Like EWG, Food Babe’s citation is just a ploy to impress her readers, knowing very well that none, or very few, of them care to actually read the articles referenced. An example of this ploy is this article, in which we read, for instance,
“When it comes to the potential beneficial effects of BHT, it has been reported that BHT is able to inactivate in vitro lipid-containing mammalian and bacterial viruses (Snipes and others 1975), to protect chickens exposed to Newcastle disease virus (Brugh 1977) and rabbits against artherosclerosis (Björkhem and others 1991), to inhibit skin tumor promotion in rodents (Slaga 1995), to protect turkeys against aflatoxin B1 (Klein and others 2003), and to decrease total cholesterol levels in plasma and liver in monkeys (Branen and others 1973).”
“… A prospective cohort study carried out in The Netherlands found no association between the consumption of mayonnaise and creamy salad dressings with BHT and stomach cancer risk. Even a statistically nonsignificant decrease in stomach cancer risk was observed with increasing BHT intake (Botterweck and others 2000).”
“… However, in a similar study no evidence of the carcinogenicity of BHT administered to mice was observed (Shirai and others 1982). Studies performed in rats also reported dose-related increases in hepatocellular adenomas and carcinomas (Olsen and others 1986); nevertheless, other studies carried out with rats showed no consistent carcinogenic effects (Hirose and others 1981; Williams and others 1990).
The overall message of all these studies – what Food Babe fails to mention – is that
There is no evidence that BHT is carcinogenic in humans. Its effect on rats and mice appears to be nonexistent at best and cancerous at ridiculously high doses at worst.