Raw Butter is Real Butter – Vitamin A, E and Dr. Price’s ‘X’ Factor

What did Dr. Lee tell us? “You can’t compare apples to oranges, just like you can’t compare a synthetically manufactured product like margarine, or what some call oleo, with raw unpasteurized butter. Real Butter is a living food, a nutritionally dense product from nature and the other is a dead wasteland of chemicals that’s manufactured and processed.”


By Dr. Royal Lee, President of the Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research

Somehow, the way we look at and accept research changed after December 7, 1941. By the end of World War II, the new scientific model of research became the norm using animal studies. Empirical data previously collected by researchers and practitioners through their observations were no longer accepted.

In 1937, Professor Fred Hale at the Texas Agricultural Experimental Station, proved the necessity of good fats and oils in the prenatal care of pigs to block deformities in the offspring. These special nutritional factors present in raw butter were accepted without question and known up to 1942. It had been shown that raw butter has the following characteristics of superiority over commercially manufactured oleo-margarine – a cheap imitation of the real, natural form of butter. This is why pregnant mothers shouldn’t be afraid of healthy fats and oils, like those in raw butter. These are the facts we know about the value of real butter:

  1. The nation’s best source of vitamin A is unpasteurized raw butter, gathered in the spring each year from cows eating that newly sprouted grass. (1)
  2. The vitamin A in butter was three times as effective as the vitamin A in fish liver oils. (1)
  3. The natural vitamin D3 in butter was found 100 times as effective as the common commercial form of vitamin D (viosterol). (2)
  4. The raw form of butter, prescribed by physicians as a remedy for tuberculosis, psoriasis, xerophthalmia, dental caries and in preventing rickets, has also been reported effective in strengthening the immune system. (3)
  5. Raw Butter carries vitamin E in sufficient quantity to prevent deficiency reactions. (4 & 5)

Since 1941, new and important evidence has accumulated, which indicates other nutritional functions are supplied by butter. This evidence appears to revolve around the physiological ramifications of the effects of the vitamin E complex.

Up to the present, vitamin E has been considered a tocopherol, and its function analyzed as nothing more than a physiological anti-oxidant. (6) It now appears evident that the food-based whole complex of vitamin E is being protected from oxidation by the tocopherol group. The same mistake in attributing vitamin E activity to tocopherols has been made in the case of the promotion of pure viosterol as vitamin D, ascorbic acid as vitamin C, niacin as the anti-pellagra vitamin, pyridoxine as B6, or folic acid as the anti-pernicious anemia fraction of liver.

In each case, the isolation of one factor as the “complete vitamin” in question has embarrassed the discoverer in his assumption that he had discovered the “pot of gold” at the rainbow’s end, by the attribution of vitamin activity to some synthetic or pure crystalline component of the natural complex. No reasonable student of nutrition today can deny the axiom that all vitamins are complexes and cannot exert their normal physiological effect other than as the complete complex, as found in natural foods.

The true vitamin E is found in the chromatin material of the germinal tissues of plant and animal, and in young plants that are in a state of rapid growth. It seems to be a phospholipid carrying a special fatty acid in combination that has heretofore traveled under the cognomen of vitamin F. (Vitamin F was first discovered as a part of the wheat germ oil vitamin complex- at least the term vitamin F was first used to designate the essential fatty acid fraction.)

The fact that an unsaturated fatty acid as vitamin F is a part of the E complex, probably in molecular combination, explains the close relationship between the two vitamins in their synergistic support of cell division in reproduction, in maintenance of epithelium (where cell division is also predominant), and in kidney and liver metabolism, both epithelial activities. It explains the fact that both are factors in calcium metabolism, with vitamin E deficiency resulting in bone resorption (7), just as vitamin F deficiency results in less calcium available to the bone.(8)

Tocopherol administration in excess also results in bone-calcium loss, just as is caused by a deficiency of vitamin E. (7) So, again we have more evidence that tocopherol is NOT the vitamin E, but rather a protector that can, in excess, reduce the availability of traces of the real vitamin. Now, just what is the real function of the real vitamin E complex?

A factor in young grass is apparently the same one as described by Dr. Weston A. Price in the second edition of his book, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, which he called “Activator X” and was found only in butter from cows that fed on new spring grass. “Activator X” seemed very susceptible to oxidation, being lost in the butter within a few months after its production. “Activator X” was shown to promote calcification and health of bones and teeth in human patients. It inhibited the growth of the caries bacillus (facto-bacillus acidophilus) completely, one test showing 680,000 salivary bacterial count before the use of “Activator X” and none after.

Today’s research confirms Dr. Price’s findings that this “X” factor found in the spring’s first grass growth supports the definition of sexual development. Animals not getting this new grass with the Activator X (but getting Tocopherol) required 23% MORE time to become sexually mature.

It is extremely interesting to find that tests of oleo-margarine fed to human subjects in comparison with commercial butter (which has a low content of the fragile “X’ factor if any), had the same effect. The impact of these fraudulent products not only failed to bring out the secondary sex characteristics but delayed them. It was noted in some cases that a failure to promote sex changes at puberty was observed.

Here are the results of a study printed in Science journal 1948, at the height of the debate on raw versus pasteurized dairy, on children up to 17 years of age, with 160 Children who were fed oleo and 107 were fed butter over a period of two years: (10)

  • Average gain in weight on oleo for girls, 8.2 pounds.
  • Yearly average growth in height, 2.2 inches.
  • Girls on butter gained 6.3 pounds per year, grew 0.9 of an inch.
  • Boys on oleo grew 2.2 inches per year, gained 8.1 pounds.
  • On butter, boys gained 6.7 pounds, grew 1.6 inches.

The normal characteristic effect of castration of a child is a stimulation of growth and greater height. The investigators of this research say the results indicate the superior nature of oleo. What do you say?

We all are what we are—men, women, white, black or yellow — simply because our growth and development is guided every minute by certain chemical factors in our cells, reproduced exactly in the chromosome, the real blueprints of our bodies.

These factors are determinants to the geneticist. They are protected by wrappings or insulated layers of a fatty nature that prevent enzymatic digestion or damage to our cells. Otherwise inevitably these factors would be adversely exposed. It is known that chromosomes are destroyed and liquefied with a vitamin E complex deficiency.

These determinants even seem to be secreted in the mouth with saliva. This probably explains why salivary gland cells have larger chromosomes – to start the alteration of food factors into tissue as quickly as possible. This is comparable to the shipment of incoming steel as it enters a factory to be processed into the finished product.

It should be obvious that any interference to the vitamin or minerals required causes a deficiency, disrupting the natural cycle which will delay or impair the normal development. Have you wondered why your instincts demand butter over oleo? Do you wonder that since yellow butter contains more “Activator X” than pale butter, people prefer the yellow kind that comes from spring grass feeding to the cow?

It is very interesting to note how nutritional experts and “scientists” have always been found to extol the virtues of oleo/margarine as equal to real food, like raw butter. As far back as 1886, when oleo was first made, before vitamins were thought of, scientists testified that oleo was equal to butter in food value. They have added food coloring, milk and butter flavors to oleo to create the best possible imitation of real thing (butter). These researchers are still testifying about the health effects of olio, without knowing or understanding what new cofactors might still be found in butter that promote health, while also ignoring the possible dangerous effects this commercial chemical byproduct.

The researchers showed animal tests using oleo created a better result than with humans as reported by Drs. Leichenger, Eisenberg and Carlson. They failed to point out their enzyme response is different. This is, no doubt, because milk proteins have always been used in any test diet along with oleo. Milk proteins carry the trace factors peculiar to milk that oleo lacks, and these cushion the deficiency reactions. The tests are about as honest scientifically as those on aluminum salts in baking powder, where the animals given the toxic aluminum salts were also fed an antidote sodium silicate under the guise of “mineral supplement.” Dr. H. J. Deuel, while testifying before the House Committee on Agriculture in connection with hearings on oleo/margarine in 1948, was quizzed on this point. (11)

Oleo has other drawbacks. It is a synthetic product, being hydrogenated vegetable fat. The hydrogenation destroys all associated vitamins or phospholipids. As it comes from the hydrogenator, it is admittedly unfit for food, has a vile odor and must be “refined.” The oleo, after the bad odors have been removed, and after flavoring with milk products to imitate butter, must then be preserved with a poisonous chemical, sodium benzoate, to keep it from again developing a bad flavor.

The use of sodium benzoate as a preservative in oleo/margarine is brought to light in testimony before the official hearings on the oleo/margarine tax repeal. (11) Note should be made that natural foodstuffs, such as butter, contain naturally occurring antioxidants such as the protector of vitamin E, alpha tocopherol. Presence of this anti-oxidant in butter makes it unnecessary to add synthetic and poisonous preservatives such as sodium benzoate.

Oleo/margarine, however, being a synthetic product, is lacking in these natural preservatives; hence the necessity for the addition of the chemicals. No doubt the addition of vitamin E to the product would preserve it far better than the sodium benzoate. Vitamin E, however, is far more expensive than sodium benzoate, which explains the use of the latter instead.

Such poisonous preservatives are not commonly permitted to be used in foods, but the flour industry and the oleo industry seem to be especially favored. It is well known that Dr. Harvey W. Wiley, the first head of what is now the Food and Drug Administration, lost his job in 1912 because he refused to become a pawn of the food manufacturers. Many of these processed foods could not exist without special permission to violate the law. Dr. Wiley’s book The History of a Crime Against the Food Laws, published at his own expense just before his death, should help us understand the corruption that can surround Washington DC.

The physical penalties for using a synthetic, imitation, chemically-embalmed substitute for butter seem to be quite drastic. Some appear to be:

  1. Sexual castration for the growing child, in more or less degrees, with oversized and fatter girls and boys. (Remember, meat animals are castrated for the purpose of making them fat.)
  2. Loss of ability to maintain calcified structure, such as teeth and bones. Dental caries, pyorrhea, arthritis, etc., would be logical end results that would inevitably follow, especially in view of the added influence of other refined and devitalized foods. Dr. Price’s experience in curing arthritis, dental diseases and lowered resistance with good raw butter directly bears out this conclusion.
  3. Evidence is accumulating to show that multiple sclerosis is a result of deficiencies in which vitamin E complex (as found in butter) is vitally involved. (12) Further, vitamin E is now found to be a helpful remedy for the disorders of menopause, (13) showing how these deficiency diseases follow their victim through life.

This list could be extended almost without limit but we feel we have established our case.

Dr. Price cites the case of an Eskimo woman, “who had had twenty children so easily that she did not bother to wake her husband when the birth occurred at night. The daughter living on processed foods was the only child that had a child with very narrow dental arches and a boyish type of body build – unlike her mother. She had a prolonged labor experience in the birth of her only child and insisted she would not take the risk another time.

Deformity due to the poor nutritional status of the parents may, of course, be mild or severe in character. The narrow arches, nostrils and hips, and the susceptibility to dental caries (which Dr. Price found among primitive peoples who had shifted from a good tribal food pattern to a poor civilized food pattern) should be rated as mild deformities, since they handicap the individual’s ability to function without destroying his social validity.” (14)


  1. Fraps and Kemmerer, Texas Agricultural Experimental Bulletin, 560: April 20, 1938.
  2. Supplee, G. C., Ansbacher, S., Bender, R. C., and Flanigan, G. E., “The Influence of Milk Constituents on the Effectiveness of Vitamin D,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, 141:95-107, May, 1936.
  3. Lee, R. and Stolzoff, J. S., The Special Nutritional Qualities of Natural Foods, Report #4, Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, Milwaukee 3, Wisconsin, July, 1942.
  4. Osborne, T. B. and Mendel, L. B., “The Influence of Butter Fat on Growth,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, 16:423-437, 1914.
  5. Sure, B. I., Journal of Biological Chemistry, 74:71-84, 1927.
  6. Rosenberg, H. R., The Chemistry and Physiology of the Vitamins, New York: Interscience Publishers, 1945.
  7. Bicknell, F. and Prescott, F., The Vitamins in Medicine, Second edition, New York: Grune and Stratton, 1948.
  8. Lee, R. and Hanson, W. A., A Discussion of the Forms of Blood Calcium, Report #2, Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, Milwaukee 3, Wisconsin, 1942.
  9. Lee, R. and Hanson, W. A., A Discussion of the Forms of Blood Calcium, Report #2, Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, Milwaukee 3, Wisconsin, 1942.
  10. Science News Letter, February 14, 1948, page 108.
  11. Oleomargarine Tax Repeal, Hearings Before the Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, 80th Congress, Second Session, March 8-12, 1948. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1948, pages 100-103.
  12. The Vitamins in Medicine, by Bicknell and Prescott. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1948, second edition.
  13. Finkler, R. S., Journal of Clinical Endocrinology, 9:89, January, 1949
  14. Norman and Rorty, Tomorrow’s Food, New York: Prentice-Hall, 1947, pages 49-50.

Nutritional Notes and Comments

One of the interesting side notes in reviewing this article for the web, was there seemed to be a lot of money and energy spent discrediting the idea that pasteurizing could remove any nutritional value, especially in dairy products.

Ironically, one of the states that had the biggest pushback against raw dairy is Wisconsin – Dr. Lee’s own stomping grounds- but let’s consider the story of raw milk and Salmonella in California instead.

What would Francis Pottenger and Dr. Lee say about this headline from the Los Angeles Examiner? “The Health Department of Los Angeles and San Diego counties seem to have conspired for some 30 years to harass the Alta Dena Dairy, a raw milk dairy run by the Stevens brothers founded in Monrovia California in 1945.”

This article emphasizes the point that “By the 1980s, the dairy industry milked over 8,000 cows daily and owned 18,000 animals. With 800 employees, Alta Dena was the largest producer-distributor in the nation, selling over 20,000 gallons of certified raw milk daily. Alta Dena raw milk products, including milk, raw butter, buttermilk, ice cream, kefir and yogurt were sold in health food stores in every state. For over 40 years, Alta Dena proved that safety and health standards for their raw dairy products exceeded that of pasteurized dairy.”

Yet, in 1965 a San Diego County health officer, Dr. Askew, summarily issued an order banning all raw milk in the county on the premise that he had found Staphylococcus aureus in Alta Dena milk. Patricia Conley, director of the Price Pottenger Foundation (one of the oldest in the country), was present for the hearing in front of the San Diego Board of Supervisors. When Dr. Askew was asked whether to his knowledge, anyone had ever become sick from drinking certified raw milk in San Diego County, he flippantly answered, “No not to my knowledge, but it’s just waiting to happen.”

In the mid-1970s, two days before the State Senate of California debated the pros and cons of raw milk, the Department of Health of California notified the press of an alleged contamination, claiming that an epidemic of Salmonella poisoning was imminent due to findings in raw milk.

A few days after the hearing, the Los Angeles Herald Examiner reviewed all relevant documents, and accused the California State Health Department officials of falsifying bacterial reports in order to defeat any Senate bill allowing unpasteurized dairy products. Two independent laboratories—one that did testing for the Los Angeles County Medical Milk Commission and another that did considerable testing for the state—returned negative results for Salmonella. The Health Department laboratory had either falsified its results, or the testing methods had been so sloppy that the milk samples were contaminated during the testing procedures.

Throughout the mid-1970s, the California state health department made numerous claims that Salmonella-contaminated raw milk was produced by Alta Dena and other California raw milk dairies in an effort to sway public opinion. The Herald Examiner article indicated that there seemed to be prejudice among board members of the State Health Department to eliminate raw dairy products from the state.

In 1984, an article in Vogue headlined “A Raw Milk Warning: A New and Dangerous Health Fad” featured statistics published in the newsletter of an organization called California Council Against Health Frauds. I always find it interesting how these supposedly non-partial groups suddenly appear creating confusion and pitting one side against the other – especially if there’s a loss of profits involved.

The report claimed that raw milk drinkers were at increased risk of Salmonella infection, “which can result in high fevers and bloody diarrhea.” This is extremely rare for most Salmonella infections. According to the article released by the health department, people who drink raw milk are 118 times more at risk. These exaggerated facts, quoted from the California Council Against Health Frauds, were obtained by manipulating figures originally published in 1944.

In 1997, Dr. John Leedom, a medical doctor who was newly seated on the Los Angeles County Milk Commission, made Front Page headlines by stating that a swimmer had died from drinking raw milk and his goal was to get this dangerous product removed from the market in Los Angeles County. Later the Los Angeles Herald Examiner pointed out that the swimmer had drank raw milk 18 hours earlier and the Los Angeles county corners office found no evidence that raw milk contributed to his death. They listed the cause of death was from drowning. Dr. Leedom was later sanctioned by the medical board for making false statements.

The actual nutritional value of raw dairy products, and especially raw butter, is well-established. The temperamental issue of what is healthy is pretty much ignored today in most instances. Yes, tuberculosis was often found in milk at the early part of the last century, but today, raw dairies are held at a much higher standard than those who produce milk that is pasteurized. I would think by this point cases of tuberculosis would’ve shown their ugly head over the last 70 years, if the laws hadn’t been changed requiring raw dairies to be held to a higher standard. Life is seldom perfect and there are always many shades of gray, but we have to be aware of those professional hoodwinkers, as Dr. Lee called them, when it comes to our own health. It’s time to be especially careful.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *