Food Babe vs. Gawker

Food Babe vs. Gawker (and others)

You can have your opinion about health and diet. You can also “choose” which “science” or “evidence” to believe. Most of the time, what you stick with is what actually works for you (or you end up on a “roller coaster.”) But much of the debate these days is what is “healthy” and what isn’t. Or what is “harmful” and what isn’t. Many of those buzz-words don’t have any immediate ramifications or benefits. Thus, it’s kind of hard to truly and conclusively deem one or the other as absolute fact. But an interesting “flame war” has been instituted against a health and nutrition blogger called Food Babe. The likes of the NY Times and popular disinformation specialists “blogs” have teamed up to try and literally destroy the “Food Babe” (Vani Hari). And it’s a lot more spooky than you might believe.

Food Babe Gawker Flame War on healthy foods

The tale of two polar opposite camps – BigAG vs. “Natural”

Before I get into the details of this outright character assassination, I think this high-profile “digital cat fight” needs to be clarified a bit. Now I don’t know Vani Hari whatsoever, but learned about her blog right when she started a few years ago. She’s definitely blown up big – as she’s been on countless “MSM” shows like GMA, Dr. Oz., CNN and others. While those networks are all essentially dying a slow death (that is until the internet is “turned off,”) it’s still a big audience.

Additionally, “Food Babe” (FB) is, understandably so, a capitalist. She profits from promoting her message – like any other messenger of good, helpful information is. By profiting from proliferating a message – it helps you spread “the good word” even more. It’s how our country was founded. But she is being “called out” for having sponsors she actually believes in and stands by. Amazing how people forget.

{{{ Can you believe there are scumbags on Twitter and the internet who expect people to give information away for FREE without some way to “monetize” that stream of helpful data? That would be the equivalent of people 200 years ago to expect all BOOKS to be free of charge. Or expecting your cell phones and internet connections to be free too. What kind of entitled assholes do we live amongst? Oh yeah, I forgot – it’s 2015… sorry }}}

The general vibe of FB’s message is to eat “natural” and avoid as many chemicals “you can’t pronounce” as possible. In other words, the more natural it is the better. Less packaged goods, less preservatives, and so on. She’s vigilant about finding out what “crap” is snuck into everyday things you like – such as Starbucks, Newcastle Beer and Subway Sandwiches. Rightfully so, because big businesses are always looking for ways to reduce cost and increase profit – and often turn the other way when the lowly (and practically “invisible”) customer who pays for the product might become very ill (read: the $3B Paxil settlement against GlaxoSmithKline).

On the other side – you have sites the NY Times and Gawker that seem to be offering their “reach” (for profit) to those looking to squelch powerful messages that might possibly be impacting “the bottom line” for other industries. No scruples whatsoever. For example – Gawker used to “like” Food Babe (multiple positive articles), but all of a sudden “turned the cheek” to destroy this blogger.

But who or what do you believe? One “study” or another? Or actual visual evidence that something is working? Out of all those “studies” you read – where ### people did #### things.. Did you ever partake in such studies?

It’s possible “Food Babe” also has been corrupted

While “Food Babe” seems to be on the right track for the most part, just the way “cops” or “politicians” may all start out with good intentions, when the going gets “good,” often their views and logic become heavily slanted. Good cops become bad cops, honest politicians become corrupt, and so on. Not to say that FB’s views have become tainted – but perhaps she’s now “over-zealous” in her views of “Good vs. Evil” foods?

You repeat the same thing enough – you become blind to an open mind. She appears to be anti-anything modern. Again, I think that doing things as natural as possible is probably for the best – not all modern advancements are bad.

It’s plausible that she’s just gone way off to one side with no tolerance for anything outside her (now narrow) realm of belief. I mean look at my 92-year old father. He eats McDonald’s and is going strong. Those so-called “bad things” aren’t lethal the minute you touch them. The stigma these now chastised “ingredients” have been vaulted into “deadly organisms.” We wouldn’t have 7 billion+ on earth if that was the case.

So going to extremes on one side or another is not necessarily good either.

“Organic” – Jury still out on that?

Just a side note here – I really think it’s kind of a shame that we have (polar opposite) sides when it comes to “organic” debate.

Because at this point in time – I’d suspect that even “USDA Organic” has been corrupted and cannot be fully trusted. I mean a neurotoxic pesticide is not smart to ingest, regardless of what “label” you use. Calling something a certain name, doesn’t make it safe (or outright dangerous for that matter). As they say “everything in moderation.”

Unless you can “grown your own” non-GMO food sans chemicals, I doubt it makes much difference what you eat (unless you eat a million of one thing, then perhaps you have other issues to contend with). We sort of have to stop “Googling” ourselves to death with fear and worry.

The completely ONE-sided attacks against “healthy” living

Now it’s certainly not necessarily a bad thing to try and be healthy. Minimizing modern toxins and pollution or what have you – definitely won’t hurt (with the exception of people so afraid of germs via sanitizers, etc. that they have no bodily defense for anything!) It causes no harm to try and be as pure as you can be.

But those outright attacking the “healthy” people just because some of their fears may be unfounded is a bit shitty. There is no healthy debate about the subject matter itself. Just hateful mud-slinging.

Gawker, et. al. – Character Assassination

Gawker (and a majority of the blogs in their “lineup”), are mostly time-wasters with purposely controversial content. They’re also likely “bought and paid for” by whatever entities want to spread disinformation (or misinformation) – the same way “lobbyists” muck up government work and influence legislation, etc.

Their sites cater to the major “deadly vices” that humans are inflicted with: Gossip, smear, sports, video games, smut, gadgets, and more. The only site that had any kind of respectability (in the early days) was, but it’s become too burdensome to filter out the “technology” crap and liberal-leaning fluff from there as well. In other words, Gawker is pure crap. A “tribe” that has followers – but most cannot comprehend exactly why.

Plus, the company is incorporated on the Cayman Islands – a place known for companies and individuals to either “launder” money or escape the controls of other more strict countries. There is so much “global” financial activity in the Cayman Islands, it just makes you wonder about what the M.O. is behind choosing to incorporate there. (And if it’s so great – how come everyone isn’t doing it?)

The bottom line: Don’t fall into any “camp!”

What is happening here is “tribe mentality.” People get stuck in their own “camps” of belief. While 99.9% of them are not sufficiently educated enough, nor have enough actual experience to speak with authority. Citing “studies” means nothing. Proof is in the pudding, so to say.

Watching this debate was almost painful. The 100% support the followers of Gawker had (I feel bad for them), and the outright hatred towards this woman who’s probably making a positive difference in the health and well-being of most people who experiment with some of her suggestions is sad. Gone are the days of healthy debate!

Best bet is not to take sides at all. Perform your own experiments (if you can afford to), and try not to take all “scientific studies” as gospel. As each one has a counter-claim, and you should “cui bono?” each one of them.

Leave a Reply

Be the First to Comment!