
Food Babe’s Ingredient Attacks Draw ‘Quackmail’ Backlash - tokenadult
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-17/food-babe-s-starbucks-attacks-draw-quackmail-backlash.html
======
wcummings
>“Well, I’m a computer scientist, so I had to take a lot of engineering
courses for that,” says Hari, with an awkward laugh. He bores in. “But you are
not a food scientist. You’re not a chemist. You’re not a scientist in that
aspect.” Then he quotes an editorial, in which a Yale School of Medicine
neurologist calls the Subway claims “the worst example of pseudo-scientific
fear-mongering I have seen in a while.”

Sums up my feelings on this sort of activism perfectly. "You shouldn't eat
anything you can't pronounce" is an ignorant claim deserving of ridicule.

Yet Another misinformed anti-GMO/"natural food" advocate _yawn_ "Did you know
the salt in your potato chips is also used as a chemical agent to melt ice on
roads! Ban salt! Chemicals are poisoning your body!!!!!"

EDIT: [http://foodbabe.com/2012/10/31/getting-conned-cheap-toxic-
ch...](http://foodbabe.com/2012/10/31/getting-conned-cheap-toxic-chocolate/)

^ This actually highlights lactose as a "toxic" ingredient in chocolate.

~~~
tim333
>Ban salt!

I'm guessing you're parodying the Subway yoga mat ingredient azodicarbonamide.
It's banned in Europe and Oz as a food additive but if you'd like it in your
sandwiches feel free.

~~~
tjradcliffe
You say "it's banned in Europe and Oz as a food additive" as if that was
material or interesting. GMOs are banned in Europe too, but no one takes that
as a serious indictment of GMOs. It is, rather, a demonstration of the anti-
scientific stance of European law-makers.

If you have some data that increases the posterior plausibility of the
proposition "Azodicarbonamide is toxic at the levels found in Subway bread",
give it to us! Note that that statement is quite different from
"azodicarbonamide is toxic at some level", because that statement is true of
virtually everything and is therefore completely irrelevant to the question
about it's use in Subway's bread.

~~~
tim333
I just mentioned the ban as an indication that there may be some drawbacks to
the stuff. I see in the wikipedia mention that the UK has 'determined that
containers of it should be labeled with "May cause sensitisation by
inhalation."' Sounds like healthy and tasty to me.

------
SEJeff
I'm just gonna leave this link debunking all GMO is bad anecdotes here:

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/09/17/the-
debate-...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/09/17/the-debate-about-
gmo-safety-is-over-thanks-to-a-new-trillion-meal-study/)

~~~
tzs
That author misunderstands the issue. He thinks it is a science problem, and
so tries to resolve it by looking at scientific studies.

The problem with GMOs is not a science problem. It is a responsibility
problem. As Ben Parker said, "With great power comes great responsibility".

GMO gives food industrialists great power compared to what they have without
using GMO techniques. Many do not believe that the food industrialists can
handle the great responsibility that should accompany such great power.

------
bequanna
Maybe she is a quack.

But, people are visiting her blog and talking about her. She gets attention
and ad revenue. That is likely all she cares about.

She is the female, food activist version of Glenn Beck.

------
aaronbrethorst
Thought experiment: if the subject of the article was a man (perhaps "Food
Dude" instead of "Food Babe"), how much of the article would have to be
rewritten or dropped entirely?

~~~
cobrausn
If it was an attractive, well-muscled man who went by 'Food Hunk' and he used
his appearance as part of his shtick, I don't think it would be changed much.
But I don't think it has quite the same draw.

~~~
nostromo
So... Tim Ferriss?

------
dubfan
> Companies have spent years cutting costs by replacing natural ingredients
> with artificial ones, while overselling the message that the products still
> taste great and are good for you, Dibadj said. Now that consumers are
> calling them on it, a reversal to natural ingredients is sure to hurt
> profit.

That seems to be the point of this natural food movement. Rally the troops of
uninformed but passionate rubes who think artificial == bad and natural ==
good to pressure companies into substituting out ingredients for more
expensive ones, hurting their profit margin. This might have the effect of
making these products cost more, which further strengthens the anti-corporate
ideology this movement ultimately stems from. All the while they make a nice
living off of book sales and newsletter subscriptions. The industry of fear is
certainly booming in this social media era.

~~~
x0x0
The point of the natural food movement -- as is patently obvious -- is
suspicion about the health effects of many chemicals put into foods; suspicion
of the health effects of the way food animals are drugged, raised, and
treated; and suspicion of regulatory capture of the FDA. We should treat, in
the absence of safety studies, artificial ingredients as dangerous and prefer
not to use them.

Just for example, people don't want bpa or similar substitutes in their food.
And while it appears that bpa _may_ be safe-ish [2], we got around to checking
that well _after_ manufacturers put it in all of us.

    
    
       The CDC had found bisphenol A in the urine of 95% of adults sampled in 
       1988–1994 and in 93% of children and adults tested in 2003–04. While 
       the EPA considers exposures up to 50 µg/kg/day to be safe, the most 
       sensitive animal studies show effects at much lower doses, and 
       several studies of children, who tend to have the highest levels, have found 
       levels over the EPA's suggested safe limit figure. [2]
    
    

[1] [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bpa-free-
plastic-c...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bpa-free-plastic-
containers-may-be-just-as-hazardous/)

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A)

------
nnnnni
She's the food equivalent of Jenny McCarthy...

------
fleitz
Hopefully she can get broccoli growers to stop using MSG in their products.

~~~
sliverstorm
Of course, broccoli is already a hybrid and completely unnatural.

~~~
mieses
This exemplifies why Common Sense 101 should be an Engineering requirement.

------
ashwinaj
"Choosing Food Babe as a blog handle has prompted some critics to say she is
using her looks to get undue attention"

Her looks are very subjective. Not to sound sexist (but I know I will since
being victimized is so in vogue), if you're so concerned about GMO stuff, you
better start with valid scientific data and not hearsay.

------
davidy123
«Michael Jacobson, executive director for the Center for Science in the Public
Interest, says that while Hari sometimes “hyperventilates” about small risks
in food, she is helpful on balance.

‘Populist Voice’

“Going after food dyes is worth doing and she brings a populist voice to the
table,” he said. Internet-savvy food activists “do nudge companies to change
their practices, often for the better.”»

In any industry, many of the experts are inherently bought off, and it's
helpful to have everyday individuals develop an interest in diverse topics
that affect them.

------
mzs
Anyone have a link to the NPR interview? I searched the NPR site and only
found a story back from February of this year.

~~~
mzs
Author of linked piece replied to an email from me, the radio piece was this
one from February 25, 2014 of WFAE from Charlotte (the first part is also
pretty interesting - about HAM radio):

[http://wfae.org/post/ham-radio-update-food-babe-vani-
hari](http://wfae.org/post/ham-radio-update-food-babe-vani-hari)

That radio program mentions this blog entry from Feb 14 2014 and the blog
often covers issues from the POV of a skeptic:

[http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/eating-yoga-
mat...](http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/eating-yoga-mats/)

------
fibbery
"Food babe" is a dumb name and food hysteria is definitely worth scorn, but
what's the alternative?

I'd rather have people like her raising unnecessary media flurry over things
that aren't that bad for us, than have everyone turn a blind eye to what the
food industry does to maximize its bottom line.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I'd rather have people like her raising unnecessary media flurry over things
> that aren't that bad for us, than have everyone turn a blind eye to what the
> food industry does to maximize its bottom line.

The problem is that the former _encourages_ , rather than _opposes_ , the
latter. Are you familiar with the boy who cried wolf?

~~~
tim333
I think the public actually do have some ability to distinguish what is
nonsense and what is not. I think her arguments against azodicarbonamide seem
quite reasonable to me and have been acted on. Her arguments on microwave
ovens on the other hand appear well nuts:

'Hari has argued against the use of microwave ovens, for reasons that include
the claim that 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)

but I don't think many people take that seriously.

