Food Babe Critics Speak Out

This is a woman who posted about airplanes "having high levels of nitrogen," and how microwaves cause water molecules to respond to words like "Hitler" and "Stalin." She's hand in hand with Dr. Oz, Mercola, and the rest of the woo merchants influencing the public.
That sounds pretty bad. and I agree that this is woo.
 
Never tried Heroin, but Nevada seems to have no major problems with its brothels. I think the market has decided on both: we don't want brothels in Texas, even if they are safe, and we don't want Heroin, even if making it illegal doesn't get rid of it. So, both are illegal in my state.

But neither of those seem equivalent to adding corn syrup to marinara sauce at the factory instead having mom dump in a handful of sugar to "give it the right taste". Are you going to outlaw sugar and salt the way we have successfully eradicated other dangerous drugs?

But sugar is good and natural while corn syrup is bad and evil. You have to remember these things, it is new age BS 101 stuff.
 
I don't know. I read a little of her stuff. It seems to me from what I read that there are about equal amounts of good advice and woo. True I read no where near all her stuff. Was far too boring. But just saying it does her no good to include some woo in with good advice. It discredits everything.
 
I don't know. I read a little of her stuff. It seems to me from what I read that there are about equal amounts of good advice and woo. True I read no where near all her stuff. Was far too boring. But just saying it does her no good to include some woo in with good advice. It discredits everything.

What would you classify as good advice ?
 
A 50% disinformation vector is still pretty abysmal.
 
Concerned about the "additives" in beer seems to me being missing the bigger point, it's akin to wanting a "may contain lead" warning on bullets in case someone is shot by one.
 
Concerned about the "additives" in beer seems to me being missing the bigger point, it's akin to wanting a "may contain lead" warning on bullets in case someone is shot by one.

in any case in 99% of bottled or kegged lagers they're filtered out, and like it or not worldwide those beers do dominate the market.
 
Is that your problem? Never met one of those "rubes" as you call them because you never grew up on a farm? If you had, your opinions of them as being "rubes" might be considerably different. My Great grandfather (a small farmer in North Carolina) was such a "rube" he ended up being the president of a bank during the depression. Why? Because he was the only "rube" with any money left in the bank! Without him the bank would have bellied up. :rolleyes:

Woosh!
 
What would you classify as good advice ?
Avoiding things like trans fats from Hydrogenated Oils and parabens etc...

I mean if you read through, you can find good advice. But also find unsubstantiated claims as well. Or more likely, sourced claims that are referencing low quality sources. She actually does use quite a few good references, but doesn't seem to matter to her. If no good citations can be found, she is more than willing to use lower quality or in some cases just plain bad references.
 
Of course not. Who can?

NIOSH, OSHA, and the EPA. The FDA probably can, too.

However, most folks don't limit their use to "unnecessary chemicals in our environment" to things like methyl ethyl chloride or dibenzo(a,h)anthracene. These are chemicals that are actually harmful--I believe the NIOSH IDLH for d(a,h)a is something like 80 mg/m^3. Bit of a different concept from "They put CHEMICALS in our food!!!!!"

I thought the specific cases would have to be specific about exactly what chemical was meant
That's the only way these studies are conducted--and the only way they can be conducted--in the real world. You don't test the toxicity of generic chemicals; you test the LD50 of a specific chemical.
 
Avoiding things like trans fats from Hydrogenated Oils and parabens etc...

I mean if you read through, you can find good advice. But also find unsubstantiated claims as well. Or more likely, sourced claims that are referencing low quality sources. She actually does use quite a few good references, but doesn't seem to matter to her. If no good citations can be found, she is more than willing to use lower quality or in some cases just plain bad references.

I'd as some trust Dr Oz. At least he is a real doctor with real training. Not some Internet loon.
 
Avoiding things like trans fats from Hydrogenated Oils and parabens etc...

I mean if you read through, you can find good advice. But also find unsubstantiated claims as well. Or more likely, sourced claims that are referencing low quality sources. She actually does use quite a few good references, but doesn't seem to matter to her. If no good citations can be found, she is more than willing to use lower quality or in some cases just plain bad references.

Something about a broken clock being right twice a day comes to mind. If the Breatharian Lady recommends flossing twice a day, do we actually give her credit for that? Maybe in a dental hygiene thread. But this is the Science/Math sub-forum. The fact that she may have stumbled upon a legitimate concern in all her dire warnings does not change the fact that she blogs scaremongering nonsense, does not research her claims (like the claims that vaccines "might contain....") and then cites the Japanese water crystal guy's studies as proof that microwaving is dangerous.

Personally, like I'd wish for Dr. Oz, I'd like to see full disclosure agreements for bloggers, like they have on responsible financial news sites, where they reveal whether the writer or organization publishing the information have "interest" in the company being reported on. Does she have any interest other than Bigtime Fan Girl in some of the products she supports by name?
 

Back
Top Bottom