The FoodBabe: The Cure Or The Problem
While this blog post is titled and introduced with Food Babe as the lead; this Post is addressed at all of the modern day nutrition activists, nutrition gurus and healthy eating fanatics with significant influence on the general public.
Common topics of today’s health and wellness activists including Food Babe are: GMO’s, food labels, natural cures, homeopathy, toxins, the FDA, cures for diseases, organics, chemicals, healthy eating,and government agenda.
Vani Hari. Have you heard of her before, does that name sound familiar to you?
What about this picture above. Do you know who she is yet? If you don’t know her yet I bet these next pictures are going to trigger an “ohh yea that girl, I remember now” response because, if you have been on social media or watched the news in 2015…you got plenty of exposure to who she is.
How about now, ringing any of those bells upstairs?
If you know who she is then feel free to skip the next section. If not: Vani Hari is “The Food Babe”, an activist and journalist for consumer rights/protection dealing with some of the hot button topics in the food industry. She was not always an activist and has burst onto the scene after starting her blog back only a few years ago. She has been in the face of the general public after battling with food companies like Starbucks, Subway and Kraft Foods about some of the ingredients these companies chose to put into their foods. Successful with some of her campaigns she has both gained a mass of popularity in the eyes of the general public at large but has also made a few people upset with her approach to informing the public. That is what we will be talking about today. We will take a look at the Food Babe and leave you to make a choice whether you believe her position as the face of the issues is for the better or the worst.
Now that we have that out-of-the-way let’s get you well informed.
The Good That FOOD BABE Brings To The Table
She Is An Inspiration to Others In Struggle
This is simple. In a world where a lot of people are struggling to find happiness or struggling to make a positive change in their life it’s not hard to understand why she is an inspiration to some. Her backstory can connect with a wide array of people and in many different cultures. She talks about being in a family that was simply trying to assimilate as best they could to the american culture, being on some medications as a kid, struggling with her body image after gaining weight, being in a competitive job that has long hours, a lot of travel and high stress, late night eating, working night shifts, and having that ever so scary wake up call that no one really ever wants to have. She puts a checkmark in a lot of boxes of people that can connect with some similar struggles. Regardless if you agree or disagree with what she speaks about Vani has improved her life for the better as she does seem to express great happiness and appreciation for her role as an influencer.
She Is Driven By A Passion And Compassion For Others
Being an activist is not a job you typically find in college degree programs. The majority of people who eventually find themselves in the activist role or position of influence have gotten there because they have a passion for a certain topic or grouping of topics.
The actual reason someone might start paying attention to an issue can vary from person to person but, it’s also often driven by a personal experience that had a profound impact. The experience was so powerful in its impact that it took a topic others can see as possibly trivial and made it a true focus. You can often hear an activist say something along the lines of “if this helped me so much, it can help other people who were like me and, I need to tell them about it.”
This is a great place to stand tall. Being passionate about helping others is very noble and, truly unique in the world that seems to be driven by things associated more with getting things and not giving.
She Advocates For The Consumers First.
In a world where our leaders can be influenced simply by people waving money in their face, it is great to have people hold strong on the interests of the consumers. I am in America and at least here it isn’t yet illegal to post, share or advocate against big business and government if we suspect some foul play or shady business. We call out politicians all the time about their connections to big business and it’s literally been one of the strategies for two candidates in this year’s presidential race. Regardless if you like them or not Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders both have said multiple times they are not backed or sponsored by big business. So, it’s obviously going to be a point of interest to the public when someone comes forward “out of the good of their own heart” and brings light on a topic that has been in the dark.
Today it’s difficult to find or be exposed to new information that might be relevant to us. We rely on a few passionate individuals who have made it their job to be a spokesperson for our own interest in a specific topic. She has chosen to be one of these advocates when she could have easily walked away and simply lived life filled with new found health and happiness.
She Promotes Our Ability To Make Our Own Choices by Being Informed.
Being informed is powerful but, the internet has made it increasingly difficult to get quality information. Don’t get me wrong there is a ton of amazing information on this thing but, it’s also full of garbage(really stinky garbage). Believe it or not, we get exposed to more of the garbage (who here doesn’t know what Kim Kardashian’s butt looks like covered in oil regardless if they wanted to know or not.?) than we do the stories that could potentially impact our lives. Take a look at this graph that compares the search trends of a few topics within the past 90 day from March 2016. 2 of them are related to”flint Michigan water supply” and you might be surprised that it’s not the blue dotted line…that’s “Kim Kardashian”. It’s not even the purple or green lines, those are Kanye West and Game of Thrones. So it’s safe to say that there are a lot more people informed about those topics than about a crisis in flint michigan that is riddled with deaths, illnesses and some conspiracies of big business and government issues.
While these results just show popularity in search trends it can be alarming to think about how much information you might be missing out on simply because you are not exposed to it. Rarely will you see a news story that has the possibility of reaching a small audience broadcasted on a large-scale. If they can’t find a way to make it a “national headline” type of story, it will be pushed aside. When you have the important information in front of you, it’s your own responsibility to make a choice that is in your best interest. That’s part of our own personal freedoms; to know the benefits, the risks and make a choice for ourselves. At the end of the day you are in control of your own health and well-being.
The BAD FOOD BABE Brings To The Table
Not Understanding Or Accepting Her Own Bias
Everyone has a bias, this is normal. I have a bias, your mom has a bias and there is nothing you can do about it. It’s ok to have a bias as long as you understand what it is and, accept that it can be the limiting factor in your own ability to see another point of view. Good Activists and journalists understand this knowing that they can’t let their bias be the only argument against the other side’s point of view; it’s just not an effective platform to stand on.
How Vani the Food Babe Is Bias:
Within the introduction of her own book she explains her “turning point” to be the time in her life where she had appendicitis and a surgery to remove it. That’s all well and good because there is nothing wrong with that being her wake up call but, that’s not the issue here. The issue is where she not only blames her inflamed appendix and long recovery on processed foods but when she states or implys that she KNEW/KNOWS that it was the fault of the processed foods.
How truthful is that statement? Well, if you attempt to research what the role or function of the human appendix is you will be left pretty unsatisfied. WEBMD states:
This is the issue: (As a quote taken from her book)
…I was home, recovering. It takes the average person one or two weeks to recover from an appendectomy. It took me almost four. Little did I know that this was because my body was so sick and weak from all the processed food I had been ingesting.
Medical experts say that appendicitis happens more or less at random. I believe that in my case, my lifestyle of poor nutrition caused this horrible thing to happen. My whole body was inflamed, so it’s easy to understand why an organ in my digestive system was so inflamed.
Saying that she knew it was the fault of the foods literally implies that she has the proof that puts a direct connection to needing to get their appendix removed because of poor diet. If she did have that proof and chose not to share it with the medical field then that is very odd for an activist. She later goes on to write that after her recovery she would look up the most nutritious and healing foods and figure out what was in the food that made her sick. Again, she implies that she knows for a fact she was bedridden during the holidays because the food made her appendix inflamed and that’s really where her bias stems from. Instead of focusing first on educating herself on the nuances of human anatomy, physiology, and dietetics she went straight for investigating food issues from god knows where and written by god knows who. Instead of taking the blame herself for not controlling her intake through her mid twenties, she pushes the blame to something else and, to something that is a far away from her control as possible.
If you sell a product or profit from the sales of a product or service that is directly aligned with your agenda as a consumer activist, you now have a personal profit motive to continue your fight against “the man” this is a bias.
Vani does this, on the same site where she is an investigative journalist for consumer activism against the food industry, she sells subscription memberships to lead a healthier lifestyle, promotes products through amazon affiliate links that will return a commission for referred sales and has developed her own sugar detox program. Since these products are directly inline with her role as an activist you have to question whether or not her activist role has been compromised. Why? If significant independent research came out that went against any of the platforms she stands on, she would have reason to not investigate it or expose that truth to her audience because, of the potential to hurt profits. I am not saying she is a snake oil salesman or only in it for the money, but selling a product/service in the way she does is what having a bias agenda is. She can and has made the same claim against the businesses she is fighting. They sell a product, why would they promote research that hurts their profits. They wouldn’t because admitting wrongdoing or that you are wrong hurts profits.
She may want to think that she is free of bias or agenda that matches the people she is fighting but, it’s just not possible when the profits from your products are so deeply rooted in your activism and supports your efforts to continue as you stated in a response to your own critics.
She Chose an Advisory Board With A Bias As Heavy & Strong As Her Own Agenda
This might be my own personal belief but, one of the biggest issues she has faced with her activism is gaining the support of an informed scientific community that seems to not like her cavalier knowledge of advanced scientific practices & displaying the research without letting emotions drive her interpretation of the results. While I understand her decision to have a board comprised of these particular people, I don’t think it was a good strategy to gain more traction with an audience that is typically against her line of thinking.
Unfortunately, she chose to have a board that is not entirely clinical/academic and without bias. I can only see Dr. Amy Shah & Sheila Kilbane, MD as the only advisory board members who don’t have any products or services for sale outside of their clinical practices. Are the others qualified in their education and professional credentials? Absolutely they are but, they also display a heavy bias based on the products/services they sell as general consumer products outside of their clinical positions and practices. 4 out of the 6 members of the advisory board have a bias that could be described as inline Food Babe’s simply because they sell similar products and display them in similar ways. The other two probably also agree with her positions but, their bias is not backed by the profit of consumer products which gives them more credibility.
You might ask why this is important and I understand why it might seem to be random but it fits. You can often hear Vani speak about the bias and or agenda scientists and medical practitioners “clearly have against her” simply because they are employed in an opposing company. There is a potential of bias that is present but, if she follows that definition and distinction of bias then she also has to acknowledge that her advisory council is literally just as bias as those she is fighting against. When you strip away the products, profit programs, employee contracts etc. and just look at the credentials from education and daily work tasks, then everyone on both sides is more than qualified to speak their interpretations without bias.
I think to help solidify exposure and respect to an audience that is clearly against some of her bias positions she should have had an advisory board that was more neutral or clinically focused like the other 2 on her board. Allowing a scientific board that does not agree with her positions or have a personal profit motive would actually help in justifying her activist positions.
The best way to win over an audience outside of a debate is to change the opinion of your opposition with great information, not just boast your facts, talk about your successes and show how many friends you have with medical training.
Thriving Passion Is Mistaken For Expertise
Passion is great and people can be inspired by your passionate expressions and acts. Unfortunately, it’s only one side of the equation and, can only get you about half way to becoming a world renowned expert.
Formal style education in science is not to be underestimated. As you progress from highschool to B.S., to M.S., and M.D./PHD status the science topics/knowledge goes from basic/general to specific/advanced. It’s not to say that you can’t self educate though your own means but, unless you are taking academic courses through Coursera,UDemy and Khan University, it’s safe to say that you will have an education limited only to stuff you like reading and from sources that express the information with their bias heavily present. Academic papers are not fun to read bias articles and websites are. For some reason, people like Vani believe that their passion for a topic is all they need to be an expert and, are shocked when the actual experts openly and publicly call them quacks, zealots and dogmatic. Being an expert at something takes a lot of time and, a lot of effort. Learning everything from the basics to the advanced details takes time, that’s why it takes 7–8 years of school just to become a general medical doctor. It’s unfortunate that these people think their personal experiences/transformations paired with some google search education qualifies them to now “sit with the big dogs” at the expert table.
If Food Babe really wanted to make an impact for the better, she would make sure she is respected by both the scientific community at large and the consumers; not one or the other. Food Babe likes to say something like “you shouldn’t/don’t have to be an expert to educate yourself about how to eat healthy and take control of your food intake”. She is correct, you don’t have to be if you are making these changes for your own personal reasons. You are allowed to believe whatever you want and, practice how ever you want too. BUT, you do have to be qualified if you want to inform and instruct others on what qualifies as good food or bad food, healthy or harmful, toxic or non-toxic etc and then sell products and services that promote your methods and practices in order in order to be healthy.
I can be a good self taught plumber working in my own home but, I can not start my own plumbing business without first being qualified. I could have worked on cars since I was a kid but, if I want to actually work as a mechanic on cars other than my own, I need to first become qualified.
Here is a question for you; Would you accept/hire a law expert to have the same qualifications to defend you in court?
Think about it, someone who has a passion for law, defending innocent citizens, watches law & order on Netflix, reads tons of articles on being a lawyer from google, picked up books written by other people investigating law mistakes/injustices and talks to actual lawyers on a regular basis. Is that person a Lawyer? An expert lawyer, in the same way as someone who graduated top of their class from harvard law school, been practicing in the field of law for 20yrs and is a well respected lawyer in their field?
That person can defend themselves in court as much as they want but they still are not a lawyer with any level of expertise.
If you want to see what a true “Started from Passion and ended an Expert Journey” looks like then, you need to talk with or just listen to the journey of someone like Dr. Bill Campbell. Here is an interview for you.
[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/176734837" params=”auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true” width=”100%” height=”450" iframe=”true” /]
Abuse of Inflammatory Verbiage To Strike The Fragile Emotional Triggers Of Her Audience
She does this a lot and it’s unfortunately not a responsible method of informing someone; it’s manipulative.
1.If you’re asking what inflammatory verbiage is then let me give you an example; “This Water Tastes Bad”. That would be considered a simple descriptive sentence that contains information about water and specifically how it tastes. If someone were to say that about water they just drank, you would know to expect some water that might taste a little funky(when you take a sip). You don’t get any other description about the water besides the taste of it. Here is that same sentence using some inflammatory verbiage; “This water tastes Toxic”.
Do you notice the difference?
It’s again descriptive about the taste but, the word toxic implies there is more to it than just taste because, levels of toxicity are not determined by taste. So, by saying toxic you are also implying that it not only taste funny but, that it tastes like it will kill you. This would be OK if you were writing a fictional story describing water but, it’s irresponsible when you are writing something that is supposed to be an informative and fact based sentence about the water you are drinking. You can say it tastes bad and describe the taste in depth but, in the same sentence you can’t tell someone it tastes toxic. If you want to say something about toxicity you need to do so separately and, show proof of how it might be toxic.
[Tweet “You Can Not Taste Toxicity “]
I chose the word toxic on purpose because, you can simply scroll up to the Starbucks Pumpkin Spice latte picture and see an easy reference. You can see that Food Babe makes a claim that 50g of sugar is a toxic dose. That is a bold statement and someone could assume she has a factual reason to say so, yet there is no citation to support her claim on the picture or within the original article. The only Link she provides associated with “toxic sugar” is to a New York Times opinion columnist whose own interpretation and description of the lead studies findings were incorrect or misinterpreted. So, while the words she wrote were indeed descriptive and scary; they are also empty because she doesn’t provide support for her own description. You are not writing fiction here so, using terms that can be confusing or misleading is your own fault, regardless if your intent was only to be descriptive or assume others would understand what you meant.
That’s a problem not only in the scientific community but also in your community as a journalist. If you are writing an opinion piece, then expressing your own description of what is toxic to you is perfectly normal practice but, not when you are trying to inform.
That would be like me writing an article about your Banana Bread Hemp Smoothie and, saying it contains Toxic sugars, provides a unhealthy dose of sugar and contains ingredients linked to allergy inducing reactions associated with the chemicals in nuts. On a funny side note, this particular smoothie you recommend contains a stunning 87 grams of carbohydrates of which 47 grams are sugar. If I remember correctly that is only about 3 grams less than the toxic amount in that grande starbucks. You might state it is 2 servings but, give no guidelines regarding how soon someone might drink the second serving in order to avoid the toxic level of sugar you claim.
Remember, it’s perfectly fine to be descriptive or want to get your point across but, you have to do it in a responsible manner if you are trying to be a resource that is respected by a growing market and new audiences who might be more informed.
Preying On The Emotions Of The Uninformed
I get it, it’s hard to grab the attention of others in today’s world and, shocking titles grab someone’s attention but, she need to stop using ClickBait blog headlines and titles. They do not create an image of quality and the company you are in when it comes to clickbait articles is the likes of entertainment media outlets like BuzzFeed and Upworthy. Zero Substance. If you are truly trying to inform, please have some honest headlines. If your audience truly trusts you, your expertise and cares about healthier living then you do not need clickbait content to grab their attention, you need authenticity.
[Tweet “If your audience truly trusts you, you don’t need clickbait content titles, you need authenticity.”]
You claim to be informing the public so they can have the facts and make better decisions with their nutrition but, when you’re trying to be the informational resource for a population of uninformed it is important to control the emotional tone of your articles. You are not supposed to be using or inciting fear in your readers from your language, it’s irresponsible and an abuse of your power as an influencer. That is called “Scare/Fear Mongering” and, it’s only purpose is to scare people with exaggerations, repetition and incomplete stats enough times for them to jump on your side. That is the primary reason you will see Food Babe use bold or highlighted text over words she thinks will trigger a fearful response in her audience of people trying to be healthier. Just look at her articles and images. She uses the same few words over and over again and presents them like they are 100% factual without providing reference of their factual basis. You have not properly informed anyone when you use this tactic; just scared them.
She often talks about FDA loopholes being taken advantage of and, I am sure to some degree she is correct. Unfortunately, she is actually using some FTC loopholes to display her information and claims the same way the unregulated Supplement Industry does. Using words like “may help”, “could cause”, “ possibly linked to”, “contribute to”, or any other non definitive/descriptive phrasing is a way to scoot around laws and regulations about making false claims.
It’s the very reason supplement companies can not place on their labels that they cure anything. (IE. Omega-3s: may help heart health and has been shown to help prevent heart disease). If there is no definitive evidence then they can not legally say it.
on top of it all when she makes these types of claims there is also no legal need for her to disclose the complete fact she is using as proof or evidence in her claim. She does have to provide a link to her source but, it’s up to the reader to determine if the rest of the information supports or refutes the claim. Supplement companies do this when they say stuff like “Supported/Backed By University Studies”, most studies take place at a university and, that is legally Ok to claim if the results of the study show even 1 result in their favor (statistically significant or not). This is usually done because, including the rest of the facts have the possibility of not fully convincing the reader the statement or claims are true or significant.
For instance when you follow the link Food Babe mentions for “Artificial flavors are linked to allergic reactions” you will find yourself reading these two sentences:
She chooses to exclude the words that state the rarity of the allergic reactions because it does not provide her claims with conviction and certainty. I am sure if it said “it affests 80% and 99% of people with allergies”, it would have made an appearance in the article.
Here is one regarding pesticide residue in Starbucks coffee. She associates a pesticide called Chlorpyrifos with general and un-cited health concerns (which is already a red flag for being really vague and uninformative) but leaves out the information that is displayed within the link she cites as reference. Click the link above to read for yourself but, she leaves out that the greatest risk from this pesticide is from direct contact with crops or ingestion if you live close to crops that are sprayed with it. Looking further at the links within the sources you can find more statements of harm it can cause to local animals but, nothing regards to Humans drinking a product of the crop after going through manufacturing. Since she leaves all of this out, her statement comes off appearing that people drinking the coffee at Starbucks are at greatest risk where infact that is not even close to the information displayed in her own source. While she is not legally or even technically wrong, she is misleading.
That’s like saying “PIT BULLS ARE KILLERS AND BRUTAL ANIMALS” and, linking to an article that finishes the statement with “PITBULLS ARE KILLERS AND BRUTAL ANIMALS WHEN FORCED TO FIGHT IN ILLEGAL MICHAEL VICK DOG FIGHTS. It’s incomplete and misleading but not false.
All That Oppose Her View Are Co-Conspirators
With situations like this there is always going to be some kind of conspiracy theory. It’s understandable that one would arise because this is the age old “little guy” vs. “the Man” scenario and, there have been some morally negative actions taken by people/companies in the power position before. That I understand but, saying that all scientists who work in fields that deal with chemistry, food chemistry and nutrition as being co-conspirators trying to stop or stunt the growth of her efforts is pure ludacris. Surely there are some, but all or even most is simply taking the easy way out in terms of a way to defend her position. As the author of this article I can say that while I appreciate the drive she has as an advocate and investigative journalist; I have a hard time reading her investigative pieces, listening to her speak in podcasts, interviews and other media sources because of how rooted in the conspiracy theory she seems. All of those who leave negative book reviews and, anyone who writes about a topic she addressed but, oppose her views are not against her for any other reason than they believe she are incorrect. I am not talking about the people who have called her names, have been verbally abusive and Trolls; those people are stupid.
She Rarely admits faults, often praises her past accomplishments and stands behind only the facts that she states are correct, regardless of the facts that other experts bring forward. It’s not a healthy advocate stance to consider someone who is not on her side to simply be a conspirator.
At times it seems as though she is just as defensive and bias in her thoughts, facts and investigations as the big businesses she is fighting to change.
Chasing Pennies Instead of Dollars
AKA. worrying about the little things before taking care of the major issues.
I am addressing this in the realm of active health, general fitness, strength and performance because those are the area I call home. The areas that she addresses as the most important are unfortunately trivial and a lot of time more of a nuisance to worry about than an actual benefit. For instance, worrying if there is yellow #5 artificial coloring in your food will not show enough benefit towards your goals to constantly worry about it when things like overall caloric intake, macronutrient ratios, caloric surpluses, deficits and even portion control will have major impacts.
I am not saying she is wrong in her position as an activist against GMO’s or food additives etc. but, I am saying that she needs to address those other aspects related to a healthy lifestyle transformation that actually are more important. Regardless of the goal relating to health, fitness and performance its usually the simple and least complex changes that make the most differences.
She even states around the 9–10 minute mark in this Interview(below) with Lewis Howes that she did not have any sort of grasp on her own health and nutrition.Working long hours 10 packets of sugar in her morning coffees, fast foods, muffins, she only ate until she felt full(but claims not to be an overeater), ate large portions, late night crispy kreme donuts, just ate what was in front of her.
[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkat6DPw5VQ[/embed]
These issues are not related to the food additives, GMO’s, not eating organic, antibiotics etc. that she talks about. Issues like these are not specifically the fault of the food choices because there are still easy ways to take control of your eating without ever changing the foods you eat. Things like Not eating too many calories during the day, practicing willpower to not use 10 packets of sugar in a coffee or late night crispy kreme doughnuts.
https://www.instagram.com/p/58I08hBRmP/
There you have it. You have been informed now it’s time for you to make an informed choice whether or not you believe the Food Babe has your best interest as Top Priority or Not.
Originally published at fitletes.com
Thanks For taking the time out of your day to read.
If you enjoyed it then I hope you follow, It would really mean the world to me.