Bad Science Debunked - Or Just Bad Science?

Famously, last March, 2015 the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer came out with monograph volume 112 listing glyphosate as a class 2A carcinogen.

The GMO and Pesticide Cabal immediately shit their pants and went on a rampage trying to minimize and even 'debunk' the findings of the scientists at the IARC. Monsanto immediately released a statement in which they criticized the IARC findings and attempt to confuse the issue on the rankings.

"It’s important to put IARC’s classifications into perspective. IARC has classified numerous everyday items in Category 2 including coffee, cell phones, aloe vera extract and pickled vegetables, as well as professions such as a barber and fry cook."

By including things classified under 2B - possibly carcinogenic to humans, this statement is a sneaky sleight of hand. Only the last two are listed under 2A - probably carcinogenic to humans. In order to clarify for you more, this chart from Compound Interest gives a quick overview:

 As you can plainly see the rankings are based on evidence of carcinogenicity - not on how carcinogenic something is. It's not really accurate to compare different substances, even those in the same ranking - the mechanisms by which they cause cancer, and the risk they pose are going to be unique to each.

None of this is reason to dismiss the classification of glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans. Unlike the regulatory bodies who continue to approve use of glyphosate based herbicides, the IARC looked at the independent science, instead of relying on unpublished industry studies to base their conclusions on - which is precisely why their conclusions differ and should be taken seriously. Not only that, being that glyphosate herbicides are now so ubiquitous, and our exposures continue to increase, having concern over the long term effects of such a thing is quite rational. We need to continue to scrutinize the science behind this pervasive chemical. It is prudent to do so given the current evidence - as well as the lack thereof. And yet...

It is evident that the confusion over these rankings is being amplified by Skeptics. In particular, the blog of computer programmer Mark Alsip, named Bad Science Debunked stands out. Mark aims to point out the 'hypocrisy' of the $39 billion dollar organic market by targeting the usual punching bags like Food Babe and Dr. Mark Hyman. While they are public figures and should be used to all sorts of scrutiny from the Big s Skeptics by now, Mark takes things a step further by pointing the finger at small business owners for their supposed hypocrisy.

Apparently he got into a twitter conversation over one of his blogs about Vani Hari. This Etsy store owner and organic farmer got sassy with him so he decided to hold her to the same standard he applies to Vani.

Aside from the ridiculous statement about glyphosate being poorly linked to cancer, I noticed Mark makes a blunder about the substance being referred to in that tweet. It's about 2, 4-D - not about glyphosate. Regardless, he still uses that tweet to rationalize using glyphosate as a comparison to an ingredient in Farm Fairy Crafts organic lavender calendula cream to point out their 'hypocrisy'. The caffeic acid present in tiny amounts in their organic rosemary and grapefruit seed preservative is listed by the IARC in category 2B as the evidence is limited in animals, and no evidence was available for humans.

As mentioned before, comparing even two substances in the same category doesn't work to clarify anything. Bacon and cigarettes are both in category one. You can't compare those two things any more than you can compare a substance that is naturally occurring in plants and a synthetic herbicide. I am still trying to figure out how this inane comparison helps anyone to become more science literate.

Does it really make Farm Fairy Crafts hypocritical for selling organic lavender calendula cream and tweeting about the IARC classification of an herbicide? Heck no. I just took a spin around their Etsy site and Farm Fairy Crafts lists their ingredients and origins, their farming practices and pretty much anything you'd want to know about their products...meanwhile, Monsanto Company, creator of Roundup brand herbicide and Roundup Ready seeds has spent more than $22 million on blocking labeling of their herbicide treated crops in food products. If we are going to hold people to the same standards, why not apply it equally to Monsanto or any of the other companies selling pesticides and genetically engineered seeds? The criticisms are not only myopic, but also begin to wear especially thin as seen in our second example.

This gem of a piece on the small business owner Dr. Ena Valikov - a veterinarian who also happens to have a degree in biochemistry and be a very vocal critic of the anti-organic crowd - is unintentionally hilarious in that Mr. Alsip totally missed the joke Dr. Valikov was making here. Note the date on the post:

This just so happened to coincide with the release of the film Jurassic World. As IMDB describes it:

"A new theme park is built on the original site of Jurassic Park. Everything is going well until the park's newest attraction--a genetically modified giant stealth killing machine--escapes containment and goes on a killing spree."

Now go back and look at Ena's post. The only thing Dr. Valikov is guilty of here is making a joke. I'm imagining killer bee/ants, ant/bees (bants?) attacking people like the scene in Tommy Boy where the cops pull them over...and I'm laughing about it. Well, your firearms are useless against them.

So far what we've learned from from Bad Science Debunked is that Etsy store owners are not allowed to talk about IARC rankings and veterinarians are not allowed to make jokes. How this will contribute to a science literate society, I'm still not entirely sure, but thank goodness Mr. Alsip is there to guide us. And troll us...

 and deny he has a product...

 

like this one...

which probably has a chemical in it listed by the IARC...


...but the bants are swarming again and I have to go make sure my perimeter is secure.

 

Until next time, ladies and gents!




DISCLAIMER:
Before you get your panties in a wad: All images and image captures are used in strict compliance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of United States copyright law (commonly known as “fair use law”). This material is free to the public and is intended to provide commentary, critique, and entertainment.

DECLARATION OF COMPETING INTERESTS:
1. I have purchased a product from Farm Fairy Crafts for personal use and received samples of the aforementioned organic calendula cream, and you know what? It's fucking fantastic. 2. My pets are not patients of Dr. Valikov's clinic, but we do follow each other on twitter and for the record, I think she has a great sense of humor.
 

5 Astroturf Groups You Should Stop Sharing From

After a hefty helping of inspiration from blogger Dawn's Brain's series on Facebook pages that people need to stop sharing from, the impetus for this post was born. Now, Dawn chose some pretty low-hanging fruit for her lists - Natural News, InfoWars, David Wolfe, Freelee The Banana Girl - she's shooting fish in a barrel. Instead of kooky Facebook pages though, I'm heading in a different direction...

In her second post in the series she blasts some random commenter on a post about Roundup about how wrong they are about glyphosate, the active ingredient in the world's most widely used herbicide.

"You’ve got the Lethal Dosage (LD50) all wrong, Facebook commenter. Glyphosate has a toxicity at 5,600 milligrams per kilogram, which is safer than table salt and baking soda.

Facebook fear-mongers love to throw around the meaningless term “endocrine disruptors” to sound like they know what they are talking about. Please, tell us the mechanism by which the trace amounts of glyphosate that humans ingest might disrupt our endocrine systems."

The first link is a blog post from Cami Ryan whose info isn't wrong, so much as it is misleading in this context. It's not giving you the whole story. There is so much more to toxicity than how much you need to ingest to kill you. That's like smoking a cigarette, and proclaiming it is without harm because you have not dropped dead. Many substances have chronic effects, and not all substances follow a linear dose response. This lack is even acknowledged in the comments to the article, lest you think I'm just pulling this out of my ass. Cami's affiliations (she works for Monsanto) are pretty clearly laid out and listed on her blog. She's actually a great example of the intertwining of groups and people and industry, she has connections to sites and groups that will get more of a mention later on.

It was specifically the second link there that provided the inspiration to write this series, because of the extraordinary irony of it. Here, in a blog post about social media pages that spread misinformation, Dawn is using a link from a known astroturf group as her proof that endocrine disruption is just a 'meaningless term.' The link is from 1998 and a stupefying testament to bullshit artistry.

Just the first line alone should set your spidey senses tingling...

"In 1997, endocrine disruptors joined radon, Alar, dioxin, asbestos in schools, and electromagnetic fields in the rogues’ gallery of environmental hoaxes."

Of course, each thing they've named deserves its own discussion, but grouping these together and calling them 'environmental hoaxes' is absurd. I've hyperlinked each subject to a credible source.

So comparisons aside, is endocrine disruption truly as they say, 'in the rogue's gallery of environmental hoaxes'? Well, the National Institutes Of Health, World Health Organization, Environmental Protection Agency, Centers For Disease Control And Prevention, Harvard School Of Public Health researchers, and many other scientists all support the existence of endocrine disrupting chemicals.

I think it's safe to say Dawn may have been cherry picking a little bit there.

And so, this begins the list of an entirely different kind of bullshit that you really ought to stop sharing - and seriously question the credibility of anyone who shares from them. Astroturf groups.

Simply put, astroturf groups are defined as "...apparently grassroots-based citizen groups or coalitions that are primarily conceived, created and/or funded by corporations, industry trade associations, political interests or public relations firms."

These organizations give themselves an air of legitimacy, but in reality, they are pushing an agenda - and it's not for the benefit of consumers or the public.

Sharing anything from these groups or their members is an affront to honest scientists and endangers science literacy and public health.

#1. AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH

These guys are kind of like the Grandaddies of astroturf. Home to Henry I. Miller, frequent Forbes contributer and former tobacco science purveyor, as well as Gilbert Ross MD who just happens to be a convicted felon, the ACSH is a colorful cast of heartwarming characters. Even Orac thinks so.

Their Facebook page description says they are "Trusted guides on complex science and health issues since 1978."

Well, I could claim to be Beyoncè, but it still wouldn't make it so.

Leaked documents show ACSH's funding from corporate donors is extensive, and lines up with the issues they tackle. Not only that, documents reveal that they have deliberately solicited donations in exchange for favorable reports on donor products. From a 2013 report in Mother Jones:

"ACSH donors in the second half of 2012 included Chevron ($18,500), Coca-Cola ($50,000), the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation ($15,000), Dr. Pepper/Snapple ($5,000), Bayer Cropscience ($30,000), Procter and Gamble ($6,000), agribusiness giant Syngenta ($22,500), 3M ($30,000), McDonald's ($30,000), and tobacco conglomerate Altria ($25,000). Among the corporations and foundations that ACSH has pursued for financial support since July 2012 are Pepsi, Monsanto, British American Tobacco, DowAgro, ExxonMobil Foundation, Phillip Morris International, Reynolds American, the Koch family-controlled Claude R. Lambe Foundation, the Dow-linked Gerstacker Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, and the Searle Freedom Trust."

Sample bullshit:

 

 Who needs regulations?!

Look over here at this death mistletoe! Pay no attention to the lead painted toys from China!

Oof. Not sure letting Gil write this one was the best choice...

Other sites connected to ACSH:

Science 2.0

which has now merged with ScienceBlogs much to the chagrin of many

Science Codex

Scientific Blogging

Deniers For Hire, a collaboration with Cameron J. English

#2. GMO ANSWERS

Got questions about genetic engineering? GMO Answers to the rescue!

After spending milllions fighting a labeling initiative in California in 2012, Ag & Chem industry execs announced plans to create a campaign to change public opinion on GMO's.

From their website: "GMO Answers is funded by the members of The Council for Biotechnology Information, which includes BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Monsanto Company and Syngenta."

Supporting partners are listed as follows: The American Council on Science and Health (déjà vu!), The American Farm Bureau Federation, American Seed Trade Association, American Soybean Association, The American Sugarbeet Growers Association, Minnesota Crop Production Retailers, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Corn Growers Association, National Cotton Council, Ohio AgriBusiness Association, South Dakota Agri-Business Association, The U.S. Beet Sugar Association, and Western Sugar.

The Council for Biotechnology Information has hired the public relations firm Ketchum
(owned by Omnicom) famous for their representation of human rights violators, to run the site and oversee their 'independent experts'.

While the above description makes it seem like ONLY independent experts will be answering your questions, when you look at who is on the list, you'll find that a good portion of the experts are not independent but in fact are employed by the same corporations funding the site.

One of the 'independent' experts there to give you answers happens to be Kevin Folta, who came under fire recently when it was found through FOIA requests that he was given a $25k contribution from Monsanto company, despite denying repeatedly that he had anything to do with them. Kevin continued to maintain his innocence even after being caught in this lie. The ensuing criticism led to his stepping out of the public eye for a time, though he remains listed as an independent expert on the GMO Answers site and has recently announced his podcast is set to resume.

Other 'independent' experts listed on the site, include Bruce Chassy, Jennie Schmidt, Monsanto test farmer and prize winner, and Mary Boote, CEO of Truth About Trade & Technology among others.


So, this website, funded by an industry with a financial stake in selling GM seeds and the pesticides that pair with them, run by a public relations firm that represents human rights violators, wants to answer your questions about genetic engineering used in agriculture with their 'independent' panel of experts....

Alright then.

 

#3. GENETIC LITERACY PROJECT

The sister organizations Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) and the Center For Media And Public Affairs (CMPA) are both affiliated with the Genetic Literacy Project, designed to promote GMO's. As stated by the website, the mission of the GLP is 'to promote public awareness of genetics, biotechnology and science literacy.' Because, according to them, 'Intricate science scares people who don’t understand risk and complexity.'

GLP's executive director is Jon Entine. He has no science credentials to speak of, though he defends industry interests on a regular basis as - is exemplified in the situation of Syngenta's herbicide atrazine. Entine is listed under 'Third Party Outreach' in an email document from White House Writer's Group to Syngenta about work they had done to influence news coverage and promote atrazine. Entine also authored a book which was published by (guess who?!) the American Council on Science and Health called, Scared to Death: How Chemophobia Threatens Public Health. The current president of ACSH, Hank Campbell also happens to be a contributor to the GLP site. Entine insists that he is fully independent, but given his corporate and astroturf entanglements, that's an awfully hard pill to swallow.

Entine's shady rep doesn't end with his industry ties. He's made several science journalists upset by 'borrowing' their work without permission. Keith Kloor publicly complained about what happened to him on his blog last November.  Kloor even took to Twitter with his complaints, and judging by the conversation, Entine's response was less than satisfactory.

From his blog, Kloor's take on the GLP website:

"It’s bad enough that a website built on the aggregated work of journalists takes something that belongs to you without asking for permission. It’s outrageous when the website truncates your text in ways that change the meaning of what you wrote, which is also what Genetic Literacy is guilty of doing with respect to my post. It’s infuriating and unforgivable when the person who stole your text puts his own flatly wrong headline above it."

This statement, and from a pro-GMO journalist no less, isn't very reassuring about the ethical compass of the Genetic Literacy Project.

Sample bullshit: 

I think we know their answer before we even start....

    Excessive use of quotation marks to 'debunk' 'endocrine disruption,' because, 'science.'

Uncle Henry from (surprise!) ACSH, and self-appointed expert on citrus greening disease - stops by to make grand statements about using a soil drench of neonics and genetic engineering.

In which we try to further confuse the definition of transgenics/genetic engineering by conflating it with selective breeding.

Bonus bullshit:

If the Moon were made out of BBQ spare ribs, would ya eat it? 

They seem more like Genetic Illiteracy...than Genetic Literacy.

#4.  CENTER FOR CONSUMER FREEDOM

Known by the nicknames of 'Dr. Evil' and the 'Astroturf Kingpin', Rick Berman is president, executive director and board member at the Center For Consumer Freedom. He is a well known lobbyist for the food, alcoholic beverage, and tobacco industries as well as hotels, beer distributors, taverns, and restaurant chains with his group Berman & Co. who serve clients such as International House of Pancakes, Olive Garden, Outback Steakhouse, Red Lobster, Cracker Barrel, Hooters, Steak & Ale, TGI Friday's, Uno's Restaurants, and Wendy's.

Run by Berman & Co., the Center For Consumer Freedom underwent a name change in 2014 to the Center for Organizational Research and Education. A section of their website is titled 'The Center for Accountability In Science'. Begun in 2014, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) reported on Joseph Perrone's appointment and Berman's apparent flip-flop on UV rays and cancer. Where Berman once defended tanning beds, calling the claims that indoor tanning causes skin cancer 'hype', he now decries the Environmental Working Group's ranking of sunscreens and ingredients by singing the praises of the sunscreen industry's products to prevent a 'much larger threat' - skin cancer. The chief science officer of CAS is Dr. Joseph Perrone. Berman enlisted Perrone to be the guiding force behind this new campaign, but who is he really?

CREW reports:

Who is Dr. Perrone?  According to CAS, he used to be an executive at the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute and he served as an advisor to the World Health Organization.  Unmentioned by CAS, however, is the fact that Dr. Perrone also has a long record of industry work.  He used to run a consulting company, previously worked at Becton, Dickinson, and Company, a medical technology company, and has been an adviser to several other companies, including Biomedical Enterprises and FASgen.  It’s surprising that Berman’s staff neglected to mention this part of Dr. Perrone’s biography.  It’s not like they take a dim view of industry-backed research.  In fact, CAS has a page on its website highlighting “the importance of industry-funded research.”

While Dr. Perrone may be relatively new to the PR game, Berman is old hat. Back in 2014 the New York Times broke a story about a secretly taped industry talk Berman gave before executives of the oil industry. You can listen to the audio here and view the transcript here. The Cliff Notes version is available from PR Watch, with a short version below:

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS OF RICK BERMAN 

1. Screw your enemy

2.  Marginalize your opponents.

3.  Demolish the moral authority

4.  Make it personal

5.  Brand whole movements as not credible

6.  Being nasty wins

7.  Push fear and anger

8.  Treat public policy as endless war

9.  Give corporate cash total anonymity

10.  Tear down celebrities who speak out 

Sample bullshit:

The 'Chubby Chiplotle' campaign. One can only guess what industry must be paying for this...

Center For Consumer Freedom's Facebook page is Farm Babe approved, but Chipotle reacting to consumer demand is not. Bad, bad Chipotle. 

A defense of triclosan, an antibacterial agent found in personal care products.

Look people, consumer products are made with wonderful chemicals that make our clients money. And they have no connections at all to your tumors, hypospadias, low sperm count, or infertility. Also, science.

 Does it even need to be said that it's a bad idea to get your science news from Dr. Evil?

"Marginalize" your opponents

"Screw" your enemy.

"Screw" your enemy.

"Screw" your enemy.

"Screw" your enemy.

"Screw" your enemy.Sample bullshit:

#5. INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S FORUM

Rising like a hot pink phoenix from the ashes of Women For Clarence Thomas, comes the Independent Women's Forum, described in a New York Times editorial as "a right-wing public policy group that provides pseudofeminist support for extreme positions that are in fact dangerous to women."

IWF has received funding from several sources with ties to the Koch brothers, as well as Exxon Mobil and quite notably began a group called Balanced Education for Everyone in 2010 whose goal it was to stop the teaching of global warming 'junk science' in schools. It is their opinion that:

"Parents need to ask their children's teachers, 'What are you doing for Earth Day this year?'" said IWF President and CEO Michelle Bernard.  "Too often, our children are being subjected to terrifying lectures on global warming...while being told they represent settled science.  That's just not the case.

 
As part of their campaign, hundreds of signatures were gathered by Balanced Education For Everyone in May 2010. This was in support of a movement to ban teaching climate science in classrooms in Mesa County, Colorado. Those signatures were presented at a school board meeting on May 25, 2010. The Huffington Post reported that forty of the people who appeared at the hearing to support the group dismissed global warming as "junk science." The petition they presented was aimed at preventing teachers from imparting their "personal, political views in the classroom," according to Tea Party movement adherent and author of the petition, Rose Pugliese.

On their website, IWF tackles mostly political issues, healthcare, economics, education etc... but they do a little 'science' reporting with their 'Culture Of Alarmism Project' in which they seek to paint anyone with a concern about manufactured chemicals, pollution, food additives and the like as alarmist chemophobic 'enviro-Nazi's.'

Sample bullshit:

Yes. Yes they did. They made a frivolous Nazi comparison.

 Snarky climate science denial post, using Christopher Booker, a man who has a Prize for Bullshit named after him as a reference. How apropos!

 How on earth will people stay slim and healthy without their beloved diet drinks???

It's easy to see how the IWF site is really just a space for a conservative and industry agenda - and not a place to go for unbiased science information.

Of course, this doesn't stop 'Science Defender' Kavin Senapathy, and 'Decimator of Woo' Yvette d'Entremont from attending IWF events, as seen in this public photo album.

Frequent Forbes contributors Kavin Senapathy and Tara Haelle with Julie Gunlock, Senior Fellow at IWF, 'SciBabe' Yvette d'Entremont and Michelle 'Shelly' McGuire, a recent Monsanto study collaborator.

In top row: Shelly McGuire, Janice Person, Online Engagement Director for Monsanto Company, Anastasia Bodnar of Biology Fortified, Julie Gunlock, and Monsanto's Social Sciences Lead Cami Ryan who is mentioned prior in the intro. In bottom row: Tara Haelle, Kavin Senapathy, Yvette d'Entremont.


These photos were from a trip to DC where such notable folks as Kevin Folta, Elizabeth Held of the White House Writers Group, Ms.Senapathy's 'The Fear Babe' co-author, computer programmer Mark Alsip, Julie Kelly, writer, frequent Henry (Miller) collaborator and wife of lobbyist John Kelly, and Grounded Parents contributors Jenny Splitter and Emily Sexton add to the sampling of the public faces of SSkeptics who spent time fraternizing at various events over a two-day period.

This particular IWF event was pitched to - surprise - both Monsanto and the American Chemistry Council for funding.

These sort of associations don't do much to advance the 'cause' of science literacy. IWF has demonstrated themselves to be an unreliable source, and an eyebrow (or two) should be raised at the relative ease in which these groups orbit around each other.

It's very important that we get our science from independent sources, as it's a well know fact that industry funding taints research. And in that same way, it can also taint a message. Even an 'independent' and unpaid message - if they are drinking from a poisoned well.

In closing I leave you with these words of wisdom:

Always check your source. Check your source's source too. And their source's funding. Astroturf is everywhere.

Mac and Cheese and Still More Baloney

This is sort of a Part II follow-up to my Food Babe vs Sci Babe post. It's (mostly) about Kraft Mac and cheese, but I'm going to share a funny thing that happened to me first.

I tweeted out my blog post as per usual, but this time someone actually read it! And liked it! So we ended up tweeting to each other, and though I had no intention of ever interacting with Yvette, now called Sci Babe, I accidentally tweeted her directly during that conversation. Oops. And she replied.  For the most part, I try not to get into confrontations with people over social media as it's generally pointless. If you read the thread, you can see who's sharing propaganda and making insults, and who is sharing real science. After she asked me if I needed a nap, I decided that she did not deserve a response. And with that she blocked me. Maybe she read my blog post? Maybe it's because I called her French Canadian? Maybe she just really wanted there to be sexy pictures of Theo Colborn on the TEDX site? I will probably never know.

And that's how you communicate science!

"There's a group on Facebook called " Banned By Food Babe" that boasts nearly 6,000 members. Reasons for being banned include "I asked for her qualifications" and "I pointed out that water was a chemical." Some members of the page were former fans of hers who were banned when they asked questions of clarification. Any dissent couldn't possibly have merit within the ranks of the Food Babe Army." - Sci Babe on Vani Hari.

I pointed out that there's an entire field of research that negates the claims she makes that the dose makes the poison. Hypocrite much?

Okay. Now, on to the macaroni!

mmm. the cheesiest.

Kraft Mac & Cheese has announced that it will be removing all artificial dyes and preservatives from it's most iconic blue box. Kraft already makes a different product for sale in overseas than the one they have been selling here. It's easy to see why consumers would feel cheated by such a large difference in the ingredient list. Consumer demand spoke, and Kraft listened.

Now, mac and cheese isn't the most nutritious food to begin with, but for those who like to indulge in a treat now and then but prefer to avoid a lot of additives, the blue box has become an option once more. For those people who are eating this, or serving it to their children because they live in a food desert and it's one of the things they can afford - an improvement in the ingredients is just that, an improvement. Clearly if a product can be made without synthetic ingredients, then why not? There is no nutritional value in preservatives or artificial colors.

There are legitimate concerns about them however. From a recent article in Scientific American:

"Bernard Weiss, professor emeritus of the Department of Environmental Medicine at the University of Rochester Medical Center who has researched this issue for decades, says he is frustrated that the FDA has not acted on the research showing the connection between artificial dyes and hyperactivity. "All the evidence we have has showed that it has some capacity to harm," he says. "In Europe that's enough to get it banned because a manufacturer has to show lack of toxic effects. In this country it's up to the government to find out whether or not there are harmful effects." Weiss supports banning artificial colors until companies have evidence that they cause no harm. Like most other scientists in this field, he thinks more research, particularly investigating dyes' effects on the developing brain, is imperative."

This really illustrates how different regulations are here, compared to Europe. They take a precautionary approach, while the U.S. takes a reactionary approach that caters to industry. Are we really surprised by any of this though?

Speaking of people who cater to industry interests, my BFF Sci Babe isn't into taking a precautionary approach either. She says artificial colors are safe, and that by taking them out, and using real food ingredients to add color it's probably not making the food any safer. She says that people have already written her to say that their kid is allergic to paprika! She says that public concerns about artificial food dyes and additives "comes from a place of: because I don't understand the science, I think it's unsafe."

Please tell me if I'm misunderstanding this then. There is a fair amount of real scientific evidence that points to artificial colors being a trigger for behavioral problems in children. The amount of these colors in food has increased over the last 60 years, and children are likely consuming more dyes than previously believed. Removing these from a child's diet is shown to be an effective way to treat ADHD, which costs society billions of dollars each year.

So, scientific evidence aside - does not wanting to eat things that aren't food make you science illiterate? I'm not buying that, and neither should you. People ought to be able to decide what they are and are not willing to put in their face. Erring on the side of caution is not something to be belittled over. Once again, Yvette takes the side of industry - and then tells you if you don't then you just don't understand science. Woman needs to open a deli, lunch meat falls out her mouth every time she opens it.

Diluting the Truth

I recently came across a blog post by a woman married to a farmer - Nurse Loves Farmer - which sets out to debunk people using adjectives like 'drenched' or 'doused' when describing the amount of herbicide applied to GMO crops.

Nurse claims through a set of mathematical equations and this infographic that the amount of glyphosate containing herbicide applied to their crops is so tiny that using the words 'doused' or 'drenched' is just silly talk for dumbasses who don't understand farming.

Please read this before complaining at me (again) about 'stolen' content, Sarah.

This is claiming that the amount of herbicide used is equal to just a soda can per acre. But is that accurate? She mentions a little further down in the post that "these results will vary on the brand of glyphosate a farmer uses, its concentration and the method in which it’s used for." Wait - concentration? Whatever could she mean?

I went over to the website at Purdue University and this is what I found regarding formulations for agricultural use: 

"Water-Soluble Concentrate (WSC): Water-soluble concentrates from a true solution when added to water and are applied with water as the carrier. ... There are usually 2 to 6 pounds of active ingredient per gallon of formulation. Example: Arsenal, Formula 40, Garlon 3A, Krenite, Roundup Pro, Tordon K,  Vanquish, Veteran 720."

*link and emphasis mine

The brand Farmer uses is by Syngenta, called Traxion.

It is a liquid concentrate. That soda can amount is being mixed with several gallons of water, and that solution of herbicide is being applied with an agricultural sprayer that puts out a spray somewhat similar to the water misters in the grocery store that keep your lettuce crisp. So whether or not 'drenched' is a correct adjective to use, I can't say - I'm not going to argue over semantics. But if you are mixing concentrate with water to reconstitute it, (forming a true solution) it is incredibly misleading to tell people you're only using an eye dropper's worth per square foot. You're out there with a sprayer, not an eye dropper - let's get real.

This is akin to me telling people that this pitcher of juice only contains 12 oz of juice.

I'm guessing you wouldn't believe me because obviously, it's 48 oz of juice from concentrate. If I diluted it further I could say that it was just 48 oz. of juice cut with however much water I used. But to say that it is diluted, when it's really a reconstituted product is flat out lying. There really is no getting around that.

Nurse is distorting the truth, and misleading the public in order to make a defense of her husbands agricultural practices. After all, Nurse loves Farmer.  She further commits another blunder at the end of her blog post when she uses a favorite phrase of the chemical industry (one which they base their safety testing on) and Skeptics alike.

"A really important thing to remember is: the dose makes the poison. This goes for anything—not just pesticides used in agriculture!"

Anything? Really? Anything at all? She links to another blog with another infographic to back up this statement, which got some of its information from 'various Wikipedia entries' to make a list of things that follow a linear dose response. Now while it's very true that there are things that this applies to, it does NOT in fact, apply to 'anything'. 

What Nurse is either unaware of, or purposefully ignoring is the field of endocrine disruption science. As I mentioned in an earlier blog post, glyphosate based herbicides have been shown to have hormone disrupting effects. From Endocrine Review:

"For decades, studies of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) have challenged traditional concepts in toxicology, in particular the dogma of “the dose makes the poison,” because EDCs can have effects at low doses that are not predicted by effects at higher doses. Here, we review two major concepts in EDC studies: low dose and nonmonotonicity. Low-dose effects were defined by the National Toxicology Program as those that occur in the range of human exposures or effects observed at doses below those used for traditional toxicological studies. We review the mechanistic data for low-dose effects and use a weight-of-evidence approach to analyze five examples from the EDC literature. Additionally, we explore nonmonotonic dose-response curves, defined as a nonlinear relationship between dose and effect where the slope of the curve changes sign somewhere within the range of doses examined. We provide a detailed discussion of the mechanisms responsible for generating these phenomena, plus hundreds of examples from the cell culture, animal, and epidemiology literature. We illustrate that nonmonotonic responses and low-dose effects are remarkably common in studies of natural hormones and EDCs. Whether low doses of EDCs influence certain human disorders is no longer conjecture, because epidemiological studies show that environmental exposures to EDCs are associated with human diseases and disabilities. We conclude that when nonmonotonic dose-response curves occur, the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. Thus, fundamental changes in chemical testing and safety determination are needed to protect human health."

Nurse had better get herself a fact checker. Her Skeptic friends are doing a really lousy job.

For more reading on endocrine disruption see The Endocrine Disruption Exchange (TEDX).

Science Babe vs Food Babe: Who's Frying Up More Baloney?

I decided today to weigh in on the internet drama between a well known food blogger and author, Vani Hari - also known as Food Babe - and Yvette Guinevere d'Entremont aka Science Babe. 

Brief rundown for the uninitiated:

Science Babe recently wrote an article for Gawker with the attention grabbing title 'The Food Babe Blogger Is Full of Shit' in which she tears down Hari's advice with colorful language. It criticizes the tactics she employs, and the lack of science behind many of her claims. Science Babe said on her Facebook page that that Gawker asked for "an all-encompassing takedown" and she happily delivered.

Food Babe responded with, well, a response. She defended herself of course, and shared some not-so-secret information on d'Entremont's background as a former employee of Amvac  - a chemical company making agricultural products. She also shared an anonymous email from someone claiming to be a former co-worker of Science Babe, which painted her in a rather unflattering light.

To be perfectly honest with you, I'm not a fan of either Babe.  I'm also not a fan of using the word babe to describe oneself. Indeed, I find the Glamour Shots style photographs they display a bit trite (okay, a lot)... I mean, I'm always just laying upside down on my couch, crouching in a safe in stilettos or whipping out my trusty giant magnifying glass at the grocery store! Come on ladies, let's be real. You look silly.

Aside from that, I think that they're actually both full of shit - but one just a little bit more than the other (okay, a lot). Let me explain.

I agree with and admire Hari's goals. She obviously cares about health and getting people to take an interest in what is in their food. These are good things. The name Food Babe itself annoys me though, what's wrong with Vani? It's a perfectly fine name. Calling yourself a 'babe' doesn't exactly strike one with it's humility. She's making it difficult for people to take her seriously. So, right there, off to a bad start. Her fixation on single food additives isn't helpful either. She puts a lot of effort into removing additives from foods that aren't going to suddenly be nutritious without them. See Kraft Mac n Cheese & Starbucks Latte's as examples. It would seem that informing people and encouraging them to choose less processed foods would be a better focus. Although, I do have to hand it to her, getting a major chicken purchaser to go with chicken raised without antibiotics is going to have a positive impact. Not so much for the people eating Chick-fil-A, as it's still nutritionally absent garbage but in the big picture since antibiotic resistance is a huge problem.  It's causing 2 million illnesses and over 20 thousand deaths every year in the US. And those are conservative estimates. I do absolutely applaud that effort and I think she needs to keep going in that direction.

But she totally loses credibility with the approach she takes at times. Aside from her infamous airplane and microwave posts (now removed from her site) - telling people to say to servers that they have an allergy when they don't to avoid GMO's at restaurant - which let's be honest, is nearly impossible - is terrible advice. It really does put a burden on those who legitimately do have an allergy to something. Science Babe, who has celiac disease is totally right on that point. Food Babe also exaggerates the gross out factor of certain food ingredients like castoreum flavoring, instead of focusing on the fact that they really just ought to be labeled clearly. Vegans ain't want no beaver butt juice in their whatever-the-heck vegans eat. Same with fish extract in their beer. These things aren't proven to be dangerous, just undesirable for some (okay, probably a lot).  Less fear, more facts please.

Hari is also pretty terrible at conveying anything in a scientific manner. Take her Godawful Kale Quote for instance.

"The enzymes released from kale go in to your liver and trigger cancer fighting chemicals that literally dissolve unhealthy cells throughout your body."

I mean, Vani. Come on honey. What did you expect? You really need to work on that. Kale is indeed good for you, but - Jesus.

And then there's her reasons for not getting a flu shot. While her conclusion is something I agree with, (there are other ways to prevent influenza) she works off assumptions, unsubstantiated internet rumors and conjecture rather than just displaying the evidence that backs up her opinion.

This is a theme with so much of what she says, and it just serves to undermine the genuine concerns about our food and agricultural system. That's a real shame. The goals are good and admirable, I just can't support the execution and delivery at times. I honestly hope that this run of negative press inspires her to hire a scientific adviser and reinvent her approach. She has the ability to do a lot of good, and I'd really like to see it happen.

Alright, enough about Food Babe. I think you get the idea. Now onto Science Babe.

I didn't even know this person existed until very recently, and in perusing her Facebook page it was easy to ascertain that she is a self-styled Skeptic. This one is a chemist, with a background in pesticides. Is it any wonder then that she vehemently defends their use? 'The dose makes the poison' is her battle cry. I guess she missed an entire field of research into endocrine disruption that renders Paracelsus' rule outdated and thus extremely dangerous to apply across the board. A scientist really ought to know better. A perfect example of Yvette's attitude is captured in this meme she shared comparing Roundup with Absolut vodka. Glyphosate is shown to be an endocrine disruptor in peer-reviewed research. I wouldn't think to dispute that alcohol can cause cancer in excessive drinkers, but the mechanisms of toxicity here are entirely different. It's just not a fair comparison. People are exposed to Roundup over a lifetime at low doses - which can be more harmful than high doses. This isn't 'perspective' and it isn't good science. This is smoke and mirrors and memes. Arguing that salt and water can both be toxic at high doses isn't a very scientific argument for the safety of other things. Both are essential to life, glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup herbicide, which is not assigned an LD50 or even tested for that matter) is not essential to any physiological function. Ridiculous, kind of like this:

Better living through chemistry, bitches.

My tour of her website gave me some more impressions. She is clearly presenting herself as a brand. A cartoon likeness with flask and lab coat billowing in the wind is joined by a photo of her in a tight red dress laying on her back in sexypose in the photo banner. Science Superheroine dedicated to ridding the planet of any type of quackery, woo or pseudoscience with her wit, sexiness and dirty jokes. I didn't see any dirty jokes, or much wit or sexiness, but she's new at this I guess?

I don't think I'm reading too much into it either when I say I think she's looking for attention: Stunts like taking a 'deadly dose' of a homeopathic remedy on video a la the Amazing Randi & crashing the premier of Trace Amounts in a pink wig and miniskirt wearing an 'I heart vaccines' t-shirt are clear attempts at that. She took selfies with Bob Sears and even smooched Jay Gordon in one. Then she called them assholes in her blog for not being pro-vaccine enough.

The problem with all this is it's more entertainment than science. What I would expect from someone who is a scientist and genuinely wants to help people would be taking a concept that is bogus say alkaline water for example, and explaining to people why it's a waste of your time and money, and may even be harmful. Instead, I see legitimately useful interventions like essential oils being called 'snake oil'. Instead of justly pointing the finger at the people or companies advocating unsafe use of EO's as miracle cures for everything - she just waves her science wand over the entire practice of aromatherapy and proclaims it bunkum. That's the equivalent of saying that all water is bad because of alkaline water scams. She doesn't differentiate. Skeptics love to take this incredibly polarized view that only allopathic/mechanistic medicine is real medicine. That's just absurd. Medicine that works is medicine.

My cursory investigation did not find Science Babe to be a bastion of Reason and Science as she holds herself up to be. A skanky French Canadian purveyor of superficial information wrapped in exhibitionism is more like it. Oh alright, I have no idea if she's really French Canadian or not.

To Science Babe, just like every other Skeptic, modern agriculture, GMO's pesticides, vaccines, chemotherapy and the entirety of allopathic medicine is perfectly fine just the way it is. If you have any concerns about any of this at all, you have obviously been duped by Food Babe. Stop questioning, everything is fine the way it is, don't be a stupid science denier. You don't want to be one of those idiots do you? We'll have to laugh at you, and make fun of you because bullying is scientific, and mocking people always gets them to see reason. Nah nah, nah nah, nah-nah. Science!

You rang?

This is Science as Religion. This is close-minded agenda driven vitriol. This is about as non-objective as one can get. Science is a method used to gather data. It also has its limitations and we need to remember that so we don't get too damn cocky. I'm afraid it's too late for our Skeptic friends, but we can still apply a little reason and common sense and keep an open mind. It may feel good not to have to fight against the tide of public opinion sometimes, but it also won't help you get anywhere purposeful.

My conclusion here? Rather than taking a side and declaring allegiance to one camp or another, it seems the intelligent choice to look closely at what any blogger is telling you. One doesn't need a degree to be credible, and conversely having a degree does not make one credible either. Scrutinize what you read carefully and consider the source. Don't be so quick to jump on a bandwagon, it might be heading in a direction you don't want to go.

I have no agenda other than to put my thoughts on the internet - which I have now just done. Though my brain might be a little meltier for it. And so I urge you gentle reader, to form your own opinion. Don't just take my word for it.