Chapter 39: (USA) Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) for copper: 0.9 mg – a scam
1993 version:
The US Government has a large volume reference book on vitamins and minerals:
Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin A, Vitamin K, Arsenic, Boron, Chromium, Copper, Iodine, Iron, Manganese, Molybdenum, Nickel, Silicon, Vanadium, and Zinc
https://www.nap.edu/download/10026 –free to download. 1993 version?
We are starting examining with the earlier version, since the 2001 version, while revised, keeps the RDA and UL the same.
This is the big “official government” study guide that lists plenty of studies, anecdotes, and reasoning, or lack thereof, that are used to supposedly justify things like the recommended daily allowances, or lack thereof, or the tolerable upper human limits for the various vitamins and minerals. This guide’s recommendations are often quoted by various other government agencies, and other governments around the world, and other writers act as if they are the ten commandments handed down by God himself. Fortunately, I do not worship government, I actually worship the real God, and so, fortunately for you, I have the confidence and ability to examine their evidence and reasons for things, as if they were just people, which I will now do.
Like anything government does, “government science” is likely the worst kind of science you will ever see.
Part of the reason for this is that governments, and people in governments, issue orders. Order makers who order people to write “sciency” things that support their dictates don’t seem to understand that this is not how science and truth actually work. The science is supposed to shape our views. We are not supposed to use our views to shape what the science says.
What they did to determine the RDA was use incomplete measurements of copper excretions in copper-deprived people, (they never tested a normal population!) which came to .5 mg of copper. They did not measure copper lost through breathing, nor sweating, nor the hair. Other studies show that a person can lose 1 mg of copper in the sweat on a hot day. They then tested giving people 0.58 mg of copper, and 8/10 tested deficient in copper. Then, they just arbitrarily increased it to .9 mg, with no further testing to see if that was sufficient. That is madness. And certainly not scientific.
Just so you follow their reasoning here, let’s examine food and water.
Let’s say you examine a person who is fasting, with no food or water. And then measure their urine output daily. Then conclude that is the amount of water people need to drink. Madness.
Let’s say you starve a person, giving them no food. Then weigh their poo every day, if they poo at all. Then conclude that people need to eat that weight of food. It’s insanity.
Let’s consider babies. Their bodies have five times as much copper, by weight, as adults.
p. 234 “High iron intakes may interfere with copper absorption in infants.”
p. 237-8: Human milk contains 250 mcg/L of copper. Cows milk contains 60-90 mcg/L. “Copper deficiency has been observed in infants fed cow milk (Cordano et al., 1964; Levy et al., 1985). ”
For reference sake, babies get .25 mg/Liter in breast milk, from your average mother, who may be copper deficient. But how much of a liter of milk do babies get?
“The research tells us that exclusively breastfed babies, aged 1 month to 6 months, take in an average of 25 oz (750 mL).”
.25mg/Liter x 75% Liter = .1875 mg of copper that babies get daily.
The weight of a 1-2 month baby is 10 pounds.
The average nursing mother gets the US national average of about .75 mg of copper, and absorbs only about 55% of that, or .41 mg. She then excretes about .19 mg for baby in her milk, leaving herself about .22 mg, and is thus very copper deficient.
Pregnant women need more copper, but neonatal supplements often are loaded with zinc and iron, which both block copper, and yet often contain zero copper!
Lack of copper causes depression. Has anyone heard of postpartum depression? It’s likely caused by the baby taking both the copper and iodine away from the mother.
For a grown man who weighs 20 times more than an infant, that implies .19 mg x 20 = 4 mg — again, that’s the equivalent of what a baby is getting from a mother who is low on copper herself.
Poisons often take several generations to end up creating infertility; this implies that mineral deficiencies may also take several generations to cause massive problems.
In other words, we might need more than 4 mg. Perhaps far more.
What if a mother was taking 25 mg of copper? What would her baby get? To my knowledge, that has not been tested.
The highest copper food, beef liver, a pound of liver contains 64 mg of copper. [Edit. That is no longer accurate; if the animals are copper-deficient, then the liver may have no copper.] A pound of oysters contains 37 mg. And a historical RDA for copper was 3 mg.
p. 229: “Several indicators are used to diagnose copper deficiency. These indicators—serum or plasma copper concentration, ceruloplasmin concentration, and erythrocyte superoxide dismutase activity (SOD)—are low with copper deficiency and respond to copper supplementation”
p. 230: “Serum copper concentration is a reliable indicator of copper deficiency, falling to very low concentrations in copper-deficient individuals.”
I agree that if the serum copper is low, then a person is likely copper deficient. However, if serum copper is high, this does not indicate that a person has sufficient copper, and is not also suffering from copper deficiency symptoms, because blood copper levels rise as a result of all sorts of copper deficiency symptoms. A second reason testing is a bad indicator is that if the average person is copper deficient, then testing “above average” is merely “above deficient”, and could still be deficient. So testing is less than worthless if it leads people to be deceived into thinking they are above average, and “not deficient” if they actually are deficient. As we saw, 80% of people are copper deficient, getting less than the RDA daily.
“Ceruloplasmin concentration is also a reliable indicator of copper deficiency. Ceruloplasmin carries between 60 and 95 percent of serum copper, and changes in serum copper concentration usually parallel the ceruloplasmin concentration in the blood. Ceruloplasmin, too, falls to low concentrations with copper deficiency, far below the lower end of the normal range of 180 mg/L, and it responds quickly to repletion (Danks, 1988).”
Once again, ceruloplasmin levels go up in response to copper supplementation (repletion).
p. 233 “Copper Balance // Balance studies have been used in the past to estimate dietary recommendations. Numerous copper balance studies in humans have been conducted over a wide range of intakes (Mason, 1979). Unfortunately, there are a number of problems with this approach, as reviewed by Mertz (1987). Copper balance, which can be achieved over a broad range of dietary copper intakes, reflects prior dietary intake; thus long adaptation is required for results to be meaningful. Seldom are studies long enough. Such studies are prone to numerous errors, and data from some studies would suggest that an unacceptable amount of copper would accumulate over time if these levels of retention were continued. In addition, miscellaneous losses, while small, are very difficult to quantify. Therefore, balance studies were not used as an indicator of copper status.”
In other words, if they give people copper, across a wide range, and then the person excretes that copper and stays in balance, they do not use that kind of approach.
p. 240: “Platelet copper concentration, however, declined significantly for eight of ten women fed 570 µg/day and increased with supplementation.” !!!
“While an EAR based on the first two studies was estimated at 550 µg/day, (.55 mg) the latter study suggests that 600 µg/day may be a marginal intake in over half of the population. Therefore, another increment was added to cover half of the population, and the EAR was set at 700 µg/day.”
This seems crazy to me. They know 0.58 mg is too low, so they arbitrarily move the number to 0.7 mg??! Where is the science? Where is the testing? Why did they not say what the supplementation level was to fix the deficiencies at 0.57 mg/day?
On p. 241: They do something very weird. On either copper restricted diets, or zero copper diets, they try to estimate copper losses. Then they imagine this might be a lower minimum. But this fails to take into account that the body might (and actually does) hold on to copper more tightly under such conditions. IE, more copper is absorbed, at a higher percentage, when a person is copper deficient. So, they are measuring copper excretion in copper-deficient people.
“There are no data on obligatory copper losses in healthy people.” This is troubling. They have avoided looking at healthy people. Why? Why would the government scientists avoid looking at healthy people, when trying to determine what healthy people need?
How is the RDA quoted in good conscience by anyone?
Because credentialed people simply have to memorize the “fact” that the Government established an RDA, and that simply needs to be memorized for the sake of the government test to get your grade, and thus, credential. The government’s determination is not a fact, it’s an opinion, and very poorly formed opinion, at that. That is not science.
p. 242: “Other losses, such as hair, nails, semen, or menstrual, have not been measured, and it is assumed they are similar to surface losses. Therefore the amount of absorbed copper needed to replace obligatory losses is 344 µg/day (240 + 20 + 42 + 42). Copper absorption at this level of intake is approximately 75 percent. Therefore, 460 µg/day of dietary copper would be the minimum amount required to replace obligatory losses. Endogenous fecal copper was 50 µg/day higher at 380 µg/day than at 460 µg/day, and so 50 µg/day was added to endogenous fecal losses to account for the increase that occurs between 380 and 460 µg/day. Thus 510 µg/day (460 + 50) of dietary copper is required to replace copper losses from all sources and to achieve zero balance.”
They are specifically trying to come up with a minimum daily intake (EAR Estimated Average Requirement) that will be too low and create deficiencies; and they already know a higher level 580 ug/day or 0.58 mg creates deficiencies in 8/10 women! Why then would they think .51 mg would lead to “balance”? It’s insane. Problems: They are not measuring copper being used up through exercise, lost in sweat, or copper being blocked by other supplements or environmental toxins. This is HORRIFIC science. Well, it is government science.
p 242,243: “The data available to set an EAR are limited for men and women, as well as the number of levels of dietary copper in depletion/repletion studies. Thus, a CV of 15 percent is used. The RDA is defined as equal to the EAR plus twice the CV to cover the needs of 97 to 98 percent of individuals in the group (therefore, for copper the RDA is 130 percent of the EAR). The calculated RDA is rounded to the nearest 100 µg.
RDA for Men 19–50 years 900 µg/day of copper 51–70 years 900 µg/day of copper > 70 years 900 µg/day of copper
RDA for Women 19–50 years 900 µg/day of copper 51–70 years 900 µg/day of copper > 70 years 900 µg/day of copper”
In other words, they never tested the RDA of .9 mg, to see if it also created copper deficiency! They just arbitrarily added a few percent to what was clearly causing deficiencies, assuming that would be enough.
Then, they failed to do any further tests.
But if it’s not tested, it’s not testable, and not repeatable, and not science.
This is a “dictate” and should be utterly disregarded.
Even the words they choose to use are fraudulent. “Recommended”? Not even close. Did they do one bit of study showing that this is the ideal amount for humans to take? Did they give low and medium and high levels across a wide array of ranges near to that level and then determine at which level is optimal, with the least adverse outcomes? No. In fact, they specifically excluded those approaches, slandering them as “balance” studies. This is government. Government issues dictates, and forces people to comply or else they use force. This is government complying with a court order to determine the lowest possible minimum requirement for prisoners. These are scientists with a gun to their head, out to comply with an extremely biased agenda.
I get the feeling by reading their work that a supervisor told the researchers who compiled their “big book” something like this: “Make sure you figure out the absolute minimum to keep prisoners alive. The goal here is to both comply with this ridiculous court order to determine minimums, and also save the government money. Oh, hell, I don’t care if it takes years off their life, they are worthless people anyway. Just make sure you justify your work with some plausible scientific studies, some sort of words, and processes. Now hop to it, you have 3 months to comply!”
I certainly do NOT get the sense that their supervisor said, “Now, the court order has forced us to re-evaluate our mistakes. So we want to create the best health among prisoners that we can. The goal here is to help save money on medical bills. Vitamins and minerals are so super cheap, and we can buy them in bulk, so don’t worry about the cost of them. Instead, use this chance to help determine the most optimal ranges of each to determine optimal human health. We can use the prisoners as study subjects themselves, where you can take a few years to help determine the most optimal ranges of everything. If we do it right, we will revise our estimates each year as we go along and learn more.” Nope, none of that was implied by the methods used by the researchers, and no studies on prisoners were ever attempted.
There may be other bad agendas at work. Does the government consider the people the enemy? Some say the government has considered the people the enemy since World War II.
This also showcases the extreme limits and failures of people with “credentials” in the fields of nutrition, dieticians, and doctors. All would be trained merely to repeat the minimums set by the government-approved curriculum on a test. But these are not facts. These are opinions. Biased opinions. Poorly formed opinions. We can’t even call it science, because it was neither tested, nor repeated. The RDA should be ignored and forgotten, not remembered or quoted.
Another thing to consider: The RDA is actually a table of ranges, not just 0.9 mg for adults. There is a sliding scale of smaller amounts for teens, children, and infants, with a booster recommended for pregnant women and breastfeeding women. But infants typically supplement nothing. However, it is known that children have higher copper levels than adults. What is not known, and what was not studied, is how much copper children lose. They did not even test copper losses among healthy people. Do children naturally have more copper because they are typically more healthy? Does this correlate high copper with high health? Do children absorb more copper because they are more healthy? Do children need more copper because they are still growing? None of these questions appear to have been asked, let alone answered.
2001 RDA version:
Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin A, Vitamin K, Arsenic, Boron, Chromium, Copper, Iodine, Iron, Manganese, Molybdenum, Nickel, Silicon, Vanadium, and Zinc.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222312/
They continue to “struggle” to define an RDA, as follows:
“SELECTION OF INDICATORS FOR ESTIMATING THE REQUIREMENT FOR COPPER
Several indicators are used to diagnose copper deficiency. These indicators—serum or plasma copper concentration, ceruloplasmin concentration, and erythrocyte superoxide dismutase activity—are low with copper deficiency and respond to copper supplementation. However, except when diets are deficient in copper, they do not reflect dietary intake and may not be sensitive to marginal copper status. In addition, serum copper and ceruloplasmin concentrations increase during pregnancy and with a number of diseases, and therefore copper deficiency could be masked under these conditions. Platelet copper concentration and cytochrome c oxidase activity may be more sensitive to marginal intakes of dietary copper than plasma copper or ceruloplasmin concentration, but they have been measured in very few studies to date. No single indicator provides an adequate basis on which to estimate the copper requirement.”
This can be summed up as “tests do not work, since copper is elevated in the blood, even in conditions of copper deficiency, and during disease, and since we can’t use tests, we don’t know anything”.
Next, as in 1993, they try to explain why they ignore “balance” studies, across a wide array of intakes, as follows:
“Balance studies have been used in the past to estimate dietary recommendations. Numerous copper balance studies in humans have been conducted over a wide range of intakes (Mason, 1979). Unfortunately, there are a number of problems with this approach, as reviewed by Mertz (1987). Copper balance, which can be achieved over a broad range of dietary copper intakes, reflects prior dietary intake; thus long adaptation is required for results to be meaningful. Seldom are studies long enough. Such studies are prone to numerous errors, and data from some studies would suggest that an unacceptable amount of copper would accumulate over time if these levels of retention were continued. In addition, miscellaneous losses, while small, are very difficult to quantify. Therefore, balance studies were not used as an indicator of copper status.”
They endorse factorial analysis, as follows:
“Factorial Analysis
One approach to estimating minimum dietary mineral requirements is by the factorial method. Obligatory losses, the amounts of an element excreted with no dietary intake, are determined, and then the amount needed in the diet to replace these obligatory losses is calculated. Obligatory losses include urinary losses, gastrointestinal losses, sweat, integument, hair, nails, and other miscellaneous losses such as menstrual and semen losses. For copper, as for other elements, reliable values for many of these losses are not available. However, sufficient data are available to make reasonable estimates; therefore, this method can be used in support of estimates of dietary copper requirements made by other methods.”
In other words, they are endorsing their prior approach, used in 1993, when they tried to measure copper excretion in women given copper-deficient diets, but without mentioning the details, which is even more deceptive. The details are that the excretion they measured was .5 mg, then they tried to give that to women in diets, and they nearly all became copper deficient rather quickly, then they just bumped the number up to .9 mg, without any further testing to see if that was good. Again, that’s not science.
I note there are huge problems with this approach.
- As much as 1 mg of copper can be lost in the sweat alone in a day, as pointed out by others. This is already above the RDA.
- A huge volume of body mass is lost merely through breathing. It has been established that fat loss happens with the excretion of CO2. People can lose hundreds of pounds in this way up to, and over, a pound a day. How could they measure how much copper is lost in this way?
- They admit that reliable values for many types of losses are “not available”. Then why say “this method can be used…”?
- Why measure copper losses when people are on copper-deficient diets? Why not actually do a study, and give copper until copper deficiency symptoms resolve and people are healthy? They are specifically avoiding trying to study healthy people, and they refused to look at studies giving people ranges of copper to see which levels result in the healthiest outcomes. They called these “balance” studies. That’s bad science.
- Again, there is no attempt to determine an optimal level of copper intake per day.
- In studying how much copper babies get from milk, they are assuming that mothers in most people are not copper deficient. But if most mothers are copper deficient, which many studies have indicated, then this is not a reliable indicator either. Admittedly, babies do tend to accumulate more copper per unit of body mass than their mothers typically have, by about a factor of 3 to 5 times more copper. This also indicates that adults/mothers are copper deficient. Copper and iodine losses could both account for postpartum depression, as both are highly indicated as being so very important for the nerves and brain.
- Infants get 200 mcg copper per day or .19 to .2 mg. Infants weigh about 7-15 pounds from birth up to age one, or about 10 pounds. Adult men weigh up to 200 pounds. I weigh 230. 200 mcg x 20 = 4000 mcg, or 4 mg. The MINIMUM RDA should be 4 mg, not 0.9 mg. And again, this could be low if mothers are copper deficient, which they likely are.
- The RDA’s are not adjusted by weight. They are literally the same number for a 100-pound man as for a 400-pound man.
This is bad science. It’s so bad, it’s probably bad on purpose.
A baby is noted to have 13.7 mg of copper in the entire body, on average. I assume 7 pounds at birth. Average man 200 pounds. (Actual average, 197 pounds) 200/7 x 13.7 mg = 391 mg. However, the average adult person has 77 mg of copper. A baby thus has 391 mg / 77 mg more copper than an adult, which is 5 times more copper by concentration, on average.
Other researchers agree with my rough estimates and agree that the RDA’s were poorly established.
“Copper”
(Collins, 2011 Nov 3)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3226389/
“Dietary reference intakes for copper were established almost a decade ago (3). Based on a lack of experimental data”
Other Researchers Suggest an RDA of about 4 mg copper for a 100-kilo man.
Critical Review of Exposure and Effects: Implications for Setting Regulatory Health Criteria for Ingested Copper
2019 Dec 12
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31832729/
“Based on this approach [perhaps the prior cited study], an oral RfD of 0.04 mg Cu/kg/day would be protective of acute or chronic toxicity in adults and children.”
For a 100 kilo man, that’s 4 mg.