FoodHealthMedia & TechnologyPseudoscienceScience

The Always Hypocritical Food Babe Claims Defamation

Just a quick rant today: I love my family. My daughter is learning what my husband realized well before we started dating – I can spot disingenuousness, scheming, and hypocrisy a mile away. My daughter’s vocabulary at 3 ½ surpasses that of my former 10-year-old self, yet I can see through her charming attempts to run word-circles around me. I only hope my adorable baby boy has also inherited these skills.

Food Babe’s hypocrisy is not nearly as adorable. Here’s a fun game – The Food Babe has accused writers like me and The Farmer’s Daughter USA of defamation. Who can deduce why this constitutes hypocrisy? I have a feeling most of my readers have their hands raised.

Yesterday, Food Babe decided to ask the question “Who do you trust?” Needless to say, responses started pouring in on Twitter with hashtags like #science, or “not you.” On the other hand, Facebook users swarmed with comments like, “I trust you, Food Babe!” or “not the CDC or the FDA,” or “my lord and savior Jesus Christ.”

As you’ve noticed, there is a glaring discrepancy between the two. This is because Food Babe and her Facebook page admins quickly delete comments that refute her misinformation, and ban these users from commenting thereafter. After her query, the following image started circulating on Facebook. I couldn’t help but tweet it in its awesome glory:

Twitter screen shot, user explains that Food Babe bans Facebook opponents

Guess who came out of the woodworks demanding I remove the picture?

Twitter screen shot, Food Babe makes defamation accusation

In all fairness, she seems to be right about the Food Babe impostor. Still, that impostor’s comment was inspired by none other than the real Food Babe’s antics. In fact, she recently started a laughable rumor that detractors earn 60 cents per post as is evidenced here:

Food Babe's post about Pumpkin Spice latte, and claiming opponents are paid 60 cents per comment

As I’ve stated time and again, unfounded accusation of shilling is based in ignorance, disingenuousness, or malevolent attempt to undermine one’s autonomy. It’s a lazy and underhanded tactic. This is why I responded to the Food Babe’s demand to remove the image as follows:

Kavin points out that Food Babe could be counter-accused of defamation

If you’re wondering what happened next, the answer is nothing. If you look at the Twitter record, it appears as if I’m tweeting to myself. This is because Food Babe deleted the tweets accusing me of defamation. Unfortunately, I only took a screen shot of one of the two tweets. My speculations on why she deleted the previously public messages and stopped pestering me:

  1. While the screen shot I shared featured an impostor Food Babe, the comment was quite apt. After all, she instigated the 60 cent rumor while arguably defaming Starbucks.
  2. If Food Babe can claim defamation against writers or social media users, then there are several large entities and individuals that can claim defamation against her.
  3. Food Babe bans opponents from her Facebook page, and she didn’t want further attention garnished on that fact.
  4. Opposition to her unscientific attacks on genetic modification technology is growing. The Starbucks of the world all but ignore Food Babe’s tirades (and I urge other companies to do the same.) Had she continued, her social media adversaries would have taken to the argument like ancient Greek warriors in phalanx formation.

I could continue for hours but I have children, a husband, other writing, and work to which I must attend. And for the record, this work doesn’t involve making 60 cent comments on social media; my job title isn’t Monsanto Shill Mom.


 Featured image




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

Related Articles


  1. If that’s a “toxic” dose of sugar, why don’t people drop dead?
    I admit that it’s way more sugar (are we even talking about household sugar or is she dishonestly counting sugars like lactose*?) than a beverage should have, I don’t think that this goes near the LD50

    *while all those are, of course, sugars, common understanding of sugar is plain white sugar

    1. The word “toxic” is so vague and overused. This is the same person who says, “information is just a google away.” That’s a direct quote.

Leave a Reply