Is The Food Babe Really Full Of Sh*t?

Affiliate Disclosure

Nutrition, Podcast

Click here for the full written transcript of this podcast episode.

I recently read an article on Gakwer entitled The “Food Babe” Blogger Is Full of Shit.

It was written by today's podcast guest: Yvette d'Entremont.

Yvette, AKA “The Science Babe”, has bachelor's degrees in theatre and chemistry along with a master's degree in forensic science. With a background working as an analytical chemist, she currently runs the Science Babe website full time. Her site is an interesting mix of debunking pseudoscience with humor and science.

She lives in southern California with her stinky dog, Buddy (who makes a fun cameo in today's podcast). During our controversial discussion, you'll discover:

-Why Yvette thinks that chiropractic treatment is total BS…

-Why Yvette, in her post on the “Bullshitproof Diet“, calls Dave Asprey a Douchebag…

-How Yvette thinks that the Food Babe's Starbucks Pumpkin Spice Latte was blown way out of proportion…

-What Yvette thinks is the next most unproven, hyped up, dangerous or scientifically inaccurate trend or fad currently making it's way down the health pipeline…

-Why living by the rule “If a third grader can't pronounce it, don't eat it” is a dangerous rule to follow…

-The details behind the group on Facebook called “Banned By Food Babe” that boasts nearly 6,000 members…

-And much more…

Resources we discuss during this episode:

-The Gawker article The “Food Babe” Blogger Is Full of Shit

Public Library of Science (PLOS)

Science Based Medicine

TheNess Neurological Blog

The “Natural Ingredients” In A Blueberry

My article on Bulletproof Coffee Enemas

I imagine that you probably have some thoughts about this podcast. Perhaps some strong thoughts. Leave your comments, questions and feedback below and I promise to reply!

Ask Ben a Podcast Question


Get The Low Carb Athlete - 100% Free!Eliminate fatigue and unlock the secrets of low-carb success. Sign up now for instant access to the book!

73 thoughts on “Is The Food Babe Really Full Of Sh*t?

  1. Hoovey says:

    It was funny because so much of what she said was going against what Ben has taught us. I was really bothered by her personality. I felt like her purpose was to slander others for their false claims and say that “it’s just. Not science, and that’s not how it works.” But yet I was never confident in her explanation of how it works. It just really bothered me that her agenda is more to slander others, than to be like Ben, which his main goal is to help and educate people. Keep it up Ben!

  2. Yolie says:

    Please tell me you will be having vani on your show soon?

    1. I invited her a while back but didn't hear back, I'll try to reach out again. My friend Sean Croxton interviewed her for his show and I think it was quite balanced: http://undergroundwellness.com/podcast-241-food-i…

  3. Randal says:

    This site is promoting dangerous lies! Would you trust a chemical company to tell you it is not safe to consume their chemicals? Do they own the FDA and EPA? Do you want scientists modifying your food to make profits for Chemical companies? Do you trust Obama or Hillary to tell you that big business is killing and not to eat their food? Why is cancer so bad? Why are kids dying from vaccinations that are claimed to reduce harm? Why do near non-existent diseases need a vaccine that is damaging brain function, causing autoimmune disorders and causing sterility? Because you are willing to listen to the crap on this site and but their products! Eat Real Food or don’t, it your life!

  4. kleinbc says:

    I remember how she went on and on about how she didn't "silence" any of her critics… I posted a rebuttal on her one of her blogs (which I have mentioned in one of my previous comments). It appears that the scibabe has not allowed my comment to be published, as I can no longer see that it's awaiting moderation. All I did was suggest that vaccination rates were not changing, and linked to CDC data. No name calling.

  5. Alex Fergus says:

    Hi Ben,
    I finally listened to this podcast today and wanted to commend you on your professionalism and how you handled this interview. I'm sure there were a lot of comments that made you cringe, but you made your counter claim and let the guest make her statements. The funniest moment was when she mentioned the harmful effects of raw milk consumption – I had literally just finished listening to your podcast where you looked at these research results in more context (ie, comparing the illnesses caused by pasteurized milk consumption).

    As someone mentioned in the comments, forgetting about science all together, I'm always going to listen and follow someone who has (and still is) achieving great things in the sports arena, has a great physique, has great lab numbers (and reveals them to the public), is always full of positivity and kindness & is constantly pushing the envelope in regards to self experimentation and research. Especially over someone who is struggling with her weight (and maybe health?), and focused far too much (IMO) solely on pure science.

    The thing I love about you and your content is that you have the perfect blend between science, in the trench experimentation, health, performance and living a great life. A big reason why I have stopped listening to other podcasters and bloggers is they become so caught up with one aspect that you become blind to other areas in life.

    Anyway, keep up the great work. I'm always listening :)

  6. Michaelspsp says:

    I know a lot of GOOD Doctors that disagree with what she says. She is drinking the Koolaid

  7. jax4444 says:

    So much with wrong with her views. Although, I love opposing views to my own, her comments were so weak.

    a) Cancer is rising because we are living longer? What about the rise of cancer in young kids?
    b) All the studies on GMO are safe. Really? Who sponsor theses safe studies? The GMO companies!
    c) Same with her comments on raw milk. Where are all theses studies?
    d) I have a friend that has a strange allergy to sunflower seeds. We can be allergic to ANYTHING!

    And she rags on the food babe for being a publicity hound? It seems that anything is popular and different, she is against.

  8. Graeme_T says:

    I really don't like so called science people who's primary argument is "there are no long term studies that support that". When Creatine Monohydrate was introduced as a strength supplement in the 90's there were no long term studies that supported its use therefore, according to Yvettes logic – it didnt work and people that used or recommended it were full of sh!t….

  9. grasso07 says:

    Ben, would've liked to see you discuss gut health with her and debate her viewpoints a little more. I mean her take on there are no good or bad foods goes against a lot of what you preach. I hope after her hearing how open minded you are allows her to become a little more open minded herself.

  10. hoticeatl says:

    As a practicing Chiropractor for the past 30 years, I was taken back after this podcast!

    Rubbish might have been the best term to describe the benefit to mankind that podcast provided. You should have simply been the moderator for this type of show with 3-4 experts providing debate against this individual. Since Chiropractic was discussed at length, one of the leaders of this great profession should have been allowed to respond. “Glorified massage?” Serious? You suggested that you benefited from SI joint manipulation. Some good docs also provided ART but that was an adjunct. Others sold $200 of nutrition after AK testing or something. I felt your description of Chiropractic was kind of left under the bus! Your show has been a blessing for a long time, please continue your great works and we’ll chalk this podcast up to a simple mistake.

    Regards, Todd

  11. mattowan says:

    Quick N=1 story as ymmv. Years ago was having awful headaches that would come and go. Went to my primary care physician who thought it was migraines. She gave me some medication, but that didn't help at all. I then went to the most well respected neurologist in my area who did some testing, and who couldn't figure out why I was having the headaches. I then went to a chiropractor who did adjustments on me 3x a week. After the first week the headaches went away. Did the chiro fix it? Well, my primary and neurologist certainly didn't. I continued to go for a few more weeks to make sure they didn't' come back, but the Chiro never pressured me into coming back on a regular basis. I've since gone back for rehab on a torn rotator cuff since my particular Chiro has an expertise in that area.

  12. Daz Jones says:

    Ben. Why on Earth did you give this person a platform upon which to propagate her lies? I note that you were respectful of her opinion, but only interjected with truth until 30 odd minutes? Mate. I respect you and your role in educating the population against Empire’s attempt to poison everyone. One of their methods of mind control is ‘science’. Anyone who constantly refers to ‘science’ as it is the alpha, omega, the truth, the way, and the light, is either an idiot, or a part of the agenda. ‘Peer reviewed’…don’t make me laugh. File drawer effect…why does any research need funding? Who provides the funding? What use is ‘science’ when it is controlled and has money as a role. Money is the root of all evil. People are being harmed on purpose by this group. We need leaders to resist such attack. Be light, and confront darkness wherever it presents itself. This person should be hauled before the courts for false advertizing. Sci ‘babe’? I can think of another name that would replace babe that would be more appropriate. A female that accepts money for services to their masters. You can decide what that should be. Everything she said made me feel sick. i wish you had defended truth more vibrantly. Please don’t sell out. There are not many of us left

  13. Todd says:

    Hard to take Sci babe seriously.

    I’m no fan of food babe, but to make such a personal attack as calling someone by name full of shit and then say it’s not personal is ridiculous. Her cowardly backing off of say it’s her website or business practices is even lamer.

    When she stated she is open to everything yet rejected flat out anything you put forth like the coffee aenema showed more of her hypocrisy.

    Not being a scientist myself I have to go with what I can judge and feel that her comments regarding our modified diets are also misguided. Just watch a movie from 60 years ago to see how we have evolved.

    Sorry Ben, this was a waste.

  14. lonely_moa says:

    Fun interview, ta. I quite enjoy coffee enemas myself.

    Anyway, the GE is safe is a total canard, the ultimate straw man. It is the environment that is at risk from such engineering. Nature will have the last laugh.

    There has never been any commercially grown GE wheat. The latest variety (engineered to deter aphids) has just now failed field tests. Hooray.

    We only use raw milk in our house. We trust our Biogrow/Certenz certified supplier. Yvette should use the numbers of deaths and illness caused by unpasteurised milk now, not a hundred years ago. No one has died from raw milk in a vey long time in NZ; not since TB has been controlled in cattle. We won't talk about all the kids that DIE of athsma attacks because they have not been exposed to a few "pathogens" as infants.

    Thanks for your efforts.

    1. kleinbc says:

      I agree with your raw milk comments. In addition, we should also look at the conditions in which the milk was produced. For instance, before pasteurization, cattle were often in very unsanitary living quarters. We shouldn't have been surprised when we weren't healthy as a result of that milk. So when I source my raw milk, I make sure it's from a farmer who is allowing the cattle on pasture, eating only grass, and that their equipment is clean. I would never (knowingly) drink the raw milk from corn fed, confined cattle. If we drank raw milk from modern cattle in CAFO conditions, I think we'd still have issues with it.

  15. Jeanninerenae says:

    "Just look at the language he uses in his blog" I believe that's the pot calling the kettle black…hard to take a "professional" seriously when she calls herself the Science Babe and engages in name calling

  16. kleinbc says:

    I decided to post a comment on one of her articles. Not accusatory or defamatory in any way. It happened to be on one of her anti-vax articles, and I suggested that her use of the anti-vax "movement" was not really a movement since the CDC numbers show that vaccination rates have been consistent for the last 10 years. (At least for vaccines introduced before that time period.) Then I linked to the CDC page that showed that information. The comment has been awaiting moderation for 3 days. She seemed rather adamant that she loved fair discourse. I guess not?

  17. dr_jason_jones says:

    Hey Ben, love your podcasts. I have listened to you for a long time and even had you on my podcast and I can honestly say that you are truly a stand up and humble guy who really cares about the things you speak and write about. However, I can't say that I have heard a more offensive guest on your podcast. It isn't because she attacked something I have devoted my life to (Chiropractic), it is how she basically threw everyone under the bus. I find it interesting when people need a peer-reviewed journal…..or something isn't "scientific". Granted, there are lots of people out there making tons of claims and selling lots of stuff and it comes down to good marketing and preying on peoples emotions and they are doing it in a way that isn't above board.

    Back to her comment on Chiropractic: First of all, I will be the first to say that their are "weirdos and loonies" in my beloved profession……but guess what? you will find that in any field. Their are weird MDs, PTs, LMT's, RNs. You name the profession and you can find people who their colleagues wish they would have never passed their national boards. She basically says that Chiropractic is worthless and is the same as a massage which I am sure offends LMTs much less DC's. First of all, just because you read articles and what someones beliefs are doesn't make you an expert nor does it give you a 100% understanding if something is viable or not. I am also a Christian and if you look at what we believe at face value and picking and choosing different parts of it then we would all look crazy for believing what we believe. Back to Chiropractic, there is more medical literature to back up the basis of Chiropractic than there is Chiropractic research and no there will never be one study and says any type of health care is ever 100%.

    There are always going to be people like this person. To put it simply, "anyone can find fault in anything if they look hard and long enough". It is unfortunate that this person claims to have done all the homework required and is 100% confident in her claims. That is her right, I guess but it doesn't make her statements true.

    I would bet she has never once tried to follow a Chiropractor around and see what they really do, nor has she ever asked to take Dave Asprey out for coffee and have a chat. This must be a really miserable existence for her.

    Anyway, I will keep being a Chiropractor and loving it. Getting up everyday to serve people and assist them when I can and refer them out when I can't.

    Many blessings to you Ben and your family.

  18. Kira_DD says:

    She seemed to be very confused when it came to the whole GMO wheat issue. She was correct when she said that there is no GMO wheat on the market, however wheat HAS been extensively hybridized in the past 50 years or so. Hybridization is when different strains are crossed to generate entirely new characteristics. Hybridization is often difficult to control, and unpredictable and can therefore change the plants' characteristics entirely. She is just as biased as other bloggers, just in a direction most of your listeners aren't usually exposed to.

  19. sonia says:

    far out- hilarious. I’m about a 1/4 of the way through and I’ll definitely listen to the end.. it IS quite funny that she hasn’t done her research and she’s not quite sure what her audience is.. if she’d even taken 1 hour out of her terribly busy press schedule to listen to just one of your podcasts then she would hear that you actually go into some quite interesting studies and you pull them apart when needed (for those of us who do and do not have propeller hats sitting next to us at our desks)..

    I had to get on and look at the comments section though… always good fodder..

    For my part- it’s a real shame that someone who seemingly is educated can say ‘science says it’s so’ and there just leave it at that. I mean, any moron can see that ‘science’ has it’s flaws and continues to display those flaws on a daily basis.. it’s kind of getting comical. To reply on meta-analyses simply means you don’t have the wherewithal to either read all of the studies or comprehend them.. quite frankly it’s a cop-out. Furthermore- she seems like a truly toxic individual. It’s one thing to point out to people that ‘natural’ may not always mean what they think it means but it’s quite another to make a living (if that’s what she is doing… which is apparently debatable…) on just ‘going after’ people who really are trying to make a positive change in this world. It’s no crime to make money in the health field and I think there are always going to be charlatans out there but we’re not all idiots and we can actually make educated decisions too…

    Anyway- Ben- always fun… I’m so glad the dog conversation got diverted b/c just blood gross man!

    :)

  20. Helen Driscoll says:

    Six hours researching and writing a blogpost which attacks a real person’s reputation. That’s some deep research. (which is what SciBabe said she devoted to writing a Weekly Woo takedown)

    Interesting interview with her in April’s LA TImes: http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-…
    They write that she was “… Recently laid off from pesticide manufacturer Amvac Chemical Corp., she had been out of work and almost out of money. Now she was accepting paid speaking engagements and waiting to hear if a television series would be in the offing, too.”

    Amvac Chemical Corp produces pesticides, herbicides and fungicides. List of products:
    http://www.amvac-chemical.com/Product

    On her ‘About Me’ page, she writes: “You just don’t mess with a native Bostonian’s PSL.” But in her LA Times interview, the reporter writes that she is from New Hampshire: “D’Entremont comes from New Hampshire but tells people she’s from nearby Boston, where she attended college. She has a Red Sox tattoo but wouldn’t show it off because, she noted, she wasn’t wearing underwear.

    “Oh, wow, you’re going to print that,” she said, wondering aloud how her chemist boyfriend of two months would react. A nanosecond later, she said, “Maybe it’ll get me 30,000 new guy fans!”‘

    I wonder who is marketing themselves opportunistically?

  21. vanessa9876 says:

    This woman is just another Internet troll. I found the whole conversation unfortunate. Ben thank you for owning the fact that you do coffee enemas but if you were only doing it for peristalsis you wouldn't be using coffee. Clearly you are doing it for your liver health, I was disappointed that you weren't willing to go there and hold your ground with this woman.

    1. Honestly, there were SO many times I wanted to take a deeper dive, but we were pressed for time!

    2. kleinbc says:

      When listening to her rip on coffee enemas before Ben jumped in, I was totally thinking, oh, she obviously didn't do her research, because Ben totally does coffee enemas. Made me laugh.

  22. Isabelle says:

    I happen to know how some natural flavoring can also be made by genetically modifying Pichia Pastoris (a type of yeast) for example to make “natural” flavor as opposed to chemically derived. Natural flavor = GMO! Is it good or bad? To be honest I don’t think we can say it is bad yet…

  23. Alex says:

    This is a good recent article that Mercola just published on GMOs and those that are dusted with glyphosate in particular. It might help educate Yvette a bit:
    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archiv…

  24. Anita Hall says:

    I’m sorry, but every time she said, “it just doesn’t work that way” made me so upset. It would have been helpful if she could tell us, ignorant fools, exactly how it does “work” so that maybe we could learn something.

  25. Brian Klein says:

    Really interesting interview. I enjoyed the back and forth that you guys had, but like many others have pointed out she came off as not entirely knowing her stuff. For instance, when she said that no wheat is not GMO, she should really know and be able to back it up with a better answer than that’s what her friends blogs have said. And maybe that’s just her skill as an interviewee and not that she doesn’t know what she’s talking about.

    Outside of that, what bugs me about all the “pro-science” crowd is that they go parading around like all the science we have in 2015 is correct. Case closed. And that anyone who might think GMOs or whatever is unsafe is completely wrong or “anti-science.” When in fact, most people who are “anti-science,” are actually just looking at the science in a different way and drawing scientific opinions from the data differently. I’d argue that science can never be definitively correct, because we are always studying and learning. Today’s science always seems to be disproving yesterday’s science. So while science based arguments are great and helpful, we can never lean on them as 100% truth, as the “pro-science” crowd seems bent on.

  26. nicky says:

    Careful Ben,

    Don’t want too many opposing views. Might get some reasonable thinking on the podcast. Instead of inferring “optimized” aka (perfect) protocols from preliminary and sketchy reasearch.

    Wheat gmo info:
    http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/less…

    BTW why would you want to poo like a baby? Seems developmentally inappropriate and unhealthy.

  27. bigleagueautism says:

    I'm always a little skeptical of the overly skeptical…

  28. Angie says:

    I was pretty excited to listen to this one as I read some of Food Babe’s stuff. I don’t agree with everything she does and I don’t like some of the marketing techniques like telling us we are eating yoga mats because and ingredient in them is also in a food. But she does have some useful stuff. I take what resonates with me and leave the rest. I do the same with Ben and others. Bens got a lot of great stuff but I just can’t buy into the coffee enemas :) I appreciate in Ben and some of the commenters the professionalism. No one is perfect or has all the answers. I don’t understand dismissing the value in what someone says because they had to look something up. I consider it responsible and respectful of my time and attention.

  29. Eric says:

    It is easy be at least slightly skeptical of some of the advertising disguided as “research” in the health industry these days. That being said, I will take my n=1 over your conventional science any day. Your responsibility is to see for yourself what works and what is fantasy. Either we live in an age of collective delirium fueled by the internet or we are just finding out that a lot of folks have similar anecdotal evidence that a high fat diet seems to make be a big impact on their lives. Let’s leave the swear words and name calling to the attention seekers. Thanks Ben for staying cool during this interview.

  30. Hal says:

    There are a lot of writers that I highly admire. I’ve read “Beyond Fitness” and have the highest admiration for you, as well as, Dave Asprey, Dr. Jack Kruse, Dr. Joel Wallach, and too many others that I have space to mention. Sadly I can’t say the same for Evette. I was only able to get thru half the interview. I think she’s like an Ann Coulter of food& health, but with less class and less knowledge. I also think she is a negative on the scene.

    “Science” is great; it gave us statins and the std American diet and other nice things that wreak havoc on the populace, but make billions for the in-crowd. I’d rather have what works instead. Sometimes “science” and what works are aligned and sometimes – not.

    Hopefully, she will eventually read enough to become a positive influence.

  31. McKeehan says:

    Hi Ben,

    I’m glad you had her on the show. I’m a scientist, and from the point of view of people I am around; Food Babe, Anti-GMO’ers, Anti-Vax’ers all don’t know what they are talking about. They are in the same realm of Dr. Oz.

    I think it would be interesting to get Yvette, yourself, Asprey, and Peter Attia all together to talk about one topic, like nutritional ketosis, to get deep into a topic and possibly come to some consensus.

  32. William says:

    I appreciate Yvette’s work. We always need to fact check whatever we believe in. I’ve read her gawker article and I appreciate her taking the time to investigate things that bring unnecessary scare to people.

    However I think her articles, at least those she guest-wrote (I haven’t read her blog entirely to know how she writes at her home court), seems to end with just criticism. For the most part, it looks like she throws the baby with the bathwater with her articles, even though in this podcast, she does seem to know the merits of something (e.g. when she said she probably eats very much like the food babe).

    I now wonder how Yvette guards herself from rejecting everything including the useful stuff about the things she exposes.

    For example, when you, Ben, came out that you do use coffee enemas, not as treatment for cancer, but as a laxative. She didn’t even hear that. There are many things that may claim superfluous things, but that doesn’t mean that there’s no value in them. I just wished she also investigates what things might be useful for rather than just reject them outright. After all scientific proofs have also been erroneous. Nutrition science was wrong about eggs and fat, and the FDA is about to retract what they said about that.

    Again, I do appreciate her efforts to really get to the bottom of things. But I think it would make her a better scientist to have a more rounded view of things. She seems nicer on the interview than she does in her articles.

  33. Ben Wargny says:

    I liked this interview. I didn’t buy into all that she had to say, though she did have some good points. I was happy to hear Ben interject his own thoughts here and there when they were contradictory to what she was saying.

    I didn’t tune into this particular podcast or any other ones looking for somebody to give me a script on how to live or eat. And I’m not immediately turned off when somebody has to scramble a bit to get an answer out as there not just reading off something prepared.

    At some points she struggled to clarify her points and at others she nailed it.

    There are a lot of so called experts, bloggers and podcasters who go around picking off all the low hanging fruit, telling us that Subway and Burger King use bad ingredients. No shit, you don’t say. How much of mine or anybody’s effort should go into forcing a chain restaurant that I have no plans of visiting to use better ingredients. And then raise your hands up proclaiming we changed the world. Whose world?

    Or some tech millionaire who lost 90lbs discovering new hacks and foods and ways to increase his brain power through coconut oils. Then tells me I gotta buy his products to get the same results that he got before his products were ever around. And if you can swing it, buy my standing vibrator and you’ll never have to do another squat.

    I’m glad Ben brings people on that may go in the face of his own claims. Only through disagreements will we come to a useable conclusion. If everybody only associated with those who say yes to us and ignore everyone else who contradicts, then we’ve compromised what it is to be a free thinking human.

    I appreciate all you do Ben, even when it frustrates me, or occasionally drifts into shit that is simply out of my pay grade.

    Sure, it feels good when somebody confirms what i already know, or tells me I’m right. But I feel alive when I’m told no, or when I could be wrong.

    Thank you

    1. Great comment, Ben Wargny. I couldn’t agree more.

      Ben G, I commend you on the choice of guest. I personally lean more towards alternative medicine (whatever that means these days) but both sides have serious flaws.

      Nate

  34. HealthSpartan says:

    Ben – I struggle with something and am curious to hear your perspective. Yvette and other "science" based folks seem to regularly use DEATH as the main marker for their measuring stick. While survival rate might be a good way to measure the outcome of a Spartan Race… I'm not sure it's a good way to measure the optimization of human performance.

    How do you feel about the use of death and sickness as a markers for health/nutrition/wellness opinions?

    I frequently find people with poor health tend to focus on death and disease. I'd like to help more people but get stuck when conversations about health focus on death avoidance rather than on optimizing human performance.

    1. I 100% agree: I am more focused on optimization of performance and ultimate longevity rather than simply "absence of disease".

  35. ffirestine says:

    I was reminded of something else when I saw the some of the titles on Yvette's posts. I watched the first few episodes of Penn & Teller's series Bullsh*t, which pre-dates a lot of the "clickbait" websites by about 10 years. According to Wikipedia (and my recollection), they used obsscenity as a legal tactic, because it was safer to call someone a mean name than to say they were a fraud.

  36. ffirestine says:

    Hi Ben! I check for new podcasts every couple of weeks on average, but I happened to sync my iPod today, and look what I found! I was so excited, because I emailed you about Yvette weeks ago as a good interview subject. I started following her on Facebook after the Gawker article, just to see "How the other half lives" so to speak when it comes to the debate about science and health. Not to say there is a debate about researching effective health strategies, but there are strong and weak arguments along the spectrum. I will continue to follow both of you and learn whatever I can. Thanks for a great conversation, and with a fellow Canadian (even better)!

  37. RedSpeye says:

    It's really amazing to me how many of the commenters claim that science supports their Anti-GMO or GMO "skeptic" views, while providing bad or no evidence, and accuse the skeptics doing it right of being dogmatic and misinformed. Instead of associating Big Business with an automatic correlation to poisonous foods and additives, why not suspend these assumptions and do the actual work of researching what you're spouting, guys. The only thing I find worse than pseudo-intellectuals getting things wrong is when those same people try and dictate how other people ought to engage in skepticism. By the way, you pretty much kill your own case when you proudly declare a belief in mandatory toxins being injecting into the populous.

  38. getrippedGranpa says:

    I noticed some of the comments complaining that you had her on the podcast? I love the fact you aren't afraid to have guests on who may disagree with you and your opinions. It is extremely important to hear everyone's point of view. I love the fact she called out The Food Babe and Aspery, let's be honest everyone is selling something. Aspery has become like Dr Mercola, where everything is killing you but they have the one and only organic pure product to fix that problem. Joe Rogan called Dave out on his coffee BS! She made some good points, but I have to say that Europe labels GMO's so why can't we? She does say quite often " I think " ? We are all an experiment of one and what works for her or you may not work for me. Keep up the good work, we need to hear as many opinions on health and well being as we can, their isn't an exact science to this and we are all just trying to figure it out!

  39. PattiBealer says:

    I just found it interesting that she said there is nothing wrong with wheat, and has Celiac disease. She also threw out that the Gerson Therapy is a scam because people with cancer die, as if no one that follows conventional therapy dies. She indicated that many studies have been done on all the food items in our food supply; that meta-analysis are valid science, and infers that if scientists believe it, it must be true. She needs to follow the money and see who sponsors all that "science". My favorite is when she talked about fad diets and threw out the "low fat diet". Uh, that is the one diet "agreed upon" by "all scientists and studies". It just happens to be…uh…WRONG!!
    Ben, I think you did a great job interviewing her and agreeing with her valid points. I also love to hear all sides of the issues, so I could appreciate some of her points. I do agree that people need to think things through and over simplifying things may not be such a great idea, however, it is how we mere mortals pay attention nowadays with all the information coming at us all at once. Thanks again.

    1. fittenor says:

      I also wanted to point out that people do die from standard cancer treatments as well.

  40. johane777 says:

    Yvette believes that science is the holy grail. Unfortunately, there are human limitations to our science. We've never been in such a disastrous environment, and surrounded by so much food-like substances…that most of us ate most of our lives. Right now, for most of us, N=1 is the only real answer. We can take recommendations here and there but after all is said and done, what works for each of us is the only right answer. Ben, if your coffee enemas work, keep doing them! For me, at this point in my life, I can't even drink coffee because it causes me heart palpitations. However, I still believe that Dave Asprey is extremely knowledgeable and worth looking into!!! Just as the Food Babe. She might not have it all right. But, I believe that the risks of GMOs is not for me…I don't want to be a guinea pig!!!

  41. BadPaullie says:

    Enjoyed the interview Ben thank you! Well done for the open attitude to different viewpoints!
    Personally I found her points and issues quite weak, surprisingly uninformed and unnecessarily critical of others who are just trying to promote greater health in the World, thank goodness we have you Ben, who is equally scientific but also open to the possibility that maybe, just maybe mainstream science hasn't solved all the mysteries of the universe yet!
    Thank you sir!

  42. Jennifer says:

    I am not a farmer or a self-proclaimed expert on GMOs; I am simply a consumer who has read extensively on this topic causing my BS meter to go off frequently during your guest’s discussion of this topic. One deception really stood out for me. Your guest cried foul over the fact that organic farmers use Bt on their crops, arguing therefore that BtGMO crops can be considered to be perfectly safe as well. If she is going to present the science, first she should point out the organic farmers used Bt BEFORE commercial farmers because synthetic pesticides were inefective. Then perhaps she should clarify that Bt is a bacterium that is SPRAYED ON crops in organic agriculture, while in GMO crops it is ENGINEERED INTO the genetic material of the plant. There is simply no comparison to a bacterium that is able to be washed off vs one that in inherent to the food being consumed and being fed to the animals humans consume. She also claimed that “farmers love GMOs”. Well, clearly not all farmers do, so should we presume those who do are right and those who don’t are wrong? Should we not presume that people who have farmed the land, often for generations are more reliable than she is when they oppose the use of GMOs? Below is an article with more information

    http://organicgrowersschool.org/685/ask-ruth-expl…

  43. Toymner says:

    I'm all for opposing viewpoints and someone that can challenge the science. However, she was unable to articulate much of anything with regards to her views. I have to assume she is a better writer than she is a speaker.

  44. james says:

    She would probably make a very good politician jugging, by all the dirt she throws at others in her industry. I can support GMOs as a tool to abolish world hunger. But, I hate the fact that consumers aren’t told what products contain GMO’s. How is it even legal? Also Ben for my non rhetorical question, is CBD oil legal in South Florida?

    1. Yes, CBD is legal in South Florida. And regarding legality of GMO's…*sigh*, there's not a whole lot we can do at this point ASIDE from do as good a job as possible growing as much of our own food as we can, and using farmer's markets, CSA's, etc. instead of big ag or commercial farms.

  45. Ron says:

    Bummed that these types of guests are showing up on your podcast Ben. It must have seemed like a good idea for ratings but we are relying on you to have some judgement to curate your podcast guests. Anyone that claims they have a monopoly on the truth or science and then name calls to gain publicity is simply not worth listening to. Unfortunately, i wasted my time listening to her and after 3 years listening to you Ben, I am done. Good luck finding better topics, you are not the only one suffering from this.

    1. Ron, I don't "ban" guests, ban commenters, ban listeners, etc. I think she made some excellent points, she also made some faulty points, and I think the podcast did a good job giving a balanced view of all the opinions, including the fact that I'd readily welcome Dave Asprey or Vani Hari on the show to present their viewpoints.

      1. ffirestine says:

        After following Yvette's Facebook page for a few weeks, where she shares many items and gives brief comments for or against, I can see where she has her own biases, of course, but she also makes good points that calling something "natural" or "healthy" does not always make it so.

  46. Josie says:

    While I agree that some of what The Food Babe and Dave Asprey say is false, I would like to comment on something that Yvette said. I happen to be severely allergic to most nuts (but not peanuts, almonds, or macadamias thank God) and sesame seeds, and regular mushrooms to the point where I get anaphylaxis with the nuts and sesame and severe dizziness with regular mushrooms. I want to remind her that you can be allergic to ANYTHING, ANYTHING AT ALL. Just because it is not a popular allergy does not mean you can’t be allergic to it (or a whole class of related allergens) or that the reason you react doesn’t seem logical (hey the body knows even if we rationally can’t understand it right away). In some cases I find that it is the medium that things grow on that is the cause of some of my allergies. For instance, I used to be able to eat button mushrooms and then all of the sudden I became super sensitive to them (which totally baffled me cause I loved them). I think (but cannot prove) that growers started growing them on a different medium. When I heard about medicinal mushrooms from the David Wolfe people, I was hesitant to try them…but something told me it would be OK. I tried them and found that they really helped me. That is what got me wondering if it was a medium growing issue I was really having with the mushrooms. Then one day I was eating almonds (which I am not allergic to) and I was reacting like I had had a nut I am allergic to. I kept tabs on the packages and read them every 6 months to see if something on the label had changed and lo and behold I found my body was reacting to a true allergen – the almonds had been roasted with hazelnut oil. So just because a person says they react to something and you cannot prove what it is right away, it is best to take them at their word for it.

  47. Grnibtrfly says:

    Hey Ben,
    I am very disappointed as well by this speaker you chose to interview. I agree with Scottyc33, and she uses the word is “I think” a lot, and she needs to look things up during your interview. I absolutely don’t agree that GMO’s are safe, wheat is GMO, it is being sold, vaccines are filled with toxins, and I can’t believe she seems to advocate them…

    I’m curious as to what it was about her that made you choose to interview her??

    I really don’t feel like she understands what health truly is…

    Thanks for trying though, but I wouldn’t have aired her interview.

      1. Richard says:

        Dear Ben,

        For a fitness expert you are a very good analyst, and as you say, Vani Hari should be given a chance to defend herself. The good thing about her is that she is an activist that goes after big companies to pressure them to remove the harmful chemicals out of their products. She is doing this dirty job at our place and should be supported. As for GMOs and vaccines, I think Yvette d’Entremont should improve her research skills. If we make a google search of ‘vaccines problems’, we quickly find Dr Sherri Tenpenny. She is so strong at denouncing the dangers of vaccines that vaccines supporters don’t want to hear her at all. If we make a google search of ‘GMO problems’, we quickly find Jeffrey Smith who denounces the harmful effects of glyphosate for which these crops have been engineered. They are both experts in their field and have all the data to prove it. Not to mention Joseph Mercola who employs a huge team of researchers to keep us up to date on health issues. And similarly Mike Adams, and Josh Axe. Yvette is having a go at Vani, but I don’t think she is better than her at researching, which comes down to basically one thing: asking the right question.

      2. ricvac12 says:

        Dear Ben,
        For a fitness expert you are a very good analyst, and as you say, Vani Hari should be given a chance to defend herself. The good thing about her is that she is an activist pressuring the big companies to remove the harmful chemicals from their food products. She is doing this dirty job at our place and we should support or at least appreciate her work. As for vaccines and GMOs, I think Yvette d'Entremont should improve her research skills. If we make a google search of 'vaccines problems', we quickly find Sherri Tenpenny who is so strong at denouncing the dangers of vaccines that the vaccines supporters are afraid to talk to her. And if we make a google search of 'GMOs problems', we quickly find Jeffrey Smith who is denouncing the harmful effects of glyphosate that these crops have been engineered for. Both are top experts in their field with all the data to prove it. Not to mention Joseph Mercola, Mike Adams, and Josh Axe, to name just a few, who are doing a huge work at keeping us updated on health issues. So to say like Yvette that one cannot find any proofs against these controversial issues is likely to miss the basic point about research, which is to ask the right question.

  48. Jasmelacosta says:

    I'm laughing just to imagine your face (Ben) during the podcast. Your face and pulling your hair…..

  49. Scottyc33 says:

    Ben – I think it's good that you bring multiple perspectives to your podcast. While I haven't listened to the podcast yet, personally I am not inclined to take (health) advice from folks that find it necessary to engage in name-calling / hateful language when arguing a point.
    A lot of these so-called "science" websites essentially have the same approach in using similar straw-man arguments and cherry-picking data to make their points. The name-calling and hateful language may be good for attracting similar unhappy folks to their website, but at the same time it reveals a lot about them.

    After a cursory review of her blog – I find it interesting that she:
    – brags about eating non-organic and GMOs
    – has celiac disease
    – has trouble controlling her weight
    – gets vaccine boosters for the measles
    – doesn't seem to at all consider that these choices and her poor health could in fact be related
    – apparently has never heard of a vaccine injured child
    paraphrasing a quote on her site: "fucking fuck anti-vaxxers"
    – argues in black and white terms ie "anti-science", "anti-vax" – does not bother to define these terms
    – her only credentials seem to be a Bachelor's in Chemistry (although she does not state from where)

    So Ben, what I would say is that if you want to offer up opposing viewpoints to what you've had on the show in the past, I think you can find better guests than this.

    Taking a page from her book – don't give shitty people a microphone.

    1. jmills616 says:

      Thanks Scottyv33 for the run down. I'll not waist my time with this interview. This person clearly has "Obsessive Debunking Disorder*" and needs help.

      *We have all encountered them. The men and women of 'reason'. The self-appointed guardians and vanguards of materialist dogma along with their absolute faith and belief in official government and corporate press releases. The debunker, the hardcore skeptic—how they love to compulsively ridicule and mock all they deem 'pseudoscience' and 'conspiracy theory'—while also declaring anyone who thinks outside the box or questions the prevailing orthodoxy, a "moron" and a "tard".

      Are Hardcore Skeptics and Debunkers Actually Brain Deficient? Their Own Beloved 'Hard Science' Might Well Suggest Many Are. http://thomassheridanarts.com/articles.php?articl…

  50. MAR says:

    Me again!

    Yvette: you said that BT toxins are also used as an organic pesticide in organic farming: toxic to bugs but traces from eating organic produce or GM is not toxic to humans.. can you link to the evidence? Thanks!

    Ben – can you please link to the GM bananas in Africa to combat undernutrition, how interesting!

      1. MAR says:

        Much appreciated, Ben :-)

    1. Aletta says:

      Hi, I earned a MSc. in Plant Breeding from Wageningen University (Netherlands) in 1995, where I learned how to make GMO plants, but became skeptical about GMO's later – among others due to learning more about the consequences of the cultivation of glysofate resistant soy esp. in South America – seeing many reports on birth defects in kids born close to the plane-sprayed fields, as well as in farm animals in Europe that were raised on GMO soy (which has been shown to contain glysophate residues). So far GMOs have only have brought us crops that are tailored for big monocultures, which are damaging in itself irrespectively of being GMO or not.
      The BT bacteria were indeed already used in crop protection in organic farming before GMO's appeared – which is something else as using the isolated toxin!! If I remember correctly from my studies, it has never become a big success because the bacteria are easily rinsed away by rain making the treatment inefficient, and also it takes time before the bacteria kill the pest-insects, so they can still do damage in the meantime.
      In both the glysopate and BT case, weeds and pest insects are already developing resistance, increasing the use of herbicide and insectisides again…

      1. sheila says:

        I had never heard of the food babe or the sci babe prior to this podcast……perhaps that’s because I’m too busy doing my own research and study on these topics to waste my time listening to the opinions of either of these self-proclaimed experts.

        First of all, where does she get the idea that “Starbucks is bigger than Monsanto”. That may be the only proof we need to rightfully say Sci-babe makes up facts as she sees fit.

        Secondly, does a Paleolithic diet really need a scientific double blind study to prove it?

        I think it’s safe to say that human evolution and anthropology may be enough evidence of how humans were designed to eat.

        And lastly, maybe she should actually read the individual articles that are included in the “meta-analyses” that she reads rather than basing her opinions on the assessment of the authors of said analyses.

        I am a doctor of physical therapy with a degree in Health Science/ Physiolgy from Boston University, a Certified Exercise Physiologist with ACSM and a Functional Medicine practitioner who is educated by the Institute for Functional Medicine. I know my stuff to say the least….and it was incredibly frustrating to hear someone speak who obviously knows so little about what she’s talking about!

        Even I refer mt patients to chiropractors as appropriate. Sci-Babe obviously does not have any scientific understanding of how the neurological system works…..or the endocrine system for that matter! And for the record, sugar is not just calories….insulin is a hormone….and a huge regulator of body chemistry. Sugar does not just make one fat. It has the ability, when overconsumed, to disrupt ones hormones and affect brain chemistry. I would be curious to see Sci-babes current reading list! Her you go sci-babe, I’ll start you out with a few of my favorite recommendations:-

        1. Why is my brain not working- dr.datis karazzian

        2. The paleo approach- reverse autoimmune disease- dr. Sara ballantyne

        3. Grain brain- dr. Perlmutter

        Maybe you should spend more of your time learning from people with a medical background (notice the “dr” before all of their names), rather than waste it trying to debunk anpther self-proclaimed guru like yourself.

        Oh by the way, that first book is written by a chiropractor….a really really smart, well educated one that spends his time actually reading the research on these topics.

        I should have turned that podcast off once she started rambling on about her stinky dog…..but I was quickly sucked back in when Ben redirected her. I commend you Ben on your ability to remain professional during this one. That was hard to swallow. Thanks again Ben for providing me with solid entertainment to make my car ride tolerable!

        1. Steve James says:

          Excellent review. This was a painful interview to listen to I kept looking at the time hoping it would be over. This “Science Babe” is just another snarky ammeter skeptic trying to make a name for herself by spewing nonsense. I’d give you a “thumbs up” for your review but it appears that option has been removed.

      2. Bruce Wacker says:

        Aletta, could you clarify something for me? I’ve heard that gene splicing is a far from precise process, that inserting one gene or set of genes for BT, for instance, can have all sorts of unintended consequences throughout the organism. What do you say?

      3. wackerb says:

        Hi Aletta,
        This post may be a duplicate. If so, sorry but I wonder if you could answer a question for me?
        I've heard that gene splicing is not a precise process and inserting the gene(s) for BT, for instance, can have unexpected effects throughout the organism. Do you agree?

  51. MAR says:

    Ben – What an interesting exchange! I'd like to see the scientific opinion on GMOs not being on the market, first time I hear that claim. Yvette, you mentioned you saw it on a friend's blog, perhaps you could share it? Thanks!

    1. Aletta says:

      Hi, she only said there is no GMO wheat approved for market (yet), there are plenty of other GMO crops on the market. Monsanto did create roundup-ready wheat and had permission to field test in in 16 states from 1998 to 2005. In 2013 an Oregon State University scientist that initial tests of wheat samples from an Oregon farm indicated the possible presence of GE glyphosate-resistant wheat plants: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/2013/05/ge_whe… The article said there are no GE wheat varieties approved for sale or in commercial production in the United States or elsewhere at that time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *