Weston A. Price Foundation

The founding of the Weston A. Price Foundation is described by Aajonus as the direct result of a board-level conflict at the Price-Pottinger Foundation. Nine of twelve board members were, in his account, in favor of moving the foundation toward Pottenger's work and endorsing his books. Fallon, supported by only two other board members, lost that internal vote. Rather than continuing within the Price-Pottinger framework under those terms, she departed and formed her own organization built around Weston Price's research specifically.

Aajonus's framing of this origin is significant because it positions the Weston A. Price Foundation as a breakaway built around a narrower and, in his view, less complete framework than what Price-Pottinger's board majority was prepared to endorse. Pottenger's work on raw foods, raw milk, and raw meat was the scientific foundation Aajonus considered decisive, and the institutional separation meant the new foundation was organized around a figure whose research, while valuable, did not include the controlled raw-versus-cooked feeding experiments that Pottenger had conducted.

Aajonus described Fallon directly as someone he liked and someone who had helped more people than he had. This was not a dismissal, but a genuine acknowledgment of the foundation's reach and of Fallon's effectiveness in spreading awareness of traditional and whole foods. However, he added an immediate qualification that her diet was "not good in the long run."

His specific clinical observation was that Fallon showed "water puffiness from all the fermented and cooked stuff," which he took as a sign that the dietary approach, whatever its merits as an introduction to real food, was producing tissue-level dysfunction visible to someone trained to read those signs. He described her as not looking well to him, and he was clear that this was his personal assessment rather than a universal judgment.

His broader position was that the Weston A. Price Foundation diet represented a valid intermediate stage, a platform from which a person might eventually arrive at the fully raw Primal Diet. During the early period after the split, he noted that Fallon's lecturers would actually refer serious disease cases to him, advising those people to consider his approach when their conditions were severe enough. He found this referral practice logically inconsistent, asking why someone should wait for a serious disease to develop before adopting a more complete dietary approach.

Aajonus explicitly described the Weston A. Price Foundation's dietary approach as "a good stage to go on to, to maybe get to this one," meaning his own Primal Diet. This framing treated the foundation's work not as wrong in its direction but as incomplete in its destination. For someone eating a standard modern diet, moving into traditional foods, fermented foods, high-quality animal products, and raw dairy as the foundation promoted could represent genuine improvement. Aajonus did not reject that progression; he simply maintained that it did not go far enough and that the continued inclusion of cooked foods and the reliance on fermentation as a substitute for truly raw food would eventually produce its own set of problems.

The example of David Wolfe was used in the same context, noting that Wolfe had been adamantly opposed to raw dairy for years before circumstances eventually changed his position. Aajonus characterized this pattern, waiting until health deteriorated sufficiently before adopting more complete raw food principles, as common but unnecessary.

The most serious criticism Aajonus directed at Fallon and at organizations associated with the Weston A. Price Foundation concerned legal strategy for raw milk farmers, specifically the Farmer-To-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF). Aajonus described this organization as one he suspected might be "a front to help deprive us of our farmer to consumer rights," though he acknowledged uncertainty about whether this reflected Fallon's direct intentions or was an outcome of the attorneys involved.

His specific concern was that FTCLDF attorneys had been encouraging farmers facing FDA pressure to accept guilty pleas and to sign agreements with FDA restrictions. He documented that in at least several cases, these FDA-pressured agreements caused farmers to lose their family farms and livelihoods. He stated that he intervened in 2010 with his lease program and stopped four farmers from signing such guilt and jurisdiction agreements.

He described the FTCLDF as taking membership fees from farmers while providing legal representation that, in his assessment, was functionally working against those farmers' interests. He distinguished his own approach, based on lease agreements between farmers and the Right To Choose Healthy Food trust, from the FTCLDF approach, arguing that lease agreements had approximately 75 years of legal precedent in United States courts while herd-share agreements had almost none, and that his approach had not lost any legal challenges while the models used by other organizations had lost two out of two.

A specific case he described in detail involved a farmer who supplied a Chicago-area co-op. Aajonus said he had been warning this farmer for three years to stay away from FTCLDF attorneys, and that despite those warnings, the farmer was nearly persuaded to sign a contract with the FDA. The situation came to a head when the FDA instructed the farmer, through the FTCLDF attorney Kennedy, to stop selling raw milk and to shut down farm operations entirely.

Aajonus's response was to invoke the existing lease agreement, which he argued gave the co-op members ownership of the herd for another year and legally obligated the farmer to continue providing food to those members. He advised the farmer to call Kennedy and terminate the representation, which the farmer did. Kennedy then sent copies of a termination notice to both Aajonus and the FDA. Aajonus described the FDA as choosing not to pursue further action after that, and the farmer returned to supplying the co-op.

He characterized Fallon's nominal support for raw milk, noting that she was "supposed to be Sally Fallon who's in favor of raw milk," as incompatible with the outcomes produced by the legal fund operating in her organizational orbit, saying "Is she really on our side? I don't know. Doesn't look like it to me."

He also specifically described the FTCLDF as "a scam, a sham," though he expressed uncertainty about whether this reflected Fallon's direct involvement or was primarily the product of the attorneys connected to it. His concern was consistent: the organization was resulting in farmers losing their farms rather than protecting them, regardless of its stated mission.

In his book "We Want to Live," Aajonus discussed Weston Price directly as a historical researcher whose work documented the relationship between modern dietary deficiencies and physical degeneration. Price, a dentist, had observed in his practice that children of his patients were developing problems their parents had not experienced, including greater dental decay, and teeth that did not fit properly into the dental arch, resulting in crowding and crookedness. Price recognized that the condition of deformed teeth reflected a broader state of compromised health and hypothesized that there might be nutritional deficiencies in modern diets causing these changes.

Price then traveled to study primitive populations to identify protective nutritional factors. Aajonus presented Price's research as a foundational document of the modern understanding that traditional diets protect against the degeneration produced by industrialized food, placing Price alongside Pottenger as a researcher whose work supported the broader framework of the Primal Diet, even though Aajonus did not endorse the Weston A. Price Foundation's dietary recommendations as sufficient.