when shipping services randomly x-ray packages for security reasons.

Back to FAQs
 

35. Is StemEnhance patented?

Yes, StemEnhance has two patents. One patent is a Use Patent that pertains to the use of Aphanizomenon flos-aquae (AFA) for supporting adult stem cell physiology. The second patent is a Composition Patent that has been filed world-wide. The Composition Patent pertains to the specific components in AFA that are responsible for adult stem cell support. 

Back to FAQs
 

36. Why does the color and smell of StemEnhance seem to change? Sometimes it is darker than other times, and has a different odor.

StemEnhance is a natural product, and in nature color and odor are not consistent. Depending on weather conditions and the time of year, the color of the patented StemEnhance concentrate can vary from dark green to a medium green and sometimes to what some would call a slight brownish color. The odor may also vary. No matter the color and odor, the nutrients that support your adult stem cell physiology remain constant. 

Back to FAQs
 

37. Why has StemTech elected to use network marketing as its distribution channel?

The Stem Cell Theory of Renewal constitutes a new paradigm in wellness, and StemTech's products are the first in a new category of nutrition products known as adult stem cell nutrition. An educational process is therefore needed to help consumers understand the benefits of this new technology.

Relationship-based network marketing has many advantages over store shelves in this regard, offering an effective method to generate awareness about adult stem cell nutrition and educate people about the "Stem Cell Theory of Renewal" paradigm. Likewise, network marketing provides satisfied consumers and entrepreneurs with the opportunity to develop their own home-based business, generate extra income and be their own boss. 

Back to FAQs
 

---

 

 

 

OTHER FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

• Response to Mr. Stephen Barrett of MLM Watch.org and the National Council Against Health Fraud
• The Whole Story About Microcystin and AFA
• Aphanizomenon flos-aquae Review of The Literature Regarding Neurotoxicity
• Quality and Safety of Klamath Lake Blue-Green Algae

 

 

 

Recently, people conducting an Internet search on "adult stem cell enhancer" were surprised to find an article by Stephen Barrett already raising doubts about StemEnhance and adult 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. 
 

Back to Top

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 adult 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 adult stem cells in the blood was one of the best indicators of cardiovascular health. Elevating the number of adult stem cells in the blood has been shown to improve health in many ways. [3-6] StemEnhance supports the natural release of adult stem cells from the bone marrow and increases the number of circulating adult stem cells, 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 adult 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. 

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 concentrate of AFA, and just like 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 adult stem cells everyday. Here also the safety is unquestionable. The normal range for the number of circulating stem cells is between 1.2 and 5.0adult stem cells per L of blood. An increase of 3-4 million adult stem cells in the circulation would at most mean an increase of 1.5 cells per L, which is well within normal physiological range. Looking at this from a different angle, Krause et al. [7] reported that one adult single stem cell was enough to reconstitute the entire hematopoietic (red blood cell) and immune systems. If one single adult stem cell can do this, then the billions of adult stem cells left in the bone marrow after taking StemEnhance can maintain a healthy and strong bone marrow. 

4. How can users be certain that long-term use will not cause abnormal tissue growth?

The release of adult 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 adult stem cells from the bone marrow. Abnormal cellular growth has only been seen when manipulating adult stem cells in test tubes. 

5. For whom is the product advisable?

Since StemEnhance supports the natural release of adult 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 bodys natural renewal system. 

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 animalshave 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 Barretts lack of expertise in this field. 

Anyone interested to see if there are only "a few studies" showing that circulating adult 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 adult stem cells were seen to become functional cells of the skin, liver, colon, intestine, stomach, esophagus, kidney and lung. Bone marrow adult 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 Barretts 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 adult 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, Barretts 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"

"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." 

References
 

Back to Top

 

 

---

  Back to Top

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. 

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 publics attention, because of the industrys 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 g/g was considered a safe level. A similar safe level (5 g/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 g/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 g/g and even 10 g/g were safe for human consumption, even children, the Oregon Department of Agriculture decided to pass a regulation establishing 1 g/g as the maximum acceptable concentration (MAC). The actual safe level determined by animal studies was between 2,500 and 6,000 g 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 g/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 g/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 g/g. However, DLTs position has been to fully integrate the regulatory level of 1 g/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 g/g.
 

---

 

Back to Top

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. 

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 1990s 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:

 
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 1980s plus frequent regular testing since 1991 have failed to reveal any neurotoxins in Upper Klamath Lake Aph. flos-aquae (Carmichael et al., 2000). 

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. 

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:

 
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:

 
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. 
 

Back to Top

References

 

 

---

  Back to Top

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 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. 

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 lakes 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 lakes 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.

References

Back to Top