WAPF Member?

[sunshinestarr]

Are you a member? Is it worth the $$?

Was considering it, so I thought I'd ask here!

[Holiztic]

I think its worth it just for the journals, I love reading them. I also am happy to support their efforts with a little money (even gave extra last year).

I know there has been some discussion lately about some not-so AP ideas coming out of WAPF, but really I think they are doing so much good that I'm continuing my membership!

[krankedyann]

I am no longer a member and left being a chapter leader because I don't feel like they accurately reflect the work on Price in many ways, especially in their attacks on breastfeeding and natural parenting.

[BedHead]

I considered it, and went to meetings for 6 months or so, but like the PP I do not think the WAPF accurately reflects Weston Prices findings in some ways. Sally Fallon is a tad too militant in her thinking for my taste. One thing that really rubbed me the wrong way was when I got slammed for using my microwave by another member.

[Sihaya]

I agree with previous posters. I originally decided not to become a member based on their attitude toward breastfeeding. Their recent review of Nina Planck's second book clinched it for me. I have no intention of ever becoming a member.

At the same time, I have family members and friends who are members and I frequently borrow their journals. I find many of the articles and recipes very useful.

[pampered_mom]

I'm a member...love the journals, but I have been considering discontinuing my membership. I haven't been very thrilled with perspective on AP/natural parenting issues. Also, after the recent hullabaloo with their review of Nina Planck's new book I have some serious issues with the leadership and their credibility.

For the longest time I thought the purists (some very militant) were the odd ducks out, but after the Nina Planck fiasco (and it is a fiasco) I'm beginning to think I'm the one who doesn't belong.

[JoyfulLioness]

What was the Nina Planck fiasco?

[Mrshawwk]

I have been an on and off again member for a few years. When money permits I like to join. I like reading the journals, and parenting politics aside, I think the research they do is important.

[Drummer's Wife]

Originally Posted by JoyfulLioness

What was the Nina Planck fiasco?

Nina Plancks response.

[Holiztic]

Not to argue, really, but to those of you that quit your membership over disagreements about parenting: do you think the world would be better off without the WAPF? Do you think they are doing more harm than good?

I ended my subscription to Real Simple when they wrote that formula feeding was a great way to save time (which doesn't even make sense!) But I didn't really value what Real Simple was doing in general all that much!

But the WAPF changed my life immensely, and if people had all quit 7 years ago and they had crumbled, I'd probably not have my little boy right now.

Sorry, a little dramatic, but I just can't help it!

[Sihaya]

Holiztic To answer your question, I don't (can't) give to every organization that does good. I get to pick one magazine and a very small number of other organizations aside from our church. When it comes down to the work they do, LLL wins out over WAPF, in the same way that if I had to choose between eating Traditional Foods and breastfeeding (unlikely, I know), breastfeeding would win, hands down.

Also, it's not primarily our difference in parenting beliefs that I take issue with. I have a huge disagreement with LLL over their stance on donor milk, but I still am a member and intend to be for a very long time. It comes down to the purist stance they take and how they make eating well an all or nothing deal. I would rather support the people who are trying to make eating this way accessible to everyone so that it can affect more people's lives in the way it touched yours.

[sunshinestarr]

Interesting discussion!

I don't think I'm understanding how WAPF membership works, anyway.. I'm not in the US, would it even work for me if I decided to pursue it? There are meetings and get-togethers??

[ceiba]

This discussion is interesting to me also, since I am relatively new to TF and have considered joining WAPF too. I have learned a lot from their website, and of course see them referenced in many other food publications, but I have to admit that I am extremely turned off by the negative, almost caustic, attitude of the WAPF publications I have seen. They seem to have giant chips on their shoulders, and attack everyone else. Surely there is a way to communicate this information without turning it into an opportunity to wallow in the huge victim/martyr complex they seem to have. I also am a bit troubled by the circular references I see in WAPF publications- i.e. they always seem to be referencing their own work or work of their members. From a scientific standpoint I'd like to see more cross referencing of outside research.

[Pogonia]

I truly enjoy their journals. And would not have the better health today had I not found Nourishing Traditions book. When a person is passionate about something, they may come off as strident in promoting their views. I take that into consideration when something feels 'off' to me. I have my opinions, they have theirs. And after further research, if I need more verification, I then agree or disagree. I, too, am passionate with others when I try to promote a healthier way of eating.

[moondiapers]

what about the price-pottenger foundation?

[pampered_mom]

Originally Posted by Holiztic

Not to argue, really, but to those of you that quit your membership over disagreements about parenting: do you think the world would be better off without the WAPF? Do you think they are doing more harm than good?

Let's put it this way...back in the late winter/early spring there was a conflict between myself and another person who attends our local WAPF chapter meetings because apparently I had recommended an "inferior" source for grass-fed beef in the area. I was told that if I was going to buy from that source than I might as well be buying things at Wal-Mart because it's the same thing.

At the time I thought his purist stance was a bit of an abnormality...that he was the odd ball out and that I was more "in". The more I've read (and especially when it came to emails be traded amongst the leadership - SF and chapter leaders - regarding Nina Planck) the more I've discovered that it's the other way around.

I don't beat the purist drum...I'm more of a "do what you can with what you have" type of a person. It's becoming clearer to me that my perspective isn't really welcome. I'm not sure that I can in clear conscience support the kind of purist thinking they require. I think the perspective is short-sighted and does more harm to the TF message than it does good. Ultimately, the "caustic" commentary is beginning to get a bit old.

I guess my response ultimately is another question - given how high the stakes are (nutrition and health-wise) can we really afford to alienate everyone who doesn't measure up to the purist mark? If we eliminate people based upon their inability to hold up to the WAPF's orthodoxy, do we really believe the WAPF can do it alone?

sunshinestarr - If there's a local WAPF chapter in your area you can attend regardless of your membership status.

Pogonia - I tend to take that perspective as well. My issue is that while I might agree to disagree it doesn't seem to me that the WAPF will. It really is more of a "my way or the highway" kind of perspective. You either agree with them or you're against them. At least that's the way it's been presented when it comes to the issue of breastfeeding and now Nina Planck's book.

moondiapers - I don't know enough about PPNF to say one way or another. My fuzzy mind things SF was once part of that organization until she headed out on her own to found the WAPF. They're membership information is over here. I guess they have a quarterly journal as well and access to past issues when you're a member. Part of me wonders if it might be worth it.

[crunchy_mama]

I don't and won't support them. I do believe they do more harm than good. Harm in their attack against natural parenting. Harm in their sanctimonous stands that says no one is good enough unless they are like them and do everything their way- I have friends that are WAPF cool-aid drinkers and they drive me batty w/ it. They truly believe everything they say is golden and there is no other way. I believe they do harm in their ignorant stance on allergies and intolerances- harm in that convincing people to ignore them and then the backlash for those of us still intolerant to even raw/soaked products in the stupid assumptions that they put forth. I think there is information on all these from WAP himself- instead of SF's bastardized version and lots of other more credible sources as well.