The Food Babe Takes on Her Critics

The Vani Hari success story is remarkable. Here’s a synopsis from a recently syndicated article published in the Chicago Tribune:

Less than four years ago, Hari didn’t even have a Twitter or Facebook account. She was afraid of social media, worried a slip of the thumb could jeopardize her consulting contracts implementing technology and strategy at Bank of America and other financial institutions. Now, photos on Hari’s website and blog flaunt her perfectly applied cosmetics, shiny black hair and petite frame. She has appeared on The Dr. Oz Show, Good Morning America and Inside Edition.

Hari’s appeal stems in part from her use of Web video. One opens with her doing a back-bend in a low-cut exercise top. She greets the viewer, saying how much she loves yoga and how hungry it makes her. Then she bites off a corner of her yoga mat. “Umm,” she says. “Wake up people. Take a look at the ingredients in Subway’s nine-grain bread. Did you know that one of them is the same ingredients found in yoga mats?

In case you’re not making the connection, Hari is famously known as the Food Babe, a nickname her husband gave her when she switched careers and morphed virtually overnight into a crusading food activist. Today, she is a force to be reckoned with, someone who has spearheaded several successful campaigns against major food companies. The ridiculous yoga mat chemical scare was her breakout moment.

In September, Bloomberg Businessweek took note of her meteoric rise:

Food Babe, the nom de blog for Vani Hari, a 35-year-old banking consultant turned food activist, has built an online audience by calling out companies from Starbucks (SBUX) to Chick-fil-A for using ingredients she deems harmful. She belongs to an emerging tribe of Web activists who use attention-grabbing—some say outlandish—methods to pressure companies to change their ways.

Last week NPR reported:

To followers on her website and on social media, who are known as the Food Babe Army, Hari is a hero. And with a book and TV development deal in the works, her platform is about to get a lot bigger.

But as her profile grows, so too do the criticisms of her approach. Detractors, many of them academics, say she stokes unfounded fears about what’s in our food to garner publicity.

You can read many of those criticisms here (David Gorski); here (Trevor Butterworth); here and here (both from Steven Novella); here (Mark Crislip); here (David Kroll); here (Wanda Patsche); here, (Kevin Folta); and here and here (both from Maureen Ogle). These are detailed, hard-hitting blog posts, mostly from skeptics and scientists, material that has been mined by journalists for recent articles on Hari.

The Food Babe is not happy with this development.

The other day Hari published at her website a long response to these “attacks.” She starts out by invoking Gandhi. Then she summarizes the “incredible amount of success” she and her “Food Babe army” have experienced the past three years. She goes on to suggest that the “powerful chemical companies and food giants of the world” are not going to stand for this anymore. And, as she expected, “the people who wish to keep the status quo are attacking me personally while simultaneously trying to discredit the entire Good Food Movement.” Here’s how she sees it:

There’s a group of aggressive scientists, biased doctors, skeptics, agribusiness publicists, lobbyists (and their anonymous webpages and social media sites), along with in some cases, well intended but misinformed people (influenced by propaganda) attacking our work, other consumer advocacy groups, my partners, my friends and me, personally.

Instead of focusing on the issues at hand I’ve raised about the food industry, their go-to criticisms are ad hominem personal attacks: they’ve attacked me, as a woman, in ways they’d never attack my male colleagues. I am personally being subjected to hate speech, harassment and cyber-bullying on a daily basis.

It’s worth noting that she lumps the criticism and attacks together, so as not to differentiate between any legitimate, bylined critiques and anonymous web pages or trolling Facebook commenters. Additionally, Food Babe characterizes all the disapproval as personal attacks,  cyber-bullying and harassment. It’s a brazen attempt to delegitimize any criticism of her. It wouldn’t potentially work, either, if she didn’t highlight a bunch of the disgusting (and threatening) comments sent to her via Twitter and Facebook, which she does. Those remarks are truly revolting.

I feel terrible for anyone on the receiving end of such abuse. Women, as we have come to learn, are treated viciously online. The anonymous cretins that behave this way should be outed, too, so I don’t have the slightest problem with Hari posting the ugly stuff on her website, for all to see.

But I do take issue with her using it as a shield to deflect legitimate criticism of her unscientific methods and assertions. If you have the time, I encourage you to go back to those links I provided above and read all the critiques. See for yourself if those writers are attacking her in a personal manner or making reasoned critiques. (Granted, several of the writers have a sarcastic tone.)

I also have read most of the media articles from recent months that include quotes from her various critics and came across only one instance (in a Chicago Tribune piece) that struck me as sexist:

“She gets on all these talk shows partly because she is easier to look at,” Joe Schwarcz, who runs the Office for Science & Society, a department at McGill University in Montreal dedicated to sorting out pseudoscience.

I realize Hari calls herself the Food Babe, but her appearance should not be the basis for any criticism of her. Hey, I’ve been on TV a few times and I’m not easy to look at.

Now, there is a chatty world on Facebook that I don’t pay attention to, which also accounts for some of the ugly barbs thrown at the Food Babe. Kavin Sanepathy, who has been critical of Hari, wrote about this months ago:

Let me be candid before continuing – Facebook groups like Chow Babe, Food Hunk, Science Babe, GMOLOL, and more are not only wonderful for their entertainment value. These fun groups herald crucial perspectives–their members break down unscientific food-related rampages from Food Babe and the likes with bona fide scientific evidence and data. These groups’ followers include scientists, writers, and skeptics. These are the crusaders of the internet, defending the public from the likes of miscreants like the #foodbabearmy.

Every now and then however, I’ll see something on these and similar pages that grinds my mommy/feminist gears. I’ve seen Food Babe called names like, “slut,” “bitch,” and “stupid bitch.” These slurs undermine the valuable and credible arguments against Food Babe’s pseudo-scientific agenda.

Absolutely.

As for her agenda, to learn more about that and how she defends it against her detractors, do read the rest of her post. It speaks for itself.

56 Responses to “The Food Babe Takes on Her Critics”

  1. mem_somerville says:

    I read her screed (after taking several breaks….what a blowhard). But
    seemed to me there were 2 key things:
    1) The critiques are landing. She wouldn’t bother to screed like this if they weren’t. I think we’ve reached peak FoodBabe, and her book is actually just going to be a massacre.

    2) She has no idea why people are challenging her. She has
    misplaced the blame. So there’s really no hope for a course correction.
    Saying she is the “Jenny McCarthy” of food is not a sexist comment. She actually has no idea of the dynamic that’s going on here.

    Alas.

  2. ModernLife says:

    Honest engagement with science, facts, and evidence is contrary to her business model. She cannot tolerate such attempts to arrive at truth because it would hurt her bottom line.

  3. E.W. Modemac says:

    And one of Vani’s most vocal critics, who runs her own blog and facebook under the moniker of “Science Babe” (referenced above), responds to her continued nonsense with a blog post entitled, “The Miseducation of the Food Babe:” http://www.scibabe.com/miseducation-food-babe/

  4. Jerry James says:

    True. The misogynist slant she gave didn’t ring very true. It exists, yes, but her pseudoscience is the main thing people are taking her to task for. She’s smart to put all critics behind a fringe category and play the martyr, but science moves on (although slowly and she is counting on that pace to allow her book sales much success).

  5. Uniscorn says:

    She “defends” by banning people, even people who have never commented on her Facebook page.
    She is 100% afraid of debate.
    And rightfully so, because she is clueless.

  6. Uncle Al says:

    I for one embrace our foamy and delicious azodicarbonamide overlords.

    Thermal decomposition affords nitrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and ammonia; biurea, semicarbazide, and ethyl carbamate for seven gains! Consider the seven main dialects of Chinese — Mandarin, Cantonese, Hakka, Wu, Min, Xiang and Gan. Giant pandas grow 7 times human size permanent teeth at 7 months old. Azodicarbonamide is a Sino-sure!

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691514003780
    Semicarbazide chronic toxicity, 2014
    http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Chemical.jsp?Rec_Id=PC42679
    Ethyl carbamate toxicity – carcinogen and reproductive toxin.

    Are you going to believe your own lying eyes or properly deny the Emperor is naked?

  7. Loren Eaton says:

    She says:
    ‘What they say: The phrase “If you can’t pronounce it, you shouldn’t eat it” is not scientific.
    The truth: I didn’t come up with this clever phrase, but think it’s generally great advice.’ Actually, it is terrible advice.

    And…’An intelligent debate is welcomed, but not all the discussion has been civil.’
    She’s not qualified to have an intelligent debate on most of these issues, even if most of them are not rocket science. And if she thinks that’s not civil…..sorry.

  8. You’ll pardon me if I choose not to divert too much attention to the vile people who say vile things on the internet. It goes without saying that this type of dehumanizing behavior should not tolerated. Some of what Hari posted should shock most people, but as more and more women on the internet write about it, unfortunately it seems this type of thing is all-too-common.

    It’s not okay though, to lump science minded pages in with that behavior as if her critics and ‘hate trolls’ are one and the same. The sad truth of the matter is, you are going to find trolls like that who think they are defending every topic, and on every side of that topic. What you DON’T do, is use those vile people to try and falsely discredit your critics. If that’s not attacking the messenger(when it’s not even the messenger), then I don’t know what is.

    Unfortunately I’m sure someone like Katie Couric sees worse things than what Vani posted on her Twitter feed on a daily basis. She also does so without trying to drum up concern over airlines not pumping pure oxygen into the cabin. The only thing we have to learn from Vani’s tirade is that a-holes are everywhere. Don’t let her change the conversation by focusing on how skeptics need to change their behavior. It’s exactly what she wants you to do, and it’s nonsense. Everybody needs to change their behavior.

    Bottom line: if she were unattractive by Hollywood standards, there would be no Food Babe. Period. That doesn’t make it okay to be sexist towards her, but it’s not sexist to be one of the ones pointing that out. It’s sexist that we allow there to be a Food Babe, when she would be laughed off of the internet otherwise. Don’t confuse what I’m saying as being some kind of ‘men’s rights’ argument. I’m sure it’s mostly a male driven, sex-obsessed culture that allows people like Vani Hari to be taken seriously. Personally I would rather focus on the fact that she monetizes fear, but If there is a conversation to be had about objectifying women when it comes to the Food Babe, then why not start by dissecting exactly what a ‘Food Babe’ is.

    Take it from me,

    ‘Food Hunk’

  9. Bob Akimbo says:

    Let’s not forget how lucrative her brand of charlatanism can be. Vani will cry “This is poison!” And then link to the “cure,” of which she gets a cut. She is a classic snake oil salesman, and has crafted a very shrewd business model around her deception.

  10. mem_somerville says:

    She doesn’t even understand the framework she’s found herself in. I was watching some more stuff fly around twitter today, and it’s so clear. She cannot fathom that she came to the food science debate unarmed, while a whole science and skeptical community has already been here for a long time. She thinks she’s started something new–she has no history or context at all. So she can’t even begin to understand the problem.

    Watching social media right now is like watching parents try to explain to a 5-year-old why the kid can’t drive. The 5-year-old is baffled and irate, and the parents are just trying to keep everyone safe without having to explain the physics of car accidents.

  11. JH says:

    Perhaps the anti-science critiques are missing the point:

    1) Many people – much of the general public – come to food issues with the same understanding of chemistry and biology that she has: zero. Yet if you give them one fact they think they’re on to something.

    2) Many people have a similar knowledge of corporations, economics and finance.

    Combine 1&2 – scientific ignorance with a general distrust of both corporations and the economic system in general and you get a ready audience for Vandana Shiva and Vani Hari.

    IMO, (1) stems from a fundamental problem in our education system: too much emphasis on self-esteem and too little emphasis on knowledge and skill, and (2) stems from virtually no mandatory business education in any part of our education system, despite it’s fundamental importance to our economy.

  12. Loren Eaton says:

    For sure! She’s a starter on the Dunning-Kruger All-Stars. If you look at the Chow Babe twitter posts….some of these statements are really out of orbit.

  13. Bearpants112 says:

    Sounds a lot like what the Video Game community is dealing with concerning high profile critics who are long on bluster and accusations, without any facts to back it up. When called out on it, they scream as if they were babes in the wood rather than experienced provocateurs.

    People like the “Food Babe” insulate themselves from criticism and become immune from critique as they label everyone who disagrees with them as harassers.

    Until we stand up to these people as a society and make it clear that legitimate criticism isn’t harassment, they will continue to cause damage to science and culture.

    This is another well written criticism by a chemist.

    http://puffthemutantdragon.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/jon-stewart-and-the-food-babe-or-toxins-in-your-tea/

  14. Bearpants112 says:

    She knows why people are challenging her. She also knows the best way to manipulate her followers into dismissing the challenges and then going after them with claims of harassment.

    These are the 21st century cults of personality.

  15. Bearpants112 says:

    Unfortunately, the media love the helpless damsel in distress trope. So when she points to a 3rd party troll and screams, “Look at what all of my critics are guilty of!” they nod and repeat it.

    Quite frankly, i’m astonished that Discover ran this article at all. Kudos to the author and editor who approved it.

  16. Bearpants112 says:

    In the #GamerGate battle, one of the “victims” of harassment created a 10,000 twitter account blocking tool that publicized them as some of the worst harassers on Twitter. Accounts such as the KentuckyFriedChicken twitter account, and even accounts that had never sent a single tweet.

    These people are manipulating the systems and biases in culture that place themselves as the victims, even when they victimize others, and the truth.

  17. JonFrum says:

    “I realize Hari calls herself the Food Babe, but her appearance should not be the basis for any criticism of her.”
    You’re not responding to the sentence you quote. The statement you cite is an opinion that is a perfectly reasonable one to make. It does not state that she shouldn’t be listened to because she’s just a pretty face. It speaks to the media obsession with physical beauty, and is not a criticism of the person or her beliefs or claims.

  18. Ryan B says:

    Nothing wrong with education on eating better, but listening to Foodbabe too long could leave you about 50 points dumber than when you started. She brings a forth grade health class topic and then spins in her own very biased non-sense on GMO’s. Plus, she deletes most options that do not agree with her warped view, so American homemakers are confused into thinking that everyone agrees with her. She is a fake and does a disservice to all.

  19. Canadian_Skeptic says:

    I think there’s some what of a reasonable comparison to be made between Mike Adams, of NaturalNews, and Vani Hari. Both have multimedia platforms from which they assert what ingredients or practices are “toxic” or “poisonous” with very little (usually none at all) in the way of credible evidence and then turn around to tell you what you should do or buy to be “healthy” (with a similar dearth of evidence).

    The biggest difference though is that Ms. Hari has not (yet) gone full conspiracy theory like Mr. Adams, and thus retains a veneer of credibility in the eyes of the general public.

  20. Buddy199 says:

    Is it just me or does this remind anybody else of the garage scene in “A Beautiful Mind.”

  21. JH says:

    What they say: 2+2 = 4
    The Truth: mathematical orthodoxy is outdated and dangerous!
    OMG. Priceless.

  22. Buddy199 says:

    “Hari argued in a July 2012 post against the use of microwave ovens, because they cause water molecules to form crystals that resemble crystals that have been exposed to “negative thoughts or beliefs,” including the names of Hitler and Satan.” – Wikipedia

    I don’t know about Satan crystals, but I trued to make instant coffee in a microwave once and almost went back in time.

  23. Uncle Al says:

    A Carl’s Jr. Double Western Bacon Cheeseburger with a big Cherry Coke really rings my chimes. Let’s see what the Vegans are eating…

    okra – sterculic acid (anti-metabolite)
    celery – psoralins (light-stimulated carcinogens)
    peanuts – aflatoxin (hepatic carconigen)
    lima beans – cyanogenic glycosides
    carrots – carotatoxin (neurotxin)
    mushrooms – hydrazines (carcinogen; holy Alar, Batman!)
    tomatoes – tomatine (neurotoxin), quercetin glycosides (carcinogens)
    broccoli – benzpyrene (carcinogin), goitrin (shuts down thyroid)
    potatoes – solanine (toxin; causes spina bifida), chaconine (neutrotoxin), isoflavones (estrogens), arsenic
    soy – genistin, daidzin, coumesterol (phytoestrogens)
    cabbage – thiocyanates (shuts down thyroid)
    spinach – phytic acid (chelates iron and – no absorption – anemia and immiune dysfunction)
    wheat germ – phytoestrogens
    alfalfa sprouts – canavanine (arginine mimic; highly toxic to growing
    mammals)
    nutmeg – myristicin (hallucinogen, spasmodic)
    mustard – allyl isothiocyanate (war gas)

  24. BioWonk says:

    I would give her more of the benefit of the doubt if she did not delete the comments of *anyone* who questions her claims, sources or qualification; no matter how civilly this is done. In fact, people who have never posted on her sites, but have been active on pro-vaccine/GMO sites, have found themselves preemptively banned. This is something cult leaders do.

    When people began to confront and contradict her on the Starbuck’s Facebook page, she made stated that everyone doing so was being paid .60/comment by Starbuck’s. When it was pointed out that she had just committed libel, that comment was edited to read that “Big Ag” was now financing the rebuttals.

    In her blog, she gave a negative review to a deodorant paste, but quickly changed her tune as soon as they became sponsors. She ues the words “toxic” or “toxin” in nearly every blog post to describe the food products of her sponsors’ competitors, with no regard for understanding what the word actually means.

    The best moments, however, were the two blog posts so gloriously idiotic, that she had to delete them- but not before people got screen shots. One involved a discredited pseudo-scientific study on how microwaves “alter” water and the other was about the risks involved with being in a pressurized aircraft cabin. In the latter, she embarrassed herself completely by claiming that airlines pump in up to 50% nitrogen, because it costs too much to add oxygen. Reminds one of remarks made by Palin and Bachmann.

    This is the person who her Food Babe Army is defending as a wise teacher and an expert in biochemistry.

    So, she has shown how she is nothing more than another internet scammer who makes her living extorting corporations, trash-talking her sponsors’ competitors, making imbecilic claims and unfounded accusations.

    So, when she is called out in an NPR blog, where she has no power to censor any dissenting voice,in the same way she indulges on her Facebook and blog comment threads, she labels it as an “attack”, a la Bill O’Reilley. All in an effort to deflect from her own commercial interests that she tries to distort as “activism.”

  25. hyperzombie says:

    Oh and if it is Organic it is most likely sprayed with Bacillus thuringiensis toxin, along with copper sulphate a proven Mutagen

  26. Silvia Aldredge says:

    I’m extremely skeptical of FoodBabe’s claims that she has been harassed in such a horrible way. I suspect this is little more than a convenient way of shutting down voices she doesn’t agree with and it would not surprise me in the least if she was found to be making up the ‘hate’ messages. Her websites ban people for any disagreement whatsoever.

  27. Paul Shipley says:

    Oh come on. who can doubt her beliefs against the use of microwave ovens, because “They cause water molecules to form crystals that resemble crystals that have been exposed to “negative thoughts or beliefs,” including the names of Hitler and Satan” Jimmy Fallon move over we have a new contender for a great stand-up comedian. It is Vani Hari.

  28. Sterling Ericsson says:

    Heck, her followers have made just as disgusting remarks toward anyone trying to present science on the page.

  29. oldhamegg says:

    yeah, but she’s “winning”

  30. Cairenn Day says:

    She has repeated urged her ‘army’ to attack companies and sites that fail to agree with her. I have never seen any of her followers called out for name calling.

    Those of us that are trying to fight the pseudoscience and the misinformation of folks like her, have in boxes full of insults and comments, like “I hope you get cancer’, and ‘you should be hung along with your masters at Monsanto’ and the occasional death threat.

    She is the typical bully that when caught red handed, tries to play the victim.

    Yes folks should be more polite and when you aren’t, it looks bad. None of that changes the Fact that she pushes misinformation, nonsense, hoaxes and outright lies in order to promote her name and those companies that ‘buy her off’.

    It past time that her reign of terror is seen for what it is, another ‘quack’ using the power of the internet to promote their own status and bank account.

  31. Cairenn Day says:

    Did you miss her ‘expose’ on flying? Did you know that airlines ‘save money’ by not using pure oxygen in the cabin air mix? You shouldn’t eat a heavy meal before flying, because of the ‘increased pressure’ in the cabin of the plane will interfere with your digestion.

    That was from a year or so ago. When it was found that circulated, she pulled it in less than 12 hours and then had the archived copies on the internet removed. It still exists because some folks were smart enough to screen shot it.

    I believe that she had pulled other posts when it was obvious that she had less knowledge than a 8th grader about a subject.

  32. Lila Vinçot-Abiven says:

    I agree far more with Jeff Fountain above : there are assholes everywhere. However, she certainly puts too much emphasis on these attacks so that people think her critics all act like that.
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nutpicking

  33. mem_somerville says:

    So did the Black Knight.

  34. mem_somerville says:

    I saw someone propose yesterday that people begin to challenge the sponsors of crap information sites and crap conferences, a la FoodBabe. I am not really comfortable with this, because I think it’s unfair when Hari does so. But I can imagine some of her critics might start these types of campaigns (the magazine one is a good example of how it worked). And companies might really regret association with misinformers….

  35. Norbrook says:

    Agreed. Let’s be realistic, she wouldn’t be given the media attention she receives (with attendant “credibility”) if she weren’t attractive. That’s a statement of reality in the mass media today.

  36. Mackinz says:

    Mem, normally you’re spot on, but I think you missed on number 2. I think she actually does know why people are challenging her, and that is why she is trying to brush off legitimate criticism by equating it took the insulting comments. She’s trying to portray herself as the victim of the scenario to convince her loyalists to ignore any academic criticism of her and not break out of her bubble of misinformation.

    Food Babe isn’t stupid. Far from it. She knows how to lie all too well.

  37. Chris Preston says:

    I think it is really important that we continue to point out that personalised attacks focusing on sex or race (or indeed any other personal trait) are completely out of line and should call people out on doing so.

    In addition to all the other reasons why we don’t want the internet to become more of a cesspool than it is, it allows someone like Hari to use those attacks to firstly garner sympathy and secondly to deflect real criticism.

    There is so much obvious stupidity in her internet claims that simply pointing those out and demonstrating to the media that she really doesn’t have a clue is going to have a much greater impact. Even the most unscientifically trained person will see the ludicrousness of the claim that airlines dilute the air to 50% nitrogen because it is cheaper when you point out that normal air contains 78% nitrogen. Those sort of claims speak for themselves, there is no need for personal attacks.

  38. Aleta Boddy says:

    “If you give them one fact they think they’re on to something.”

    LOL. So true! This can sum up all of the conspiracy theorists, pseudo-scientists, and fear-mongers.

  39. Sullivan ThePoop says:

    People are mean and being online makes them fearless. I believe she was probably harassed.

  40. A D says:

    She has a cult. Her minions are totally duped and are willing to argue for her. She’s like the Jim Jones of the anti-science movement that is sweeping the nation’s ignorant population. How long before she is the death of her minions? Some of them are bound to have orthorexia because of her fear mongering tactics. She’s a scary and very effective con artist, she can unintentionally (and likely without a care), quietly, legally, and efficiently kill people while making big money.

  41. Gretchen Alexander says:

    yep, I’ve gotten a response to something I posted, something like “enjoy dying of cancer.” It was pretty ugly in response to what I posted, which was simply countering all the fear mongering.

  42. JH says:

    “long before she is the death of her minions? Some of them are bound to have orthorexia ”

    But you know what’ll happen. They’ll blame any health problems they encounter on Big Food. ‘OMG, I shouldn’t have eaten so much Kraft Dinner as a kid!’.

  43. TheStupidItBurns says:

    No, that was definitely a draw.

  44. Bearpants112 says:

    They want us to be bogged down in chasing down trolls instead of focusing on their actions/statements. You’re not responsible for what some 3rd party troll does any more than she is.

  45. Uncle Al says:

    You cannot discredit this enemy with empirical facts, for “all knowledge is subjective and based on one’s position in society.” Make this enemy ridiculous. If folks laugh, there you are. If not, look in a mirror.

    http://www.vcn.bc.ca/citizens-handbook/rules.html

    Re Sony’s “The Interview” and Kim Jong-un going ballistic. On target! Do that to Obama and he’ll enjoy more gastric reflux (3.5 million Google hits).

    http://whenfallsthecoliseum.com/wp-content/uploads/obama_joker.jpg

  46. Paul Shipley says:

    Looks like she is getting a little paranoid.

    I did like the quotes on her site.

    What they say: The phrase “If you can’t pronounce it, you shouldn’t eat it” is not scientific.

    The truth: I didn’t come up with this clever phrase, but think it’s generally great advice.

    But to me the true classic was

    What they say: I’m not an expert because I am not a scientist or doctor or nutritionist.

    Truth: There is an old saying, “these issues are too important to leave up to the experts.”

    Almost like she is on self destruct mode.
    Thanks for the link to the post Keith makes some funny reading.

  47. Loren Eaton says:

    At least Chuck Benbrook and Margaret Mellon have the backbone to debate some REAL GMO experts. Vani’s reaction shows a degree of petulance usually associated with those who haven’t been or don’t want to be challenged. Add to this group Vandana Shiva, Jeffrey Smith, Mike Adams, etc. These folks are only interested in preaching to their own choir and go to great lengths to remove ALL appearance of disagreement….valid or not.

  48. NoToGMOs says:

    Take a look at biofortified and you will see the ultimate examples of ‘preaching to the choir’.

  49. Loren Eaton says:

    Except that Karl HAS engaged in debates and forums that included questions from those in the audience who didn’t automatically agree with him.

  50. Paul Shipley says:

    Just a question. So you think all the AMA, USDA, FDA, EPA, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society or the American Association for the Advancement of Science and World Health Organisation just to name a few who say there is nothing wrong with GMO’s and that they are in the pocket of Big Pharma. At what stage would you change you mind or will you continue to ignore all of the science. Here’s their link that speaks of how harmless GMOs are.
    http://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-board-directors-legally-mandating-gm-food-labels-could-%E2%80%9Cmislead-and-falsely-alarm

  51. NoToGMOs says:

    I’m not ‘ignoring’ the science. I’m saying the science is not sufficient at this point to show that GMOs are safe for human consumption. I don’t rely on statements by organizations that do not conduct their own studies, but instead rely on studies provided by the maker of the GM seed. I prefer to look at the actual studies and what I have seen so far is not very convincing to me.

    Why would I believe these position statements when their very premise…..that GMOs are ‘substantially equivalent’ to their non-GMO counterparts….is scientifically untrue and misleading? The AAAS statement was disputed by over 20 of their own long-standing member physicians and scientists:

    http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2014/15804-who-says-gmos-are-safe-and-who-says-they-re-not

  52. Paul Shipley says:

    I could put up a website tomorrow saying that the world is flat to support that theory. So I don’t pay much attention to pop up websites. Only ones from reputable sources.

  53. NoToGMOs says:

    Lol! Reputable as in those whose viewpoints you agree with? What a cop-out!

  54. Paul Shipley says:

    Huh, oh sorry it’s that guy again. You know the one. Excuse me a minute….
    So you would rather read a website that was put up by somebody, somewhere who watched a TV program, came to a conclusion, blogged about it rather than so many reputable organisations worldwide that assert that GMO’s are fine.
    Now where were we, time for another drink. Sorry about the interruption you always get those in here.
    You see nobody is listening to you anymore. Time to get onto another conspiracy. Maybe debate whether the US landed on the moon. Or vaccinations are bad.

  55. Mark Alsip says:

    Food Babe earns affiliate commissions selling products containing the very same ingredients she says are dangerous. From deodorants that contain aluminum to cosmetics that contain group 2B carcinogens (the same “scary” chemical found in Starbucks’ latte), the evidence that this woman is an opportunistic shill is overwhelming. I cannot excuse the misogynistic attacks against her, but I also cannot forgive the harm she is doing in pursuit of the dollar:

    https://badscidebunked.wordpress.com/2014/12/30/food-babe-pushing-dangerous-items-naturally-fresh-deodorant/

    https://badscidebunked.wordpress.com/2015/01/06/food-babe-pushing-dangerous-items-kiss-my-face-moisture-shave/

    https://badscidebunked.wordpress.com/2015/01/08/food-babe-pushing-dangerous-items-physicians-formula-organic-wear/

    https://badscidebunked.wordpress.com/2014/12/29/food-babe-pushing-dangerous-items-honeysuckle-shampoo/

  56. Paul Shipley says:

    So all those agencies worldwide are not reputable. All because they don’t support your view, Now that dear sir is a true cop out. Or dare I say delusional. Never let the truth get in the way of a good conspiracy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.