Chapter 41: (European Food Safety Authority) (UL): 5 mg – the same scam!
TOLERABLE UPPER INTAKE LEVELS
FOR VITAMINS AND MINERALS (Feb 2006)
European Food Safety Authority
https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/efsa_rep/blobserver_assets/ndatolerableuil.pdf
This is a 482-page document. They have a chapter on copper, which I will examine.
copper. p. 205
“The percentage absorption of dietary copper is strongly influenced by the amount of copper ingested (with the percentage absorption decreasing with increasing intakes (Turnlund et al, 1989; Turnlund, 1988). Turnlund et al (1989) used stable-isotope methodology to study copper absorption in adults. Diets were labelled extrinsically with 65Cu and copper absorption was dependent on the amount of copper in the diet. On a low copper (0.78 mg/day) diet, copper absorption was 55.6%, whereas it was 36.3% from the same diet with copper added to give total dietary intake of 1.68 mg/day and only 12.4% when copper was added to produce dietary intakes of 7.53 mg/day. A theoretical maximum absorptive capacity of 63-67% has been estimated from aggregate results of human copper absorption studies at various copper daily intakes (Wapnir, 1998)”
“A series of studies demonstrated that a 10-fold increase in dietary copper resulted in only twice as much copper being absorbed (Turnlund, 1991). Although subjects were in positive copper balance for the first six days, when intakes were increased from 0.8 to 7.5 mg/day, average retention decreased linearly during the next 18 days until it was negative during the last six days of the trial (Turnlund et al, 1989). The authors indicated that the negative balance must represent endogenous excretion of excess copper retained during the first six days of the trial. Indices of copper status, as a result of the body’s regulation of copper, are resistant to change except under extreme dietary conditions. Turnlund et al (1990) showed that when dietary intakes increased from 0.8 mg/day to 7.5 mg/day (for 24 days), putative indices of status, including plasma copper, erythrocyte superoxide dismutase (SOD), caeruloplasmin and urinary copper excretion were not significantly different. When dietary intake is very high, regulation is challenged. At first, balance is positive but later (approximately three weeks) it becomes negative as the excess copper retained early after a change in diet is eliminated (Turnlund et al, 1989). Therefore, any intervention studies should be at least of this duration. It has been estimated that copper excretion by infants, might be as low as 50 µg Cu/kg body weight (Aggett, 1999).”
OK, a 10 fold increase in copper, from 0.8 mg to 7.5 mg resulted in no net increase in copper in the body, over 3 weeks. It was all excreted rather easily. If it’s so easily excreted, how can it build-up, or be a poison? Even many copper enzymes were unchanged during the 24 days of the study, a rather short time. They also did not detect any ceruloplasmin increase, which is reported to happen with increased copper consumption by other researchers.
Many things that are good are easily excreted. B Complex Vitamins and Vitamin C are easily excreted. Iodine is easily excreted. Water is easily excreted. None of those are poisons, and being easily excreted is not a marker of a poison. In contrast, fluoride, a known neurotoxin, has a 20-year half-life in the body. Copper is reported elsewhere to have a 26-day half-life in the body.
3.2.3. Reproductive toxicity
There is some evidence to indicate an effect of exposure to copper compounds on animal reproduction. In some studies in rats, chronic oral exposure to 27-120 mg/kg bw per day of copper resulted in altered weight and/or histology of the testes, seminal vesicles, uterus or ovaries, albeit the results were not consistent. Other studies have demonstrated that exposure to copper compounds during gestation induced embryo/ foetotoxic effects at doses of 12 mg of copper/kg body weight and above (IPCS, 1999).
Birth alterations and fetal toxic effects start, in rats, at the equivalent of 2700 mg to 12,000 mg/day of copper for a 100-kilo man! So, to vilify “copper” they give huge amounts, up to beginning a lethal amount (over 10,000 mg equivalent), and declare it to be harmful? That’s not science. That’s a biased agenda. Others have noted zero reproductive harm from copper. Copper in reasonable amounts reduces miscarriage. Miscarriage is more commonly seen in copper deficiency. They are getting it all wrong!
“3.3.1. Acute Toxicity
Of 48 cases of copper poisoning examined, 12 were fatal and ingested doses ranged from 1 g to 100 g (1000 mg to 10,000 mg) copper dissolved in water (Chuttani et al, 1965). All cases were characterised by metallic taste, nausea and vomiting. Of the 12 fatal cases, seven apparently died from shock and hypotension or from subsequent renal damage with coma and uraemia. WHO have concluded that the fatal oral dose of copper salts is about 200 mg/kg body weight (WHO, 1993).”
Jason: “Fatal” is 20,000 mg copper for a 100-kilo man. Notice how they also lump “all cases of poisoning” in with lethal cases. They fail to mention at what level lethal doses start, implying they start at 1000 mg. They do not. Lethal cases are in the 20,000 mg range, and this only happens in remote villages in India, where their only access to potential poisons is ultra-cheap copper sulfate, and they are trying to commit suicide.
Also, note the way they quote the amounts. They use small numbers on purpose, and I have to translate those numbers into an appropriate milligram amount, showing that the dangerous amounts are huge numbers.
“3.3.2.4. Effects of copper supplementation
A subject given supplementary copper (30 mg/day) for two years followed by 60 mg/day for an unspecified period developed acute liver failure (O’Donohue et al, 1993). This level of chronic supplementation is extremely rare. Pratt et al (1985) saw no evidence of liver damage or gastrointestinal effects in seven subjects given 10 mg/day supplementary copper as copper gluconate for 12 weeks. Turley et al (2000) saw no effects of six week supplementation with 6 mg/day copper as copper amino acid chelates on LDL oxidizability in 24 healthy male and female subjects (FOODCUE project). Additional results from the FOODCUE project indicate no effect of copper supplementation (3 and 6 mg/day giving total copper intakes of approximately 4 and 7 mg/day respectively) on liver function and mononuclear leucocyte DNA damage as assessed by the comet assay (O’Connor et al, 2003). Moreover, a protective effect of supplementation with 6 mg copper (total intake approximately 7 mg/day copper) on erythrocyte oxidizability was observed in middle-aged subjects (Rock et al, 2000).
Urinary pyridinoline and deoxypyridinoline (markers of bone resorption) were significantly increased after six weeks of a low copper diet (0.69 mg/day) compared with a medium copper diet (1.6 mg/day), and significantly decreased on a high copper diet (6.0 mg/day) compared with the low copper diet (Baker et al, 1998).”
They fail to mention Olivares, who also saw no adverse effects of copper supplementation at 10 mg to 20 mg. When things are tested, repeated, and have the same results, that’s science. So 10-20 mg of copper is SAFE, because that’s what the studies showed.
Again, only 1 subject in the entire world is shown at 30 mg/day to 60 mg/day, where copper supposedly is the “cause”. My wife and I are also such subjects, but we are actually alive, able to be interviewed, and I’m writing this book on copper!
The fact that they mention the same case study as the US, this one man who took 30-60 mg copper per day is highly suspicious. Was this case study created for political purposes? Why is the alleged bad experience of one man being used to warn the populations of two continents, or, the entire western world, away from copper? It does not even pass the smell test. Because copper is good for the liver. There is more liver damage among people who are copper deficient!
At this point, I am growing even more suspicious of this “one-man” study. I wondered. Did this case study report conveniently come out the same year it was quoted first by the US? I went into my notes. It did. 1993. 28 years ago was 1993. It is highly “convenient” that the very year they issued a UL of 10 mg, that one man just so happened to die the year by taking copper over that. And there has never been another case like that since then. And multiple studies and accounts refute it. That is exactly what you would expect to find if they invented data for their report.
“5. DERIVATION OF A TOLERABLE UPPER INTAKE LEVEL (UL)
5.1. Adults
A NOAEL of 10 mg/day is based on the absence of any adverse effects on liver function (as the critical endpoint) in the study of Pratt et al (1985). This was a supplementation study of seven healthy adults with 10 mg/day copper for 12 weeks. In the FOODCUE trial, where copper intakes were around 7 mg/day, no observed adverse effect of copper supplementation on liver function in 24 healthy males and females was observed (O’Connor et al, 2003). In the study by Turnlund et al (1991) homeostatic data indicated that a 10-fold increase in dietary copper resulted in the absorption of only twice as much copper and that indices of copper status, as a result of the body’s regulation of copper, are resistant to change except under extreme dietary conditions. For example, Turnlund et al (1990) showed that when dietary intakes increased from 0.8 mg/day to 7.5 mg/day (for 24 days), putative indices of status, including plasma copper, erythrocyte SOD, caeruloplasmin and urinary copper excretion were not significantly different. In the light of this evidence, the Committee decided that an UF of 2 is adequate to allow for potential variability within the normal population. An UL of 5 mg/day is derived.”
So, this is a mystery. Why did the subjects excrete nearly all the copper they took? They conclude that the body does not want it, and thus, it is toxic, despite the failure to find any harm, and thus, they give a very low tolerable upper limit of 5, and an even lower level for the UF of 2, even though the test subjects tolerated 10 mg just fine with no adverse effects. And there could be other reasons their bodies excreted the copper. Maybe the copper is removing toxins? Maybe the average toxin build-up in people causes copper to be excreted in excess? Maybe they failed to study copper in conjunction with calcium and potassium, which are said to increase absorption. But this one indicator, that copper is easily excreted, is used to conclude that copper is a toxin. On that basis, water is toxic, because I go pee regularly. Their conclusion does not follow from the data. Furthermore, other data says that taking copper supplements increases ceruloplasmin, the copper-carrying transport protein. It may just take longer than 24 days, which is an extremely short duration to see any positive changes.
5.2. Pregnancy and lactation
The upper level of 5 mg/day is not applicable during pregnancy or lactation because of inadequate data relating to this critical life stage.
They still have not tested copper in pregnant women as of 2006? And they are afraid of 5 mg/day for pregnant women due to lack of data? Why is this still an unknown? This is ridiculous. Reproductive harm starts at the equivalent of 2,700 mg for a 100-kilo human, according to their own listed rat study! Why issue a warning about 5 mg/day if there is no data to justify such a warning? Furthermore, given all the wonderful things that copper does in the body, both researchers and volunteers should be lining up to do such studies. Again, in 5.1, there were no adverse effects of 10 mg/day of copper, supported by quite a few studies now. Plenty of benefits, zero risk. Sounds like a great deal. Why issue warnings when they should be issuing endorsements or advertisements?
One of the ways you can tell people are lying is that they end up “tipping their hand”. They overreach. They reveal their intentions. No studies of harm are anywhere near the low level, yet they set a low level. That is not science. That’s an agenda.