Sunday, January 28, 2018

Stonyfield Actively Censors Scientific Information- Your Right to Know?

The videos released by Stonyfield Organic are patently offensive.  They use children to produce false statements about well-understood scientific topics, which misleads the consumer, but also has potential to harm children.  

This has drawn the ire of an increasingly large scientifically adept food and farming community, and many have taken to the Stonyfield Facebook page to voice their discontent. 

Ten years ago you would have seen Rob Wager, Prakash, Anastasia, Karl, @mem_somerville and a few others weighing in.  The scientific comments would be buried in a sea of shill accusations from a series of facade accounts (and Ena Valikov).

It makes my heart happy to see scientific traction catching on. The comments come from hundreds of people -- farmers, moms, students -- all presenting reasoned rebuttals to Stonyfield's bad science campaign. 


And it is changing minds. How do we know?

Because the soft, accurate and kind comments are being systematically scrubbed from the website.  Here's just a taste of the venom that Stonyfield flagged as inappropriate:


A pox on your home Michelle Jones, you monster!  Banned! 


And my comment was pretty outrageous. 

Wow, that crosses a line. I can understand why I was banished.


Why would Stonyfield ban people from its website and censor scientific information?  Because science literacy is affecting their bottom line.  If you can't scare people into your products, you have to remove the scientific information that is influencing buying decisions. 

Furthermore you must discredit anyone speaking about science, which is why they claim the the scientifically precise comments all come from bots, trolls and fake accounts.  

Join the Party

I think it is critical to keep illustrating Stonyfield's disregard for a legitimate scientific conversation and ethical marketing practices.  Go to their Facebook page and leave a comment, an honest, kind and genuine one, if (and only if) you feel their campaigns are unethical. Don't do it to harass them. Do it to share science. 

Take a screenshot, watch your post disappear, and then join the group Banned by Stonyfield over on Facebook. Share your screenshot there. 

Stonyfield is Losing Trust

Consumers make food decisions based on trust, and Stonyfield has exploited that for a long time.  They have appealing edges about supporting local co-ops, etc, and that would be a great platform for marketing.  But their main thrust is vilifying their conventional competition.  When their social media erupts with scientific comments in a kind vein, it makes their loyal customer base wonder if they are doing the right thing by paying more for equivalent products and/or supporting a company that lies to consumers. 

That's why the comments are expunged.  Accurate information is making a difference, and scientific information is changing buying patterns. That's something to celebrate. 



Saturday, January 27, 2018

Talking Biotech 119 -- Know Ideas Media

Nick Saik set out to produce a full-length documentary about food and farming technology. Food Evolution did it first, and did it well.  So to avoid a redundant effort Nick is transforming those videos into short features.  Check out his work, and listen to him describe his efforts on this week's podcast. 




Saturday, January 13, 2018

NERD SHIELD ACTIVATE! Donate to Defend Britt Hermes

The language below is provided by the campaign to defend Britt Hermes.



You may know that Britt Hermes, who is an international skeptical campaigner about naturopathy, is currently being sued for defamation.


Britt used to be a naturopath herself, but she now spends a lot of time and effort exposing naturopathic practices, including on her blog “Naturopathic Diaries”.


She’s been taken to court in Germany by US-based naturopath ‘Dr’ Colleen Huber, who is claiming that Britt has defamed her on her blog. Huber is a critic of chemotherapy and radiation therapy in cancer treatment. Instead, she uses ‘natural’ therapies that include intravenous infusions of vitamin C and baking soda.


The international skeptical community is concerned that the case against Britt may have the effect of silencing a major campaigner against unproven and disproven ‘medical’ practices, through the imposition of considerable legal costs.


For this reason, the Australian Skeptics have set up a fund-raising campaign to help cover Britt’s legal costs.


If you would like to contribute to the fund, or want more information, then go to www.skeptics.com.au/BrittHermes.

Friday, January 12, 2018

Love Letters

Do the attack articles really help a cause?  When a scientist is paid by the state and does their vast majority of research from State, Federal and small fruit industry funds, why foment hate against them? 

Here's a love letter I got today, and my response.  Do you really hurt your causes by tarnishing the people that work for you, that are paid with your dollars and are working for the greater good? 

Monday, December 25, 2017

Biotech Fights Peanut Carcinogen



Aflatoxin is a potent carcinogen.  It is produced by a fungus that grows readily on corn and peanuts, known in the Developing World as 'groundnuts' (which makes more sense IMHO).  Billions of people suffer from chronic exposure. Dr. Dilip Shah was part of a team at the Danforth Center that created solutions to solve this problem.  On this week's podcast we talk about those solutions, and how they may lead to better health around the world.   

Monday, December 18, 2017

"Expert" Commentary on a Paper They Didn't Read

The story of canola oil causing dementia and memory issues seems like old news.  But I received an email that it has popped up again in the wacky press, another alleged expert weighing in on this obvious relationship that actually is not even remotely supported by the data in the paper.  These cases are especially egregious because these health-oriented websites get huge traffic, and lousy information is consumed rapidly and shared widely. 



The claim emerges again, but this time with a new twist! 


The author, Michelle Schoffro Cook didn't even read the paper, but is happy to lend her opinions that further advance this misinformation, along with a dandy of a tangential spin.  How do I know she didn't read it?  She notes in her analysis that it was published in the journal Nature.  It was not.  Nature wouldn't touch this paper with a 10 impact factor pole. 

It is not a bad paper.  It is not a good paper.   I would not have done the experiments that way, but the authors reported how they did it and only slightly overstepped the data in their Discussion.  

The problem is the university communications office that turned a few data points into a national culinary catastrophe. 

Food Activists Stop Technology from Serving the Poor

This is an article that appeared in Real Clear Science, and details the emotional hardship of seeing a problem and a solution separated by a barbed-wire fence.