Food Babe Critics Speak Out

Skeletor said:
This article brings together what I've seen as the results of hard work on the part of woo-busters on blogs and social media:
Is The Food Babe A Fearmonger? Scientists Are Speaking Out

Some really notable skeptic names are mentioned like Kavin Senapathy, but Dr. Kevin Folta is rather prominent.
Click to expand...
Whatever flaws there might be in the Food Babe's arguments, it has nothing to do with woo.

Personally, I welcome a campaign for fewer unnecessary chemicals in our environment. I do not care if the amount is considered non-poisonous, because we might get the same chemicals from several sources, raising the amount that we eat, and these chemicals are still unnecessary.
 
steenkh said:
Personally, I welcome a campaign for fewer unnecessary chemicals in our environment. I do not care if the amount is considered non-poisonous, because we might get the same chemicals from several sources, raising the amount that we eat, and these chemicals are still unnecessary.
Click to expand...
Not if you have built an entire industrial business model supplying them. Then it is very important that they continue at any cost.

I do agree they are for the most part unnecessary, assuming you know what you are doing. The big question is why so few people know this?:covereyes
 
steenkh said:
Whatever flaws there might be in the Food Babe's arguments, it has nothing to do with woo.

Personally, I welcome a campaign for fewer unnecessary chemicals in our environment. I do not care if the amount is considered non-poisonous, because we might get the same chemicals from several sources, raising the amount that we eat, and these chemicals are still unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Ooh, "chemicals". :eek:

Do you understand that you are made of chemicals? Everything is made of chemicals. Plants, animals, every kind of food, even "organic" food is 100% made of chemicals.

It's woo. Woo through and through.

Did you see what she wrote as out air travel and oxygen? Total ignorance.
 
Puppycow said:
Ooh, "chemicals". :eek:

Do you understand that you are made of chemicals? Everything is made of chemicals. Plants, animals, every kind of food, even "organic" food is 100% made of chemicals.

It's woo. Woo through and through.

Did you see what she wrote as out air travel and oxygen? Total ignorance.
Click to expand...
You may be right, but steenkh was referring to "unnecessary chemicals", and that is a fair point. Many substances, eg simple sugar and salt, are added in excess, and might better be dispensed with or at least reduced; even though these chemicals are not in themselves unnatural in origin.
 
Last edited:
steenkh said:
Whatever flaws there might be in the Food Babe's arguments, it has nothing to do with woo.

Personally, I welcome a campaign for fewer unnecessary chemicals in our environment. I do not care if the amount is considered non-poisonous, because we might get the same chemicals from several sources, raising the amount that we eat, and these chemicals are still unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Yep evil corporations cheaping out and cutting your precious oxygen with almost 50% nitrogen on airlines. Totally not at all wooish.
 
Puppycow said:
Ooh, "chemicals". :eek:

Do you understand that you are made of chemicals? Everything is made of chemicals. Plants, animals, every kind of food, even "organic" food is 100% made of chemicals.
Click to expand...
Yep, and you chose to counter a valid argument with a definition straw man. Well done!

It's woo. Woo through and through.
Click to expand...
Could you elaborate and explain what is the supernatural or paranormal element in my argument about not wanting possibly toxic substances in the food, if they are not necessary?

Or perhaps "woo" in your usage just means that you disagree with an argument?
 
Water is toxic at high enough levels.

It's also chemicals.

Anyone claiming "toxins" and "chemicals" in food are harming us needs to demonstrate that, not just make claims with scary words.

Foodbabe isn't claiming anything supernatural or paranormal, but she uses a lot of pseudoscience. Therefore it fits under the broad term of "woo".
 
Last edited:
She is definitely woo and a blight on society. The sooner she departs it the better. She makes me ashamed to be of the same species.
 
CynicalSkeptic said:
Water is toxic at high enough levels.

It's also chemicals.

Anyone claiming "toxins" and "chemicals" in food are harming us needs to demonstrate that, not just make claims with scare words.
Click to expand...
You seriously want me to document that toxins in food can be harmful? I think this discussion is already futile.

Foodbabe isn't claiming anything supernatural or paranormal, but she uses a lot of pseudoscience. Therefore it fits under the broad term of "woo".
Click to expand...
That may be so. I have never read anything by her. My own position of avoiding unnecessary chemicals is based on a better-safe-than-sorry policy, and does not strike me as particularly pseudoscientific. As an example, I accept chemicals that preserves food in most circumstances, but I try to avoid it in food that I want to eat immediately. Would that be woo to you?
 
Craig B said:
You may be right, but steenkh was referring to "unnecessary chemicals", and that is a fair point. Many substances, eg simple sugar and salt, are added in excess, and might better be dispensed with or at least reduced; even though these chemicals are not in themselves unnatural in origin.
Click to expand...

I think "unnecessary" and "in excess" need some definition. My understanding is that salt and sugar are being added largely due to competition, American consumers prefer sweet and salty. We love sugar and salt. There are low sugar options and low salt options, but the average consumer does not choose them. The low sat and low sugar options do not sell as well. So, we blame the manufacturer for meeting the preferences of their customers. Constructive!
 
steenkh said:
You seriously want me to document that toxins in food can be harmful? I think this discussion is already futile.


That may be so. I have never read anything by her. My own position of avoiding unnecessary chemicals is based on a better-safe-than-sorry policy, and does not strike me as particularly pseudoscientific. As an example, I accept chemicals that preserves food in most circumstances, but I try to avoid it in food that I want to eat immediately. Would that be woo to you?
Click to expand...

You keep acting like 'chemicals' are different than other substances. Everything in your food is made of chemicals, whether you eat it fresh off a tree or out of a box that's been on the shelf for a year.
 
steenkh said:
You seriously want me to document that toxins in food can be harmful? I think this discussion is already futile.
Click to expand...
No, I want you, or FoodBabe, or my sister-in-law, or anyone else who makes unsupported claims with scare words, to actually have some reasoning behind their claims.

Here's a good article on azodicarbonamide.

It's toxic (at high levels)
It's used in industrial processes (so what, so are lots of things we add to our food)
It's an unnecessary chemical (yes, ascorbic acid can be used instead, but that's also a chemical --- and read the wiki entry on the industrial preparation of ascorbic acid. That's scary as hell sounding)
It's also been deemed safe by the FDA at levels below 45ppm. I trust the FDA slightly more than some random blogger on the internet.

I'm sure you've seen some of the scary facts about diHydrogen Monoxide, but I don't suggest you eliminate that from you diet.
 
Last edited:
steenkh said:
You seriously want me to document that toxins in food can be harmful? I think this discussion is already futile.


That may be so. I have never read anything by her. My own position of avoiding unnecessary chemicals is based on a better-safe-than-sorry policy, and does not strike me as particularly pseudoscientific. As an example, I accept chemicals that preserves food in most circumstances, but I try to avoid it in food that I want to eat immediately. Would that be woo to you?
Click to expand...

Clearly no coffee either. Caffine is a chemical insect poison after all.
 
Dr. Keith said:
I think "unnecessary" and "in excess" need some definition. My understanding is that salt and sugar are being added largely due to competition, American consumers prefer sweet and salty. We love sugar and salt. There are low sugar options and low salt options, but the average consumer does not choose them. The low sat and low sugar options do not sell as well. So, we blame the manufacturer for meeting the preferences of their customers. Constructive!
Click to expand...
Nice! Heroin peddlers can cite that principle. As can brothel keepers. What's your view of that?
 
CynicalSkeptic said:
No, I want you, or FoodBabe, or my sister-in-law, or anyone else who makes unsupported claims with scare words, to actually have some reasoning behind their claims.

<snip>

I'm sure you've seen some of the scary facts about diHydrogen Monoxide, but I don't suggest you eliminate that from you diet.
Click to expand...

I think it's worse to know better and make such a silly straw argument, than to blindly worry about chemicals in food from ignorance.

Which terrestrial organisms evolved to accept aspartame, sucralose, or partially hydrogenated oils in their diet, or hundreds of pounds a year of sucrose or fructose? This is important and needs our collective attention. Focusing on the poor arguments at the extremes of the knowlege spectrum while ignoring the actual dangers is NOT a superior or well-informed position.
 
RedPillNeo said:
I think it's worse to know better and make such a silly straw argument, than to blindly worry about chemicals in food from ignorance.

Which terrestrial organisms evolved to accept aspartame, sucralose, or partially hydrogenated oils in their diet, or hundreds of pounds a year of sucrose or fructose? This is important and needs our collective attention. Focusing on the poor arguments at the extremes of the knowlege spectrum while ignoring the actual dangers is NOT a superior or well-informed position.
Click to expand...

Why is it important?

What terrestrial organisms evolved to eat broccoli?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom