FeaturedScienceSkepticism

Free Chapter 1 Download of “Fear Babe: Shattering Vani Hari’s Glass House”

 

fear is toxic

Have you heard of famous food activist Vani Hari? You know, the blogger and New York Times bestselling author also known as “The Food Babe”, who abhors biotechnology, thinks sugar is “toxic”, and is famous for berating Starbucks’ Pumpkin Spice Latte for, *gasp*, containing “no real pumpkin”, and bullying Subway for using so-called “yoga mat chemical” in its bread?

If you’ve questioned Ms. Hari’s iffy, unscientific claims about food, or wondered whether there is any truth behind the self-styled “world changing” food activists claim that “there is no acceptable level of any chemical to ingest ever”, look no further. My co-authors Marc Draco, Mark Alsip and I have toiled arduously to bring you the 400+ page tome “The Fear Babe:  Shattering Vani Hari’s Glass House”, with foreword from Dr. Kevin Folta, professor and chairman of the Horticultural Sciences Department at the University of Florida. The book, due out later this fall in hardcover, is a systematic, science-based debunking of the all-too-popular food activist’s claims. I jokingly, or perhaps seriously, call it “the book the natural and organic food industries don’t want you to read”. Though my dear husband has said that the book is “dense, and not for the casual reader”, rest assured that the fact-laden chapters are woven with ample comedic relief throughout.

We know you’re curious, so here it is, your very own free copy of Chapter 1, entitled “Spread Fear, Babe!” Though this chapter primarily explores Vani Hari’s stances on vaccination, it sets the stage for why we called the book “The Fear Babe”. The rest of the book delves into the culture of fear, and details how the majority of Hari’s tactics fail miserably in the face of science, and dissects why she retains a massive loyal following though her assertions haven’t held strong against the test of evidence, and even against the most basic fact-checking. Stay tuned–the book is due out this fall.

Click below for your free download:

click here for chapter 1

 

 

Kavin Senapathy

Kavin Senapathy

Kavin Senapathy is a mom of two, co-Executive Director of March Against Myths, public speaker, Forbes contributor and author in Madison, WI. She is also co-author of "The Fear Babe: Shattering Vani Hari's Glass House". Follow her on Facebook and twitter @ksenapathy

Previous post

It's the Sundaylies! With an Ode to Oliver Sacks, Mycological Masterpieces, and the Real Housewives of Wooville

Next post

Quickies: Soviet Video Games, Tech's Diversity Gap, and an App That Walks You Home

32 Comments

  1. September 8, 2015 at 1:59 pm —

    Wow. Talk about not backing down. Vani Hari has become one of the most dangerous voices negatively impacting public health. This book call out her ridiculous sobriquet for what it is.

    And I regret to say that it’s probably going to be at great personal sacrifice to Kavin, as such a hard hitting approach will no doubt produce a proportionately rabid response from Hari’s legion of followers. Thanks so much for being such a forceful advocate against one of the most offensive charlatans of our time. I will definitely be ordering this book.

  2. September 8, 2015 at 9:51 pm —

    I read the first chapter – very informative! And not at all too dense. I’m surprised that there is so much push-back specific to the flu vaccine, to the point that some people will say they are getting every vaccine except for the flu vaccine.

    I guess some people figure that they had “the flu” as a child and it wasn’t such a big deal. But maybe they only had one of the milder “B” or “C” varieties, or it wasn’t even influenza at all. People are very quick to say “you must have the flu” when you say you have “flu-like” symptoms, so I think there is some confusion about what the disease really is and why it is dangerous.

    • September 9, 2015 at 9:05 am —

      When people tell me they “had the flu” I always ask how long they were in bed. If the answer is anything less then two-three days then I tell them they most likely din’t have influenza.

      Influenza, or the “actual flu” is a nasty customer and most people don’t really get it often, and if they do they don’t forget. It’s been quite some time since I have had the flu and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone. In fact there is only one disease I’ve ever had that was worse and that was the norovirus, and even that was shorter-lived.

      I wish, as a society, we could get away from referring to every little stomach bug or cold or mild food-poisoning as the flu because it causes people to severely underestimate just how dangerous the influenza can be.

      • September 9, 2015 at 12:03 pm —

        If the antivaxxers get their way, we’ll all know what the flu’s really like. And the return of many other nasty customers previously consigned to the dustbin of history, but sadly not yet extinct.

  3. September 9, 2015 at 1:05 am —

    That was an excellent first chapter. I never quite understood Vani Hari’s objection to the flu vaccine, but now I see it’s based mostly on misinformation and her usual approach, i.e. “all chemicals are horrible.”

    I’m definitely buying your book and recommending it to others. Thanks for fighting the good fight, Kavin!

    • September 9, 2015 at 12:01 pm —

      “based mostly on misinformation and her usual approach”

      That redundancy is superfluous.

  4. September 9, 2015 at 12:00 pm —

    The flu shot was used as a genocide tool? I didn’t know that, and I’m…the kind of person who would know such a thing. LOL

    It’s worth mentioning that the particular mercury compound that causes brain damage is methylmercury, which gets in water around coal-fired plants.

  5. September 10, 2015 at 1:14 am —

    Kavin Senapathy,

    I really want to read this. I suspect one of the things that has lead to fear of biotechnology, is that some people on the left have a sort of reflexive desire to attack anything they associate with big bossiness, much as many on the right constantly feel the need to attack anything they associate with big government.

    • September 13, 2015 at 7:02 am —

      When it comes to companies like Monsanto and Bayer and their backers in government, they have every right to question it. Not fear them- attack them, and expose them. GMO is awesome and will be even more awesome in the future when companies like Monsanto are removed from the equation since we will no longer require their pesticides. Monsanto stock is already tanking and I believe in a few decades that company will no longer exist. Open source GMO are the wave of the future just like nuclear is the wave of the future and corrupt fossil fuel companies are being removed from the equation with the research showing that natural gas is just as bad as coal is for climate change (5% methane leaks.) That plus the 500x rise in earthquakes across the heartland are why fracking is banned here.

      • September 13, 2015 at 11:06 am —

        Alexthegreatest,

        Didn’t say you didn’t have a right to question them. You should, but at the same time, some people seem to just attack anything GMO, in spite of a lack of evidence that they’re harmful. Here’s just one example.

        The Daily Show with Jon StewartGet More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook,Daily Show Video Archive

        • September 13, 2015 at 11:09 am —

          Sorry, that didn’t work correctly, I meant to embed that video, and it just put a bunch of link to Comedy Central instead.

          I’ll post a link, instead.

          Daily Show Debunks Baseless Fears About GMO Potatoes
          http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/316417_Daily_Show_Debunks_Baseless_Fe

          • September 13, 2015 at 11:36 am

            I’ve read some of your other posts and it seems like we agree on a lot.

            http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/316416_Alien_Supercivilizations_Absen

            I do believe that there is life elsewhere in the galaxy but that we dont have the means to detect them. Think about what kind of technology we are using to detect them and how little the chances are that another species would evolve like us or be at a similar level of technology as us- they could be so advanced that we’d never be able to detect them and might not even be organic. They might be able to make use of Kip Thorne level tech (traversable wormholes) and might be invisible to us (we’re only 0.7 on the Kardashev scale.) We’re only at the beginning of our journey of trying to understand how the universe works and we dont even know how many “universes” there might be. We cant come to any premature conclusions about alien life.

            I am also a passionate supporter of clean energy. At the same time, I oppose fracking. Emerging science shows it to be worse for the environment than coal (5% methane leaks) and there has been a 500x increase in earthquakes across the heartland. It is banned here in NY and I see more regulations popping up in other states.

            http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/02/14/new-study-shows-total-north-american-methane-leaks-far-worse-epa-estimatesJust how bad is natural gas for the climate?A lot worse than previously thought, new research on methane leaks concludes.Far more natural gas is leaking into the atmosphere nationwide than the Environmental Protection Agency currently estimates, researchers concluded after reviewing more than 200 different studies of natural gas leaks across North America.The ground-breaking study, published today in the prestigious journal Science, reports that the Environmental Protection Agency has understated how much methane leaks into the atmosphere nationwide by between 25 and 75 percent — meaning that the fuel is far more dangerous for the climate than the Obama administration asserts.

            https://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6172/733.summaryhttp://www.cgmf.org/blog-entry/92/Study-America's-natural-gas-system-is-leaky-and-in-need-of-a-fix.

          • September 13, 2015 at 11:40 am

            Oops the end of my reply got cut off, I meant to say I support nuclear energy over any fossil fuel.

            http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/02/14/new-study-shows-total-north-american-methane-leaks-far-worse-epa-estimatesJust how bad is natural gas for the climate?A lot worse than previously thought, new research on methane leaks concludes.Far more natural gas is leaking into the atmosphere nationwide than the Environmental Protection Agency currently estimates, researchers concluded after reviewing more than 200 different studies of natural gas leaks across North America.The ground-breaking study, published today in the prestigious journal Science, reports that the Environmental Protection Agency has understated how much methane leaks into the atmosphere nationwide by between 25 and 75 percent — meaning that the fuel is far more dangerous for the climate than the Obama administration asserts.The study, titled “Methane Leakage from North American Natural Gas Systems,” was conducted by a team of 16 researchers from institutions including Stanford University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and is making headlines because it finally and definitively shows that natural gas production and development can make natural gas worse than other fossil fuels for the climate.Just how bad is natural gas for the climate?A lot worse than previously thought, new research on methane leaks concludes.Far more natural gas is leaking into the atmosphere nationwide than the Environmental Protection Agency currently estimates, researchers concluded after reviewing more than 200 different studies of natural gas leaks across North America.The ground-breaking study, published today in the prestigious journal Science, reports that the Environmental Protection Agency has understated how much methane leaks into the atmosphere nationwide by between 25 and 75 percent — meaning that the fuel is far more dangerous for the climate than the Obama administration asserts.The study, titled “Methane Leakage from North American Natural Gas Systems,” was conducted by a team of 16 researchers from institutions including Stanford University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and is making headlines because it finally and definitively shows that natural gas production and development can make natural gas worse than other fossil fuels for the climate.The research, which was reported in The Washington Post, Bloomberg and The New York Times, was funded by a foundation created by the late George P. Mitchell, the wildcatter who first successfully drilled shale gas, so it would be hard to dismiss it as the work of environmentalists hell-bent on discrediting the oil and gas industry.The debate over the natural gas industry’s climate change effects has raged for several years, ever since researchers from Cornell University stunned policy-makers and environmentalists by warning that if enough methane seeps out between the gas well and the burner, relying on natural gas could be even more dangerous for the climate than burning coal.Natural gas is mostly comprised of methane, an extraordinarily powerful greenhouse gas, which traps heat 86 times more effectively than carbon dioxide during the two decades after it enters the atmosphere, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, so even small leaks can have major climate impacts.The team of researchers echoed many of the findings of the Cornell researchers and described how the federal government’s official estimate proved far too low.“Atmospheric tests covering the entire country indicate emissions around 50 percent more than EPAestimates,” said Adam Brandt, the lead author of the new report and an assistant professor of energy resources engineering at Stanford University. “And that’s a moderate estimate.”The new paper drew some praise from Dr. Robert Howarth, one of the Cornell scientists.“This study is one of many that confirms that EPA has been underestimating the extent of methane leakage from the natural gas industry, and substantially so,” Dr. Howarth wrote, adding that the estimates for methane leaks in his 2011 paper and the new report are “in excellent agreement.”In November, research led by Harvard University found that the leaks from the natural gas industry have been especially under-estimated. That study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, reported that methane emissions from fossil fuel extraction and oil refineries in some regions are nearly five times higher than previous estimates, and was one of the 200 included in Thursday’s Science study.EPA Estimes Far Off-TargetSo how did the EPA miss the mark by such a high margin?The EPA’s estimate depends in large part on calculations — take the amount of methane released by an average cow, and multiply it by the number of cattle nationwide. Make a similar guess for how much methane leaks from an average gas well. But this leaves out a broad variety of sources — leaking abandoned natural gas wells, broken valves and the like.Their numbers never jibed with findings from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Department of Energy, which approached the problem by taking measurements of methane and other gas levels from research flights and the tops of telecommunications towers.But while these types of measurements show how much methane is in the atmosphere, they don’t explain where that methane came from. So it was still difficult to figure out how much of that methane originated from the oil and gas industry.At times, EPA researchers went to oil and gas drilling sites to take measurements. But they relied on driller’s voluntary participation. For instance, one EPA study requested cooperation from 30 gas companies so they could measure emissions, but only six companies allowed the EPA on site.“It’s impossible to take direct measurements of emissions from sources without site access,” said Garvin Heath, a senior scientist with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and a co-author of the new analysis in a press release. “Self-selection bias may be contributing to why inventories suggest emission levels that are systematically lower than what we sense in the atmosphere.” (DeSmog has previously reported on the problem of industry-selected well sites in similar research funded by the Environmental Defense Fund.)Worse than Coal?There was, however, one important point that the news coverage so far missed and that deserves attention — a crucial point that could undermine entirely the notion that natural gas can serve as a“bridge fuel” to help the nation transition away from other, dirtier fossil fuels.In their press release, the team of researchers compared the climate effects of different fuels, like diesel and coal, against those of natural gas.They found that powering trucks or busses with natural gas made things worse.“Switching from diesel to natural gas, that’s not a good policy from a climate perspective” explained the study’s lead author, Adam R. Brandt, an assistant professor in the Department of Energy Resources at Stanford, calling into question a policy backed by President Obama in his recent State of the Union address.The researchers also described the effects of switching from coal to natural gas for electricity — concluding that coal is worse for the climate in some cases. “Even though the gas system is almost certainly leakier than previously thought, generating electricity by burning gas rather than coal still reduces the total greenhouse effect over 100 years, the new analysis shows,” the team wrote in a press release.But they failed to address the climate impacts of natural gas over a shorter period — the decades when the effects of methane are at their most potent.“What is strange about this paper is how they interpret methane emissions: they only look at electricity, and they only consider the global warming potential of methane at the 100-year time frame,” said Dr. Howarth. Howarth’s 2011 Cornell study reviewed all uses of gas, noting that electricity is only roughly 30% of use in the US, and describing both a 20- and a 100-year time frame.The choice of time-frame is vital because methane does not last as long in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, so impact shifts over time. “The new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report from last fall – their first update on the global situation since 2007 – clearly states that looking only at the 100 year time frame is arbitrary, and one should also consider shorter time frames, including a 10-year time frame,” Dr. Howarth pointed out.Another paper,published in Science in 2012, explains why it’s so important to look at the shorter time frames.Unless methane is controlled, the planet will warm by 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius over the next 17 to 35 years, and that’s even if carbon dioxide emissions are controlled. That kind of a temperature rise could potentially shift the climate of our planet into runaway feedback of further global warming.“[B]y only looking at the 100 year time frame and only looking at electricity production, this new paper is biasing the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions between natural gas and coal in favor of natural gas being low,” said Dr. Howarth, “and by a huge amount, three to four to perhaps five fold.”Dr. Howarth’s colleague, Prof. Anthony Ingraffea, raised a similar complaint.“Once again, there is a stubborn use of the 100-year impact of methane on global warming, a factor about 30 times that of CO2,” Dr. Ingraffea told Climate Central, adding that there is no scientific justification to use the 100-year time window.“That is a policy decision, perhaps based on faulty understanding of the climate change situation in which we find ourselves, perhaps based on wishful thinking,” he said.For its part, the oil and gas industry seems very aware of the policy implications of this major new research and is already pushing back against any increased oversight of its operations.“Given that producers are voluntarily reducing methane emissions,” Carlton Carroll, a spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute, told The New York Times in an interview about the new study, “additional regulations are not necessary.”

        • September 13, 2015 at 11:24 am —

          Thanks. I agree. Here is where I separate from the antiGMO crowd. An analogy: I find some/many of Bill Gates business practices reprehensible, but that does not make me shun computers. As a matter of fact that motivates me even more to build them and to use UNIX based operating systems on them.

          Same with GMO, if one opposes Monsanto because of their past with AO and PCBs and the massive coverups they tried while simultaneously paying out millions without taking responsibility, learn more about GMO and support other companies, ones with better environmental records. Trust me they are out there and they use GMO to further humanity and the environment rather than corporate greed. In short, dont throw out the baby with the bath water (sorry for the cliche.)

  6. September 13, 2015 at 6:57 am —

    While the “fear babe” is an ignorant piece of filth, let’s not forget that biotechnology would be MUCH more accepted if corrupt companies like Monsanto and Bayer were removed from the equation, with their horrible environmental records. I very much support the smaller, “open source” companies that will in the next few years bring us crops that do not require any pesticides at all (not even Monsanto’s cash cow Glyphosate either- great news for the environment) AND a new vaccine on the horizon that will be a “one off” flu shot- that is, take it once and you never need to take another flu shot again. The replacement for antibiotics is also about to come to market- it’s an immune system boosting drug that removes all the issues we’ve been having with antibiotics. Just like how new research has shown how harmful fracking is for the environment (5% methane leaks and 500x rise in earthquakes, so it’s banned here in NY), research has shown what pesticides from Monsanto and Bayer have done to the environment (rise of superweeds, CCD and monarch butterfly die-off), so it’s high time that bio-engineering delivered us produce that does not require any pesticides and thus removes us from the tether to corrupt big business.

    • September 21, 2015 at 6:36 pm —

      The new flu vaccine is great news – a one shot for life! I’ll believe it when I see it but I’m hopeful.

      Glyphosate isn’t a cash cow for Monsanto so much any more – it’s been out of patent for years and the monarch butterfly study was a huge fuck up – which Greenpeace used to further its own cause – if you followed the science you’d know that.

      Bioengineering already is creating plants that are pest-resistant but the anti-GMO crowd. I have no time for corruption at any size of business: be that Monsanto or Whole Foods. The corporate ties behind USRTK are frightening. They call themselves activists and a non-profit but the OCA is paying that piper and pulling the strings too, I s shouldn’t wonder.

      • September 21, 2015 at 7:24 pm —

        I fully agree with you about the corruption on both sides. I’ve been hearing a lot about the glyphosate-monarch butterfly connection but when I researched it further, it seems that neocortinoids are the real problem in that regard (with a lot of push back from Bayer since they are the ones who manufacture them mostly.) Glyphosate got much bad publicity with the WHO meta-analysis of about 30 studies which found a link to some cancers (mainly Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma.)

        My philosophy is that do as much as you can on your own- so I dont shop at Whole Foods (I have some philosophical issues with them also- they aren’t as “green” as they say they are.) I have a small garden where I grow my own veggies (it’s enough for me)- pesticide free. I have the same philosophy with computers (I build my own and put open source OS on them), rather than deal with the corrupt business practices of Microsoft/Apple/Google. I am really looking forward to that one-off flu vaccine, as much as the new GMO crops being developed at universities, non profits and small companies that wont require ANY pesticides. Pests develop immunity to all pesticides eventually (we’re seeing this with glyphosate now) and then they have to be replaced with stronger/more dangerous pesticides (like Enlist Duo). We played this same game with antibiotics, and in a parallel, drug companies are now developing drugs that boost the immune system, thus avoiding the antibiotic route entirely. I’m very hopeful that over the next generation (30 years) we’ll be completely pesticide and antibiotic free and flu free thanks to GMO and better knowledge of biochemistry. I also see optimism for developing a cure for cancer based on research being done on an isolated tribe in South America that seems to illustrate a connection between their immunity to cancer and a lack of human growth hormone.

  7. September 21, 2015 at 7:27 pm —

    Let me edit that last part- I mean a vaccine (not cure) for cancer* based on those studies with that indigenous population in South America. A cure would be much further in the future than even that.

  8. September 21, 2015 at 7:29 pm —

    And if we could further the research in those rare people who lack a certain cover (CD4) protein who are immune to AIDS, we’d also have an AIDS vaccine within the next 30 years.

  9. September 28, 2015 at 9:04 pm —

    I really admire what you’re doing, and plan on buying a copy of this book. I also appreciate that a project like this involves a fine balance between providing in-depth accurate information, with the need to avoid becoming too “dense.” However, I worry that the description of the flu vaccine as a weak but living virus may confuse or mislead some people. The nasal mist has a live attenuated virus, but the injectable form does not contan live virus. In my experience, some people cite live virus as a reason for not getting a flu shot (worried it might make them sick, etc., when this isn’t physically possible).

  10. October 22, 2015 at 9:23 pm —

    Is there gonna be Kindle version?

  11. November 4, 2015 at 3:09 pm —

    I admire Vani Hari, and i think she does a great job generally.

    I think that “takedown” books like this targeting Hari, and like the d’Entremont piece in Gawker, are generally despicable. There is room for valid critique of Hari, but she is nothing like the caricature that you make out in this book. You cherrypick the most extreme quotes she’s ever said, many of which she deleted quickly, and then use a special brand of Skeptoid vitriolic venom in your writing about her. It’s becoming a genre, unfortunately, the pseudoskeptical genre.

    • November 4, 2015 at 11:42 pm —

      Frankly, I see both sides as extreme. Both sides have strong industrial sides, and thus neither side should ever be trusted at face value. I dont like Van Hari, but some of the blanket statements, particularly about the safety of food, made in this new book are laughable, particularly since new research completely upends it. Of course, any scientific research that goes against them is considered “one off” even though it’s quite a bit more than just one study. One thing I do know about science is anyone who makes absolute statements like something is “completely safe” is either lying to you or doesn’t know science themselves. I particularly found the statements that “diet coke” is completely safe quite idiotic, and frankly dangerous, because they are promoting an agenda that has lead to obesity in this country. Antibiotics in food is another matter which they’ve glossed over, even though our own regulatory agencies find it quite alarming. But I dont think they’re fooling anyone, no matter what their education background is. And I believe this book will get the attention they think it will- but it will be just as negative as what Van Hari has garnered. Just because they are on two opposite sides of the spectrum, doesn’t mean they aren’t equally invalid.

      Science is impartial, but scientists are not.

      GMO have both a good and bad side to them, the good side is that the newer generation ones which do not need any pesticides at all, the bad side are the “Round Up Ready” variety which are detrimental to the environment.

      Pregnant goats fed with genetically engineered (GE) soybeans have offspring who grow more slowly and are shorter, according to a new Italian study (Tudisco et al., 2015). Publishing in the journal of Small Ruminant Research, the researchers were testing the results of supplementing the feed of female goats with Roundup Ready GE soybeans. Roundup Ready soybeans are engineered to resist the herbicide Roundup and are sold by agribusiness giant Monsanto. They are some of the most widely grown soybeans in the world.
      The reduced growth of the goat kids was attributed by the researchers to their observation that the milk of the GE-fed mothers was significantly less nutritious and contained less of the IgG antibodies important for early growth.

      Cilentana-goats-300×208

      Cilentana Goats, Italy.
      “This was a carefully conducted study” commented Dr Judy Carman,Director of the Institute of Health and Environmental Research, Australia. She was not involved in the research, but told Independent Science News that:
      “The differences in the composition of the colostrum between the mothers fed the GE soy and the non-GE soy were particularly striking. The colostrum from the GE-fed mothers contained only 2/3 of the fat, 1/3 of the protein and close to half of the IgG of the mothers fed the non-GM soy.”

      To carry out these experiments the researchers divided pregnant female Cilentana goats into four groups, sixty days before kidding. Two of the groups were fed goat food containing GE Roundup Ready soybeans (at two different concentrations). The other two groups were fed conventional (non-GE) soybeans, also at two different concentrations.

      After the mothers gave birth all offspring were fed only with their mother’s milk for sixty days. The growth of these kids was measured twice. After both thirty days and sixty days the kids of GE-fed mothers were approximately 20% lower in weight and shorter in stature. Both these differences were statistically significant.

      Lower offspring weights were not the only unexpected findings. The researchers also found that the milk of GE-fed goats was lower in protein and fat. This difference in milk quality was large (6% protein in both GE-fed groups versus 18% in both non-GE fed groups) for the first few weeks after birth but gradually disappeared—even though the mothers continued to be fed the GE soybeans. Additionally, the researchers also found that the colostrum produced by GE-fed mothers had low amounts of IgG antibodies. These antibodies are important for growth and for healthy immune development.

      A third difference noted by the researchers was that transgenic DNA could be detected in the colostrum of most (10/16) of the GE-fed goats. No transgene DNA was detected in the milk of goats fed non-GE soybeans. This is not the first time that transgene DNA (or non-transgenic DNA) has been found in the milk of ruminants, however.

      Interestingly, the researchers found that all of the kids were of similar size at birth, regardless of whether their mothers ate Roundup Ready GE soybeans or not. The researchers therefore proposed that the stunting of the offspring of GE-fed mothers reflected a milk deficiency. Presumably either the lower nutritional value of the colostrum and milk of GE-fed mothers or the colostrum antibody differences that were observed. The authors noted that low IgG antibody levels in colostrum are correlated in other ruminants with slower growth and also that IgG antibodies are known to have a role in nutrient absorption because they promote gut development in newborns.

      The researchers did not discuss whether the transgene DNA fragments found in the milk played a role in altering kid development.

      This result is the strongest demonstration so far of altered growth and development in offspring of GE-fed mothers. The same researchers in 2010 showed altered activity of the lactic dehydrogenase enzyme in kids fed milk from mothers that ate GE Roundup Ready soybeans. In that previous study however, no additional effects on goat offspring were detected (Tudisco et al., 2010).

      “It is already known that Roundup Ready soybeans have various defects including a Manganese deficiency. Yet regulators and GMO developers have continuously dismissed credible reports of GMO crops causing apparent harm to animals, from many different research groups,” said Dr Allison Wilson of The Bioscience Resource Project. “Hopefully they will not ignore yet another study.”
      References
      Tudisco R., V. Mastellone, M. I. Cutrignelli, P. Lombardi, F. Bovera, N. Mirabella, G. Piccolo, S. Calabrò, L. Avallone and F. Infascelli (2010)Fate of transgenic DNA and evaluation of metabolic effects in goats fed genetically modified soybean and in their offsprings. Animal 4: 1662-1671.
      Tudisco R., S. Calabrò, M.I. Cutrignelli, G. Moniello, M. Grossi, V. Mastellone, P. Lombardi, M.E. Peroa, F. Infascelli (2015) Genetically modified soybean in a goat diet: Influence on kid performance. Small Ruminant Research 126: 67–74.

    • November 5, 2015 at 12:37 am —

      In addition to this, a new chemical safety bill is about to pass Congress, in which it was admitted that the mandate of earlier decades was wrong- that our regulatory agencies favored industry over safety and based on scientific research there are literally hundreds of chemical agents of proven toxicity that need to be much more strongly regulated or banned.

  12. November 4, 2015 at 11:45 pm —

    And if Henry Miller had anything to do with this, he is one of the most despiccable people on the planet, he and I have a long history, and I find his views on renewing usage of DDT, nuclear weapons and the history of MON quite alarming…..let’s just say he would have fit in quite well with the scientists who were operating in Germany circa 1930s…..

  13. November 4, 2015 at 11:47 pm —

    Also, many scientists who work in the Ag field have criticized Kevin Folta for his lack of disclosure of the money he received from MON. I find the organic industry to be greedy and opportunistic, but the other side isn’t any better. At least we have unbiased sources in The New York Times who call both out.

  14. November 4, 2015 at 11:49 pm —

    To read a truly eyeopening piece, check out Michael Moss’s work for the New York Times where he goes inside fast food chains and shows how they develop trash food that is addictive. Obesity in America can be directly linked to fast food and soft drink consumption, nevermind what else is in red meat.

  15. November 5, 2015 at 12:39 am —

    Also, the “extraordinary evidence” quote is purloined from Carl Sagan and was originally used in reference to the search for extraterrestrial life. Quite a huge difference from this.

  16. November 5, 2015 at 12:40 am —

    In addition to this, a new chemical safety bill is about to pass Congress, in which it was admitted that the mandate of earlier decades was wrong- that our regulatory agencies favored industry over safety and based on scientific research there are literally hundreds of chemical agents of proven toxicity that need to be much more strongly regulated or banned.

Leave a reply