If you are concerned that we aren't wasting enough time in court with stupid lawsuits fear not. There's another one in the works about the label of what is little more than fizzy water with a little flavoring. The case was written up by Popular Science, but to a chemist, Unpopular Science would be more accurate.
The anti-chemical movement just keeps chugging along. This time it's the media webiste Vox in the caboose. Chemicals in plastics. Blah blah blah. But at least they cite GQ, that well-respected science magazine!
Perhaps Nick Kristof, the New York Times' non-expert on chemical toxicology, was on vacation. But the paper had a backup - Niraj Chokshi - to replace him. Chokshi is a psychology major who interviewed a member of the United States Public Interest Research Group, a bunch of lawyers, about scary chemicals in school supplies which aren't really scary at all.
This law firm shows no concern for the truth. It fits comfortably and profitably into our postmodern world, in which truth and lies are no longer distinguishable. Unscrupulous people can make a lot of money by exploiting the public's confusion over vaccines, chemicals and pharmaceutical products.
Normally a reliable source of information, Live Science published an article that is a dream for anti-pesticide and anti-chemical fearmongers.
This uniquely American tendency to assign racism where none exists has struck again in yet another bizarre way. And it's absurd to try to make the case that we are racist toward Chinese food, when the number of Chinese restaurants triples those of U.S. cultural icons such as McDonald's and Starbucks.
Veteran New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof fancies himself an expert in chemistry and toxicology. Chemists and toxicologists disagree.
NYT's Nicholas Kristof sure knows how to live harder, not smarter. He's been avoiding chemicals and living clean — as he puts it — for several years. And yet, the results from an at-home detox kit that tested his urine for chemical exposure came back less than stellar.
Foodborne illness happens; it's one of the hazards of eating. But when a company makes a concerted effort to claim its food is holy and righteous – while everybody else serves poison – management shouldn't be surprised when public backlash is severe. It's entirely predictable, self-inflicted and deserved.
Given how well women propagated the species despite all kinds of past health scares, should today's mothers panic about eating a piece of sushi? Well, yeah, though they needn't worry about coffee or BPA, despite litigation groups like Center for Science in the Public Interest long insisting those things are ruining families.
The Environmental Working Group wants your money. And they're very good a getting it by scaring people about nothing. It should be no surprise that the group's latest fundraising letter is big on fears – but super small on science. Here's what we found.
Our society is woefully illiterate on scientific matters. Yet instead of taking the opportunity to educate customers about the benefits of food science, some companies have chosen to cash in on public ignorance.