Kevin Folta, a critic of the Food Babe, has been sent a list of demands for his email correspondence under the Freedom Of Information Act. I’m all in favor of transparency, and I can see where FOIA requests can be used to uncover conspiracy or expose intent, but this is a case where Folta has been outspoken and up-front: he thinks Vani Hari is a quack. You don’t need a shadowy paymaster and ulterior motives to explain why a scientist would publicly explain that someone said something that is scientifically wrong.
I also don’t need to rifle through her correspondence to figure out why she’s making these demands, nor does Kevin Folta.
This is all pretty simple. Vani Hari is a self-consumed amateur that is determined to discredit her critics. Why? She sits atop a multi-million dollar empire of corporate slander and internet sales. Why would she possibly exploit expensive public records requests to delve into the emails of a professor dedicated to public education?
Because he teaches facts, and more facts translate to fewer profits for Vani.
So instead of meeting him head-on about the science in a visible and public space, she uses a public records request to sneak a peek through his private correspondence in the hopes of… not sure what.
I’ve been there. I’ve gotten a few FOIA requests myself, and every time they’ve been trivial and pointless, and I wonder what the heck they expect to find. Receipts from George Soros sending hundreds of thousands of dollars to my PayPal account? Spirit commands from Saul Alinsky? Private confessions that the pseudoscience I’m critiquing is valid, but I have to publicly deride it, or the Little People will acquire the Vast Power only I should have at my fingertips?
I think part of it is vanity. They want evidence that the scientist is sitting there seething and writing frantic screeds to all of their friends talking about the quack. In that sense I’ve always shattered the ego of the FOIA pests: typically I’ve only found small handfuls of email that meet their search criteria, and most of the results are accidental.
Vani Hari wants all of Folta’s email that mentions the word “Babe”. It’s not a term I use much, but I checked my email: I’ve got 9 messages that use the word. A grand total of 1 is about Food Babe (someone sent me a link to a parody…there was no money involved, darn it).
You know you are the one on the right side of the issue, the one with integrity and facts, when you have to resort to this shite instead of, you know, showing with facts that your position is actually right.
What an awful human being that Vani Hari is…
It says a lot about Hari that the word she apparently associates her body of work with is “babe”, and not “food”. It makes it pretty transparently clear what *she* thinks she’s all about.
At least she understands that she’s selling her image, and not discussions on food.
From now on I’m referring to everyone as ‘Food Babe’. Stick that in your pipe Vani.
Since when can one make a FOIA request of a private individual? The FOIA applies to the Federal Government, and perhaps to other government entities. I was totally unaware that it applied to anyone else.
re @4:
Good point. Same here.
FOIA as I understood it was a law to keep the government transparent to prevent secret machinations from tyrannizing the people. Or so I understood it. Perhaps FOIA has become the generic term for the ‘summons-for-info’ previously used under the term “due diligence”. IANAL so my free legal advice is worth every penny.
He’s a professor at a university that receives public funding. That’s enough to qualify as a valid target for a FOIA request.
re @4, 5, 6:
Yep. The university email accounts of employees at public universities are subject to FOIA requests. The first big one that I can remember was 5-10 years ago at UW-Madison.
This is how certain troublemakers managed to find “evidence” of the grand conspiracy to “cook the books” known as ClimateGate.
What usually happens is the FOIA target discloses tons of emails, the requestor finds five or ten statements that are incriminating when presented in the wrong context, and then the requestor writes up a dossier summarizing their misappropriation and this is widely reported. Nobody ever bothers to go through the original emails to try to figure out what was actually said, either because they don’t have the time or they lack the specialist knowledge to understand what’s being discussed.
Transparency is overrated. In practice it leaves public institutions accountable to interest group blackmail.
And of COUSE the Food Babe doesn’t want to have a scientific argument, her concern is public relations and “trust”, the science is beside the point. For the Food Babe and her fans, food paranoia is just an extension of their underlying distrust of the corporations making the food– that food might actually be unhealthy isn’t as important as the moral message that “we can’t trust THEM (Cargill, Monsanto, the scientific establishment) with our health.”
So naturally she’d assume her critics are adulterated in the same way.
Yes — all the FOIA requests to me have been for contents of my university account. I pretty much only use that for university correspondence, student email, etc (and if you email that address, you’re going to find yourself sorted to the very bottom of the priorities unless you yourself have a umn.edu address.)
I confine all my money laundering and conspiratorial planning and sexting to my personal gmail account.
Re. 8 – well actually the ClimateGate emails were stolen from a hacked server at the University of East Anglia, not obtained through a freedom of information request. But the rest of the process you describe is pretty much exactly right. It was really unedifying watching people getting angry about emails which they hadn’t read and certainly didn’t understand.
It ain’t you, Babe, no, no, no, it ain’t you, Babe, it ain’t you in my e-mail!
Why would she want emails discussing a movie about a pig? Or possibly the Sultan of Swat, or Stan Laurel’s partner?
I suggest everyone add a header to their e-mail envelope along the lines of:
X-FoodBabe-Is-An-Eejit: Vani Hari is an extremely stoopid litigious moronA minor problem is any valid FOIA would mean you’d have to send the anti-science anti-rationality fool more-or-less all the e-mail you send.
I can imagine that this is an effective marketing ploy to her followers. She’s going after the big ones to expose the truth. There has to be a lot of money involved.
Kevin was on the latest League of Nerds podcast talking about this, linkage here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_ycak58Jgc
He brings up a depressing point: These attacks are forcing people out of public science institutes like Universities for fear of ending up in the same position. This is not a good thing.
Huh. I thought FOIA requests could cost the requestor customary and usual fees for reproducing the materials. If that was the case, then Folta’s university will get partially reimbursed, right?
Jesus Rollerblading Christ, why every time you criticize quacks it is ALWAYS because you are in the purse of Big Powers That Be?
Really there can’t possibly be any other reason?
I hate humanity.
Regardless of whether the Food Babe is a crank or not, she seems in my reading to have raised some legitimate questions which – again, in my reading of the available info online – have been met with little more than ad hominem attacks from Folta and his supporters and not actually answered in substance. The article which PZ links to by Folta is full of attacks on her and her work with no answer to some of her key claims. For example, while it is clear that Folta has links with Monsanto – however legitimate and reasonable and indirect they may be, and notwithstanding the fact that he now acknowledges them – he apparently has frequently denied these connections in the past. IF the Food Babe claimed “he has a working relationship with Monsanto”, and if Folta’s response has often been “I most certainly do not”, and she finds through FOIA request or however that he in actual fact does, isn’t that notable?
And this comment by Folta:
…is blatant, cowardly ad hominem: “she is self consumed and amateur, therefore she knows nothing” yadda yadda yadda.
Maybe I’ve missed his presentations of actual substantive evidence directly addressing her claims, rather than simple “she’s amateur therefore obviously wrong” fuckwittery, but she seems to have called him out on a certain amount of bullshit and his response is lacking, I’d love to be disabused of this notion if I’m wrong.
Also, this from Folta:
…seems just plain daft. Maybe the system in the US is entirely different to here in Europe, but over here FOIA is intended to ensure that any taxpayer, for any reason, can ask any pertinent question about publicly-funded work at any time. I have been subject to a dozen FOIA requests myself in the past 25 years, and as tedious and time-consuming as they sometimes can be (like the questions from some anti-GMO groups that seemed to try to ascertain whether I was in fact a farmer of GMO rice – while I was working in County fucking Roscommon in the Irish midlands), they are part of the job, like filling in timesheets and writing performance reviews. You expect to have to respond to FOIA requests, because it is a contractual obligation that comes with accepting taxpayers’ money to pay for my salary and / or my research equipment.
Anyway, TL:DR – Food Babe asked questions, and Folta saying “she’s wrong because she is a poopyhead” is what I see as a response, and I am less than convinced. Other insight to correct me is gladly received.
I can see how FOIA would be hard to reform. Charging the requester anything more than a minimal fee, for instance the actual cost to procure the request, will be a barrier for those who don’t have the means and are probably the people who need FOIA the most (the citizens of Ferguson). Independent judicial review of requests before being granted might help, at least the requester would have to make a convincing case that there’s something legitimate to go after. That would add to the public cost of FOIA. We could have something similar to anti-SLAPP for frivolous FOIA requests where the privacy of the person targeted is unduly harmed by the FOIA, outside of any “public good”. For instance, if Hari reveals that Folta had an affair, he could sue and expect to win. But he couldn’t sue (and expect to win) if Hari reveals that Monsanto provided Folta with a bank account in the Cayman Islands in return for pro-GMO propaganda (even if the propaganda represents the scientific consensus). But, there’s plenty of grey in between, like revealing that he was sexually harassing students a la Colin McGinn. Or emailing a former colleague, who is now working as a Monsanto PR rep, a link to his blog post debunking the latest anti-GMO argument. Though, giving the target of the FOIA any power to strike back could have a silencing effect when the target is rich/powerful (i.e. not a professor) and the requester doesn’t have the means to fight back. I guess we’ll need to fix the judicial system so it’s not simply a play toy for the well off.
Has the ACLU said/done much on this?
I guess that any public employee who can be subject to an FOIA should be very cautious when using work email.
What claims on her part that have been substantiated by third party evidence? Without her presenting something other than opinion, there is is nothing substantial to refute. As has been said for millennia, “that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”.
mudpuddles
It’s as if you have not read the actual article, but as a reminder, the FOIA request is for emails concerning the following key words:
– Vani Hari
– Vani
– Hari
– FoodBabe
– FoodBabe.com
– Babe
NOWHERE does she asks for emails containing Monsanto or other keywords that might reveal a connection between Folta and Monsanto. FoodBabe just seeks to uncover bad things said about her in emails, that’s all. Your entire fantasy scenario is not supported by reality.
@ mudpuddles #18
Is Hari a quack? Has she been refuted other than by ad hominem attacks?
Perhaps you could read:
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/vani-hari-a-k-a-the-food-babe-the-jenny-mccarthy-of-food/
or
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/02/12/the-food-babe-there-is-just-no-acceptable-level-of-any-chemical-to-ingest-ever/
There are lots, which makes me ask, why does she not defend her views with references to studies, literature or research? Some effort on her part is called for. Not so much by scientists who oppose her, if she is, for example, complaining about too much nitrogen in the air, put there by cheapo airlines.
http://www.crosbyreport.com/blog/2014/11/ex-flight-attendant-pwns-food-babe-with-actual-airplane-science
or complaining that Folta might have had some contributions from Monsanto to his expenses while traveling to educate, but it is fine for her to sell products which she decries as dangerous.
https://badscidebunked.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/food-babe-selling-toxic-product-nutiva-chia-seeds/
After this kind of behavior and crap science, I am not shocked to hear that some people dismiss her out of hand. In my opinion, she is just fishing and hoping that somehow she can make herself look good.
Yeah, she’s fishing, but in a tainted pool, given Folta’s activities. I’m rooting for injuries.
I don’t think accepting 25K from a biotech company, which was publicly disclosed, for educational outreach involving the presentation of true and accurate information about science constitutes a tainted pool. Or where you referencing different activities?
@mudpuddles #18:
Well, Roscommon is wet enough…
Jackson @24: “publicly disclosed”? Not until compelled. Indeed, Folta testified, after he got the grant, that he got “nothing from Monsanto.” He can weasel around technicalities (they don’t fund his work, just his
publicityeducational efforts) but really. He did another tap-dance around the retraction of the Seralini paper. I am sure he is sincere in his opinions, but I for one cannot listen to or read him without trying to tease out the loopholes. That’s what I mean by “tainted.”Yeah, the disclosure thing is a problem.
Speaking as someone who gets regularly accused to be a shill for Monsanto, I would think that Folta IS a shill for Monsanto, just because his lack of transparency and lying.
“He did another tap-dance around the retraction of the Seralini paper. ”
What’s that mean? Folta’s got conflicts of interest too?
Hopefully not. The science got Seralini. It has not got Folta as yet.
re petesh @26
The disclosure of the 25K is an interesting bit. Folta claims that the donation was never a secret:
And further that that money doesn’t pay for any research or salary:
That sounds reasonable to me, not weasely or tap-dancey, but I suppose that is subjective.
I agree with Muz about not knowing quite what you are getting at with Seralini, as his papers have been absolutely terrible science.
This is probably dead, but: Claiming that something Folta did not disclose when testifying before a legislature, using the materials it paid for, was never a secret is disingenuous, at best. Yeah, it wasn’t a secret, he just didn’t tell anyone. Of course, had they asked, he would have done. Folta called for the retraction if Seralini’s paper — in writing, before it happened — and commended the journal for the retraction, and later claimed he never supported retraction, he thought the paper should have been publicly criticized (I dont have the exact language to hand), thus proving his dedication to open discussion. Sheesh. He’s sincere, but duplicitous.
This is, in fact, the second FOIA hit Kevin has taken.
The first was from USRTK (US Right to Know) – this request wanted all of Kevin’s emails, and is the one that unearthed the $25k outreach money as well as some other emails with individuals at Monsanto (I think I’ve emailed Kevin in the past, I’m rather sad I wasn’t inflammatory enough about the anti-GM movement to be considered scandal worthy…)
http://usrtk.org/
They’ve gone after every public university professor who writes for GMOanswers.com, detailed here
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/09/10/ive-been-foia-ed-alison-van-eenennaam-on-being-in-crosshairs-of-anti-gmo-activists/
as well as after scientists who have deigned to refute nonsensical non-studies such as
http://www.biofortified.org/2015/09/misuse-of-foia/
Vani appears to simply be after a subset of emails that pertain to comments about her, one assumes because she enjoys anagrams. USRTK can at least make a pretense of good intentions, Vani not so much.
Correction above, all of his emails which contained key words associated with agri-business and interests associated with agri-business (the usrtk.org website details, I think, the actual subset of emails wanted)
Ewan R @31: As Bartles used to say, or was it Jaymes, thank you for your support. You do agree, I hope, that irrespective of the scientific merits of Folta’s statements, the Monsanto connection should have been revealed and certainly should not have been publicly denied.