School lunches might not be the perfect sustenance, I don't know. When I was in school the institutionalized food was a weird combination of vague meatoid substances and carbohydrates pushed together into recognizable forms. I think we have come a long way since then, and I'm grateful that many municipalities recognize that many economically challenged families rely on school-based nutrition to feed their children.
Last week I saw a tweet about the horrors of school lunches on Food Chain Radio, a syndicated broadcast by Michael Olson that may be accessed online. The episode hosted perennial wet blanket on science Zen Honeycutt, representing Moms Across America (that Olson slipped and referred to as "Moms Against America"), a group of scientifically distressed moms that search to blame agriculture for their families' health issues.
I engaged Honeycutt in the past on her website. She posted blatantly false data that were absolutely manufactured (claiming for instance that tested corn had no carbon but was alarmingly high in glyphosate, which contains carbon). When I asked questions kindly I was banned from her website. Of course, her responses and the responses of her followers remain. In this episode Olson allows her to rattle on about how school lunches are full of toxic herbicides and that these "cause" autism to cancer. She made the usual crazy assertions that we know are not consistent with the evidence.
I listened intently and prepared a point-by-point rebuttal. I posted that in the comments section of Olson's website.
You can read my responses and predict the same-old-same-old tropes that Honeycutt claims. She quotes Seneff, talks about plants "doused" in herbicide, and holds up the half-baked ideas from Don
Huber as evidence.
But when I pushed "submit" it did not post to provide clarity to the listener.
Instead I received the "awaiting moderation" message.
I gave it a week for the moderator to post it.
Apparently the moderator found science problematic.
I'll post it here. Here is the content deemed unacceptable for Olson's website. If you listen to the episode you can follow along.
Dr. Kevin Folta says:
Your comment is awaiting
moderation. This is a preview; your comment will be visible after it has been
approved.
November 15, 2022 at 4:07 am
As
I’m listening I am typing. As a scientist and farmer I have been listening to
this, and it bothers me that such false information is given such credence. It
is critical that we get this right, and your show has little to match the
scientific consensus. Here are a few thoughts as I listen.
1. The crops are not
“drenched” in weed killer. Glyphosate active ingredient is applied at 750
ml/acre, about 2 soda cans.
2. Crops are not “infused” with insecticide that
harms people. It contains a gene encoding a protein that is toxic to specific
insect larvae, not to humans, animals, and non-target insects.
3. Glyphosate is
not used on a lot of grains, occasionally depending on weather.
4. If you look
at the statements made by Zen Honeycutt over the years you find a record of
being wrong about almost everything.
5. how does her son get enteric bacteria
in his urine?
6. There is no evidence that glyphosate affects bacteria in the
digestive system, it is not present at high enough levels.
7. The testing
depends on the kit that is used and the standardization– in most matricies it
cannot be accurately detected.
8. Sugar? What is in sucrose from a GE sugar
beet that makes it different from non-GE sugar beet? It is sucrose. That’s it.
Sucrose.
9. Stephanie Seneff is not a reliable source. Even the anti-GMO
movement says she’s out there.
10. Gives a plant AIDS? C’mon. Don Huber wrote
to Tom Vilsack in 2011 and claimed a secret organism that was in GE foods. It
was total fabrication.
11. Glyphosate is not a great chelator. Although
patented that way, patents are broad. Compared to actual chelators like EDTA/EGTA
it is not very good. Plus, it is present in parts per billion, whereas most
minerals to be chelated (divalent cations) are present at levels several orders
of magnitude higher, so they can’t have much effect.
12. Honeycutt has posted
and promoted false information before “Stunning Corn Comparison” where the data
were absolutely fudged. They were so badly fabricated, and when I inquired she
blocked me from the website.
13. Glyphosate has never been shown to be
carcinogenic. The data for liver damage and endocrine disruption are thin. Most
show no effect. At micro-residue levels present.
14 The experiments that
suggest feminization or masculinization use high doses to see these subtle
effects.
15 Don Huber—“It will make DDT look like mouthwash” When? It has been
used safely for 40 years, with no effect.
16. The Swanson article is a
correlation. Purely a correlation. It also overlays with organic food sales.
There is no causal effect, and her claim is anecdotal. There are no clinical
data to support such claims. If that was true, it would be everywhere. Autism
is not a new thing. If you could reverse it with organic food, or avoiding
glyphosate, it would be easy to demonstrate clinically.
17. Contained
pesticides— how much is there? The dose makes the poison. They can detect a
tiny amount and it is far below pharmacological levels but thousands, millions
of times.
18. The regulatory bodies like the EPA are extremely rigorous
barriers. They rely on independent and company generated data. The IARC
mentioned is the one that only accepts published data, and they ignored the
largest, best study that shows zero association with glyphosate and cancers.
The other examples mentioned in IARC are not statistically significant
differences, they are trends at best. That’s in the IARC monograph, and you can
compare to the original research.
19. Heavy metals? No idea.
20. Yes, we have
traces of herbicides, insecticides, fungicides. These are in tiny levels.
Glyphosate is found at parts per trillion—minutes in 32,000 years, parts per
billion, seconds in 32 years. The rest of the stuff, who knows. I just don’t
trust activists that have lied before. And there is not a lot of hormone in
milk and meat. This is what the animals naturally produce, maybe a tiny chip in
one ear on some cattle that provide far less hormone than a birth control pill.
21. I completely disagree with gender identity claims. It is not diet related.
It is natural variation in humans that is due to how we develop sex organs, and
brain development. It is normal and acceptable. Kleinfelter syndrome is a
chromosomal segregation disorder, it is rare and not due to “endocrine
disruptors”
22. Glyphosate is sprayed on plants, not on soil. Anything sprayed
on soil is a waste, and farmers don’t do that. It is a foliar herbicide, it
must be sprayed on leaves. Farmers spray the leaves, a little reaches the soil.
23. If you test military food you’ll detect a few parts per billion glyphosate.
No question. It goes through the body and shows up in the urine. The levels
detected are safe.
The sad part of this is that Honeycutt and her organization
are making a sense of risk where none exists. This means parents that believe
her will have their kids not eat school lunches. In many cities the school
lunches are the best meals they get all day. The artificial risk implied, where
none exists, drives parents to push their kids away from school lunches. Then
they get nothing, or some alternative that is not as good as the school lunch.
It is so disappointing that you listen to a known generator of false
information and don’t interview actual scientists or regulators. Then again,
they don’t have sensational claims, so the non-alarmist message is not as
compelling as, “The sky is falling, kids are being poisoned, and we’re all
doomed.” Thanks.
Why does it matter? Many families rely on school lunches to provide nutrition for their kids. As usual, Honeycutt and the well-healed moms of California's suburbs push their scientifically distorted agenda without considering the collateral harm that is imposed on poor families.
When you tell a mom that the school food is poison, she will not allow her child to eat it, and if she has no other choice, the child will go without. The economically challenged will not eat "poison" and instead will foment angry feelings towards a system that would harm children.
Fearful messaging, bad science, scare tactics, and major media have conspired to push Honeycutt's horrific anti-agriculture agenda. Olson's echo chamber is insulated from legitimate scientific criticism, and his listeners were just treated to disinformation that will further affect their views.
Ten years ago Honeycutt pushed false information and doctored numbers. Today she's targeting children, particularly those that don't have parents that prepare lunch at home, or perhaps require a subsidized meal. It is elitist, cruel, and deceptive. Honeycutt should be showered in shame, and Olson as well for enabling and promoting her crusade.