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.


          

                 
 

Toxicity

If you were to take a quick glance at the periodic table of elements, could you point out which elements are toxic to humans?  The quick answer is, they all are, and so are their compounds.  What actually matters is the dosage at which they become toxic.  Anybody who tells you different are either misinformed, or trying to sell you something.  It's generally the latter of the two which claim something to be toxic, without providing the required dosage.  Usually it's because they don't know and are just repeating what they heard someone else say.  Or, in some rare cases, are just pulling that information out of their ass in hopes to sway consumers from purchasing a specific product.

A common misconception is that all compounds which contain the same element, have the same toxicity.  This is completely false.  Sometimes having an extra oxygen, hydrogen or carbon atom can greatly change a compound's toxicity.  Or, whether or not that compound bioaccumulates.  This is something which is rigorously tested, especially in the field of medicine.  Every year as scientists attempt to create new medications, they also need to make sure that those medications don't kill the patient.  Either instantly or over a longer time-scale.  There are known adverse effects of certain medications, but they are greatly outweighed by the benefits.  

The next time someone tells you something is toxic, ask them at which dose.  If they don't know, look it up.  Look it up anyway, just in case they are mistaken.  You can find the toxicity levels in grams or micrograms per pound of body weight for almost every element and known compound online, and in some medical and chemistry textbooks.  Base your decisions on that information.  Granted there are some elements which are generally understood to be toxic to humans, but I don't think they really apply here.  Unless you live under a rock or happen to be six years old, you probably know arsenic is toxic to humans.  If that is the case, you probably aren't reading my blog anyway.          

If GMOs are so safe, why not label them?

This is one of the most common talking points presented by anti-GMO proponents, so I think it's something that's definitely worth covering.  This topic has been covered by many publications, but I want to voice my own opinion on the matter.  Well, it's not really as much an opinion as it is a position based upon the current evidence available.

Other sources have stated time and time again that labeling GMOs would be a pointless endeavor.  Not only is it pointless, but it strengthens the misnomer that GMOs are somehow inherently dangerous.  This notion is falsified by the evidence, but those who oppose the technology still believe it to be true for some reason.  One of the main reason why this belief is wrong is because technologies themselves aren't inherently good, or bad.  It's what they are used for which makes them one or the other.  In regard to agriculture, it's the product which the technology has produced that matters, not the technology itself.  This is why blanket statements like, "GMOs cause harm" fail on their own merit.  Which GMOs?  All GMOs?  When you look at the argument from this perspective, it's easy to see that it really makes no sense.

Now, here's my argument against GMO labeling:  It would cause far more harm than good, especially when it comes to the health of the general public.  It's odd to think that something as innocuous as a label on food could possibly increase the instances of certain diseases, but it can.  The reason for this has to deal with the current state of our (America's) economy.  Today, we have an issue with both obesity and diabetes in this country.  Most of this is due to the fact that we have a large portion of our population which is sitting near or below the poverty line.  Many of which are basically forced to live off of cheap, processed foods for nutrition.  This is from where the obesity and diabetes stems.  

What does this have to do with labels?  Everything.  You see, when the EU implemented their labeling policies, they started a chain reaction.  The scientifically challenged public started avoiding foods which had GMOs listed as ingredients.  This made manufacturers remove GMOs from the ingredients of their products.  The main problem with this is, it made everyone's food spending increase by $200 - $500 a year.  This is due to the fact that many GMOs are cheaper to produce than their conventional and organic counterparts.  Economists predict that if the same thing were to happen in the U.S., we would see an average increase of *$400 a year in food spending, per person.

This would make healthier foods inaccessible to an even larger portion of our population.  Which would mean we'd then have even more people relying on fast food or processed foods for nutrition, increasing our instances of obesity and diabetes as a result.  We would also see an increase in medical spending and a reduction in general productivity.  All for no good reason.  

Now ask yourself, is it really worth it?  Is your irrational fear worth the health of others?


*This number was based on those living in California, other States may vary.                              

Introduction

Since this is my first entry, I thought I'd make a quick introduction to myself and my goals associated with this blog.  As you can probably tell by now, my name is Jeremy and I'm a huge science and technology buff.  My biggest dream is to have a populace which has a scientifically literate majority.  The main reason for this, once you learn to think that way, the decisions you make in life are mostly based upon the best evidence available.  This includes things like who to vote for, what car to buy, what food to eat, and which medicine to take.  At the same time, it helps diminish the impact of charlatans who wish to capitalize on the fears of those who aren't true skeptics, critical thinkers or don't have any sort of background in science.

Which brings me to the other purpose of this blog.  For the last several years, I (along with many others) have made it my goal to combat pseudoscience.  Especially combating those who make a profit selling nonsense which could physically and/or financially hurt their followers.  In some cases, they put everyone at risk with their science denial.  For instance, the anti-vaccination movement compromising herd immunity.

For a long time, I remained anonymous.  I created a fake name on every social media site I use.  All out of fear of repercussions from those who follow this anti-scientific way of thinking.  Well, not anymore.  This is the real me.  My real name, for the first time, online.  It's both liberating and terrifying, because I don't know where this road will lead.  All I know is, if others can do it, so can I.

So, this marks the beginning of a new adventure.  Along this journey, I hope to contribute in some small way to the scientific education of those who do not have an extensive scientific background.  At the same time, I hope to possibly learn more from those who do.