The Science Thread
- Thread starter Tigger
- Start date
bustaheims
Well-known member
Bullfrog said:
You mean dihydrogen monoxide.
Heroic Shrimp
Active member
Bullfrog said:
I'm hoping you mean dihydrogen monoxide, because if you just gave him a glass of hydrogen peroxide as you claim, I'm obliged to report you to the authorities.
Heroic Shrimp
Active member
Bullfrog said:
The guy admits to a crime, then lies about it and starts covering his tracks. Sheesh, you think you know some people...
hockeyfan1
New member
To each their own... on food science, bloggers, and the Food Babe...
A larger trend is lurking beneath this spat over digital influence: ... a growing crisis of credibility in food labeling.
The trend toward healthy, natural food has buoyed bloggers like Hari. She's made headlines and ignited hashtag wars by pointing a finger at allegedly toxic chemicals in products from brands such as Starbucks, General Mills and Chick-fil-A, despite having no relevant academic qualifications. It's also the reason why newer, more agile brands like Chipotle, Panera and Shake Shack are challenging longtime market leaders like McDonald's and Taco Bell...
... [Americans] might trust influencers like Food Babe more than they trust Burger King or an agency working on the food chain's behalf.
"'Qualifications' is an interesting term: There are academic qualifications, government qualifications, and life experience," he says. "Some people suffer greatly due to gluten allergies before changing their diets, experimenting with different foods and improving their lives. Are they then qualified to comment [on dietary issues]?
The credibility crisis, however, can't be pinned entirely on experts with dubious credentials: Brands themselves bear a large share of the blame. Lewis says that on one hand, "saying you're a nutritionist doesn't really mean anything." But neither does much of the language in food marketing. Classic taglines and fad phrases like "Eat Fresh," "all-natural flavor" and "low fat" represent the very sort of miscommunication that inspired the rise of Food Babe and others like her in the first place.
http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/food-babe-debacle-underscores-crisis-credibility-surrounding-what-we-eat-164071
A larger trend is lurking beneath this spat over digital influence: ... a growing crisis of credibility in food labeling.
The trend toward healthy, natural food has buoyed bloggers like Hari. She's made headlines and ignited hashtag wars by pointing a finger at allegedly toxic chemicals in products from brands such as Starbucks, General Mills and Chick-fil-A, despite having no relevant academic qualifications. It's also the reason why newer, more agile brands like Chipotle, Panera and Shake Shack are challenging longtime market leaders like McDonald's and Taco Bell...
... [Americans] might trust influencers like Food Babe more than they trust Burger King or an agency working on the food chain's behalf.
"'Qualifications' is an interesting term: There are academic qualifications, government qualifications, and life experience," he says. "Some people suffer greatly due to gluten allergies before changing their diets, experimenting with different foods and improving their lives. Are they then qualified to comment [on dietary issues]?
The credibility crisis, however, can't be pinned entirely on experts with dubious credentials: Brands themselves bear a large share of the blame. Lewis says that on one hand, "saying you're a nutritionist doesn't really mean anything." But neither does much of the language in food marketing. Classic taglines and fad phrases like "Eat Fresh," "all-natural flavor" and "low fat" represent the very sort of miscommunication that inspired the rise of Food Babe and others like her in the first place.
http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/food-babe-debacle-underscores-crisis-credibility-surrounding-what-we-eat-164071
Kin
Active member
I'm pretty sure this is the article linked to by Keith Law that HS mentioned about this Food Babe huckster. Worth a read:
The Food Babe Blogger is full of, uh, malarkey
The Food Babe Blogger is full of, uh, malarkey
MetalRaven
New member
Nik the Trik said:
Thanks Nik, that was great. We should have a debunking conspiracies thread...but the powers that be wont let us! Show us the moon landing certificate!
also:
What crazy science is this? I blame the Oil companies (Not really...I am sane)
https://youtu.be/_c6HsiixFS8
(Sprinkler rainbows)
hockeyfan1
New member
Before heaping scorn on someone, it's always best to look at both sides of the equation...(you never know what one might find):
There?s plenty of scientists and consumer organizations that back this message and this writer completely ignores the mountains of evidence that synthetic, carcinogenic and neurotoxic insecticides are bad for human health and the environment. These are not allowed in organic food by government certification. Maybe in the end some of these chemicals are ok to ingest?but I?d rather not take the chance. People like this author are so twisted that they seem to pretending that these multinational conglomerates are doing the US a favor by dumping these (largely untested) chemicals in what we eat.
...who is the author of ?The Food Babe Blogger is Full of $hit?...
She is undoubtedly pro-chemical and pro-GMO and has proven this fact over and over again but her background might be the most convincing...she worked for Amvac Chemical, as reported in the Seattle Times, ?Amvac Chemical in Los Angeles has found a profitable ? and controversial ? niche by buying manufacturing rights to older pesticides, many of them at risk of being banned or restricted because of safety concerns?. Yes, you read that right, a company that sells dangerous and unsafe chemicals for peofits.
Amvac has a collaboration agreement with Monsanto to co-market Roundup ready platforms. The same Roundup that has glyphosate, which has been listed by the IARC and WHO as a probable carcinogen and the same Roundup that is directly associated with GMO crops.
...email from (the Science Babe's) ex-colleague:
Dear Vani..."Good science is based on producing original work and publishing in a peer reviewed context, self published armchair science as scibabe.com is peddling gives science a bad name. Taking swipes at the work and opinions of others is not science, unless you have original data that draws other work into question. What makes you and her different is that you don?t claim to be a scientist. If you have solid reasoning, you don?t need to be vitriolic in your posts as science babe is, with much of her abuse directed towards you...
...Yvette Guinevere d?Entremont has no peer reviewed scientific publications. 2) Her master?s thesis from Anglia Ruskin University was not deemed of sufficient quality for publication. 3) Her claim that she was a college professor is laughable"...
Starbucks chooses not to use caramel coloring class IV in their coffee drinks overseas? Don?t we deserve the same safer ingredients here in the United States?Caramel coloring level IV is considered a possible carcinogen by the IRAC and National Toxicology Program and scientists at both the Consumers Union and Center For Science In The Public Interest have petitioned the FDA to regulate it.
The Starbucks campaign was indeed successful! Starbucks has already started to remove caramel coloring level IV from their vanilla syrup and whip cream and are removing it from the rest of their drinks.
Consumer Reports recently tested produce and recommends eating organically to avoid synthetic pesticides. They believe organic is ?always the best choice because it is better for your health, the environment, and the people who grow our food",...Synthetic chemical pesticides are NOT allowed to be used for food certified by USDA as organic. Organic agriculture is safer for the environment, the water, the birds and bees too.
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...
Read entire article and learn:
http://foodbabe.com/response-to-gawker-the-food-babe-blogger-is-full-of-shit/
There?s plenty of scientists and consumer organizations that back this message and this writer completely ignores the mountains of evidence that synthetic, carcinogenic and neurotoxic insecticides are bad for human health and the environment. These are not allowed in organic food by government certification. Maybe in the end some of these chemicals are ok to ingest?but I?d rather not take the chance. People like this author are so twisted that they seem to pretending that these multinational conglomerates are doing the US a favor by dumping these (largely untested) chemicals in what we eat.
...who is the author of ?The Food Babe Blogger is Full of $hit?...
She is undoubtedly pro-chemical and pro-GMO and has proven this fact over and over again but her background might be the most convincing...she worked for Amvac Chemical, as reported in the Seattle Times, ?Amvac Chemical in Los Angeles has found a profitable ? and controversial ? niche by buying manufacturing rights to older pesticides, many of them at risk of being banned or restricted because of safety concerns?. Yes, you read that right, a company that sells dangerous and unsafe chemicals for peofits.
Amvac has a collaboration agreement with Monsanto to co-market Roundup ready platforms. The same Roundup that has glyphosate, which has been listed by the IARC and WHO as a probable carcinogen and the same Roundup that is directly associated with GMO crops.
...email from (the Science Babe's) ex-colleague:
Dear Vani..."Good science is based on producing original work and publishing in a peer reviewed context, self published armchair science as scibabe.com is peddling gives science a bad name. Taking swipes at the work and opinions of others is not science, unless you have original data that draws other work into question. What makes you and her different is that you don?t claim to be a scientist. If you have solid reasoning, you don?t need to be vitriolic in your posts as science babe is, with much of her abuse directed towards you...
...Yvette Guinevere d?Entremont has no peer reviewed scientific publications. 2) Her master?s thesis from Anglia Ruskin University was not deemed of sufficient quality for publication. 3) Her claim that she was a college professor is laughable"...
Starbucks chooses not to use caramel coloring class IV in their coffee drinks overseas? Don?t we deserve the same safer ingredients here in the United States?Caramel coloring level IV is considered a possible carcinogen by the IRAC and National Toxicology Program and scientists at both the Consumers Union and Center For Science In The Public Interest have petitioned the FDA to regulate it.
The Starbucks campaign was indeed successful! Starbucks has already started to remove caramel coloring level IV from their vanilla syrup and whip cream and are removing it from the rest of their drinks.
Consumer Reports recently tested produce and recommends eating organically to avoid synthetic pesticides. They believe organic is ?always the best choice because it is better for your health, the environment, and the people who grow our food",...Synthetic chemical pesticides are NOT allowed to be used for food certified by USDA as organic. Organic agriculture is safer for the environment, the water, the birds and bees too.
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...
Read entire article and learn:
http://foodbabe.com/response-to-gawker-the-food-babe-blogger-is-full-of-shit/
bustaheims
Well-known member
The worst part about this garbage is how she uses "chemicals" as if it's a dangerous and dirty word. Everything - and I mean EVERYTHING - on this planet is made of chemicals. They are not something to be feared on their own. Just because you have trouble pronouncing their name or don't understand what they are doesn't mean they're bad for you, but that's often the position she takes on things.
Kin
Active member
The depressing thing is that there's really nothing new about this kind of fraud. Con artists have been selling snake oil to people for centuries. Even the defenses remain the same "That man telling you my miracle cure is bogus? He's just trying to sell you his own miracle cure!"
Simply put if someone "doesn't claim to be a scientist" then their opinions of scientific matters mean very little to me.
Simply put if someone "doesn't claim to be a scientist" then their opinions of scientific matters mean very little to me.
L K
Well-known member
Read entire article and learn:
http://foodbabe.com/response-to-gawker-the-food-babe-blogger-is-full-of-shit/
A heaping pile of garbage...there is nothing to learn from someone who doesn't know the first thing about the topic they are discussing.
http://foodbabe.com/response-to-gawker-the-food-babe-blogger-is-full-of-shit/
A heaping pile of garbage...there is nothing to learn from someone who doesn't know the first thing about the topic they are discussing.
hockeyfan1
New member
So, Starbucks is full of sh__ for having removed caramel coloring; the WHO and scientific organizations are full of sh__ for warning about certain chemicals, additives, (growth) hormones (some of which are banned in Europe & elsewhere); practically anyone who speaks up about our food (& it's relation to our health); Dr. Oz is full of __ (even though he's a surgeon AND was verbally attacked very virulently recently (investigation revealed those who wanted him removed from the board were paid to do so); W5 (the investigative program) was full of sh__ for exposing the truth about the true cost of pharmaceuticals, the connection between lobbyists & politicians (the influence), investigative reports undertaken by Harvard & Princeton showcasing the deep connection university/etc scientists (even researchers) who's work, results, and tie-ins yielded to Pharma's 'demands', etc ...
So, GMO foods is something heroic; corporations are heros; chemicals of very, very questionable natures should be hailed and ingested with impunity; our environment is just fine, keep dumping on it; anyone (yes, even a scientist, a medical doctor, a health care practitioner who preaches a moderate balanced regimen, etcetera etcetera should all be seen as a threat and need to be vilified for so much as questioning anything remotely having to do with any product at all -- wipe them out!
Yes, additives and chemicals are everywhere -- even water is a chemical. But, when certain types additives & chemicals are added to our food, when there's too much wrong, it can be harmful -- the effects on one's health can be cumulative.
These are NOT what we should be ingesting:
http://livingmaxwell.com/what-the-media-food-industry-wont-tell-you
So, GMO foods is something heroic; corporations are heros; chemicals of very, very questionable natures should be hailed and ingested with impunity; our environment is just fine, keep dumping on it; anyone (yes, even a scientist, a medical doctor, a health care practitioner who preaches a moderate balanced regimen, etcetera etcetera should all be seen as a threat and need to be vilified for so much as questioning anything remotely having to do with any product at all -- wipe them out!
Yes, additives and chemicals are everywhere -- even water is a chemical. But, when certain types additives & chemicals are added to our food, when there's too much wrong, it can be harmful -- the effects on one's health can be cumulative.
These are NOT what we should be ingesting:
http://livingmaxwell.com/what-the-media-food-industry-wont-tell-you
Kin
Active member
hockeyfan1 said:
No, he's one of those reasonable, well informed, honest doctors who sells "magic" cures.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA0wKeokWUU
L K
Well-known member
hockeyfan1 said:
I'm not going to bother to go into the whole concept of peer reviewed evidence because it's completely lacking but yeah, when Dr Mehmet Oz is talking about things that aren't remotely a part of his scope of practice, he's talking out of his rear end. Being a surgeon doesn't make him an expert on nutrition in the same way that my being a physician doesn't make me a cardiothoracic surgeon.
hockeyfan1
New member
I was just being sarcastic. No, is not full of s__.
He does well to inform.
And no, he's not a quack, but very open-minded, and very outspoken against GMOs (for which he got vilified for in the first place).
He does well to inform.
And no, he's not a quack, but very open-minded, and very outspoken against GMOs (for which he got vilified for in the first place).
Kin
Active member
What he's being vilified is admitting before Congress that many of the products he pushes as "miracles" have no medical evidence to support their claims. That doesn't make him a quack, it makes him a fraud. It means he does the opposite of inform because to inform requires information. He misleads, if not outright lies.
"I actually do personally believe in the in the items that I talk about on the show...I recognize that oftentimes they don't have the scientific muster to present as fact."
That's from his congressional testimony. Selling people "miracle" cures is trading on their desperation. People can buy, and sell, all of the snake oil they want. They just can't call it science and, when under oath, admit as much.
"I actually do personally believe in the in the items that I talk about on the show...I recognize that oftentimes they don't have the scientific muster to present as fact."
That's from his congressional testimony. Selling people "miracle" cures is trading on their desperation. People can buy, and sell, all of the snake oil they want. They just can't call it science and, when under oath, admit as much.