Illumination 2.0

I like Snopes.  So many times I've been rescued from a critical debunking excursion because someone had provided excellent analysis that I could use as a starting point.  It is really disappointing to see them go soft and conflate unrelated issues that just confuse the reader. The article about the Food Babe's claims about Monsanto covering up glyphosate in food items seemed like it would follow the science and once again foist her on her own critically underpowered petard.  But instead the article by Alex Kasprak just creates confusion.  Even the subhead says, "Monsanto suppressing evidence of cancerous herbicide in food?" (and to be fair, Alex did reach out and we're discussing this. I do think he wants to get it right) What "cancerous herbicide?" Instead of simply letting the air out of a conspiratorial claim, he conflates three issues at once, an in the process lends credence to the crazy claim, while not critically evaluating the

Many people say that I should ignore Vani Hari and her new book, Feeding You Lies - How to Unravel the Food Industry's Playbook and Reclaim Your Health . Don’t give her the attention. However, I’m mentioned prominently throughout the text, portrayed as an industry insider, paid to harass her and derail her efforts to rid the world of molecules with names we can’t pronounce.   On her press junkets she spins wild tales of being a victim, targeted by a concerted effort between me and evil corporations to destroy her credibility. There really was no such thing. Hari used the Freedom of Information Act to gather tens of thousands of my emails at taxpayer expense—and found nothing.   Zero. But instead of saying that in her book, she manufactured false stories and associations, picking out sentences just to paint me in a negative light. We’ll get back to that. She certainly goes after me as a paid corporate dupe that is financed to attack her.  I'm actually a public

I'm up on a Saturday enjoying a big cup of coffee and working on the podcast . I'm also standing by for the next round of requests for my emails from Vani Hari. What happened? Yesterday's blog was in response to an article on Snopes .  The article on Snopes was in response to a flashy brochure that claimed to find herbicide residues, in parts per billion (seconds in decades) in familiar foods.  The well-circulated activist rhetoric was intended to scare, and it worked .  My inbox was flooded with inquiries from friends, relatives and dozens of strangers.  When Snopes talks, people listen, and their analysis was a bit confusing, sort of lending credence to the claim, as well as stating that glyphosate herbicides were carcinogenic.  This is on the cover of the report. It should be an immediate tip-off to the reader that this is highly suspect and intended to tell a manufactured story, not communicate scientific results.   I reached out to the author and partic

As a public scientist I'm deeply committed to providing research, teaching, and outreach to help broaden our understanding of farming and food.  One leg of that stool is to connect with the public and help them understand the current scientific literature, and help them make evidence-based decisions.  Last week a glossy brochure was published by the fear factory called Food Democracy Now.  Despite the name, it is much less democracy as it is a cult. Their deceptive self-published report featured hyperbolic images of babies juxtaposed with herbicide bottles and Cheerios.  The meat of the report was a table that claims to find parts-per-billion levels of the herbicide glyphosate in an array of common grocery products. Even if it was true, such levels would be biologically meaningless.  I've discussed the technical limitations of their analysis here and on my podcast .  The bottom line is that this is statistically underpowered, they are likely reading noise, and the work has

There is a central rule in the anti-GMO world--   scare them at any cost.   It is amazing how ethics are disregarded in the interest of peddling a fearful message.  It has long been part of the anti-GMO industry and a weapon of its foot soldiers.  If something sounds scary and supports your beliefs, then promote it, run with it.  No matter how weak the evidence is, claim it is real.  Such was the case with the "Stunning Corn Comparison" where fake data in a soil test table were claimed to represent biological samples-- that were not remotely biological.  Still the authors and pundits stood by it as a legitimate test.  They also claimed to find glyphosate in breast milk.  However, an actual study by a real scientist with properly reported methods did not show any evidence of detection. Of course, anti-GM folks shouted down this legitimate report as unreliable.   Fake data, finding positive signals in noise, and wrongful interpretation of good data are cornerstones of

Just because an organization creates a report does not mean the report should be considered seriously.  In fact, it should be reviewed with a keen eye and great skepticism. This is not a blog about glyphosate, the active ingredient in herbicides (including "Roundup" for example).   It is a blog about how fear mongers work, and strive to harm trust in perfectly good food. It is about Food Terrorism.  Food Terrorism I wrote about this in my Foreword to the book The Fear Babe . While many object to the use of the word terrorism , it is a perfect moniker for what is happening around us.   Terrorism is defined as coercion or intimidation to achieve political or ideological gains.  This is exactly what the Environmental Working Group (EWG) is doing.  Again.  Deliberately deceiving the public to advance their agenda.  The timing was perfectly coordinated to fit with the widely-publicized jury verdict in California.  Bogus Standards The EWG claims to have found the herbi

The discussion of genetic technologies in food has been an asymmetrical fear fest dominated by misinformation.  The bad information has penetrated social ranks through the internet, but also through art and film.  Scott Hamilton Kennedy and Trace Sheehan shatter this trend with a fact-based response to the avalanche of misinformation. In true documentary style they allow the story, the circumstances and the personalities to tell the story.  You can listen to the an interview with the  Food Evolution  Director, Producer and a scientist in the film.  The film is only somewhat about technology or "GMO".  It is really about science, experts, belief, and hypocrisy.  Why do you believe what you do?  Who is trying to fool you? Jeffery Smith, Chuck Benbrook, Zen Honeycutt and "Food Babe" Vani Hari make appearances.  Their words are their own-- and it is refreshing to find a film that holds them somewhat accountable simply by letting them speak. Critics of te

The other day a group of food science students penned a letter to Vani Hari , criticizing her pseudo-scientific approach to food and health issues.  It was a thoughtful, reasoned and appropriate letter. They were speaking from a basis of evidence and science. And instead of simply leaving it out in the internet, Hari actually responded .  In typical Food Babe fashion, she approaches criticisms from actual emerging scholars with a the usual barrage of nonsense and holier-than-thou attitude.  She actually tells these students that they are wrong on all counts. University students are pretty sharp, especially grad students like these folks appear to be.  Their points are consistent with the scientific literature and the scientific consensus.  Well done.  Hari's reply is the usual indictment of stuff she doesn't understand, and adherence to her beloved suite of fallacies. I've parsed her arguments line-by-line, and as usual, she clearly just does not understand how science wo

While other companies roll over and reformulate ancient recipes when Food Babe Vani Hari comes to town, Johnson's is fighting back.  Clearly influenced by Hari's inane claims that "if you can't pronounce it, it is bad for you", Johnson and Johnson have produced a video for the Carah's Life series.  Here Carah (a mom with a You Tube channel documenting her experiences) addresses the concerns of chemicals in baby products, reminding us that everything is made up of chemicals.  My new hero.  Carah Amelie speaks of chemicals, and those long science-sounding words that freak out Food Babes. Carah is exactly what we need.  She's slick but unpolished, articulate but clunky, beautiful and plain. She's any of us.  We believe her.  She conjures credibility and trust.  She knows what she's talking about. Johnson's, I'm going to go buy some baby shampoo and give it to someone with a dirty baby, just because you hired Carah and made this vi

Social media can be quite a pox, but for the most part it is a great way to share good information, have a laugh, or connect with others.  The problem is that it also can be used by folks with unsavory interests as a tool for personal tear down.  The unfortunately hostile nature of social media is what turns many away from participation in important conversations. This is especially true about conversations about vaccines, climate or genetic engineering.  So how to fight back?  I used to ignore, block or delete hostile trolls.  About two years ago I realized that I could take screenshots of their hate and actually use it to curry favor with those I sought to influence. In other words, by exposing their filth, I earned trust.  It comes from a position of power. It shows that you are not going to succumb to being a victim, especially from anonymous troublemakers and slander bots.  It also suggests that the reason you are targeted is because you have something important to communi

I humbly ask this question.  What am I missing?  Tonight I read the press release for the AAAS about the 2019 Scientific Freedom and Responsibility Award, going to two Sri Lankan physicians / researchers that apparently confirmed a deadly causal connection between a kidney disease (Chronic Kidney Disease of Unknown Origin; CKDu) and the herbicide glyphosate. Congrats, congrats! Wow, I must have missed this.  Certainly a concrete link would be big news, and if AAAS is awarding someone for this research it must have been a prominent publication.  But I scan the literature almost daily and never saw this.  The names of the awardees seemed strangely familiar.  Then it hit me... this was the 2014 paper where they looked at hard water consumption in Sri Lanka and then suggested a tie between CKDu, heavy metals and glyphosate.  The paper presented a hypothesis.  There were no data.  There were no experiments.  It was a decent  hypothesis that could be tested.  At the time the anti-ag