Food Babe Critics Speak Out

[ddt]

As I understand it, that's not so much a question of purity & concentration, but more that aspirin (acetyl salicylic acid) is a pro-drug for the salicylic acid (the natural birch bark stuff), which is much more aggressive on the digestive system.

Thank you, I didn't know that.

But it reinforces my point. Those who say "everything is chemicals" just point out there's no fundamental difference between substances found in nature or those synthesized in the lab. While in fact, often synthesized substances are often actually superior for a number of reasons.

 

[foophil]

GM removing BHT from cereals after Food Babe starts a petition

Another company likely bowing to the Food Babe (claiming they aren't of course) by removing a chemical from their products:

There is no scientific evidence that BHT is harmful in the amounts used in packaged food. Indeed, in small amounts, it may have anticancer effects similar to those provided by naturally occurring antioxidants. But studies of larger doses have shown mixed results. In some mouse and rat studies, BHT appeared to trigger cancer in the forestomach, an organ that humans don’t have.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/general-mills-to-remove-antioxidant-bht-from-its-cereals/

 

[Puppycow]

It's always interesting to see how posters arguing that everything is chemicals fail to acknowledge that quoted have connotations as well denotations.

Not sure exactly what what point you are trying to make here.

The following is reportedly a direct quote from her new book:

"There is no acceptable level of any chemical to ingest, ever".

You do see what's wrong with that, right?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Not sure exactly what what point you are trying to make here.

The following is reportedly a direct quote from her new book:

"There is no acceptable level of any chemical to ingest, ever".

You do see what's wrong with that, right?

She is going full Breatharian?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Not sure exactly what what point you are trying to make here.

The following is reportedly a direct quote from her new book:

"There is no acceptable level of any chemical to ingest, ever".

You do see what's wrong with that, right?

I see the problem that people are trying to make by equivocation between usages of "chemical" and think that the "everything's a chemical trope"–for certain decorations of "chemical"–does more to hurt public awareness of the existing scientific data on chemical safety.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I see the problem that people are trying to make by equivocation between usages of "chemical" and think that the "everything's a chemical trope"–for certain decorations of "chemical"–does more to hurt public awareness of the existing scientific data on chemical safety.

So surely it's up to those who use the word "chemical" in a pejorative sense to be more specific in their claims, not those who use it correctly in a scientific sense. If someone says there are "chemicals in that", surely the only response (other than loud disparaging laughter) is, "What do you mean by 'chemical'?"

 

[mijopaalmc]

So surely it's up to those who use the word "chemical" in a pejorative sense to be more specific in their claims, not those who use it correctly in a scientific sense. If someone says there are "chemicals in that", surely the only response (other than loud disparaging laughter) is, "What do you mean by 'chemical'?"

Which is not the same thing as snidely intoning "everything is a chemical".

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Which is not the same thing as snidely intoning "everything is a chemical".

Which is not the same thing as being so freakingly stupid and uneducated to think that it is not.

 

[Trebuchet]

Wait 'til she finds out some foods have DiHydrogen Monoxide in them. That's as bad as putting up to 50% nitrogen in the air on airplanes.

 

[Puppycow]

Which is not the same thing as snidely intoning "everything is a chemical".

But see, it's actually exactly the reason why what they are saying is so wrong. They think chemicals are only things that come from laboratory beakers, but the foods we find in nature are ultimately made of the same chemicals, and whether a certain chemical is "natural" or "artificial" is not what determines its toxicity. Some "natural" chemicals are toxic, and some "artificial" ones are not. And scary-sounding chemical nomenclature is not a basis for figuring out which ones are harmful (and in what doses) and which ones are not. In small enough doses, most things seem to be OK, while even things we tend to think of as safe and natural can have harmful effects if the dose is too high.

Her framework is just plain wrong, even giving her the most generous reading. For virtually all chemicals (maybe all?), both artificial and naturally occurring ones, there is an acceptable dose which does not cause any discernible (or demonstrable) harm. If she wants to say that a certain chemical does cause harm in any dose, she needs to demonstrate that. And just because a chemical may cause harm in very high doses, does not mean that low doses are harmful. Salt (sodium chloride) is one simple example: too much of it is bad for you, but so is not enough of it. Same with water.

 

[Hellbound]

But see, it's actually exactly the reason why what they are saying is so wrong. They think chemicals are only things that come from laboratory beakers, but the foods we find in nature are ultimately made of the same chemicals, and whether a certain chemical is "natural" or "artificial" is not what determines its toxicity. Some "natural" chemicals are toxic, and some "artificial" ones are not. And scary-sounding chemical nomenclature is not a basis for figuring out which ones are harmful (and in what doses) and which ones are not. In small enough doses, most things seem to be OK, while even things we tend to think of as safe and natural can have harmful effects if the dose is too high.

Her framework is just plain wrong, even giving her the most generous reading. For virtually all chemicals (maybe all?), both artificial and naturally occurring ones, there is an acceptable dose which does not cause any discernible (or demonstrable) harm. If she wants to say that a certain chemical does cause harm in any dose, she needs to demonstrate that. And just because a chemical may cause harm in very high doses, does not mean that low doses are harmful. Salt (sodium chloride) is one simple example: too much of it is bad for you, but so is not enough of it. Same with water.

Just to add to this, in many cases the artifical chemicals are actually better understood and controlled. Strawberry flavor is a good example. The flavor of a natural strawberry comes from a mix of hundreds of chemicals produced in the fruit, many of which have not been studied to great extent. Artifical strawberry flavor is generally one chemical, which has undergone safety and toxicity testing.

At best, talking about "chemicals" in food is an indication of a shallow understanding and sloppy thinking.

 

[DuvalHMFIC]

The food babe sure does like using chemicals on her face...lot's of pics with lots of makeup when you google her.

It's perfectly fine to be concerned with foods, allergens, chemicals etc. It's NOT perfectly fine to be ignorant of the subject if you are going to blog about it. She has shown zero interest in learning the truth.

 

[tsig]

Which is not the same thing as snidely intoning "everything is a chemical".

Watch out for whiplash when you have to change your mind abruptly.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Watch out for whiplash when you have to change your mind abruptly.

Err...arguing for clarification is not the same thing as declaring position invalid because one has chosen a definition that it rarely applied in colloquial discourse.

 

[tsig]

Which is not the same thing as snidely intoning "everything is a chemical".

Watch out for whiplash when you have to change your mind abruptly.

Err...arguing for clarification is not the same thing as declaring position invalid because one has chosen a definition that it rarely applied in colloquial discourse.

I tried to Do Right.

 

[tsig]

Err...arguing for clarification is not the same thing as declaring position invalid because one has chosen a definition that it rarely applied in colloquial discourse.

Seriously then, name something that isn't a chemical.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Seriously then, name something that isn't a chemical.

Seriously, learn that one definition of "chemical"–the one that people use in colloquial discourse–doesn't include all matter. See, e.g., the entry for the noun in the Oxford English Dictionary:

[...]

1. • A distinct substance or compound,esp. one which has been chemically prepared or purified. Freq. in pl.
     Often in early use: a medicine.
     
     [...]
     
   • spec. An intoxicating or psychoactive drug; a narcotic. Cf. sense A. 7.
   
   [...]
   
2. • fine chemicals n. chemicals produced in a relatively pure state; (in later use) esp. chemicals produced to a very high degree of purity for use in research and industry.
     
     [...]
     
   • heavy chemicals n. chemicals produced in large quantities for industry and agriculture, often in a relatively unpure state.

Seriously–yet again–stomping your feet and insisting that people use the same definition of "chemical" as you so you can declare that "everything is a chemical" does not aid in the communication of the safety of classes of compounds.

 

[DuvalHMFIC]

Seriously, learn that one definition of "chemical"–the one that people use in colloquial discourse–doesn't include all matter. See, e.g., the entry for the noun in the Oxford English Dictionary:




Seriously–yet again–stomping your feet and insisting that people use the same definition of "chemical" as you so you can declare that "everything is a chemical" does not aid in the communication of the safety of classes of compounds.

This thing is getting derailed. You, me, and most of the posters in this thread are smart enough to know the distinction. That isn't the issue. The issue is "The Food Babe" really DOESN'T know the difference, and she's apparently a source that the public is listening to. She thought the air should be 100% oxygen, for crying out loud.

 

[Mark6]

It's perfectly fine to be concerned with foods, allergens, chemicals etc. It's NOT perfectly fine to be ignorant of the subject if you are going to blog about it. She has shown zero interest in learning the truth.

I do not think Food Babe is ignorant or stupid at all. I think her over the top act is exactly that -- and act, -- and she is doing it in order to sell stuff to people who ARE ignorant and stupid. She is marketing to the insane.

What convinced me is when I found out that she declined all invitations by NPR (hardly shills for food industry), but appeared repeatedly on Alex Jones show.

She is a con artist -- and a very successful one.

 

[Spindrift]

I do not think Food Babe is ignorant or stupid at all. I think her over the top act is exactly that -- and act, -- and she is doing it in order to sell stuff to people who ARE ignorant and stupid. She is marketing to the insane.

What convinced me is when I found out that she declined all invitations by NPR (hardly shills for food industry), but appeared repeatedly on Alex Jones show.

She is a con artist -- and a very successful one.

I think it is an act and she is stupid and ignorant as well. Makes the act that much easier to pull off.