Kavin Senapathy

---

https://usrtk.org/food-for-thought/kavin_senapathy_henry_miller/

Kavin Senapathy has written many articles promoting GMOs, defending pesticides and attacking critics of the agrichemical industry, mostly for Forbes. Senapathy’s LinkedIn profile lists her profession as a contributor to Forbes. She has not disclosed her funding sources.

In 2017, Forbes deleted several articles co-bylined by Senapathy and Henry I. Miller, a Hoover Institution fellow, following revelations that Monsanto ghostwrote an article Miller published under his own name in Forbes. Forbes also removed at least one of Senapathy’s solo pieces, an Aug. 17 article about transparency that lacked transparency.

Senapathy has also written for Slate, Gawker, Skepchick and Genetic Literacy Project, an agrichemical industry front group that works closely with Monsanto. She is co-founder of March Against Modification Myths, a group that protests biotechnology critics.

Senapathy is co-author of a 2015 book that promotes GMOs, claims aspartame and MSG are safe, and purports to explain the “facts behind those toxic pesticide scares.”

At Least Seven Articles Removed by Forbes 

Collaboration with Henry I. Miller 

Senapathy began sharing a byline with Henry Miller in 2015 on a series of articles in Forbes defending GMOs. The articles are promoted here by the Hoover Institution, a policy think tank that receives fundingfrom right wing foundations and corporations.

Forbes deleted the Miller/Senapathy articles in the wake an August 2017 New York Times report:

“Documents show that Henry I. Miller … asked Monsanto to draft an article for him that largely mirrored one that appeared under his name on Forbes’s website in 2015 … Forbes removed the story from its website on Wednesday and said that it ended its relationship with Mr. Miller amid the revelations.”

An article in Retraction Watch quotes Mia Carbonell, senior VP of global communications at Forbes:

“All contributors to Forbes.com sign a contract requiring them to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and only publish content that is their own original writing.  When it came to our attention that Mr. Miller violated these terms, we removed all of his posts from Forbes.com and ended our relationship with him.”

The emails between Miller and a Monsanto executive show how corporations work with writers such as Miller to promote industry talking points while keeping their collaborations secret. In this case, a Monsanto executive asked Miller to write a column defending glyphosate and provided him with a “still quite rough draft” as “a good start for your magic.” The draft appeared a few days later in Forbes, largely unchanged, under Miller’s name.

Transparency Blunder

Forbes also removed at least one article with Senapathy’s solo byline. The August 17 piece, “This Crowdfunded Experiment Offers a Lesson on Transparency” (which now appears on Medium), criticized Monsanto for ghostwriting safety reviews for glyphosate, describing the incident as a “transparency blunder” and a “PR gaffe.” Although published weeks after news reports that Monsanto ghostwrote an article for her collaborator Henry Miller, Senapathy’s article about transparency neglected to mention that fact.

“Legitimate objections” raised about “independence”

In a Sept. 2015 Project Syndicate article titled “GMOs and Junk Science,” Senapathy and Miller accused the organic and natural food industries of abusing scientific authority and producing propaganda. Project Syndicate added this editor’s note to the piece on August 4, 2017:

“Legitimate objections have been raised about the independence and integrity of the commentaries that Henry Miller has written for Project Syndicate and other outlets, in particular that Monsanto, rather than Miller, drafted some of them. Readers should be aware of this potential conflict of interest, which, had it been known at the time Miller’s commentaries were accepted, would have constituted grounds for rejecting them.”

Underhanded Tactics of MAMyths 

Senapathy is co-founder of March Against Myths of Modification, a group that organizes protests to confront critics of the agrichemical industry, such as Dr. Vandana Shiva, and sometimes uses underhanded tactics. In 2016, MAMyths orchestrated a failed attempt to derail a Center for Food Safety event in Hawaii featuring Vani Hari, The Food Babe.

As Hari explained in an article about the episode:

“24 hours before I was scheduled to take the stage, I was informed by Hawaii CFS that the pro-GMO and satire activist group (MAMyths) launched a campaign to sabotage the event. The tickets to the event were free, but there were a limited quantity available as the venue could only accommodate a certain number of people …

MAMyths asked their followers to reserve blocks of tickets using fake names and fake emails so that it would appear to be “sold out” and that we would be speaking to an empty venue. They reserved over 1,500 tickets using names like “Fraud Babe,” “Organic is Dumb,” “Susi Creamcheese,” and “Harriett Tubman” from traced IP addresses outside of Hawaii and overseas in the United Kingdom, Australia, China, Thailand, Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands.

They were unsuccessful because Hawaii CFS discovered where these bogus requests were coming from and were able to easily cancel their reservations.”

MAMyths claims on their website they are “not paid by Monsanto or any other industry. We are all volunteers with a passion for justice and do this of our own free will.” According to Senapathy’s bio on the site, “She believes that critical thinking is key in raising well-rounded children, and that embracing biotechnology is imperative to this objective.”

Book Describes the Food Movement as a “Terrorist Faction”

Senapathy is co-author of a book, “The Fear Babe: Shattering Vani Hari’s Glass House,” published in October 2015 by Senapath Press. The book promotes genetically engineered foods, claims aspartame and MSG are safe, and purports to explain the “facts behind those toxic pesticide scares.”

Co-authors are Mark Alsip, a blogger for Bad Science Debunked, and Marc Draco, who is described as a veteran member of the Banned by Food Babe Facebook page. The forward was written by University of Florida Professor Kevin Folta.

The book’s forward describes the food movement as “a modern day elite and well financed terrorist faction sworn to use fear to force political change around food,” and an “agile and sneaky terrorist group. Like all terrorist groups they achieve their objectives through the implementation of fear and coercion.”

Chemical Industry Allies

USRTK has compiled a series of fact sheets about writers and PR groups the agrichemical industry relies on to manufacture doubt about science that raises concern about risky products and argue against environmental health protections.

– Why You Can’t Trust Henry I. Miller– Julie Kelly Cooks up Propaganda for the Chemical Industry–The American Council on Science and Health is  Corporate Front Group

– Jon Entine of Genetic Literacy Project: The Chemical Industry’s Master Messenger

– Trevor Butterworth / Sense About Science Spins Science for Industry– Does Science Media Centre Push Corporate Views of Science?

Follow the USRTK investigation of Big Food and its front groups: https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/

 Food For Thought, Our Investigations   Fear Babe, Forbes, GMOs, Henry Miller, Kevin Folta, Kevin Senapathy, March Against Myths, SkepChick

---

glp sci 2.0

==

The day I unwittingly became a pro-science activist

by Jeff Fountain |  posted in: Commentary |  101

fun facts

What kinds of Fun ‘Facts’ Fester in yonder tent? Credit: Jeff Fountain

Early this September I attended the National Heirloom Expo in Santa Rosa.  It’s an event that’s centered around the pure food movement, heirloom vegetables, and anti-GMO activism.  The speakers included Joseph Mercola, Jeffrey Smith, Andrew Kimbrell, and my personal favorite pseudoscientist, Vani Hari, a.k.a. the Food Babe.  For those unfamiliar with Food Babe, she is an anti-GMO, pro-organic public figure who attacks food and agricultural companies for what are essentially harmless practices.  The reason I mention her is because she inspired me to start my own Facebook parody page called Food Hunk, which is what sort of drove my foray into ‘activism’.  Food Hunk is to Food Babe, what Stephen Colbert is to Bill O’Reilly.  I joined a community of other wonderful Food Babe critics such as Chow Babe and Science Babe, with my page being a bit of a broader commentary on fallacious ways of thinking, such as the all-too-common naturalistic fallacy.

I’ve been interested in science all of my life, but only in the last few years have I become more involved with skepticism and the idea that you don’t need to be a scientist to think like a scientist.  As usually proliferated on social media, a constant barrage of anti-GMO fear mongering flooded my Facebook feed on a daily basis. I started trying to counter these claims with sound science.  Because many of those spreading erroneous info were good friends, I felt compelled to actually know what I was talking about and inform them, instead of simply calling them out their ignorance.  I became active in various online forums devoted to exploring the issue of genetic engineering, and found myself learning from some of the best science communicators on the topic.  Upon realizing that I couldn’t learn enough, I decided to go back to school and learn about biotechnology.  I’d recently left my fifteen-year career working in the wine industry and was exploring my passion for science.  My wife found a certificate program at CCSF called Bridge to Biosciences where I am enrolled today.  I am nowhere near as educated as many of the people I correspond with about science, but I’m always trying to learn and never pretend to wield knowledge I don’t have.  In my opinion, this is one of the most important components of skepticism.  If more people only stopped pretending to know what they do not know, we wouldn’t see the blatant misinformation that so predominantly surrounds the topic of GMOs.

Recently I was in a GMO enthusiast forum, when I noticed a post from Karl at Biology Fortified.  He mentioned the Heirloom Expo and was asking if anyone from the Bay Area was going to attend.  Santa Rosa is only about an hour from where I live, and so after realizing I didn’t really have anything planned for the day I thought, “How could I possibly pass up the opportunity to introduce Food Hunk to Food Babe?”  I put on my ‘I love GMOs’ t-shirt, (carefully concealed under my sweatshirt) and hit the road to Santa Rosa.

MAM

Zen Honeycutt at the Moms Across America booth. Credit: Jeff Fountain

My modest intention was to snap a few pictures and possibly end up with a nice photo of the Hunk and the Babe for my Facebook page.  At this point I was still sporting a hoodie over my pro-science t-shirt.  I had an ongoing line of communication with my pro-GMO internet collaborators, joking that I felt like Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver, or a democrat at a Tea Party rally.  I truly began to feel alone, particularly as I walked past the booths of anti-biotechnology organizations like GMO Inside and Moms Across America.  They were handing out flyers damning GMOs as if they were trying to rid the world of malaria, and here I was secretly concealing my ‘I Love Malaria’ t-shirt.  Thankfully I felt like I had all 7000 member of the Facebook group (GMOLOL) cheering me on and offering suggestions for questions to ask the speakers.  My initial intention of possibly snapping a few photos to use as gags, started to turn into a feeling of not wanting to let my compadres down. I decided to try and pose some questions to Vani Hari.

I sat down near the front of the stage so I could easily pose a question if given the chance.  I had my question planned out.  The Food Babe’s most recent scare-campaign was directed at Starbucks Coffee for their Pumpkin Spice Latte.  In her ‘investigation’ she cites the International Agency for Research on Cancer as having grouped one of the chemicals found in caramel color (used in the beverage) as a ‘possible carcinogen’.  What she fails to mention is that the IARC also groups coffee itself as a possible carcinogen (group 2B), along with pickled vegetables and the cell phone in your pocket.  In fact the highest level they categorize (group 1, two levels above 2B) includes outdoor air pollution and alcoholic beverages.  If we are to use Food Babe’s judgment of what is ‘harmful’, we would be at a much higher risk by enjoying a nice glass of wine in the outdoor seating of a quaint little bistro in LA.  My question would be simple: “According to the IARC, what poses a higher risk of carcinogenic exposure, caramel color or the coffee itself?”  I never got a chance to ask her that question.

fudbabe

Vani Hari, aka the “Food Babe” spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD). Credit: Jeff Fountain

What I’m going to recount next may resemble conspiracy, but I’m almost certain that Food Babe knew exactly who I was when she entered the auditorium.  Before going on stage, she stared right at me (I was only about 15 feet away), and summoned her handlers and event coordinator. They all whispered covertly for half a minute while occasionally glancing over at me.  For a moment I thought I might be asked to leave.  Keep in mind that I am still wearing my sweatshirt over my GMO shirt, and at this point I hadn’t spoken to anyone at the event about my intentions of being there.  But I had been all over Facebook posting about it in public groups.  I also know that she, or more likely someone that works for her, ironically pre-banned members of a Facebook group called Banned by the Food Babe.  You see, she has a reputation for immediately silencing anyone who dares ask actual science questions on her page, and so a group was created for people to discuss their bannings.  Many members were surprised to find out that they had been preemptively silenced just by joining this public group.  Thus, it makes logical sense to conclude that she must also know about the various Food Babe parody pages, and my face is plastered all over mine.  In fact, after hearing her speak and noticing just how concerned she was about herself and her image, I’ve concluded that there is no way that she could NOT know about a semi-popular Facebook page that is making fun of her.  My suspicions were further confirmed when I later saw her walking alone through another area of the expo.  She spotted me and quickly looked away.  She then met up with her handlers and they pulled the ‘don’t look now, but that’s the guy’ routine, which of course means all four of them simultaneously turned around and checked me out as they scampered away.  At the risk of sounding like a stalker, I only wanted to ask her a question.

Vani’s talk conveniently ran long and she decided not to field questions.  She stuck around to take some photos with fans, and when I tried to join the party, she avoided me like the plague.  I decided that since there would be no ‘Food Hunk meets Food Babe’ photo op, there was no more need to hide my true identity.  The sweatshirt was coming off.

Strangely, the very first interaction I had with anyone while wearing my pro-GMO shirt was with the infamous Jeffrey Smith himself.  For those unaware of Jeffrey Smith, he is an anti-GMO, pseudo-science promoting author, documentarian, and former politician for the obscure Natural Law party.  He was walking alone when I asked if I could take a picture with him.  He said, “Absolutely not. Not with an ‘I Love GMOs t-shirt’” I responded “Why, don’t you love insulin?” He kind of snickered so I asked one more time, “Please, just one picture?” He refused and walked away.

It was fascinating wearing my ‘I love GMOs’ t-shirt to the event.  I was receiving looks of real, visceral anger.  I even experienced some schoolyard bullying type of behavior, with people purposefully refusing to move as I walked by, or sticking out their elbows hoping to get a jab.  I remained respectful, never antagonizing anyone, even when people remarked about my shirt or my questions to the panel in disgust.  The best way I can describe it is this: through their lens, they were like a convention full of astrophysicists, and I was a moon landing denier.  They just couldn’t fathom how uninformed I was.  Yet when they questioned me, they were surprised at my tangible knowledge and desire for respectful conversation.  This wasn’t what they were expecting; they were either hoping to teach me something, or to be rude or hostile.  Still, I hesitate to keep referring to ‘them’ as if they are the enemy.  The people at this expo were mostly just good, well-intentioned people who want to do what’s right.  The problem is they don’t realize how full of crap the Jeffrey Smiths and the Vani Haris of this world are.  If everyone realized it, there wouldn’t be any Jeffrey Smiths.

food is medicine

It wasn’t all anti-GMO posturing at the expo, there were also some heirloom crops. Credit: Jeff Fountain

The Q & As with Andrew Kimbrell (another well-known GMO oppose) and Jeffrey Smith had me the most wary.  I have a decent understanding of the science behind genetic modification, but nobody can obfuscate and use ‘sciencey’ sounding double-talk like these guys.  Finally, opportunity struck and I asked if Andrew thought there was any inherent danger to GM technology, and whether there could be ‘good’ or useful applications for genetic modification through gene transfer.  I continued by citing examples of recent advancements in disease treatment. (Gaucher’s disease, Ebola, etc.)  To paraphrase, he responded by discussing the difference between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells.  My guess is that he knew this jargon would only serve to confuse and simultaneously impress the majority of the audience.  He then completely twisted and botched the science into concluding with “No. There are no good uses because it doesn’t work” even though I just given him perfect examples of beneficial applications.  As Karl later explained to me, he has latched onto the canard that “genetic engineering is based on obsolete science” and he brings up the 1-gene-1-protein hypothesis and that genetics has disproven that.  He twists this to mean that GMOs don’t work.  However, the fact that some genes can code for different proteins does not in any way imply that transgenes don’t work – or even that they code for multiple proteins.  Nevertheless, Mr. Kimbrell can get away scot-free lying to good people by using a meaningless phrase like “GM does not work.”  Forget about the fact that he just spent half an hour trying to frighten a gymnasium full of people about the dangers of herbicide resistance, and Bt expressing corn – both traits introduced by GM technology that clearly “works.” Unfortunately, the majority of the audience doesn’t see the contradiction in these statements.

For the next speaker, Jeffrey Smith, I didn’t have questions prepared.  I just wanted to listen and pose whatever questions came up.  Eventually, he ended up living up to his M.O. by trying to scare people with debunked claims of GMO causing “leaky gut,” and links to autism, ADHD, Alzheimer’s, cancer, diabetes.  I asked him if that were the case, why do we see the same rates of these diseases and conditions in the European Union? He at first stammered about the EU still using glyphosate, but he had just said that it was the Bt corn causing the leaky gut, not the glyphosate resistance.  So I followed up by asking if it was because of pesticides, and not because of any inherent defect or danger in GMOs?  He started citing the debunked, fraudulent Seralini study, directing his attention towards an audience that probably didn’t know any better.  And then to my disbelief he said something to the effect of, “We know that correlation does not imply causation, but with what we know about Monsanto, and the government, and the industry-funded studies, and the USDA,… that’s when you get the causation.”

I said out loud to myself, and probably audible to a few people seated around me, “No, that’s when you get a conspiracy.”

After the Smith talk, I was standing outside the auditorium and reporting back to my siblings-in-arms on my smart phone.  An older white-haired farmer-type gentleman (a guess for sure – I don’t know what he did for a living) followed me out of the building and wanted to talk. He carefully whispered while looking over his shoulder, “I tell ya, you got a lot of balls wearing that shirt here with these people, but I think you’re right.  I listen to these guys, and the science is just not there.”  We talked for a few minutes and it was one of my favorite moments of the event.

expo collage

Lots going on at the expo. Credit: Jeff Fountain

I soon learned that a documentary film crew was at the expo, and after talking with one of them, I learned that they were interested in the questions that I posed to the speakers, and wanted to ask me more in an interview! Food Hunk in a film? Of course!

I don’t know how much of this, or if any of it is ever going to see the light of day in the documentary that was being filmed.  I know they can film countless hours of footage and most of it hits the cutting room floor.  I found out later that the director was nominated for an Oscar a few years ago. He took a few minutes to interview me on camera about what I was doing there, and I got to tell him about my page.  Again, I seriously doubt that any of it will be used in the film, but I’ll forever be able to tell my friends that I was interviewed by an Oscar nominated filmmaker about ‘Food Hunk’.  I’m still trying to wrap my brain around that.

Overall I’m happy with how things went in my first small attempt at pro-science activism.  But can we really call the act of simply asking questions ‘activism’?

I do know one thing: If this event comes back around next year and it’s hosting the same brand of anti-science speakers, I’m going to be there again.  Only this time I’m going to be more prepared, and I’m bringing friends.

Editor’s note: Special thanks to Kavin Senapathy for providing editorial input for this post.

==

==

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/04/arctic_apple_safety_dr_oz_sows_seeds_of_mistrust_on_gmos.html

with miller:

Kavin Senapathy is a science advocate and works for a genomics company in Wisconsin that doesn’t develop GE foods. Find her on Facebook and Twitter.

Surgeon–turned–television doctor Mehmet Oz opened his show on March 10 with a “Dr. Oz Investigation” on the newly U.S. Department of Agriculture–approved “Arctic” apple, which doesn’t undergo the unappetizing browning that other apples do when it’s bitten, bumped, or cut. The episode, titled “The Non-Browning GMO Apple: Is It Safe?,” pushed the fallacy that there is some sort of “right to know” (via labeling) whether a food has been produced with the techniques of molecular genetic engineering (aka “genetic modification,” or GM).

The reason the Arctic apple doesn’t discolor involves ingenious but simple biology. Enzymatic browning in apples is caused by the fruit’s intrinsic chemical reaction to cell injury, which ruptures the cells and triggers chemical reactions between the enzyme polyphenol oxidase (PPO) and the substances that cause the apple flesh to turn brown. A family of four genes controls the majority of PPO production, and by inserting low-PPO-producing genes from other apples, scientists were able to turn off more than 90 percent of PPO production.

Ordinarily the development of a new apple variety would proceed uneventfully, but because the shut-off of the four genes was done with molecular techniques, the proposed commercialization of this new variety was met with unconscionable, irresponsible, and lengthy regulatory delays. (On the heels of the USDA approval, the FDA approved the Arctic apple on March 20, following a “voluntary” food safety review that dragged on for four years.)

Now that this remarkable fruit has jumped through the required regulatory hoops, Dr. Oz and other fear-mongers are trying to elicit totally unwarranted consumer apprehension about it. Oz opened his program this way:

Would you buy this apple if I told you it wouldn’t brown when you cut into it or took a bite? Would you buy this apple if I told you it was genetically modified to not turn brown? Well, a lot of people are banking on your answer. The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently approved the first genetically modified apple. They’re calling them the Arctic apple.

It’s a safe bet that most people in that audience that day said no, they wouldn’t buy the apple. A whopping 98 percent of respondents to a Doctoroz.com poll cited in a January episode said that they wanted foods containing genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled. In addition, nationwide polls suggested that up to 80 percent of Americans want labels on foods that contain DNA—although, presumably, few of them realize that that would encompass virtually everything in their diets except highly refined foods such as oil, sugar, and salt. These exercises prove only that people know little about the chemistry and biology of what they eat. (Or about their own bodies, for that matter—they, too, are composed of chemicals, including DNA.)

This latest manifestation of New Age nonsense is vintage Oz. The FDA slammed him in 2011 for an “irresponsible and misleading” report on arsenic in apple juice, and in June 2014 at a hearing, members of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee grilled and thoroughly humiliated Oz for his hawking of fraudulent products. In addition, publications including the Washington Post, the New Yorker, and Slatehave criticized his anti-science views.

The James Randi Educational Foundation has no fewer than three times bestowed on Oz its Pigasus Award, which is given “to expose parapsychological, paranormal or psychic frauds that Randi has noted over the previous year.” The last two of these were for support of faith healing and psychic communication with the dead, among other things (2010), and “Refusal to Face Reality” for his continued promotion of “quack medical practices, paranormal belief, and pseudoscience” (2012).

Among scientists, Oz is known for his anti-genetic-engineering propaganda, which he promotes regularly on his TV program in concert with outspoken biotech opponents who lack medical or scientific backgrounds. In September 2014, Oz featured Zen Honeycutt, founder of the anti-genetic engineering organization Moms Across America, who shared her bias without a hint of skepticism or so much as a follow-up question from Oz.

Like many antagonists of genetic engineering, Honeycutt attempted to demonize glyphosate, an herbicide used in various types of farming, because some genetically engineered crops are used in conjunction with it. Honeycutt claimed that her son had been experiencing symptoms of autism, and she wanted his urine tested for chemicals used in farming. His doctor declined, so she used a private lab that supposedly detected glyphosate levels “eight times higher than found anywhere in Europe [in] urine testing.” She claimed that within six weeks of going “completely [genetic engineering]–free and organic, his autism symptoms were gone, and the level of glyphosate was no longer detectable.” She didn’t clarify what European data were used for comparison or why. There is no medical evidence that exposure to glyphosate has any connection with autism; in fact, glyphosate has lower overall health impacts than white vinegar (aka the chemical acetic acid) when used as a herbicide. ....

This sort of nonsense is part of a longstanding pattern. Oz’s wife and the co-producer of his program, Lisa Oz, is a supporter of brazen anti-genetic-engineering campaigner and self-described levitator Jeffrey Smith. An advocate of alternative health products—the manufacturers of which happen to sponsor her and Dr. Oz’s radio and television programs—Lisa Oz recently collaborated with Smith and served as narrator for his lurid and ludicrous anti-genetic-engineering movie.

Oz made an attempt to appear balanced on the March 10 program—he interviewed Neal Carter, apple grower and founder of Okanagan Specialty Fruits, the creator of the Arctic apple. When asked how to detect whether a nonbrowning apple is rotting, Carter explained, “It’s important to understand that Arctic apples are just like any other apple in this regard.” He described how only the enzymatic browning of the Arctic apple has been “turned off.” When an apple rots, pathogens have their own enzymes that make it turn brown. Thus, these apples will brown when they rot.

Why nonbrowning apples? “Apples as a whole apple are too big a commitment,” Carter asserted. “[B]y making it not go brown, it makes it more suitable for food service, putting apples in more places, increasing consumption.”

After his own reductionist description of how scientists turned off the browning traits, Oz cited unnamed critics who say that altering one trait might inadvertently affect others. To expand on these concerns, Oz brought on so-called genetic engineering expert and Consumers Union scientist Michael Hansen. On the program Hansen questioned the apple’s safety, claiming that the technique used can also potentially turn off other genes. (Testing has shown that it doesn’t, and that the Arctic apple is indistinguishable from its unmodified cohorts, except for lower levels of the enzymes that mediate browning.)

Neither Oz nor Hansen seems to understand that the entire apple industry owes the diversity of varieties to different gene expression patterns. A Golden Delicious apple looks and tastes different from a Red Delicious because different apple genes are expressed. Recent genomic sequencing shows there are about 57,000 genes in the Golden Delicious apple.

Hansen then invoked the issue of “fraud,” lamenting that without labels at salad bars and elsewhere, most consumers will see unblemished sliced apples and think they’re freshly cut. Thereby, Hansen turns a red fruit into a red herring. Do sliced cucumbers or radishes turn brown to warn customers of waning freshness?

Leading up to the segment’s conclusion, Oz gushed to Carter, whose company created the Arctic apple, “I treasure the fact that you’re here. It’s hard to have this conversation in America right now; the two sides aren’t talking to each other very much. I commend you for your transparency, and the fact that you’ve been willing to come here and articulate in a very tasteful way at many levels.” The tacit message was, of course, that Carter is a rare exception to the usual mendacious, obfuscating biotech proponents.

Oz then implored Carter to extend his transparency to labeling Arctic apples in the marketplace as genetically engineered (presumably so that consumers could avoid them). Carter didn’t bite. He responded calmly that the proponents of labeling are anti-biotech. “It’s being driven by other business objectives and I think that’s completely wrong.” For that reason, he stated that the fruits will be labeled with the Arctic logo, but not explicitly as genetically engineered.

Oz wasn’t satisfied, expressing concern that consumers might not know that Arcticmeans genetically engineered. The real debate, Oz claimed, is not whether products made with genetic engineering are dangerous, but whether consumers have a right to know so they can decide. But there is already plenty of voluntary GMO-free labeling around, while mandatory labeling fails every test—scientific, economic,legal, and common sense—and the federal courts have found that there is no such “right to know.” 

Dr. Oz fails to understand that there is a centuries-old seamless continuum of genetic modification of crops, animals, and microorganisms, performed by a variety of pre-molecular techniques, some of which have drastically altered the foods that we consume routinely. Some have moved genetic material from one species or genus to another to yield outcomes that don’t exist in nature. Farmers and plant breeders have been creating new varieties of apples for millennia. The new molecular techniques for accomplishing this are far more precise, predictable, and conservative than older, unregulated techniques for genetic improvement. With the exception of wild berries, wild game, wild mushrooms, and most fish and shellfish, all of the foods in our diets come from organisms that have been genetically modified in some way; and about three-quarters of the processed foods in American markets contain ingredients from organisms genetically engineered with molecular techniques similar to those used to create Arctic apples....

---

Mark Aaron Alsip writes the skeptical science blog Bad Science Debunked(badscidebunked.wordpress.com). He has a bachelor’s degree in computer science with concentrations in math, life sciences, and electronics. His past work includes programming for the IDEX II project currently on display at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C.

--

Gorski, David. 2014. Vani Hari (a.k.a. The Food Babe): The Jenny McCarthy of food (blog entry). Online at http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/vani-hari-a-k-a-the-food-babe-the-jenny-mccarthy-of-food/.

:{:{}:

}:

https://badscidebunked.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/the-food-babe-ban-list/

:{:{}:

}:

The Food Babe Ban List

Posted on December 17, 2014

This list is meant to serve as a companion guide to the articles I’ve written exposing the tactics of Vani Hari (aka the Food Babe).  It’s a list of over 610 products, vendors, and brand names that Hari’s targeted so far.  When you misrepresent the “dangers” of a product, then recommend an alternative for which you receive a sales commission–there’s a problem…

In addition to this list, you may also be interested in knowing that many of the products sold by Food Babe have the very same ingredients she says are dangerous.  For example, she sells a full line of products containing the same dyes over which she lambasts Weight Watchers, Kraft, and McDonald’s.  She’s sold BHT for nearly 3 years, all the while harassing Kellogg’s and General Mills over the same (safe) additive.  The Babe doesn’t like agave nectar, but she’s happy to sell you a full range of foods sweetened with–you guessed it–agave nectar.  And don’t even get me started on cellulose. A special series on Food Babe’s hypocrisy can be found here.

Without further ado then, here’s the Food Babe Ban List:

A

A1 Steak Sauce

Acetylated Monoglycerides

Activa

AeroMed Oral Glucose

Airport food (almost all)

Allegro (tea)

Alexia

Alka Seltzer

All-Bran

Almay

Almond Dream

Almond Joy

Alpen Gold (Kraft)

Alta Dena (butter)

Aminosweet

AMP Energy (Pepsico)

Amy & Brian

Anchor Butter

Andes

Anheuser-Busch

Annie Chun’s

Apple Cinnamon Cheerios

Aquafresh

Aquafina

Arby’s

Arnold Baker Light 100% Whole Wheat Bread

Arrowhead Mills

Artificial coloring (any product containing)

Artificial flavoring (any product containing)

Aspartame

Athenos Hummus

Atkin’s (protein shakes)

Avon

Aveeno

Azodicarbonamide (a safe bread ingredient)

B

Baby Formula (most, containing safe GMO corn syrup)

Bac’n Bits

Back to Nature

Baker’s

Baking powder (non-GMO)

Banana Boat

Barbara’s Bakery

Barley malt (any product containing)

BASF (Prop 37)

Bayer (Prop 37)

Beet sugar (any product containing)

Ben & Jerry’s (Prop 37)

--

Celebrity GMO critic Food Babe pitches products with ingredient she demonizes

:{Mark Aaron Alsip | August 6, 2015 | Skeptical Inquirerhttp://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_food_babe_a_taste_of_her_own_medicine:{}:

}:

While “Food Babe” Vani Hari’s pseudoscience has been widely debunked by qualified doctors and scientists, a more sobering fact seems to have escaped everyone’s attention: one of America’s most notorious bloggers is earning sales commissions from products that contain the very same ingredients she says are dangerous. Ironically, for a web activist who seems to do most of her research via Google, the evidence is only a few mouse clicks away.

For example, one of Food Babe’s most vocal and infamous campaigns has been against Starbucks for their use of caramel coloring containing 4-Methylimidazole (“4-Mel”) in spiced pumpkin lattes (Hari 2014). “4-Mel” is classified as a group 2B carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Do you know what else is listed as a group 2B carcinogen? Titanium dioxide: her “gotta have” sunscreen ingredient. Food Babe identifies the IARC as the source for her 4-Mel cancer claim, so how did she miss the titanium dioxide? It’s on the same list. Does the fact that she’s helping sell products that contain TiO2 have any bearing on her research?

This is just one example of many products recommended by Food Babe that contain exactly the same ingredients she claims are dangerous. The takeaway message is that Hari’s science is as questionable as her investigative techniques. When given a taste of her own medicine—using a simple web browser to look up the ingredients of items she recommends—Food Babe’s role as a safety advocate is cast in a new light. The fact that she openly earns sales commissions on products pushed via her website should give us all pause for thought.

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis. Read full, original post:The ‘Food Babe’: A Taste of Her Own Medicine

==

Leading up to the release of her book, The Food Babe Way, Vani Hari’s Facebook page was awash with promotions and pleas to her followers to pre-order the book “the food industry doesn’t want you to see.” On the evening of its release, Hari announced a Twitter “party” to celebrate with her fans. The idea was for Twitter users to chime in with hashtag #FoodBabeWay to promote the book. As she is wont to do, Hari played martyr, painting the entirety of her detractors with a hate-saturated brush. I could barely believe my eyes when I saw it:

As Hari’s most outspoken Indian-American, female critic, I think I’m among those qualified to address this. My first reaction was to wonder whether any of Hari’s critics had recently made a racist or sexist remark about her. Then I realized that perhaps she was referring to the larger world of Internet commenters. Hari has previously referred to her detractors as misogynist, sexist, industry shills. In a blog post responding to a critical NPR piece, Hari states,

Instead of focusing on the issues at hand I’ve raised about the food industry, their go-to criticisms are ad hominem personal attacks: they’ve attacked me, as a woman, in ways they’d never attack my male colleagues. I am personally being subjected to hate speech, harassment and cyber-bullying on a daily basis.

As an outspoken woman online, I myself am frequently subjected to hateful bullying. While I would never condone this type of harassment, to categorically dismiss all criticisms as hate speech is an intentional attempt to distract. I responded in detail to her diatribe here. To borrow a quote from myself:

Many women have been targets of misogyny online. Internet misogyny is a scourge that we all should continue to combat together. I too have been targeted, told that I’m “poisoning” my children and that it will be my fault if they ever suffer a terminal illness. In addition, I’m Indian-American just like you, and have always defended you against ignorant racist remarks, in part because I know how it feels…Conflating misogyny with relevant opposition is underhanded. You are using this in an attempt to derail the entire conversation–a public conversation in which you’ve never even been willing to engage. You’re throwing yourself a pity party and inviting your entire army.

Deck of deflection

I have been tactful and civil with Hari in the past. Indeed, while the dark underbelly of the web is rife with mean and even threatening people, the majority of her outspoken detractors have not been hateful in their reproach. Calling one’s opponents racist is no minor allegation. Hari pulling the race card from her Deck of Deflection makes her look naïve at best, and delusional at worst. Included in Hari’s Deck of Deflection are the Sexist Card, Shill Card, Hater Card, and now the Racist Card. Like I’ve said, I’m a woman, I’m an ethnic minority, and as such I’m extremely careful about calling anyone racist or sexist. If and when one claims racism or sexism, s/he should be ready to produce evidence.

Thus, I’ll make it easy for Hari by naming a representative sampling of her critics among scientists. This way, she can provide instances of their being racist or sexist toward her. This is not an all-inclusive list:

• Dr. Kevin Folta
• Dr. Steven Novella
• Dr. John Coupland
• Dr. David Gorski
• Dr. Julie Miller Jones

Every scientist on this list has been openly critical of Hari, yet I’ve never observed their being racist or sexist toward her. Like many others, I’ve been a targetof both of these “isms,” yet I would never deign to slap those labels on people without warrant. To do so is deplorably unethical. These allegations are highly offensive, and I believe that Hari’s detractors deserve to know from where these allegations stem. I can only speak for myself, but if anyone points out any legitimate instance of my being sexist or racist, I will apologize.

In addition to calling her opposition racist and sexist, Hari pulls her oft-played “shill card.” The shill card is a sweeping deflection that is used all too often used in absence of logical refutations to criticism. Rather than call Hari a shill for Food Babe, LLC, or Big Organic, detractors like the ones I’ve listed criticize her work in meaningful ways. Below, a brief statement from one of my prior posts on the problem with the shill accusation:

If any GMO proponent is automatically assumed to be a shill then if we extrapolate, no employee should have the autonomy of mind and freedom of speech to have any thought or belief at odds with her employer. This, my friends, is not the type of society I plan for my children to inherit.

In her recent Alex Jones Hari states:

It is about making sure we stand up for the truth no matter what…The information that I am going to share…are meant to help the world, meant to bring a healthier world, and also help reduce the amount of disease rates in this country. What I want to ask my detractors is this: Why do you spend all day attacking me? Why don’t you spend some of your time finding something healthy to bring to the world?

It appears that Hari either has delusions of grandeur, or is being disingenuous as usual. Many of her critics are doctors, scientists, and science communicators. By their very nature, these people’s lives are all about making the world a healthier and better place. Others like me strive to do just what Hari claims to be doing, standing up for the truth no matter what. I spend most of my time keeping my kids healthy, working at a small genomics-related company (and no it’s not Monsanto), and communicating science to a lay audience.

Hari asks her detractors why they “spend all day attacking” her. Reality is vastly unlike her claim in the Alex Jones interview that most of her critics’ work is about her. If you look at the bodies of work of the list of detractors I’ve provided, it’s clear that indeed, most of our work has nothing to do with Hari. Still, her preemptive contention that her critics are somehow obsessed with her is brilliant. This way, whenever anyone tries and refutes her claims, she can pull the “Obsessed with Food Babe” card. Indeed, Vani Hari’s Deck of Deflection keeps growing and growing.

Nevertheless, her non evidence-based fear mongering needs addressing, and this is why we spend our valuable time addressing her blunders. When Hari arbitrarily demonizes beneficial and inherently benign tools like biotech, promotes chemophobia, and conflates consuming conventionally grown foods with eating “processed” junk, she contributes to the hindrance of progress. She contributes to the perpetuation of American scientific illiteracy. She contributes to irrational conspiracy theories.

Now, she’s called a group of hard working writers, scientists, and doctors sexist, racist, shills. Again, I believe these people deserve an explanation of why she continuously makes these allegations. As I’ve borrowed from Carl Sagan countless times – extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Please, show the evidence that those spending their valuable time and energy criticizing your work in the public eye deserve the offensive and serious titles of racists and sexists.

This piece was adapted from: No Food Babe, Your Detractors Aren’t Racists, Sexists, Haters, or Shills

Kavin Senapathy is a contributor at Genetic Literacy Project and other sites. She is a mother of two and a freelance writer who works for a genomics and bioinformatics R&D in Madison, WI. Opinions expressed are her own and do not reflect her employer. Follow Kavin on her science advocacy Facebook page, and Twitter @ksenapathy

Additional Resources:

• Evolution of Food Babe: From misguided consumer advocate to crude bully, Genetic Literacy Project
• Kevin Folta deconstructs Food Babe’s response to students in scathing fashion, Genetic Literacy Project

==

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Novella

~ acupuncture

--

Is The Food Babe A Fearmonger? Scientists Are Speaking Out

Updated February 10, 20154:52 PM ETPublished December 4, 20141:26 PM ET

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/12/04/364745790/food-babe-or-fear-babe-as-activist-s-profile-grows-so-do-her-critics

In an age when consumers have become increasingly suspicious of processed food, the Internet has become a powerful platform for activists who want to hold Big Food accountable.

One of the highest-profile of these new food crusaders is Vani Hari, better known by her online moniker, Food Babe. Among her victories: a petition that nudged Kraft to drop the artificial orange color from its mac and cheese, and another one that helped get Subway to do away with the common bread additive azodicarbonamide — which Hari noted was also used in making yoga mats.

To followers on her website and on social media, who are known as the Food Babe Army, Hari is a hero. And with a book and TV development deal in the works, her platform is about to get a lot bigger.

But as her profile grows, so too do the criticisms of her approach. Detractors, many of them academics, say she stokes unfounded fears about what's in our food to garner publicity. Steve Novella, a Yale neuroscientist and prominent pseudoscience warrior, among others, has dubbed Hari the "Jenny McCarthy of food" after the celebrity known for championing thoroughly debunked claims that vaccines cause autism.

THE SALT

Subway Phasing Out Bread Additive After Blogger Flags Health Concerns

Hari is a self-styled consumer advocate and adviser on healthful eating. Her website, FoodBabe.com, offers recipes, tips for nutritious dining while traveling, and, for $17.99 a month, "eating guides" that include recipes, meal calendars and shopping lists. But she's best-known for her food investigations, frequently shared on social media — posts in which she flags what she deems to be questionable ingredients.

Take, for example, Hari's campaign urging beer-makers to reveal the ingredients in their brews. Among the ingredients that concerned Hari was propylene glycol, a chemical used in antifreeze. But, ascancer surgeon and blogger David Gorskiwrites,the product used in some beers to stabilize foam is actually propylene glycol alginate — which is derived from kelp. "It is not the same chemical as propylene glycol, not even close. It is not antifreeze," he wrote.

Another beer ingredient that got Hari up in arms? Isinglass, or dried fish swim bladders, which may sound, well, fishy, but has been used to clarify beers for well over a century. Such mix-ups prompted historian Maureen Ogle, the author of Ambitious Brew: The Story of American Beer, to dissect Hari's claims, point by point, in a post on her site titled "What's In YOUR Beer? Or, The Dangers of Dumbassery."

THE SALT

Just What Is In Pumpkin Spice Flavor? (Hint: Not Pumpkin)

Hari's approach capitalizes on growing consumer distrust of both Big Food companies and their unfamiliar, industrial-sounding ingredients, and of regulators' ability to oversee them effectively. Some of these chemicals and additives may indeed be questionable, but food scientists would argue that nearly all are safe. So why do food companies respond to her demands, if they have nothing to hide?

Because, Gorski writes, "companies live and die by public perception. It's far easier to give a blackmailer like Hari what she wants than to try to resist or to counter her propaganda by educating the public."

Critics note that Hari lacks credentials in nutrition or food science; she's a former consultant who studied computer science. Hari declined to be interviewed for this story; through her publicist, she told NPR she isn't speaking to media until her new book is released in February. But when the Charlotte Observer asked her about such criticisms, Hari answered, "I've never claimed to be a nutritionist. I'm an investigator."

But that lack of training often leads her to misinterpret peer-reviewed research and technical details about food chemistry, nutrition and health, says Kevin Folta, a professor of horticultural sciences at the University of Florida and vocal online critic of Hari. "She really conflates the science," he tells The Salt.

"If anything, she's created more confusion about food, more confusion about the role of chemicals and additives," Folta says.

More recently, as we've reported, Hari's attacks on the lack of pumpkin in Starbucks' Pumpkin Spice lattes prompted the Institute of Food Technologists to release a video explaining the chemicals that replicate that squash flavor in a cup of Joe.

"What she does is exploit the scientific ignorance and fear of her followers," says Kavin Senapathy, an anti-pseudoscience blogger who frequently challenges the assertions in Hari's posts. "And most of us are in agreement that we simply can't accept that."

Senapathy and other online critics, using parody names like Science Babe, Chow Babeand Food Hunk, have taken to Twitter and Facebook in an organized effort to engage with Hari's followers and counter her scientific claims.

So why not simply ignore Hari? Because her reach is growing: Last month her op-edwas featured in The New York Times' Room for Debate section. In October,Experience Life magazine, a health and fitness publication, featured her on its cover. That decision prompted critics to bombard the magazine's Amazon page with single-star reviews for putting "an uneducated fearmonger" on its cover.

And this fall, Hari addressed the University of Florida as part of a lecture series for freshmen on "The Good Food Revolution." That talk prompted Folta to write ascathing blog post about her visit in which he accused her of being "afraid of science and intellectual engagement."

He was angry that her talk didn't include a question and answer period in which he could challenge her on some of her scientific assertions. "When you bring in a self-appointed expert, a celebrity more than a scientific figure, it does have the effect of undoing the science we are trying to instill in our students," Folta told me.

Ultimately, Folta says, he thinks Hari's heart is in the right place. "She does seem to come from an honest intention of wanting people to think about good food choices and health." But, he says, "it's a question of science."

Other critics are less generous in their assessment, noting that Hari isn't just raising the alarm about food additives. Through affiliated marketing partnerships, she is also making money by referring her website readers to organic and non-GMO food brands, as Ad Age has reported. Indeed, the Food Babe brand, a registered LLC, has become a full-time job for Hari, who also earns fees from speaking appearances.

"Unfortunately, the Web is cluttered with people who really have no idea what they are talking about giving advice as if it were authoritative, and often that advice is colored by either an ideological agenda or a commercial interest," Yale's Novella writes on his blog. "The Food Babe is now the poster child for this phenomenon."

Hari has brushed off such questions about her motivations and scientific proficiency. "I know that I'm doing the right thing," she told the Observer. "I'm trying to help people understand things that no one else has spoken out about."

But the message of Hari's campaigns boils down to "this toxic secret thing they are putting in my food is making me [sick]," says John Coupland, a food scientist at Penn State, in an email to The Salt.

"I personally think this is largely a distraction from more real concerns" about the food system, says Coupland. Problems, he says, like advertising aimed at kids, the environmental impacts of food production, food waste and hunger.

==

Evolution of Food Babe: From misguided consumer advocate to crude bully

Kavin Senapathy | December 10, 2014 | Genetic Literacy Project

glp

Vani Hari, better known as “Food Babe,” is a self-proclaimed investigator of food and consumer advocate. Yet, some of her so-called investigations have been based in little to no evidence, while most of the rest of her claims are outright drivel. She has made her mark in an all-too-easy exploitation of public fear of the “unnatural,” distrust of establishment and love for fads.

As expected, her opposition has been growing. Scientists and skeptics have begun criticizing Hari’s assertions. Within the last several months, the frequency of articles, blog posts and social media opposition has skyrocketed.

I’m a mother and science writer, and I’ve been critical of Hari’s work over the last several months. I am not a scientist by the traditional definition. I don’t have a PhD., nor have I authored peer-reviewed research publications. Still, I have a unique perspective afforded by the intersection of a sound working knowledge of genomics, genetics, and bioinformatics. I’ve garnered this knowledge being raised by a molecular biologist, working for a small private-sector genomics R&D company, and via coursework and extensive reading on the subject.

In addition to writing on the subjects of feminism, atheism, and biotechnology in agriculture and medicine, I took on the position of spokesperson for Chow Babe, an open social media critic of Food Babe. While Chow Babe is a parody of Food Babe, she has gained a following of nearly ten thousand people sharing one common notion – that Vani Hari is a charlatan without evidence for her propaganda.

Maria Godoy of NPR’s “The Salt” took notice and contacted me and a few scientists to discuss scientific backlash against Food Babe. Considering that NPR is a renowned and reputable organization, I gladly obliged. Over the weekend–shortly after the piece was published and after declining to be interviewed for the NPR piece–Food Babe lashed out at her critics.

Food Babe refers to me as follows (and yes, I’ll explain why I know she’s talking about me specifically):

“Seemingly reputable news organizations like NPR (in a blog post titled “Is The Food Babe A Fearmonger? Scientists Are Speaking Out”) even linked to the hate groups – quoting one of their spokespeople and repeated their ridiculous and biased messages as if they have any merit.”

I am the only one quoted in the NPR piece with the title of “spokesperson.” (For more information, see Chow Babe’s post describing how I became her spokesperson in late October.) Therefore, it’s obvious that Food Babe is referring to me. As with all of the individuals she criticizes in her response, she is too cowardly to call me by name for fear of having to engage in extensive discourse. Also, it’s likely that she’s been advised to refrain from naming her foes to avoid liability.

Although this isn’t the first letter I’ve written to Food Babe, here is my personal response:

Dear Vani,

Scientists, skeptics, farmers, and science writers like me have given you ample occasions to have civil debates. Not once have you taken the opportunity to do so. Nevertheless, I will continue to reach out with the hope that you’ll agree to a direct dialogue.

Yes, I happen to be Chow Babe’s spokesperson, but first and foremost I’m an outspoken writer challenging unscientific and misleading propaganda. Early on in my criticism of scientific misinformation, I noticed you perhaps unintentionally misleading your followers on the subject of cancer. For example, you once asked your readers whether eating the “best foods on the planet” and avoiding environmental toxins would prevent cancer in an individual with a BRCA 1 or 2 mutation. In short, this notion is completely erroneous. The likelihood of breast or ovarian cancer is very high with these specific hereditary mutations, and your suggestions to avoid a cancer diagnosis are mere wishful thinking. Here is mypiece criticizing your stance on BRCA mutations in detail.

In addition, you frequently demonize so-called carcinogens without scientific basis. For instance, you demonize group 2b carcinogens like carrageenan. Carrageenan is categorized as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” yet you happily post selfies drinking alcoholic beverages. You must know that wine, beer, and spirits are classified by the IARC as group 1 carcinogens, meaning they are known to cause cancer in humans. You discuss cancer often on your blog, yet it’s painfully clear that you don’t understand how carcinogenesis works even at the most basic level.

This brings me to my next point. You state in your response that one doesn’t need a PhD to be a consumer advocate or food investigator, and that “just because you have a degree, doesn’t make you right.”

Indeed, I wholeheartedly agree that one doesn’t need a PhD to discourse about food and food-related science. Nevertheless, I always believe that it’s critical to draw from mainstream experts. Claims need to be supported by the broad weight of empirically based studies and not just reflect someone’s opinion or a one-off study that fits preconceived notions. To blithely abandon the scientific consensus to embrace views considered unscientific by the most reputable science bodies in the United States and world suggests ideology and activism for its own sake, and not science. At minimum one needs a solid grasp of the science behind claims in order to be credible.

You do not appear to understand what a “science experiment” means as distinct from pure opinion; what you deem “personal experience.” You state the following:

“I know with my own body, that eliminating food additives was one of the best decisions I ever made — before that I was on several prescription drugs, felt and looked awful. I have more energy now than I did 10 years ago, 10 years older! – How is that possible if there isn’t something to all of this healthy eating? Or more directly, to eliminating the chemicals that major food companies have yet to justify to us with any explanation.

Others without a PhD have also conducted the same experiments, using their bodies and personal experience, and have come to a similar conclusion.

I use a variety of published scientific papers, interviews with experts, studies and opinions from noteworthy and respected public interest groups in my writings (they are usually blue hyperlinked throughout my posts). We are still learning the impacts of the food we eat – much of it hasn’t even been studied – thousands of chemicals in our food supply remain untested. So much new information is being discovered every single day.”

Vani, using one’s body and personal experience does not a science experiment make, no matter what the self-proclaimed “conclusion.” A valid experiment must be conducted under controlled conditions with a clear hypothesis, and confounding factors must be minimized. For the results to be compelling, they must be reproducible. In other words, you need confirming independent studies by reputable scientists.

As Carl Sagan once said, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. The evidence you cite to corroborate your extraordinary claims is far from extraordinary; indeed it’s dicey and weak. The so-called credentialed experts you cite may have PhDs, yet this makes them no less wrong. There is no body of evidence to support their claims and they are not primary researchers in these fields. You take dubious or totally fabricated findings, almost always unscientific and often anecdotal, and tout them as alarming, scary truth. If this isn’t unscientific fear-mongering, I don’t know what is.

I was shocked and heartbroken to see you conflating my message and those of my comrades with the hateful, and violently misogynistic messages you’ve received. You call me the spokesperson for a “hate group,” yet I’m a feminist, skeptical and above all else compassionate writer. Many women have been targets of misogyny online. Internet misogyny is a scourge that we all should continue to combat together. I too have been targeted, told that I’m “poisoning” my children and that it will be my fault if they ever suffer a terminal illness. In addition, I’m Indian-American just like you, and have always defended you against ignorant racist remarks, in part because I know how it feels.

While these attacks are deplorable, they are irrelevant to the majority of sensible, scientific and civil backlash against your work. Conflating misogyny with relevant opposition is underhanded. You are using this in an attempt to derail the entire conversation–a public conversation in which you’ve never even been willing to engage. You’re throwing yourself a pity party and inviting your entire army.

An email sent by Ms. Hari to her email subscribers

The fact is you have refused to engage with reasonable critics of your writings–the misinformation, sometimes dangerous, that you spread so carelessly. Being critical of your campaigns does not make someone hateful. I’ll repeat, it’s hurtful and offensive to paint all of your opponents with a “hate group” brush. Peruse the 4000+ members of the Banned by Food Babe group and read the comments. These are not the comments of a hate group.

Vani, you exemplify the most condemnable misogynistic attacks as representative of your opponents. None of the people or organizations you lambast in your post condone these awful attacks. Yet, you personally are responsible for unsubstantiated, utterly fabricated ad hominem attacks against many of us, and to which I’ve been subjected all too often–the “shill” gambit.

Not everyone who is critical of you is automatically a shill for Big Ag or Big Biotech. Unfounded accusation of shilling is based in ignorance and disingenuousness. This is an empty tactic. If any of us truly has a “financial incentive” to oppose you, please, produce tangible evidence, don’t just spew rhetoric.

How is Dr. Kevin Folta, department chair of Horticultural Sciences at the University of Florida, one of the most independent of scientists in the world with no industry connections making money from the biotech industry and Monsanto? How are Chow Babe, Science Babe, Food Hunk or I profiting from criticizing your views? Produce evidence.

Vani, I implore you to stop name-calling and throwing tantrums, and to respond to the relevant questions posed to you. And if you disagree, rather than retreat into your echo-chamber of support, venture out and engage with critics. We’re all willing and eager to dialogue, in public, and in any forum of your choosing.

Sincerely,

Mother, Feminist and Science Advocate,

Kavin Senapathy

Kavin Senapathy is a contributor at Genetic Literacy Project and other sites. She works for a genomics/bioinformatics R&D in Madison, WI. She loves all things genetics, genomics, and bioinformatics. Her interests span the human and agricultural realms. Opinions expressed are her own and do not reflect her employer. Follow Kavin on Facebook, Twitter @ksenapathy and Google +

Additional Resources:

• GLP Infographic: All GMO research is industry-funded? Biofortified analysis sets record straight
• Food Babe flops on BRCA mutations: Understand genetics or go home

==

paired mult times?

Kavin Senapathy

In a world where organic food is gaining popularity amongst a small population, who have advocated its benefits, you, along with a group of scientists, have advocated the consumption of genetically modified foods. Why?

The organic industry's goal of environmentally-friendly agriculture is a noble one, but it doesn't live up to its promise. The idea that organic food is better for consumers and the environment than conventional or genetically engineered food is a pervasive myth.

The father of the Green Revolution Norman Borlaug once said, "There are 6.6 billion people on the planet today. With organic farming we could only feed four billion of them. Which two billion would volunteer to die?"Genetic engineering is necessary to feed the world's growing population (slated to reach over 9 billion by 2050) while preserving our national resources. Genetically engineered varieties offer benefits to industry, consumers, and the environment. From aesthetic improvement to pest resistance, drought resistance, and nutrient fortification, genetic engineering can introduce necessary traits with scalpel precision. I strongly believe that India should embrace these technologies and develop varieties to suit its unique ecology, climate, and consumer needs. It's absurd that Bt brinjal hasn't been adopted in India. The massive amounts of insecticides that must be used on non-GMO brinjal to withstand attacks from burrowing insects is astounding. Adoption of Bt brinjal varieties would significantly reduce pesticide usage and pest damage to crops, and alleviate mycotoxin infections which are harmful to humans and animals.

Are all organic foods bad? Or are you just against its intense lobbying? Will this kill the GMO business globally?

My main beef with the organic industry is that it leads anti-biotech zealotry. Organic foods themselves aren't inherently "bad" or "good". For many people, the word "organic" conjures notions of "all-natural" wholesomeness, freshness and responsible consumer habits. But these ideals aren't exclusive to organic. Non-organic food can also be wholesome, fresh and responsible choices, and organic food can be unhealthy (think organic potato chips or cookies).For the record, I am not against organic farmers themselves. But I'm definitely against intense lobbying from the top of the organic industry.

Do you think the GMO industry could die, given the growing popularity of the organic industry?

First I should say I don't see it as a GMO industry. Rather, I see it is a genetic engineering toolbox, a set of plant breeding technologies. Personally, I'm not a fan of the ubiquitous term "GMO" because it's arbitrary. Indeed, most foods have been genetically modified in some way, even those that aren't considered to be GMOs. For example, take several common wheat varieties. Breeders created them with a technique known as radiation mutagenesis or "atomic gardening". The plants were bombarded with gamma radiation or sometimes soaked in toxic chemicals, scrambling their DNA. Scientists use mutagenic techniques to shuffle the mutation cards, hoping for an occasional good hand. Several varieties of wheat are made in this way, including wheat used to make many high-end Italian pastas. Many consumers would be surprised to know these pastas can be sold as organic, and this wheat isn't considered a "GMO".

I don't think genetic engineering methods could die as a result of the organic industry's growing popularity. Indeed, they must not die. I believe there is always going to be a place for conventional agriculture and genetic engineering.

What's your advice to those who need guidance in choosing the right foods?

A healthy, balanced diet can be had without organic, and with genetically engineered ingredients. Choose plenty of fruits and vegetables and limit high-sugar, high-sodium, and high-fat foods (I know it's easier said than done!) Don't worry about whether or not your food is organic. Spend your money wisely without falling for gimmicks. Learn to evaluate claims made on food packaging.

Vani Hari

You have been a huge advocate of going organic, not eating at fast foods and avoid GMOs. Why do you feel that the others are harmful to individuals?

Fast and processed foods generally contain a large number of food additives. These food-like substances are made from chemicals that are cheap, provide zero nutritional value and improve the bottom line of food manufacturers. Fake foods do nothing for our health and in some cases could cause harm. Europe has taken a precautionary principle towards many of the additives I have investigated and banned them for their citizens. Why isn't the United States (and other countries) doing the same? Although the US FDA deems these additives safe, many have not been studied long term and no one has studied the cumulative effect of all the food additives we are eating together. The Deputy Commissioner of the FDA, Michael Taylor, admitted to the media recently, "We do not know the volume of particular chemicals that are going into the food supply so we can diagnose trends. We do not know what is going on post-market".

GMOs can be found in about 80 percent of processed food in America, yet it is not labelled. GMOs come from seeds that are biologically manufactured in laboratories - injected with foreign DNA - and are completely different than hybridizing techniques allowed by nature. These foods have only been in our food supply since 1996 and long-term health impacts were not conducted before they were approved.

Not everybody can afford organic food. What's your advice as an alternative?

I believe that buying quality organic food and eating the most nutritious foods on the planet will save you big bucks down the road in medical costs, prescription drugs and doctor visits – It's totally up to us to make it a priority. I've got over 75 organic budgeting tips on my website, but here's a few:

• Check the websites of your favourite organic companies for coupons and special promotions, almost all of them have some.

• Plan out your meals for the week according to organic foods that are on sale and/or that you have coupons for.

• Make your own organic granola bars, kale chips, smoothies, and juices to replace expensive store-bought versions.

• Organic frozen produce at the store is usually cheaper than fresh, especially if the fruit or vegetable is out of season. Also buy local produce when it's in season and freeze it for later.

You have been criticised in the past two months for "spreading fear by using big chemical names to make people avoid food". How do you react to this?

This idea of avoiding ingredients that have long unpronounceable chemical names actually originated with Michael Pollan in his prominent book In the Defense of Food and later on in Food Rules where in rule #7 he stated "Avoid food products containing ingredients that a third-grader cannot pronounce."

Quite honestly, some of the information that I write about on my website is scary. The fact that we have over 10,000 food additives in our food system and that the FDA hasn't reviewed many of them - that is something to be concerned about.

Most of your posts speak of the dangers of GMOs and fast food. Is there another way of promoting organic over speaking on the disadvantages of GMOs?

The primary reasons why I choose organic is because I believe it's better for our health, the environment, and the farmers who grow our food. Organic crops cannot be grown with synthetic pesticides as organic regulations prohibit certain toxic pesticides from being used. For instance, a bag of regular (non-organic) potato chips can contain residues from up to 35 different pesticides used on conventional potatoes, several of which are known carcinogens, suspected hormone disruptors, neurotoxins, or reproductive toxins.

==

http://acsh.org/2015/06/kavin-senapathy-advocates-for-gmos-in-an-interview-for-dna-india-bravo/

We have to give a shout-out to freelance science writer Kavin Senapathy for her interview on dnaindia.com. Senapathy eloquently conveys the facts on genetically modified food for the article: “Organic vs GM: finding the grain of truth.”

When asked why she advocates the consumption of genetically modified foods, Senapathy quotes the father of the Green Revolution, Nobel Peace Prize winner, and ACSH co-founder Norman Borlaug: “There are 6.6 billion people on the planet today. With organic farming we could only feed four billion of them. Which two billion would volunteer to die?” She makes the point that genetic engineering is necessary to feed the world’s predicted future population of 9 billion by 2050, while also offering benefits to industry, people, as well as the environment.

Senapathy points out that while there’s nothing necessarily wrong with organic foods, the organic movement “leads anti-biotech zealotry.” For most people without scientific expertise, there is the rampant belief that organic equates to all-natural, wholesome, and fresh, and that buying organic is the best way to be healthy – which is not the case. Senapathy clarifies, “I am not against organic farmers themselves. But I’m definitely against intense lobbying from the top of the organic industry.”

She then corrects one of the biggest misconceptions about GMOs by challenging the term “GMO industry”:  Genetic modification is not actually a single process that occurs in the labs of Monsanto. “First I should say I don’t see it as a GMO industry. Rather, I see it is a genetic engineering toolbox, a set of plant breeding technologies. Personally, I’m not a fan of the ubiquitous term “GMO” because it’s arbitrary.” What many people aren’t aware of is that many foods have been genetically modified in a variety of ways, and yet can still be sold as organic—and these methods (such as treating wheat with gamma radiation) have been used for decades.

We commend Kavin Senapathy for her logical and scientifically accurate advocacy of GMOs, and hope readers of DNA India who may be less knowledgeable on the subject will be enlightened by her responses.

==

solo FB post:

As the original Monsanto Shill Mom, I gotta share this periodically for the benefit of my new followers. Enjoy: "... to say that anyone working in the 'biotech industry' 'benefits financially from GMO' shows ignorance of the implications of genomics (and business.) The reality is, the current world of life science R&D is less like a world and more like a universe. The figurative distance from lab to data to action could be measured in light-years."

==

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2015/08/06/note-to-neil-young-monsanto-isnt-evil-and-gmos-are-harmless/

GUEST POST WRITTEN BY

Kavin Senapathy

Ms. Senapathy is a freelance writer, science popularizer and mom of two in Madison, Wisconsin.

Neil Young: Grammy-award winning musician, two-time Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductee and GMO-hater?

That’s the clear message from Young’s latest album, released earlier this summer.

“The Monsanto MON +1.05% Years,” in collaboration with Willie Nelson’s sons Lukas and Micah, opens with “A Rock Star Bucks A Coffee Shop.” “Yeah I want a cup of coffee but I don’t want a GMO. I like to start my day off without helping Monsanto,” croons Young—and the hypocrisy is rich.

Food labeling transparency is necessary to protect consumers and help us nourish our bodies with a varied, balanced and healthy diet—but only when this labeling is relevant.

Diagnosed with type 1 diabetes as a child, Young’s life depends on daily insulin therapy. The medication, which keeps over a million Americans alive every day, is produced using none other than the very genetic engineering techniques Young’s album demonizes. Prior to the 1970s, insulin was harvested and purified from the pancreases of slaughtered pigs. Today there’s a better way. Genetically engineered microbes are used to “manufacture” synthetic insulin on a large scale;a far safer, more humane and more energy and cost-efficient form of the naturally-occurring hormone.

“Right to know what’s in our food” argument is flawed

“Monsanto, let our farmers grow what they wanna grow,” Young harmonizes with his bandmates. Yet the vast majority of farmers argue that this presumption is, at best, fallacious and, at worst, insulting. Non-organic farmers on large and small farms overwhelmingly maintain that they choose to use GE crops in their fields because of the benefits they provide.

After all, a 2014 meta-analysis of 147 studies published in PLOS One shows that GM technology increased crop yields by 22%, reduced pesticide use by 37%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Forced to grow these crops against their will? Hardly.

...

The Colossal Hoax Of Organic Agriculture

athenahealthVoice: Can Cloud Technology Fix The Health Care System?

The Most Imbecilic And Pretentious Commentary Ever Written About Genetic E...

Saving California's Drought-Plagued Agriculture: More Crop For The Drop With...

“Monsanto, mothers want to know what they feed their children,” Young goes on to sing in his newest single. Yet the “right to know what’s in our food” argument is fundamentally flawed. Food labeling transparency is necessary to protect consumers and help us nourish our bodies with a varied, balanced and healthy diet—but only when this labeling is relevant. Vitamin, mineral and fiber content, for example, are pertinent because certain deficiencies can cause health problems. Fat, sodium and sugar content are appropriate too, as they all should be consumed in moderation.

But the term “GMO” refers to a set of processes, not a product. It’s not an ingredient to scoop into a jar, but a varied set of breeding techniques. Labeling them would be akin to labeling whether or not a job applicant was conceived using in-vitro fertilization.

Monsanto is unfairly dubbed an evil conglomerate

Monsanto’s Chief Technology Officer, Robb Fraley, recently expressed his feelings about “The Monsanto Years.” He explained that while Young has always been one of his favorite singers, this latest album saddens him because of the myriad myths it promotes.

“Hundreds of independent, peer-reviewed scientific papers attest to the positive effects our products have had on the environment,” he wrote. “We’re helping, in other words, to make a more sustainable food supply, and to create enough food to feed a growing global population.”

Fraley even reached out to Young:

I invite him to visit our company and talk with us about what we’re doing. Then he can draw his conclusions based on firsthand observation and research. I think he will find that we have a lot more in common than he realizes. He might even find that a lot of us – this old man included – are a lot like he is.

Instead of taking Fraley up on his offer, Young released a 10-minute YouTube documentary on July 23rd as a follow-up to his album. Titled, “Seeding Fear: The Story of Michael White vs. Monsanto,” the video tells the story of Goliath Monsanto suing a farmer David. Though genetic engineering opponents paint Michael White as a victim, the truth is he knowingly saved, planted, and sold Roundup Ready soybeans illegally, as is evidenced in court documents. “It’s just not morally or economically right to be able to patent anything that reproduces,” White laments in the video. In reality there are thousands of patented agricultural plant varieties including GMO, non-GMO and organic varieties. The documentary is little more than emotionally-tinged hype.

GMOs pose no threat to human health

Every scientific oversight organization in the world agrees that GMOs are safe, beneficial and environmentally friendly. To deny the overwhelming weight of evidence demonstrating this is no better than paranoia.

Neil Young, please don’t succumb to paranoia. Speak with farmers, mothers, and science advocates. Learn about genetic engineering. Accept Robb Fraley’s olive branch and visit Monsanto. And first and foremost, remember—GMOs keep you and millions of other diabetics alive every day.

==

Due out on October 29,The Fear Babe: Shattering Vani Hari’s Glass House, by Marc Draco, Kavin Senapathy, and Mark Alsip, examines the claims and impact of Vani Hari, better known as The Food Babe, a self-proclaimed “food activist” and New York Times bestselling author who abhors biotechnology, thinks sugar is “toxic”, is controversially famous for denouncing Starbucks’ Pumpkin Spice Latte for (gasp) not containing “real pumpkin”, and bullying Subway for using a so-called “yoga mat chemical” in its bread.

The book, with foreword from University of Florida plant scientist Kevin Folta, is a methodical point-by-point refutation of claims by the blogger and her loyal “Food Babe Army”. Vani Hari, the self-styled investigator of what’s “really in your food”, known for the statement,“There is just no acceptable level of any chemical to ingest, ever”, has a tried-and-true formula: Identify a scary-sounding but innocuous food ingredient (like carrageenan) or process, choose a company with household name recognition (such as Starbucks), encourage followers to petition (read: bully) the company and rake in affiliate fees and subscribers to her $17.99 per month food guide.

Sound scary? Don't ditch your morning Joe.

img

Whether you’ve wondered about iffy, unscientific claims about food, or need fodder to help assuage the concerns of your well-meaning relatives’ food fears, look no further. This book is a systematic, science-based, entertaining debunking of myriad popular myths about food, using the all-too-popular Food Babe’s claims as a basis to teach the reader critical thinking.

Covering issues from preservatives to pesticides, Stevia to celiac disease, and beaver butt flavoring to BHT, the book is a reference on some of the most popular food fads, frights and myths of our time. While The Fear Babe discusses Vani Hari extensively, the authors also examine other popular misinformation vectors, including Jenny McCarthy, Andrew Wakefield, Joe Mercola, Gary Ruskin, Mike Adams, and Gilles-Eric Séralini.

What follows is an excerpt from chapter 5, “Fear and Loathing of GMOs”:

“The great GMO debate rages on. In this chapter we’re going to look at what GMO is and what it’s not. As of publication, none of the writing team work for any corporation developing GMOs for market. This book was inspired entirely in response to Food Babe’s quest to make money by terrifying an already misinformed and fearful public.

A GMO, short for Genetically Modified Organism, is a living thing that has been modified slightly to give it an improved feature or function that already occurs in nature. Often the trait comes from a related organism.

Food Babe describes the process:

Genetic modification occurs when genes, viruses, or bacteria from one organism are artificially injected into a fruit or vegetable in a process that occurs in a laboratory and not in nature.

–Food Babe Way, pg. 27

Fear Babe meme apple

While an awful number of people believe this to be the case, the idea that something is injected into a plant or animal with some kind of hypodermic syringe is utterly preposterous. Opinions differ as to whether a virus is a living thing or not because it consists primarily of DNA or RNA, but is itself made up of genes. Viruses are special because they live inside other organisms, including bacteria. Regardless of the technical description, this isn’t how genetic modification, which is achieved by a number of methods, is performed. It’s just plain wrong. Injecting a live virus or similar pathogen willy-nilly into another living organism is likely to make it sick and die: assuming it has any effect at all.

Genetic modification is done to make a fruit or vegetable more hardy or impervious to the application specific pesticide. These pesticides are linked to myriad diseases.

–Food Babe Way, pg. 27

That’s partly true at least, except the part about pesticides and disease. It’s true that pesticides may cause ill health at very high doses because they are, by nature, toxic, but this has nothing to do with GM technology. Crucially, the amount of pesticide residue consumers are exposed to is far too low to cause harm.

We have a right to know what’s in our food just like people in countries like China and Russia do–especially when studies have linked GMOs to a wide variety of diseases like infertility and cancer.

—July 2013 Q&A with Vani Hari

Gee. That sounds bad and such studies do exist. But just because someone writes a paper doesn’t necessarily make it true. Scientists work outside of their field, experiments are badly designed, and rarely, people flat out lie.

Take, for example, her claim that GMOs are linked to infertility. We believe that she’s referring to a study linking glyphosate to male infertility, though the link is weak if not non-existent. “Roundup: The sneaky and cheap contraceptive hiding in your food”, a 2013 headline from Natural News declared about the study. Then again, Natural News is infamous for fudging science at best, and at worst, actually making stuff up.

The study in question was an in vitro rat study, and its conclusions in no way demonstrate that glyphosate in our food causes infertility. The results showed that “acute Roundup exposure at low doses (36 ppm, 0.036 g/L) for 30 min induces oxidative stress and activates multiple stress-response pathways leading to Sertoli cell death in prepubertal rat testis.”

Crucially, the study wasn’t done on live rats, it was done on rat testicular cells in culture. And the most important part? 36 ppm (parts per million) is way higher than the typical residues found on crops, around one ppm. Suffice it to say, don’t pour Roundup on your genitalia guys, though even that would be unlikely to render you infertile. If you want sterility, stick with a vasectomy. And ladies, keep your IUDs, pills, implants, and other birth control.

No matter how you look at this, we know that every living thing on the planet contains a unique blueprint called genes. Genes are essentially instructions that tell the organism how to build itself into a complete, working offspring of its parent(s). Be it plant, animal or fungus, we all have genes.”

The “Fear Babe”, which the authors hope will arm readers with a misinformation radar, and the ability to smell BS from a mile away, is currently available for pre-order at major online booksellers and from your local independent bookstore.

Kavin Senapathy is a freelance writer and co-author of The Fear Babe: Shattering Vani Hari’s Glass House, due out October 29th and now available for pre-order. The science advocate and co-founder of March Against Myths’, her interests span the human and agricultural genomics and biotechnology realms.  Follow Kavin on her science advocacy Facebook page, and Twitter @ksenapathy

==

==

Pro-Science Moms rising

It’s clear that the anti-GMO movement and their mommy foot soldiers have run the table over the last few years, commanding the public debate. This year changed that. A group of science-minded women (including many moms) met in Washington, DC in September to talk about how to advance our cause. It is an impressively diverse group: scientists, farmers, writers, activists representing a wide range of political affiliations. But our passion about promoting genetic engineering transcends any other differences. It’s a formidable group of highly-motivated women.

Science writer Kavin Senapathy, whom I met at the March Against Myths that she helped organize in Chicago last May as a counter protest to the annual Millions Against Monsanto, authored a book this year entitled The Fear Babe. The book carefully counters many of the pseudo-science claims of The Food Babe who helped save the world from pumpkin spice and yoga mat bread. We are joined by other mothers – Julie Gunlock, Amy Porterfield Levy, Jennie Splitter – who are taking on a decidedly assertive tone to push back with some great (and funny) columns. I expect more to come, and more like-minded women to join us, in 2016.

==

https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/06/01/pro-gmo-marchers-shocked-at-unfocused-anger-of-march-against-monsanto-protestors/

I’ve had some time to reflect on the March Against Monsanto two weekends ago. I almost feel sorry for the protesters I had come to counter-protest in downtown Chicago. They were an odd collection of characters: aging hippies, ragtag Millennials wearing gas masks and granola-ish mommies with children dressed in bee costumes (honeybees are the new spotted owl).

Transport them back to any given decade – 60s anti-war demonstrations, 80s nuclear war protests or 2000s Occupy Wall Street – you’ll find a strong resemblance, like a counterculture family reunion. Irony was lost on the picketers carrying signs about poisoned food or mothers claiming to protect their children while standing next to guys wearing profanity-laced T-shirts and screaming epithets at us.

We crossed paths when I joined a small but valiant group of folks trying to balance out the anti-GMO marchers during third annual March Against Monsanto. I learned about the counter-protest, called the March Against Myths or MAMyths, on Twitter from chief organizer Kavin Senapathy, a mom like me fed up with the bs from the GM fear-peddlers. My teenage daughter accompanied me – under duress, of course – and she was alternatively horrified by her mother and the protesters. Fortunately she could mostly pretend to ignore it all by texting her similarly-horrified friends on her iPhone.

Monsanto and the genetically modified seeds they develop are this decade’s rallying point for hippie ideologues, their latest example of corporate malfeasance that’s destroying our health and our planet. Big banks, oil companies and Halliburton can breathe a sigh of relief as biotech companies are now the target of activists.

GMOs are the result of extensive scientific research and testing, and have been part of America’s agricultural system for two decades. Nearly 90 percent of all corn and soybeans in the U.S. are genetically modified, most designed to be pest-resistant. Numerous studies and most scientific organizations around the world support the safety of genetically engineered crops. U.S. farmers use GM seeds to boost yield on less land using fewer resources.

But why let facts get in the way of a good protest?

In reality, the few protesters we talked to didn’t know very much about GMOs at all. When confronted with facts or pushed for answers themselves, they questioned our motives (corporate “shills”) or walked away. One protester, desperate to back up his wholesale indictment of the American food system, insisted he ate worms and grubs out of his suburban yard. He claimed he never ate at restaurants and his wife did all their grocery shopping at Whole Foods, one of the few corporations accepted by the current counterculture, even though it has about the same annual sales as Monsanto.

This was a big dude, impossible to maintain his husky stature on bugs alone. You had the sneaking suspicion he would stop at McDonalds on his way home for a Big Mac and Diet Coke.

They screamed at us across Dearborn Street outside of Federal Plaza in the Chicago’s Loop. “How much is Monsanto paying you?” was the frequent retort. They held crude signs – in both design and text – with juvenile messages such as “OMG, GMO, WTF” and “Muck Fonsanto.” Some people honked their horns in support of the Monsanto marchers.

I admired the earnest efforts of my protesters-in-arms: scientists, farmers, writers and moms like me who believed they might have a chance to inform the misinformed and reason with the unreasonable. I also suspected my side didn’t have a lot of political experience, otherwise they would’ve known the intransigence of the opposition wasn’t rooted in science or logic but a hatred toward American capitalism.

I’ve worked in politics on and off for nearly 30 years; I know the futility of debating people who lack facts or refuse an honest exchange of ideas. Their positions are embedded in a fierce political ideology so emotion – rather than evidence – often rules the day (I see this on both sides of the political aisle).

It wasn’t really a March Against Monsanto or even GMOs as much as it was a protest against most things American, expect for the right to protest. (Ironically enough, the city’s Memorial Day parade was taking place just to the east of us).

Yet GMO foes are suffering from a major case of cognitive dissonance. They are rejecting crop biotechnology out of hand even though the evidence suggests it is helping to achieve one of their stated goals: sustainanability. The National Research Council reported in 2010 that “genetic-engineering technology has produced substantial net environmental and economic benefits to U.S. farmers compared with non-GE crops.” Other benefits include low tillage, less farmland needed for higher yields and “improvements in water quality resulting from the complementary nature of herbicide-resistance technology.”

Another analysis that reviewed nearly 150 studies of GM crops over ten years concluded that “GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37 percent, increased crop yields by 22 percent, and increased farmer profits by 68 percent.”

The “Feed the World” mantra of the counterculture only has a chance with genetically engineered crops. Seeds are being designed to resist drought, high salinity and flooding conditions. Other crops are fortified with needed nutrients that are lacking in the diets of hundreds of millions of children in poor countries, causing blindness, disease and even death.

The counter-protest was fun and a very small step in refuting the misinformation spread by biotech foes. But like most political issues, minds will be changed in the vast middle. It’s my hope we can take this campaign to those folks moving forward.

Julie Kelly is the owner of Now You’re Cooking in Orland Park, Illinois. She is a cooking instructor and food writer, but her biggest job is being a mom. She can be reached at nowurcooking@att.net or on Twitter at @Julie_kelly2.

==

Kavin Senapathy - As the original Monsanto Shill Mom, I...

https://www.facebook.com/K**senapathy**/posts/1522528011347840

-

As the original Monsanto Shill Mom, I gotta share this periodically for the benefit of my new followers. Enjoy: "... to say that anyone working in the 'biotech ...

Kavin Senapathy - March Against Monsanto is wrong. Here...

https://www.facebook.com/K**senapathy**/posts/1575676566032984

-

March Against Monsanto is wrong. Here are the details on how to join or help the counter-movement, and the answer to this question: What do a scientist...

Monsanto Shill Mom? | Grounded Parents

groundedparents.com/2014/07/21/monsanto-shill-mom/

-

Kavin Senapathy — July 21, 2014. 212 0 9 ... Therefore anything Monsanto does is evil. Monsanto is ... “I can't understand why anyone would shill for Monsanto.

Note To Neil Young: Monsanto Isn't Evil, And GMOs Are ...

www.forbes.com/.../note-to-neil-young-monsanto-isnt-evil-and-g...

-

Forbes

Aug 6, 2015 - BY KAVIN SENAPATHY - Neil Young, please don't succumb to paranoia.

Hypocrite GMO opponents are paying bloggers to shill ...

skepchick.org › Skepticism

-

May 14, 2015 - “Kavin Senapathy is linked to the Genetic Literacy Project which is ....To me, companies like Monsanto do much more to demonize GMOs  ...

Kavin Senapathy advocates for GMOs in an interview for ...

acsh.org/.../kavin-senapathy-ad...

-

American Council on Science and Health

Jun 18, 2015 - Kavin Senapathy advocates for GMOs in an interview for DNA India. ...is not actually a single process that occurs in the labs of Monsanto.

News – March Against Myths

www.mamyths.org/news/

-

Pro-GMO marchers shocked at unfocused anger of March Against Monsanto ... Kavin Senapathy – March Against Myths About Modification, Science Power  ...

Vani Hari and Kavin Senapathy debate which is better ...

https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/.../vani-hari-and-kavin-senapathy-...

-

Jun 15, 2015 - Jayadev Calamur speaks to U.S.-based experts Kavin Senapathy, ...and science-through-litigation, also known as the “Monsanto Seed  ...

Call for action: It's time to March Against the March Against ...

www.geneticliteracyproject.org/.../call-for-action-its-time-to-march-again...

-

Feb 1, 2015 - March Against Monsanto has evolved into a cultural event symbolizing the ... Kavin Senapathy, Karl Haro von Mogel, and David Sutherland  ...

Kavin Senapathy (@ksenapathy) | Twitter

https://twitter.com/k**senapathy**

-

The latest Tweets from Kavin Senapathy (@ksenapathy). Mom, sci ... "No, MonsantoIs Not Going On Trial For Crimes Against Humanity" but it's inevitable:  ...

==