Chipotle E. coli Conspiracy Theory: Is Big Chemical Retaliating Against Burrito Bowl Chain?

Could corporate saboteurs be planting E. coli in your Sofritas burrito?

I do not believe the moon landing was a hoax filmed in a TV studio or that Pres. Barack Obama is a Muslim Manchurian candidate. But that doesn't mean I automatically reject all conspiracy theories, including the latest buzz about Chipotle Mexican Grill being targeted by biochemical companies like Monsanto for its advocacy of local, organic and non-GMO ingredients.

In fact, I had this suspicion several days before I saw the first articles suggesting this possibility because I know how Big Food/Soda/Agriculture/Chemical operate. In short, they accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being anti-science fearmongers while foisting industry-sponsored unscientific research on the public as fact and creating fear around not consuming their highly processed products and byproducts.

Chubby Chipotle website was
another Big Food stealth campaign
to discredit burrito bowl chain

In the case of Chipotle, the fast food chain that boasts about its use of natural ingredients, the likelihood Big Ag and Big Chemical would take the bashing of their products sitting down were slim.

My suspicion about a possible conspiracy grew when I read an article last night in Natural News about some of the strains of E. coli found in Chipotle being genetically rare, a fact (i.e., not opinion) that was corroborated by such government sources as the FDA and CDC websites.

Reports of at least two disparate E. coli contaminations and several Norovirus incidents occurring so closely together -- a total of six separate events since July -- could be just a random coincidence. Or not. It could also be an organized attempt by adversaries of the second fastest growing fast food chain in the U.S. to discredit the company's highly publicized stance against genetically modified and chemicalized ingredients.

from Natural News

It didn't take long before the Internets were awash with "I told you so's" about needing to chemically wash and genetically alter foods to protect against foodborne illnesses. What may have looked like a fortuitous opportunity for the artificial food industry to blow its own horn could have been part of the overall campaign to first ruin the reputation of Chipotle and then convince the public that local, organic and non-GMO foods are really bad for you.

Was Chipotle too busy avoiding the fake dangers of GMOs to focus on actual food safety?
-- headline from Vox

When Eating Clean Is Dirty: Chipotle, ‘Fresh’ Offerings and Food Safety

-- headline from US News

It would not be the first time the processed food industry has banded together to chip away at Chipotle's growing popularity. The website Chubby Chipotle is backed by Big Food money hiding behind an innocuous sounding front group called The Center for Consumer Freedom.

Funny, but last time I checked, no one was kidnapping me in their Prius, driving me to Chipotle and forcing me to eat its food.

When I tweeted a link to the Chipotle conspiracy theory article from Natural News,  I should have expected a backlash based on the source. The website is a major target of so-called pro-science people who consider the site's founder Mike Adams of being an anti-science fearmonger.

Not surprisingly, I received such responses as

@Diet_Skeptic So when did "suspicious" come to mean "stupid as a stump?" (I guess it was about the time Mike Adams reached puberty.)

— Severian Jussaine (@TheSeverian) December 24, 2015

Handy heuristic: If Natural News says it, It's probably wrong. https://t.co/B3YxEPhspY

— Debunked By Haiku (@DebunkedByHaiku) December 24, 2015

(At least @DebunkedByHaiku displayed some wit and did not rely on a Donald Trumpian style attack.)

Bottom line:

As nutty as most conspiracy theories sound, it is naive to believe companies never practice criminal behavior to further their aims. Think Volkswagen and Enron as just two top-of-mind examples.

With GMO labeling a hot topic right now, it is neither lunacy nor irrationality to posit that shady forces could be behind Chipotle's recent spate of bad publicity.

Shills Vs.Fearmongers in Fierce Food War

Battle over public opinion pits Big Food puppets against populist health advocates

I had no idea I was a fearmonger until I became ensnared in a bizarre Twitter thread with some rabid registered dietitians.

This was my first virtual excursion into the Food War, a global contest in which Big Food and its foot soldiers fiercely battle anyone who disputes their dietary dogma. Both sides claim to wear the mantel of science, like two football teams each convinced they are favored by a Higher Power.

What surprised me the most about the Food War was how many so-called health professionals still cling tightly to outdated, poorly designed studies to defend their dietary advice. I found myself in a minefield of research propaganda and pseudoscience funded by corporations increasingly threatened by mounting evidence that sugar- and highly processed carbohydrate-filled products are linked to obesity, Type 2 diabetes and other chronic health conditions.

It all  began when I questioned the credibility of registered dietitians while following the Tim Noakes hearing witch hunt in South Africa. This led to a corporate supermarket RD named Leah McGrath sending me an unsolicited list of tweeters who she claimed had "integrity" -- although they all support serving high-sugar flavored skimmed milk to school children. I tweeted something about some RDs being mouthpieces for Big Food and received an excited response back from McGrath asking me if mouthpiece meant the same thing as shill. It turned out she and her RD pals take perverse pride in being called a shill and highlight the occasion with the hashtag #shilltastic every time they are labeled such.

Yes, #shilltastic is a thing.

Then McGrath thought I'd be interested in reading an article tweeted by a dietetic intern named David Weinman who proclaims himself to be pro-science. The piece was typical Salon click bait about so-called sancti-mommies, a new breed of millennial females who pass harsh judgement on the health and safety of the foods other mothers feed their children. Why I'd be interested in this article escaped me since the Salon piece focused mainly on anti-vaccine and GMO politics, topics on which I had not even opined. Weinman asked me in a tweet if I was implying scientists would commit fraud and jeopardize their careers to shill for Big Food -- as if that possibility were as absurd as ponies sprouting pig tails.

For the first time I had an upfront and personal view on how Big Food's army of registered dietitians and wannabes co-opt the word "science" to discredit anyone who disagrees with their perspective.

Suddenly all of the news stories I'd been following made more sense:

** Professional dietitians funded by Kellogg's and other Big Food companies persecuting Dr. Tim Noakes and dietitian Jennifer Elliott for not accepting their dietary dogma as fact. 

** "Scientists" ganging up against journalist and "Big Fat Surprise" author Nina Teicholz to discredit her editorial in the BMJ on the sketchy methodology of the USDA Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.

** The feds wiping egg off their face after reversing themselves on avoiding eating egg yolks, shellfish and other foods that contain dietary cholesterol, a warning which turned out to have scant scientific merit.

** Corporations like Monsanto and Coca Cola bribing academics to perform research that will make their products seem harmless and labeling conflicting research findings as pseudoscience.

(The Coca Cola story reported by New York Times investigative journalist Anahad O'Connor outed the company for bribing researchers to convince the public that sugary drinks can be part of a healthy diet as long as you exercise. Coca Cola VP Rhona Applebaum resigned over the scandal after emails published by the Associated Press revealed the academics were paid puppets and the bogus research network -- Global Energy Balance Network -- quickly disbanded citing "resources limitations.")

Though I am neither a scientist nor health care professional, I have a huge stake in who wins the Food War. I am Jane Q. Public, a surrogate for those whose hearts and minds both sides are attempting to control. In a few months, I will have a new grandchild who will be fed biased nutritional information at school and supplied with milk that contains more added sugar than should be consumed in a whole day.

My meandering journey into the low-carb high-fat way of eating has serendipitously led me to the sidelines of the Food War, and I think I may just stick around for a spell.

Tim Noakes Hearing: Dietitians Vs. #LCHF Doctor in South Africa

Dietitians accuse banting doctor Tim Noakes of being unethical, but is this a case of the porridge pot calling the kettle black?

One of the most fascinating face-offs of the century is happening right now in South Africa for people around the globe who follow the politics of low-carb high-fat diets vs. conventional medical dietary guidelines.

And it all started with a simple tweet.

Is this Photoshopped
parody of Gerber baby food
so far off the mark?

On one side we have the South African medical mafia sponsored by Big Food companies like Kellogg's.

On the other, Professor Tim Noakes -- athlete, medical doctor, professor, author and banting advocate (banting is South Africa's exotic name for a low-carb high-fat diet).

So getting back to the tweet, here's what happened: Professor Noakes replied to a Twitter query posted by a mother seeking weaning advice, “Baby doesn’t eat the dairy and cauliflower. Just very healthy high fat breast milk. Key is to ween baby onto LCHF [Low Carbohydrate, High Fat diet i.e Banting].”

Noakes' response struck a sour note with Claire Julsing-Strydom, former president of the Association for Dietetics in South Africa (ADSA). She alleged the doctor acted unethically by providing unconventional medical advice via social media, and the advice did not consider the specific health issues of the infant.

Aside from the fact that anyone who conflates a tweet with medical advice is unhinged, we suspect that if Noakes had told the mom to wean her baby on highly processed baby food cereal,  it would have been dandy. When a gaggle of dietitians decree something is correct, it just is -- regardless of whether their clients get fatter or sicker following their advice.

The unprofessional conduct charge against Noakes lodged by the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) at the dietitian society's behest would be almost comical if so many people's wellness were not at stake.

Ironically, it is the dietitians -- not Professor Noakes -- whose ethics are questionable.

In recent years, companies like Kellogg's and Coca Cola have been outed for funneling money to medical "experts" to minimize their products' role in the rise of diabetes and other metabolic conditions. Even a pro-business magazine like Forbes was skeptical of a cardiologist who concluded sugar plays a much smaller role than exercise in causing obesity.

"Marked declines in physical activity . .  is by far the major cause of obesity, not sugar and fast foods.” --  Dr. Carl Lavie

Though Dr. Lavie denied his conclusion was influenced by money he received from Coca Cola, the Forbes article included data that research funded by soft drink companies is five times less likely to blame sugar for causing obesity than that which is industry neutral.

Which brings us back to a more critical medical ethics issue the Noakes HPCSA hearing does not address. Conventional health advice -- including most western countries' dietary guidelines -- is bought and paid for by Big Food, which sponsors studies on which the findings are biased based.

Until dietitians, doctors and disease organizations stop taking money from corporations like Coca Cola and Kellogg's, they have no business questioning the ethics of medical doctors and nutrition researchers who disagree with them.

You can keep up with the Noakes hearing daily by following journalist @MarikaSboros on Twitter and reading her recap articles on the hearing here.





More from Diet Skeptic:

Why I'm Addicted to Chia Seeds

Why Fat Head Pizza Is the Holy Grail of Low Carb Pizzas 

The Shocking Truth About Imported Olive Oil 

Making Cauliflower Rice in the Vitamix 

Why WebMD Doesn't Want You to Get Well


Follow Nancy's board Low Carb Recipes on Pinterest

Can Low Carb Bars Help You Say 'No' to Cupcakes and Candy?

So recently at work one of my new students offered me a tangerine because word on the floor was I'm a "health nut."

Given the word "health" in this decade has more definitions than Imelda Marcos has shoes, most mainstream nutritionists would not call me a health nut at all since I eat lots of butter and eschew whole grains. I politely declined the offer because I follow a low-carb high-fat diet and typically don't snack on fruit other than berries.

What amused me was that I had been labeled a "health nut" because I have a rep for not habitually accepting whatever food is offered to me (though rarely is that offer a fruit). Ironically, I work as a trainer for a major health care organization.

One of my secrets for being able to turn down most of the sweet treats that magically appear in my workplace during the six-month "holiday season" between Halloween and Easter is that I eat a GNC Advanced Protein Bar every day. These bars are very similar macro-wise to the better known Quest bars, which are also sold at GNC; but I prefer the GNC bars because they do not contain corn fiber and taste less sweet. My preferred flavor GNC bar is the chocolate chip cookie dough, which reminds me a little of the Middle Eastern treat, halvah.

About two years ago I lost 35 pounds on the Medifast Take Shape for Life (TSFL) program and serendipitously discovered that eating meal replacement bars made it less tempting for me to eat sugary treats. Though I no longer eat Medifast products, the GNC protein bars now serve the same purpose as a treat sublimation strategy.

Fast forward to this morning . . .  while researching the controversy over the Quest bar formula change to corn fiber and other cheap fillers, I was led to an interesting blog post on a website called Breakfast Criminals in which various "health" minded professionals weighed in on why Quest Bars are essentially no better than candy corn.

One argument I found intriguing was from a registered dietitian named Willow Jarosh, who is affiliated with SELF Magazine, Bumble Bee Foods, and Bob Greene’s Best Life program.

“If you’re eating a Quest bar to avoid eating something that you really want (i.e., a piece of dark chocolate, a brownie, a cookie, etc.)," writes Jarosh, "then this can lead to a feeling of being deprived which can then lead to overeating the original food you craved. Or eating a couple Quest bars at a time to try to satisfy the craving (and therefore eating more food total than if you’d just had a small portion of the food you were craving)."

For me, just the opposite is true. Knowing I can have a GNC bar, I don't feel the urge to eat all the junk food that is offered to me. My sweet tooth has been weakened to the point where a square of dark chocolate tastes plenty sweet and most baked goods taste like they contain sugar on steroids. In other words, I actually prefer my GNC bar to most goodies and do not feel the least bit deprived.

Sometimes expert dietary theories sound good, but from my admittedly n=1 perspective, they're not always true. In my case, eating a healthier version of a processed food makes me crave the sweeter version less, and I do not need to eat two GNC bars at a time for this to happen.

Low Carb Blogs with Cool Names

I confess! Not only have I judged books by their covers, I have also judged blogs by their names -- although scant correlation exists between quality web content and cool name quotient.

My inner linguaphile can't help but be drawn to cleverly named blogs, especially those which deal with one of my favorite topics -- low-carb high-fat recipes and health research. So while I faithfully follow a blog called Authority Nutrition because it contains evidence based nutrition information, my heart skips a beat when I discover a new #LCHF blog with a quirky title.

Here are a few of the creatively named low-carb blogs I enjoy visiting, with a brief description of each:

All Day I Dream About Food: Recipe site with mostly low-carb gluten-free recipes. Founded by mom blogger Carolyn Ketchum who turned to the LC way of eating after experiencing gestational diabetes during pregnancy.

Butter Makes Your Pants Fall Off: Blog founded by a guy nicknamed "Butter Bob" Briggs, who lost 145 pounds following LCHF diet combined with intermittent fasting. Started as a You Tube video with the same name, which Briggs almost called "Sugar made me so fat I couldn't sit in a folding chair."

Peace Love and Low Carb: Low-carb recipe site with a primal spin. Self-proclaimed foodie Kyndra Holley also dabbles in cross fit and essential oils, and her blog is just as fun as its name. "Watching someone eat something I created is pure joy," writes Holley. "If I were to eat bacon while watching someone eat something that I made, I just might explode."

My Big Fat Low Carb Life: Technically not a blog, this Facebook community page is a treasure trove of LCHF resources, with links to recipes, research articles and videos.

Low Carbe Diem: This blog's mission is to make the low-carb way of eating more doable. "One morning, as you approach the breakfast table, you think to yourself, 'If I have to eat another egg, I will throw myself down a flight of stairs.' And you almost mean it," writes Ann Moore in her blog's About section.

Honorable Mentions:

Ditch the Carbs

Butter is Not a Carb

Sugar Free Sheila

I Breathe I'm Hungry

No Bun Please

Hold the Toast

Low Carb Confidential

Carb Wars

The Loquacious Lowcarbivore (shameless plug)

Why 'Never Skip Breakfast' Is Just Another Diet Myth

How US Dietary Guidelines Got It Wrong on 'Most Important Meal of the Day'

The widely accepted "fact" that skipping breakfast may cause people to pack on pounds turns out to be just another myth promoted by the USDA Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. This is the same panel of people paid off by the food industry alleged experts that pushes sugar-filled low-fat chocolate milk on school children and has for years warned Americans to avoid egg yolks because they contain cholesterol.* 

Don't like breakfast? Don't feel bad.
It's okay to eat your first meal
later in the day.

Instead of using randomized controlled trials, the USDA relies heavily on observational studies in which participants unreliably self report their behavior and it can appear one thing causes another because the two are associated.

In the case of the breakfast hypothesis, for instance, other associations that could explain weight gain for breakfast skippers could be less sleep, higher stress levels or other confounding factors.

A Stanford University Departments of Medicine, Health Research and Policy abstract cited an alarming statistic about health research published in highly respected journals: "Of 52 major claims made by observational studies, none was validated when tested in RCTs."

Which is pretty bad because even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Keep in mind, randomized controlled trials -- or RCTs -- are considered the gold standard of science and are far more rigorous and reliable than the observational studies on which so much dubious dietary policy is based.

The good news is at least one rogue nutritionist is refuting the USDA guidance on eating breakfast. In his ObesityWeek presentation this month -- "Myths, truths, skepticism and curiosity on null findings: striking a balance" -- Dr. David B. Allison of the University of Alabama presented data from six RCTs that yielded no evidence people who eat breakfast are more successful at losing weight.

Ironically, the opposite was true: breakfast skippers were more successful at losing weight in some cases. (See Slide 11 of Dr. Allison's presentation.)

As my previous blog post on the link between herd theory and lack of medical doctors who recommend low-carb high-fat diets suggests, the more a myth is repeated by respected opinion leaders, the more likely people are to believe it -- regardless of the scientific data or dearth thereof.

With more evidence accumulating that intermittent fasting combined with a low-carb high-fat diet could be metabolically advantageous, people who prefer to skip breakfast should feel free to experiment with what works best for their body and stop feeling guilty for postponing their first meal until later in the day.

*(Concerning the USDA flip flop on egg yolks, what the dietary guidelines panel failed to consider is the liver will produce cholesterol to compensate for the amount one does not get from food. Few people consume more dietary cholesterol from food than their body needs to function.)

Why Don't More Doctors Recommend Low Carb High Fat Diets?

This article has been moved to the Loquacious Lowcarbivore.