Talk:Vani Hari

This page needs a massive overhaul. As it is, it is horribly one-sided and reads like a press release. There is plenty of noted criticism to Hari and her efforts. Some notable criticism: http://blogs.mcgill.ca/oss/2014/02/06/plastic-chemical-in-our-bread/ http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/eating-yoga-mats/ I would edit this article, but I do not really feel qualified to do so. 96.248.6.39 (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Why not? Be bold and do so, or save a local copy to your hard disk and edit the article to your heart's content. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 02:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

So biased and full of pseudoscience

Firstly the repeated use of the adjective "Harmful" is scientifically inaccurate. All the chemicals listed have been found safe for human consumption. Second, without getting into a long discussion about GMO's it should be noted that there is not a single source here referencing scientific proof that they are harmful. This basically reads like a "Hooray for me" promo piece written by the subject of the article. Here's a good source with her getting debunked on her criticism of the brewery industry: http://blog.timesunion.com/beer/debunking-8-beers-that-you-should-stop-drinking-immediately/2425/ Also the RationalWiki page on her is very informative. But seriously, I see scientific claims in this article and no scientific references.98.119.9.60 (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree or disagree with Hari, there is no debate that her activism has gained major national media attn (NY Times, CNN, ABC, GMA, NBC, Dr. Oz, Prevention, etc.), attracted a huge national following, and compelled large food producers to reconsider some of their ingredients. Any individual of Hari's stature will inevitably attract the attention of those who have opposing views. They are welcome to present those views, if they are properly researched and referenced by credible sources, in the article. While the potentially harmful aspects of ingredients targeted by Hari are noted in many of the media references, the real question should be whether the article concerns Hari's notability as a high profile public figure and her demonstrated influence in the national food safety debate, or whether the article is about whether certain food ingredients that may or may not be harmful. There is no mention about the safety of GMOs in the article, only that her protest at the DNC calling for labeling of food containing GMOs drew a lot of attention and discussion. It is indeed a long discussion and better reserved for an article specifically about that topic. Hari's national profile and influence are undeniable and the article is specific to those aspects of her work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbmusicman (talk • contribs) 19:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I feel the exact opposite. The article is written like it originated with a food corporation executive, with use of words like "sensationalist," "allegedly harmful" and "forced" food companies to change. The article has a slant which degrades and demeans the work of Hari. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.35.97 (talk) 12:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Vani complains about food ingredients that the FDA and the bulk of the scientific community have found to be safe; she is basically stirring up fear among people who are not trained scientists by making pseudoscientific claims that sound credible to laypeople. If you feel that it is unfair to criticize her for this, then maybe you should ask Vani to use credible scientific research to back up her claims. Actual scientists have publicly disagreed with her; not "food executives" as you would like everyone to believe. With that said even those of us who disagree with her need to follow the rules of decorum when it comes to editing her page. 72.64.114.87 (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

New speaker: I want to second what is written above. I co-run a science and scepticism page on Facebook and she is a regular feature. This article makes her sound like a conscientious researcher who is just trying to get companies to be honest. In fact, her entire approach is dishonest. She begins with ridiculous claims built on false information, then hounds companies using these claims as PR threats, until they respond with something she can chalk up as a victory. She also deletes dissenting opinion from actual scientists from her FB page. This Wiki article needs to be deleted and written up again in a way that doesn't make Vani Hari look like a valiant crusader against corporate immorality. Because...well, she isn't! I would recommend this article as the best I have read on her yet: http://brookstonbeerbulletin.com/new-yellow-journalism/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.212.96 (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

POV tag

I removed the POV tag. The preponderance of sources are either critical of her work or are simply stating the reactions of corporations. This is how the article currently reads, in my opinion. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of Vani's blog article on flu vaccines

An editor made an edit today, 7/12/2014, regarding Vani's blog article on flu vaccines in the "Other Campaigns" section. While it is correct that Vani did not specifically state that one should not receive the flu vaccine, she heavily weighed against them and stated that she personally will not be getting one in addition to making several factually dubious claims about efficacy, side-effects, and alternatives. The editor also added unwarranted comments about the safety of vaccine ingredients without noting that adverse reactions are rare and noting that the number of people who potentially avoid illness by being vaccinated far exceeds the number of people who become ill due to a rare adverse reaction. I do not want to get into an edit war here, so I am bringing this to public attention first to see how others feel this should be worded to be more balanced and appropriate rather than just flip-flopping between the two extremes of the argument. 72.64.114.87 (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

An additional note: this editor added the scare word "injections" to make vaccines sound scary and unsafe. It is colloquial to refer to them as vaccines, not injections. 72.64.114.87 (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)