Vani, you're making it worse.

The other day, Yvette d'Entremont aka Science Babe, wrote an article for Gawker which heavily criticized Vani Hari, aka The Food Babe.  The article was titled, "The 'Food Babe' Blogger is full of shit".  The piece brought up some of Vani's previous campaigns, Facebook Posts, and Tweets, and the fact that she is a bit ban-happy on her Facebook Page.  Of course, this didn't sit well with the blogger, and she quickly wrote a response on her website, FoodBabe.com.  

I want to take a few minutes and examine this response.  She started off by welcoming people to take a look at the About page of her website, which is full of her accomplishments and self-aggrandizement.  As an example, the first sentence of her Professional Bio starts off with, "Named as one of the most influential people on the internet by Time Magazine...".  If that isn't enough, she decided to finish off her About page with a bunch of pictures showcasing all of the famous people she has met since she's started her career in activism.

The response then goes on to basically call Ms. d'Entremont a shill for the biotech industry.  This is a common tactic used by pseudoscience proponents in hopes of painting over all possible criticism with a wide brush.  The funny thing is, Science Babe actually mentions in her article that Vani has done this several times in the past.  She's used the terms, "racist", and "sexist" towards white, male detractors in hopes that her fans will assume those are the only reasons they attacked her arguments.

Now, onto the anonymous email.  I'm not one of Science Babe's biggest fans.  Let me just get that out of the way.  I have had problems with her methodology in the past, but I'm fair.  The fact that Vani posted an email from a supposed former co-worker of Yvette's which illustrates her professional history in a negative light, is low.  If it's even true.  Science Babe does have her detractors as well.  How are we the reader supposed to know that it actually came from a former colleague and not someone who has a problem with her?

Food Babe seems to be fixating on the point that Yvette used to work for a company which makes various chemicals.  She's a chemist so, that would make sense.  She also states that Science Babe's former place of employment has ties to Monsanto.  Again, attempting to deflect her arguments by demonizing her history.  She only brought up Monsanto because she knows how hated the company by the scientifically-illiterate community.  Vani then asks, "who paid Gawker" to have someone write the article?  Obviously implying some sort of conspiracy.  Finishing this section off with an accusation directed towards Gawker stating that the only reason they posted the article was to get more traffic.  Which is it Ms. Hari?  Was it the food or chemical industry, or was it Gawker just looking for more hits?  Obviously there is no way that you could just be wrong and somebody is calling you out on it.  Right?

Now she actually gets to defending some of her arguments.    She starts off by attempting to defend her crusade against Starbucks to get the to remove 4-methylimidazole (Class 4 Caramel Coloring) because it is listed as a possible carcinogen. Her argument is that Starbucks doesn't use it in foreign countries. Which obviously isn't true since 4-MEI isn't added to all foods, rather is a byproduct of how they're cooked. Such as coffee beans and beef.

Next she goes on to explain what she meant by saying, "There is no acceptable level of any chemical to ingest ever", by basically stating you should never eat anything that has been given growth stimulants. At least here she uses the word, "believe" so we can just write this off as her own ill-informed opinion. In the next paragraph, she attempts to redefine the word "toxic" and states that the way she uses it is "common sense". It is for those who don't know what the word actually means. It leaves the rest of us scratching our heads.
Organic foods are healthier for you and healthier for the planet than conventional or GM crops? Not if the evidence has anything to say about it. I really like the appeal to nature and appeal to emotion fallacies she threw in here. By now, it is really clear that Vahi has no idea what "toxicity" means. regardless of what she stated earlier, she honestly believes that the only level of certain chemicals that is safe to consume, is none. She doesn't seem to understand how agriculture works at all and seems to be contradicting herself. She wants fewer pesticides used in agriculture, but is opposed to GM crops......which reduce pesticide use.

"Organic milk has been shown to be healthier for you – more omega 3’s and CLA – and it isn’t raised with antibiotics or growth-promoting drugs. Organic cows also graze on grass at least 120 days of the year, and don’t eat Roundup-ready GMO crops that have been doused with glyphosate and bad for our environment."

This one actually makes me laugh. What a pile of garbage? First off, no study has shown organic milk to be more healthy than non-organic. Secondly, milk is a horrible source of fatty acids to begin with, so if there is a small difference, it's basically irrelevant. Not to mention that this difference can fluctuate due to time of year and other factors. "Don't eat Roundup-ready GMO crops that have been doused with glyphosate and bad for our environment." Again, this shows she obviously doesn't know how agriculture works. Herbicides are sprayed onto the ground just as the crop is beginning to break through. By the time the plant is fully grown and ready to harvest, there are only trace amounts left on the plant. Due to steady watering and the weather, those amounts rarely exceed 1 ppm. She doesn't understand how Roundup works, either. There is a reason why glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide on the planet. It's because it chemically binds to dirt, making sure it doesn't enter the water table or other nearby bodies of water. Not to mention it's less toxic to mammals than table salt.


She ends her response by stating that GMOs can lead to an increase of food allergies. Which, obviously isn't true. Over the last 20 years, we have seen no real increase in food allergies (although they are commonly misdiagnosed by doctors playing it safe). We'd see some sort of increase, but we don't. Vani then links several studies and articles. None of the studies were conducted within the last ten years. Two of the articles she linked were from The Institute For Responsible Technology, a website with an obvious anti-GMO agenda which is well known for posting misinformation. The other article is from GMwatch, another site with the same agenda and is also well known for posting nonsense and misrepresenting studies.


So, in her attempt to defend herself, Vani actually made herself look worse. Of course that's not going to matter. Those she caters to don't know any better and will still support her, even though she has shown herself to be less than qualified to speak on such subjects as food or agriculture. Vani, do yourself a favor and don't try to debate scientists or science communicators. You are at a great disadvantage. They have the evidence to support their claims.