Presidential Food Tasters
Claim:  Food tasters work on behalf of U.S. presidents. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, March 2013] Does President Obama have a food taster?  If so, is that unique to him, or is it standard policy?   Origins:  Food tasters are a concept long associated with important personages such as political leaders and business tycoons.  The most common image of a food taster is someone who serves as a guinea pig for his  employer, sampling meals before they are served to ensure that no one has tampered with them (particularly by introducing poison or some other harmful substance).  Food tasters can serve other functions, however, such as ensuring that foods do not include ingredients that, although ordinarily innocuous, might nonetheless pose a problem for a particular diner, such as wine used in the preparation of a dish intended for someone who is abstaining from alcohol, or an ingredient that a person with specific food allergies might have a sensitivity to.  Or a taster may simply function as someone who is intimately familiar with the preferences of his employer and serves to ensure that food is prepared to the latter's culinary satisfaction. Whether food tasters are employed on behalf of U.S. presidents when they're away from the White House is a subject that the Secret Service refrains from officially commenting on, but it's something of an open secret that they are: The US Secret Service has always refused to confirm that US presidents travel with a food "taster," in line with their policy of discretion on all security related issues. But it is known the Service goes to great lengths to scrutinise the source and the preparation of food served to US presidents whenever they eat out of the White House to ensure it is not tampered with. Nonetheless, a March 2013 report about President Obama's supposedly declining to partake of the main course during a lunch meeting with Senate Republicans on Capitol Hill because his taster was not present apparently took many readers by surprise: report "Unfortunately, you know, the president can't," said [Maine Senator Susan] Collins when asked if Obama ate at the lunch meeting. "He looked longingly at it," Collins continued. "He honestly did look longingly at it, but apparently he has to have essentially a taster, and I pointed out to him that we were all tasters for him, that if the food had been poisoned all of us would have keeled over so, but he did look longingly at it and he remarked that we have far better food than the Democrats do, and I said that was because I was hosting." This is a subject the press has covered before, though.  When the Obamas visited France to mark the 65th anniversary of D-Day in June 2009, for example, the Agence France Presse reported: A US "taster" tested the food being dished up to President Barack Obama at a dinner in a French restaurant, a waiter said. "They have someone who tastes the dishes," said waiter Gabriel de Carvalho from the "La Fontaine de Mars" restaurant where Obama and his family turned up for dinner. "It wasn't very pleasant for the cooks at first, but the person was very nice and was relaxed, so it all went well," he said on the Itele news channel. The Obama Foodorama blog also noted of a September 2012 fundraiser in Tampa that: Obama Foodorama President Obama hailed Food Network star and celebrity chef Tyler Florence's menu as "outstanding" at a $20,000/plate dinner fundraiser held in the backyard of a mansion owned by a billionaire's daughter in the Palma Ceia neighborhood in Tampa, Florida.  Host of the show The Great Food Truck Race, Florence created a complicated six-course menu that included chicken fried quail, crispy fried pork belly, and a squash and quail egg ravioli.  The chef and his team  including wife Tolan Florence and pastry chef Matt Masera  tweeted comments, the menu and photos from behind the scenes, revealing that the President was accompanied at the event by a special food taster, identified as a White House chef. Mentions of presidential food tasters have also turned up in the media during earlier administrations, such as a New York Times account of President George W. Bush's inaugural lunch in January 2001: The president's tasters were on the job by 6 a.m., not just to make certain no one was trying to poison him, but to make sure the mushrooms that were to decorate the tenderloin of beef at the inaugural lunch for teetotaler George W. Bush were not cooked in wine. The tasters, Navy mess specialists who travel around the world with the president, watched the preparations in a makeshift kitchen just off Statuary Hall in the Capitol. [Correction: Although the president does not drink alcohol, his diet does not exclude foods prepared with it. A food taster who made sure on Jan. 20 that mushrooms for the meal were not cooked in wine had been told mistakenly that the president avoided alcohol in all foods.] The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported on restaurant screening efforts by a food taster when President Clinton and British Prime Minister John Major visited that city in February 1994: As their staffs scrambled to assemble a five-hour whiz through Pittsburgh, President Clinton and British Prime Minister John Major sent their appetites ahead of them. Planning went on with a team of advance schedulers and security experts fanning out to sites around the region for possible places for Major and Clinton to tour. The search for the right restaurant took special talents  a security man was sent to check out the food at area restaurants. "The guy appeared to be a professional food taster because he weighed about 400 pounds," said Tom Pastorius, owner of the Allegheny Brewery and Pub on the North Side, where a government agent walked in and announced he'd been ordered to check out the food for some very important potential diners. Food tasters were also mentioned in a New York Daily News article on White House perks published during the administration of George H.W. Bush in 1992: Among the fringe benefits available to senior White House aides are budget-priced meals in the exclusive, Navy-run White House mess, and use of White House tennis courts and the presidential box at the Kennedy Center. A select few on the senior staff can pump iron in the Secret Service gym. The president, vice president, Cabinet secretaries and White House staff receive a wide range of perks. President Bush gets the most, of course: rent-free housing in the Executive Mansion, free travel on luxurious helicopters, airplanes and armored limousines, a free weekend hideaway at Camp David, Md., and free medical care. He also has a tennis court, workout room, horseshoe pit, swimming pool, theater, bowling alley, extraordinarily well-kept gardens and a staff of more than 90 maids, butlers, carpenters, florists, electricians and cooks  and a food taster. Joe Murray also touched on the subject in a 1988 article for the Cox News Service: Everybody probably knew it but me, that Ronald Reagan has a food taster. How I found out was by reading all the way through the news story about the President suffering nausea, vomiting and related stomach problems. This was the night before his meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Noboru Takeshita, which, I suppose, is neither here nor there. Hardly anything I read surprises me much anymore. But the last paragraph was the exception: "As a security measure, Reagan's food is routinely tasted by an aide. (White House spokesman) Fitzwater said he did not know if the tester had also become ill." Last updated:  17 March 2013    Murray, Joe.  "Let's Consider This Presidential Food Taster Thing."   The [Daytona Beach] News-Journal.  26 January 1988  (p. A4).    Roddy, Dennis B.  "Food Taster Precedes Clinton and Major."   Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  26 February 1994  (p. A1).    Agence France Presse.  "President Obama's French Food Tested by 'Taster.'"   7 June 2009.    [New York] Daily News.  "Congress, Losing Perks, Takes Long Look at Others'."   31 March 1992.
On Jan. 9, 2024, a user posted a Twitter screenshot to the r/Facepalm subreddit showing a comment claiming that Jeff Bezos, the chairman and founder of Amazon, could give everyone in the world $1 billion, thus solving world poverty, with plenty of money left over: r/Facepalm subreddit  (OpenlyBasics/Reddit) Bezos is rich, but not that rich. A math error led to the incorrect conclusion that he could end world poverty and give everyone $1 billion each and still have $91.5 billion left. Snopes was able to find the original New York Post article, published on May 14, 2020, which claimed that Bezos was on track to become the world's first trillionaire by the year 2026. The article was indeed posted to the publication's X (known as Twitter at the time) account. However, in the comments of that post, we were not able to find the original reply to the post as shown in the screenshot on Reddit. Therefore we conclude that the user either realized the error in the post and deleted it, or that the reply never existed at all. New York Post article posted These kind of math mishaps are relatively common. Snopes checked the math of a user making a similar claim about Elon Musk in 2022, and in 2020, Politifact checked a tweet that appeared live on MSNBC claiming that Michael Bloomberg, who at that point was in the midst of a presidential campaign, could have done a similar thing with money left over. Elon Musk in 2022 Politifact checked a tweet But the post left us with a few interesting questions: How much money could Bezos distribute equally to everyone in the world? What about, let's say, if the world's 10 richest individuals distributed their money equally to everyone in the world? How much money would it take before you could give everyone $1 million? We used Forbes' Real Time Billionaires page for wealth data and Worldometer's population counter to estimate the current world population, which we rounded to 8.085 billion (and growing!) Forbes' Real Time Billionaires Worldometer's population counter First, the easiest calculation: Forbes lists Bezos's net worth at $176.2 billion. To calculate how much every individual would receive, we divide Bezos's wealth by the number of people on the planet. That calculation, $176,200,000,000 / $8,085,000,000, can be simplified a bit by removing some of the remaining zeroes at the end, bringing it down to $176,200 / 8,085 = 21.79. That's roughly a $20 bill for every person on the planet, with some pocket change thrown in. Alongside Bezos, we found seven technology titans  including Elon Musk (No. 1), Mark Zuckerberg (No. 5) and Bill Gates (No. 7)  the investor Warren Buffet (No. 6), and the owner of the French luxury goods conglomerate LVMH, Bernard Arnault (No. 2). The total wealth of the top 10 individuals adds up to $1.455 trillion. Dividing that wealth by the 8 billion people on the planet gives us a result of $179.93 per person, $45 short of the weekly food cost for a family of four using the USDA's Monthly Cost of Food Report for November 2023. USDA's Monthly Cost of Food Report November 2023 This is a thought experiment, so we're going to ignore the obvious economic and social consequences of such an action. Multiplying 8.085 billion people by $1 million per individual adds an extra six zeroes, giving us a total of 8.085 quadrillion. We're going to have to up our scale factor dramatically. The gross domestic product (GDP) is a number that measures the value of all of the goods and services produced in a certain area over a certain amount of time. According to data from Statista.org, the GDP of the United States is about $25 trillion. Using that comparison, there would have to be over 100 U.S.-level economies in the world just to reach 2 quadrillion. In fact, the GDP of the entire world economy is estimated at only about $100 trillion. $25 trillion $100 trillion Given those totals, if everyone in the world had exactly the same amount of money as everyone else, we would all have $12,368.58 in our bank accounts. It's safe to say that Bezos isn't going to be handing over $1 billion to everyone on the planet any time soon. Two-and-a-half weeks before the 2016 presidential election, GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump trailed behind Democrat Hillary Clinton by an average of 6% in national polls, a statistic that buoyed Clinton supporters, yet failed to rattle diehard supporters of Trump, who had managed, as The Guardian put it, to "confound expectations" all year: polls As smoke clears from weeks of political bombardment, White House watchers are convinced the only questions now are how big Hillary Clintons win will be and whether the Democrats can take Congress, too. Those Republicans still loyal to Trump cling to the hope that all the polls are wrong  that in barely two weeks time, angry voters will again stun the world. Over and over, Donald Trump is saying one word: Brexit. Donald Trump We will win, he told a rally in Pennsylvania on Friday. We will shock the world. This is going to be Brexit-plus. Hubris aside, some of his supporters remained worried about voter defections in the wake of the Trump "groping" scandal, prompting calls for an eleventh-hour get-out-the vote drive, not to mention homebrew efforts to rally people to the polls like the image macro below: groping drive   The Internet meme was accurate insofar as public opinion polls taken in October 1980 showed Democrat Jimmy Carter holding as much as an eight-point lead over Republican Ronald Reagan (a Gallup poll two weeks before the election had Carter at 47% and Reagan at 39%), yet Reagan won a landslide victory in the general election, beating Carter 489 to 49 in electoral votes and by almost 10% in the popular vote. (It should be noted that 6.6% of the popular vote also went to a third-party candidate, John Anderson.) poll victory To conclude from that single example that polls simply ought not to be believed is a stretch, however. The 1980 upset was anomalous, the polling organization Gallup says, and based on factors unique to that year's campaign: says Reagan's late-breaking surge that year is generally attributed to the only presidential debate between Carter and Reagan  held one week before the election, on Oct. 28  which seemed to move voter preferences in Reagan's direction, as well as the ongoing Iran hostage crisis, which reached its one-year anniversary on Election Day. After trailing Carter by 8 points among registered voters (and by 3 points among likely voters) right before their debate, Reagan moved into a 3-point lead among likely voters immediately afterward, and he won the Nov. 4 election by 10 points. By contrast, in 2016 the two major party candidates have already faced off in three head-to-head debates, all held well before Election Day, that have resulted in little or no improvement in Trump's underdog position in the polls.  And among the many issues and challenges facing America, none of them looms in the forefront the way the Iranian hostage crisis (and the Iranian Revolution in general) did throughout the final year of Jimmy Carter's presidency, as Jonathan Chait noted back in 2012 when Republican challenger Mitt Romney found himself in a similar underdog position against incumbent president Barack Obama in that year's campaign home stretch: [In 1980] the economy cratered (nothing remotely comparable has occurred this year) and then the Iranian hostage crisis, after an initial rally-around-the-flag blip, steadily corroded Carters popularity. No equivalent of those factors can be seen yet today, and pinning your hopes on a scenario where your campaign suddenly picks up ten points in the final month seems to be either an act of self-delusion or a ploy to keep anxious conservatives at bay. John Sides similarly observed when commenting on the 2012 presidential race that the notion President Carter held a polling lead over Ronald Reagan in 1980 right up until the very end of the campaign is something of a misconception:  observed ... 1980 is a poor comparison with 2012 for many reasons.  One is simply that the economy is not as bad in 2012 as it was in 1980. But there is another apparent misconception in the Romney campaign, which Nate Silver rightly picked up on: Carter didnt lead Reagan for much of the campaign.  The [poll tracking] plot shows what Chait describes, which is the ebbing of Carters poll standing throughout 1980.  Indeed, Reagan didnt need his convention bump  which he certainly got  to put him in the lead.  The Democratic convention helped erode Reagans lead but it never closed it altogether. At the end of the campaign, Reagan did surge, but this only increased his lead.  His surge appears to have been brought on first by the debate, and then perhaps by several other events in the final week of the campaign: "On Friday of that week the final economic indicator of the campaign showed inflation still seriously on the rise. And on Sunday morning, November 1, the Iranian parliament announced their conditions for freeing the American hostages. Jimmy Carter immediately abandoned campaigning and appeared on national television in the early evening to repeat much of what the public had been hearing all day. It was a week, in effect, with much that could affect the choices made by voters." Carters pollster, Patrick Caddell, believed that Irans rebuff doomed Carter, saying It was all related to the hostages and events overseas. Harry Enten of the statistical analysis web site FiveThirtyEight confirmed that in ordinary circumstances, October public opinion polls are usually reliable and highly predictive of final election results: confirmed In most years, the early-October polls [since 1952] were pretty close to the mark, with a correlation of +0.96 between the polls and the final result. Ten of the 16 elections featured errors of 3 percentage points or less, and in all but three campaigns, the polls were within 5 percentage points of the final outcome. Even in 2012, when Mitt Romney closed his deficit against President Obama after the first debate, the polls at this point still showed Obama leading. At this point in the election cycle, the average error of polls for all elections is just 3.3 percentage points (much lower than the 4.7-point error we found for just after the conventions), and every candidate whos been ahead in the popular vote in mid-October went on to win the election. Given the rarity of last-minute upsets, did Enten think Donald Trump still had a chance to stage a comeback and win the general election despite lagging 6% in the polls?  polls "Its possible," he wrote. "But it would be basically unprecedented." Is that an excuse for anyone, regardless of party affiliation, not to turn out to vote? No, it is not. Blanton, Dana."Fox News Poll: Clinton Tops Trump by 6 Points."
Fox News.18 October 2016. Enten, Harry."Is There Any Precedent for a Trump Comeback?"
FiveThirtyEight.12 October 2016. Harwood, John."History Suggests McCain Faces an Uphill Battle."
The New York Times.12 October 2008. Jones, Daryl."3 Unlikely Ways Donald Trump Could Win."
Forbes.17 October 2016. Roberts, Dan and Chalabi, Mona."Brexit Times Five: Could Trump Really Win Despite Polls Favoring Clinton?"
The Guardian.22 October 2016. Saad, Lydia."Late Upsets Are Rare, But Have Happened."
Gallup.27 October 2008. RealClearPolitics."General Election: Trump vs. Clinton."
22 October 2016. Reuters."Donald Trump Still Trails Hillary Clinton in National Polls.
22 October 2016. Well-rounded vegan diets may be less hazardous and better for the health of dogs compared to conventional meat or raw meat diets, according to research published in April 2022.  Pets are multibillion-dollar industries. According to estimates published in 2018, there are 471 million pet dogs and 373 million pet cats worldwide, which sets the international worth of pet food sales at nearly 132 billion euros. Such high demand has a large impact on the environment, particularly in the sourcing of the animal and agricultural products that make up pet food. Feeding pets is also a lucrative market. In 2020, the vegan pet food market alone was worth $8.7 billion in the U.S., and was expected to grow to over $15 billion in the next six years expected Because pets and their nutrition represent large shares of both the economy and its production line, researchers at the University of Winchester in the U.K. set out to determine what diets are best for the health of pets. To determine the links between diet and health, the team advertised an online survey through social media between May and December 2020 to determine the links between diet and health, and analyzed the data of more than 2,500 dogs that were included in survey responses from the pets' guardians.  Each dog had been living with its guardian for at least one year. About half were fed conventional meat-based diets, around one-third raw meat, and 13% were fed a vegan diet. The survey included questions about the dogs health, such as veterinary visits, medications, and overall health disorders, and consulted both the guardian and a veterinarian on its health status.  We believe our study of 2,536 dogs is by far the largest study published to date, exploring health outcomes of dogs fed vegan and meat-based diets, wrote the researchers in a news release.  news release It analyzed a range of objective data, as well as owner opinions and reported veterinary assessments of health. It revealed that the healthiest and least hazardous dietary choices for dogs, are nutritionally sound vegan diets.   Figures show the three main diets fed to the 2,536 dogs included in the survey. PLOS One  PLOS One Publishing their work in the peer-reviewed journal PLOS One, the team found that overall, dogs on conventional meat diets were less healthy than those on raw meat or vegan diets. Previously it was thought that raw meat diets were linked to an increased risk of pathogen exposure, while vegan diets may result in nutritional deficiencies. But when necessary hygienic and nutritional supplements were taken into consideration, both diets were, by and large, shown to be healthier and less hazardous to the canine consumer.  peer-reviewed PLOS One In summary, when jointly considering health outcomes and dietary hazards, our results and those of other studies indicate that the healthiest and least hazardous dietary choices for dogs, are nutritionally sound vegan diets, concluded the researchers. However, there are several limitations to the study that should be taken into consideration. For one, it could be the case that dogs given a raw meat diet were not necessarily healthier than those given a conventional diet, but rather that their guardians might have been less likely to take their pets to a veterinarian. Because the frequency of veterinarian visits was considered a health indication, this internal bias may have skewed the results. Furthermore, dogs given a raw meat diet tended to be younger in age than those eating other diets, which could further explain why they were deemed healthier.  The study authors also didnt factor in the sex or breed of each dog, a limitation that may have influence the results given that certain breeds are more prone to illness than others.  Lets also look at the structure of the study itself. Participating guardians were asked to consider the main ingredients within your pets normal diet, which means that a pet may not have been fed the identified diet exclusively, nor were treats or other dietary supplements excluded. It was also an opinion-based study in which respondents gave their thoughts on a dogs health in a non-standardized way. Additionally, because the survey was conducted online, this required that respondents have internet access and the time necessary to complete the survey, which may have excluded pet guardians of lower income statuses.  Lastly, there is an inherent unconscious bias within the study structure, which means that a given guardian might have been expecting a better health outcome based on the preferred diet, and this expectation could have influenced how they responded to the survey question.  While there is now scientific evidence to suggest that both raw meat and vegan diets are better than conventional diets alone, the study authors said more research is needed to determine which of the two is associated with better dog health outcomes. Dog guardians should ensure that all aspects of their dogs nutrition are being met, regardless of primary diet preference. Check pet food labels and check with manufacturers to make sure that healthy practices are in place to provide nutritional soundness.  https://www.theinsightpartners.com, The Insight Partners. Vegan Pet Food Market to Grow at a CAGR of 7.7% to Reach US$ 15,651.22 Million from 2020 to 2028. The Insight Partners, https://www.theinsightpartners.com/reports/vegan-pet-food-market. Accessed 13 Apr. 2022. Vegan Pet Food Market to Grow at a CAGR of 7.7% to Reach US$ 15,651.22 Million from 2020 to 2028. The Insight Partners, https://www.theinsightpartners.com/reports/vegan-pet-food-market. Accessed 13 Apr. 2022. Knight, Andrew, et al. Vegan versus Meat-Based Dog Food: Guardian-Reported Indicators of Health. PLOS ONE, vol. 17, no. 4, Apr. 2022, p. e0265662. PLoS Journals, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265662. Vegan Diets for Dogs May Be Linked with Better Health, and Could Be Less Hazardous, than Meat-Based Diets. EurekAlert!, https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/948887. Accessed 13 Apr. 2022. In July 2019, registered sex offender and hedge fund manager Jeffrey Epstein was arrested on charges relating to the sex trafficking of minors. In addition to the severity of the alleged crimes, Epstein's arrest made headlines due to his connections to well-known public figures and politicians, including President Donald Trump and former President Bill Clinton. arrested The news of Epstein's arrest sent political partisans into overdrive as they attempted to show that politicians on their side were less involved with Epstein than politicians on the other side. So when images of President Trump with Epstein were published by news outlets and circulated on social media, his defenders were upset not to see similar images of Bill Clinton with Epstein being given equal prominence. This led to a rumor that Google was "scrubbing," "removing," or "deindexing" images of Clinton and Epstein together from search results as part of a cover-up to protect the Clintons. images of President Trump with Epstein Twitter users Paul Sperry, Jack Murphy, and BNL News all claimed, without evidence, that images of Epstein and Clinton together had been removed from Google's search results, and their tweets were collectively shared thousands of times over: Paul Sperry Jack Murphy BNL News       These claims are without merit. These tweets provided no evidence that images of Clinton with Epstein could be found on Google prior to the latter's arrest in July 2019, nor any proof that Google had removed these alleged images from their search results in the aftermath of Epstein's incarceration. In fact, they provided no evidence that photographs of Clinton with Epstein even existed at all. Twitter user Robert Barnes inflated this rumor by claiming that while Google wouldn't show photographs of Epstein and Clinton together, such images were findable using other search engines, such as DuckDuckGo: Robert Barnes   This simply wasn't the case. We searched for images of Clinton together with Epstein on Google, Yahoo, Bing, DuckDuckGo, and Yandex. The results for all five of these search engines were similar, with none of them turning up a genuine photograph of Epstein together with Clinton: Google:   Yahoo:   Bing:   DuckDuckGo:   Yandex:   A spokesperson for Google told us that no images of Epstein or Clinton were removed from their search results and that the company did not make any manual changes to its algorithm to alter which images would be displayed for related searches.  We also checked right-leaning websites such as Breitbart, the National Review, and the Daily Caller to see if they had published any pictures of this pair together, but yet again we came up empty-handed.  Of course, the lack of pictures doesn't mean that Bill Clinton didn't have a friendly relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The former president reportedly took several trips on Epstein's private jet, and in 1995 Clinton and Epstein were both on the guest list for a "small dinner party" hosted by Revlon mogul Ron Perelman to raise funds for the Democratic National Convention: relationship several trips   At the time this article was originally written, images of Clinton and Epstein together didn't turn up in searches on Google, Bing, Yahoo, Yandex, or Duck Duck Go. That changed, however, after Snopes uncovered a photograph of Epstein and Clinton that was published in a 2003 print edition of Vanity Fair magazine. The claim that Google is censoring these images can further be debunked by examining the company's search results in the days following the publication of our article. On July 23, 2019, shortly after we published an image of Clinton with Epstein, it appeared on the front page of Google's search results: uncovered   Prokop, Andrew.  "Jeffrey Epsteins Connections to Donald Trump and Bill Clinton, Explained."
  Vox.  9 July 2019. Bryant, Nick.  "Flight Logs Put Clinton, Dershowitz on Pedophile Billionaires Sex Jet."
  Gawker.  22 January 2015. Karni, Annie and Maggie Haberman.  "Jeffrey Epstein Was a Terrific Guy, Donald Trump Once Said. Now Hes 'Not a Fan.'"
  The New York Times.  9 July 2019. Danner, Chas et al.  "Everything We Know About the Sex Crimes Case Against Jeffrey Epstein."
  New York Magazine.  8 July 2019. On March 19, 1995, an episode of "The Simpsons" entitled "Lisa's Wedding" took a futuristic view of Springfield's favorite family after Homer's daughter visited a fortuneteller's booth. At one point in the episode, Lisa's future husband, Hugh Parkfield, voiced by actor Mandy Patinkin, bent over and spoke into a strange-looking device on his wrist: a half flip phone, half wristwatch that most modern viewers would liken to a smartwatch. This animated gadget can be glimpsed at the 2:58 mark of this video about similar Simpsons "predictions." (You can read our coverage on "Simpsons" predictions here.) video "Simpsons" predictions here This is a genuine clip from a 1995 episode of "The Simpsons." It is also true that this episode aired more than 20 years before the "Year of the Smartwatch" in 2014, when these devices became relatively common. However, "The Simpsons" shouldn't get credit for "predicting" the smartwatch for two reasons: Year of the Smartwatch It's difficult to pinpoint exactly when the first smartwatch was produced, because it depends on the criteria you use to classify one. The first digital watches were produced in the 1970s. In 1983, the Seiko Data-2000 featured a built-in keyboard for data input. A few years later, Sinclair made a watch with an FM radio, and in 1994 Seiko unveiled a watch that doubled as a pager. The Timex Datalink, which was also introduced in 1994, is a good contender for the first "modern" smartwatch because it had the ability to transfer data by linking to a computer.  smartwatch produced The point is that the road to the modern smartwatch has been a long and winding one that predated this episode of "The Simpsons."  In addition to these early entries into the smartwatch market, the idea of a smartwatch can be traced back even further. Special agent James Bond, for instance, has a long history of using watch gadgets to aid his spy craft. In 1973's "Live and Let Die," Bond's watch was equipped with a circular saw and a magnet. In 1977's "The Spy Who Loved Me," Bond used his watch to print out tiny messages. In 1995's "Golden Eye," Bond's watch was equipped with a laser.  James Bond And Bond wasn't the only fictional character to use a dual-purpose watch. Fred Flintstone once communicated via a radio watch, as did members of "The Jetsons." Detective Dick Tracy also used a radio watch in a 1946 comic strip, and who could forget Penny's watch in "Inspector Gadget?" fictional character 1946 comic strip   In sum, "The Simpsons" didn't predict the smartwatch. While this episode of "The Simpsons" is real and truly predated the "Year of the Smartwatch" in 2014, this was not the first time a smartwatch appeared in a movie, comic strip, or television show. Furthermore, the evolution of the smartwatch was well underway by the time this episode aired in 1994.  You can read more about The Simpsons alleged predictions in the Snopes collection The Simpsons Didnt Predict That. The Simpsons Didnt Predict That Blakemore, Erin.  "How Dick Tracy Invented the Smartwatch."
  Smithsonian Magazine.  9 March 2015. Osborn, Jacob.  "A Complete List of All James Bond 007 Watches."
  Man of Many.  18 October 2019. Lamkin, Paul.  "Smartwatch Timeline: The Devices That Paved the Way for the Apple Watch."
  Wareable.  10 March 2015. Thompson, Joe.  "A Concise History of the Smartwatch."
  Bloomberg.  8 January 2018. Hamblen, Matt.  "Is 2014 the Year of the Smartwatch?"
  PC World.  28 December 2013. King, Rachel.  "Before They Were Stars: Smartwatches in Pop Culture."
  ZDnet.  6 March 2015. Claim:  Photograph shows a traffic speed measurement unit embedded in a guardrail.  Examples:  [Collected via Facebook, May 2013] This photo has shown up across Facebook and the interwebs getting Speeders in a panic since it claims to be a speed trap camera or radar. My own research into the matter has turned up little other than the rumor is far flung including England, Germany, and Malaysia.  New Police Radar Will Catch You Off Guard You know how when your late or on a trip trying to make time you become a little bit of a lead foot? Well now you not only have to watch for police cars. Here is the all new guardrail embedded radar system! Less staff needed. Which is good in one way, when you call for help more police will be available. Bad, because now you have to watch for bulging Guardrails as well!  Origins:  Although we can't say for sure exactly where it's located or whether it's currently operational, the object embedded in a roadside guardrail is an example of an automated LIDAR (light detection and ranging) device used for traffic speed enforcement.  LIDAR systems are similar to the radar systems currently employed for the detection of speeding motorists, but they use lasers rather than radio waves and therefore offer the advantages of working better in congested traffic conditions and are less detectable than radar (although the latter has greater range): LIDAR Lidar uses a time-of-flight method for taking measurements to determine the target vehicle's speed. When a pulse is transmitted, the timer starts, and when that pulse hits its target and returns, the timer stops. The calculation of distance traveled over time is computed to determine speed. In many respects, this sort of technology may not sound like anything new. After all, we've been using radar in a similar fashion for years. The difference lies in the type and shape of the pulse being transmitted. Radar shoots out a short, high-intensity burst of high-frequency radio waves in a cone-shaped pattern. Officers who have been through the painfully technical 40-hour Doppler radar training course know it will detect a variety of objects within that cone pattern, such as the closest target, the fastest moving target or the largest target. Officers are trained to differentiate and properly match targets down range to the radar readings they receive. Under most conditions, skilled users get good results with radar, and it is found to be most effective for open stretches of roadway. But for more congested areas, locking radar on a specific target is more difficult. Lidar utilizes laser technology, allowing for superior target acquisition in high-volume traffic areas. According to Carl Fors of Texas-based Speed Measurement Laboratories Inc., "Laser systems are the most accurate means of providing traffic and speed analysis compared to other systems. A laser can pinpoint one vehicle in a group while radar can't. A laser beam is a mere 18 inches wide at 500 feet compared to a radar beam's width of some 150 feet." In congested traffic areas, an officer can very effectively use lidar to pick out a specific target, site it and read its speed without any concern for interference from other close-by targets. This small beam width has another added benefit  it cannot be detected until after a speed measurement is already made. Testing of the most advanced detectors has shown that when officers aim properly (at the vehicle's front license plate instead of the windshield where the detector usually sits), the signal often goes undetected. A company sales brochure for the LMS-06 Traffic Observer digital traffic surveillance unit illustrates and explains how the particular LIDAR system shown above works: sales brochure    Note that the "hidden" guardrail unit shown in these photographs simply measures the speed of passing cars.  In this particular type of traffic enforcement system, a second and much more conspicuous unit is located slightly farther down the road from the speed measurement device to record and store images of offending vehicles:  Some older blog posts indicate the photographs displayed above were taken along the A8 motorway in Belgium in 2007.   A Google Maps Street View captured a view of a similar roadside LIDAR unit in Switzerland: blog posts Google Maps Street View  We note that LIDAR systems like the one shown above are not authorized for law enforcement use in all countries and jurisdictions, and that they can be employed for traffic monitoring purposes as well as speed limit enforcement.  As far as we know, the system pictured above is not currently being used in the United States. Last updated:  22 June 2013 <!--    National Home Center News.  "Penny-Wise, (3,000) Pound Foolish."    11 December 2000  (p. D1).   ISSN 0192-6772; Volume 26, Issue 22. Some conservatives are pushing Gov. Scott Walker to use his second term to enact much deeper changes in Wisconsin government. When Walker got to office, Wisconsin was one of the worst states in the country in which to do business, with one of the highest regulatory and tax burdens,Mario Loyola, a senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation,wrote in the conservative National Reviewon Nov. 5, 2014. Some estimates now rate it as number 14 for doing business, but dont be deceived, Loyola wrote under the headline, Walkers Win: Why it was the most important GOP win in the country. He added: Wisconsins state budget is almost twice as large per person as the state budget of Texas, and even after billions in tax cuts, Wisconsins working families and businesses remain subject to a heavy tax burden. As Walker ramps up exploration of a 2016 presidential campaign, lets check the claim about spending and taxation in the Badger state. Well take the easy part first. Taxes Walker and Republican legislators have approved a variety of tax freezes and cuts. In March 2014, we ratedTruea Walker claim that hes delivered $2 billion in tax cuts, mainly by reducing income tax rates and limiting local property tax hikes. But an Oct. 14, 2014report by the Tax Foundationranked Wisconsin among the highest 10 states for business taxes on a scale that included corporate, individual income, sales, unemployment insurance and property taxes. Census figures on tax collections lag by two years, so they dont account for all of Walkers cuts. But the latest figures showed that property-tax and income-tax collections in Wisconsin run more than 25 percent above the national average,we reported. Theres ample evidence that Wisconsin is among the middle group of states when all sources of revenue are considered. But on taxes alone, the state remains closer to the top. Spending To back up his claim, Loyola, a University of Wisconsin-Madison graduate, pointed us to thestate expenditure study done in 2013 by the National Association of State Budget Officers. That report doesnt compute per-capita spending, but based on a survey of budget officials it shows a total spending figure from state revenues, federal aid and other sources. We did the math and it backs up the claim: In 2013, Wisconsin state budget spending was about $7,500 per capita compared to about $3,600 in Texas. The study comes from a respected trade group andother organizationsrefer to its findings. The study cautions, however: State governments have specific functional responsibilities that vary among states depending on the role of local governments in providing services. For example, in many states, the funding of elementary and secondary education is considered primarily a local function. We could not replicate the studys findings using U.S. Census surveys of state and local government finances. That Census data is preferred by researchers, though one drawback is that reporting of the data lags about two years. One researcher, Dale Knapp with the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, said the census figures are better because the Budget Officers study includes some things that we generally dont consider part of the state budget -- the biggest of which is state retirement payments. They also include unemployment payments, lottery prizes, and capital expenditures, which can vary from year to year. When looking just at state spending (and excluding transfers to local governments), Wisconsin state government spends 27.1% more per capita than Texas in 2011, Knapp found. We also asked the Wisconsin Budget Project to run comparisons. Tamarine Cornelius and Jon Peacock of the group told us that Wisconsin per capita direct general expenditures were $1,114 above that of Texas, or 15 percent. That was for state and local expenditures. Wisconsin ranked #21 among the states; Texas was #38. So neither group backs up the claim that Wisconsin state government spends 100% more -- twice as much -- as Wisconsin on a per-capita basis. Still, we found that the numbers in the study cited by Loyola were drawn from the annual financial reports published by Texas and Wisconsin. On a topic where various definitions of state budget are fair game, that gives his claim a reasonable basis. Our rating Wisconsins state budget is almost twice as large per person as the state budget of Texas, and even after billions in tax cuts, Wisconsins working families and businesses remain subject to a heavy tax burden. Loyolas on target on taxes, and cites a credible study on spending that is open to challenge but generally defensible. We rate his claim Mostly True. In February 2017, a video was widely circulated online purportedly showing a woman named AceshaBright committing a murder.  As depicted in the video, Bright enters a residence unannounced, finds her partner taking a bath with another man, and hurls a plugged-in electrical appliance into the tub, presumably electrocuting him:  Social media viewers pointed to an arrest report for an "Acesha A. Bright" as evidence that the video depicted a real murder: report   Although a woman named AceshaBright was arrested on 11 February 2017 for murder, she is not the woman seen in this video:   In addition to the optical differences, the viral video contains a clue that the event it depicts was staged.  The video contains a watermark for "Dominic Low," who has posted several realistic videos to Facebook, many of which feature women getting revenge on unfaithful lovers. The same woman (wearing the same dress) is featured in at least one other of these videos: videos videos   In addition to using the same actress, Low also employed the same location in a prior video (notice the painting on the wall that appears in both): location   Furthermore, the earliest version of the viral video purportedly showing Acesha Bright's homicide was posted along with a caption stating that it occurred on Valentine's Day ("Fried Ass and a glass of Wine...Hell of a Vday !!! credit Dominic Low"), three days after the real Bright's arrest on 11 February 2017. Valentine's Day The original postings of the video also did not identify the scornful woman who fried her love as Acesha Bright (or anyone else). While we have not been able to positively identify the woman in the videos, social media users have pointed to "Opal Culton," an actress from Las Vegas who is also Facebook friends with Dominic Low. friends A Facebook post resembling a genuine news item reporting that musician Kid Rock had been found dead at his home was circulated over 4th of July weekend in 2017: circulated   Although this post resembled a genuine news item, it was actually a product of the "prank" web site Channel23News.com. Channel23News.com Channel23News.com  enables users to "prank" their friends by creating and sharing fake news stories. The user provides the headline, a brief text about the fake news item, and an image, and the web site formats this content to resemble a genuine news bulletin posted via social media: Create A Prank And Trick All Your Friends! Simply Create Your Own Prank And Then Share It On Your Social Network Pages! Tips: You must be creative but keep in mind to make it fun.Fake Title: Choose a catchy title for your joke. Make your friends curious.Description: Be creative and make your friends curious.Image: Upload one or search one via google images Although these items resemble real news items when they are shared on social media, readers who click through to visit the underlying article and web site are greeted with a "You Got Owned" meme and the following disclaimer:   We do NOT support FAKE NEWS!!! This is a Prank website that is intended for Fun. Bullying, Violent Threats or posts that Violate Public Order are NOT permitted on this Website. In June 2019, tens of millions of Facebook users watched and shared a viral video that purported to demonstrate "16 easy tests" to determine whether certain foods and drinks were "fake" or "real." The video was posted on 1 June by Blossom, a digital publishing brand that creates viral content, often in the form of "listicles"  "8 ways to transform and upgrade your wardrobe," "3 oddly satisfying stress relievers," "4 super cool ways to use ice cube trays," and so on. Within a few days, viewers shared the video more than 3 million times and viewed it more than 85 million times. However, it was removed from Facebook by 10 June 2019, after this fact check was originally published.  The video purported to show short clips of DIY food "experiments," along with subtitles that add a degree of detail:   The 16 tests outlined in the video constituted a mixture of falsehoods, recycled urban myths, one or two experiments that have a grain of truth to them, and several tests that address types of adulteration that are absent from the United States and many other countries but have been reported in India and parts of the developing world. On the whole, the video served its viewers poorly as a source of reliable information about food safety and adulteration. In a statement sent in response to the spread of the video, a spokesperson for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) told Snopes: Federal law requires that food is safe and properly labeled. For example, all food additives and color additives must be approved by FDA before market entry, and the labeling of food must be truthful and not misleading. We take food contamination and fraud very seriously and do take action when problems arise, especially if it appears that the adulteration was intentional. Consumers should rest assured that most of the practices illustrated in this video are not legal in the U.S. and any FDA-regulated product that violates or appears to the violate the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, may be subject to seizure, mandatory recall, or other enforcement action ... Consumers should be able to trust that the foods they eat are safe and videos like these can undermine the confidence consumers have in the FDAs role in maintaining the safety our food supply ... For its part, First Media, the company that operates the Blossom brand, told us via a spokesperson: "The video does not claim that all products or specific manufacturers include these materials, nor does it make any health or nutritional suggestions or recommendations. They are demonstrations of things we consider to be important for our global audience, however this content is intended only for informational purposes and as entertainment. First Media We sent the video and its 16 claims to Eric Decker, head of the Department of Food Science in the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, one of the leading academic food science programs in the United States. Here is our breakdown of the 16 tests, based on Decker's assessments and the supporting evidence provided to Snopes by First Media. 1. "Processed cheese with chemicals is difficult to melt":    The claim that processed cheese is hard to melt is an old one, and a subject we have previously examined in detail. It first emerged in late 2014 when internet users began posting videos of themselves setting fire to slices of American cheese in an effort to prove that the cheese was "fake." detail When asked for supporting evidence, a spokesperson for First Media directed us to a 2015 Vice News article and wrote: "Processed cheese contains an added ingredient known as 'Emulsifying Salt' which is known to 'help bind fats, proteins, and water in cheese.'" Interestingly, the Vice article that First Media relied on as evidence carried the headline "Stop Setting Your Cheese on Fire" and warned: "Videos purporting to demonstrate the evil stuff in processed cheese have started making the rounds online. Problem is, they don't prove anything except how little we know about our food." article In response to this section of the video, Decker told us: "That's exactly the opposite of reality ... There are additives that are added to processed cheese to help the cheese melt ... They take real cheese and they add what they call chelating salts and things like citric acid. That helps break the protein [casein] down. The protein in regular cheese is very aggregated together. So when you melt it, you see these clumps. If you can get those proteins to come apart, then it's much easier to melt the cheese." [Emphasis is added]. 2. "Rice is mixed with plastic bits to increase manufacturer profit":    This is another canard. Every so often, for the best part of the past decade, highly questionable and thinly sourced reports have been emerging from China and other Asian countries, as well as parts of Africa, claiming widespread adulteration of rice with plastic. So far, no reliable corroboration of those claims exists, which have caused panic in some countries and have been confirmed as hoaxes. canard reports hoaxes If you add plastic to rice and then cook that mixture, you might be able to identify the plastic by its melting, turning clear, or sticking to the frying pan. But no reliable evidence exists that such rice is bought or sold anywhere in the world (not least the United States) in the first place. When asked by Snopes, First Media declined to say how and where they obtained the rice shown in the video, and whether they had added anything to the rice before filming this portion of the video. 3. 'Baby food contains ground-up rocks advertised as fortified calcium': UNPROVEN   First Media told us this test was based on one included in a similar 2015 video, which can be viewed here. However, that video purportedly showed a magnet being used to locate and extract iron filings, not calcium, in baby food. We put that discrepancy to First Media, but they declined to clarify what their video actually showed, and also refused to say how and where they had obtained the baby food purportedly shown in the video or whether they had added anything to it before filming. here Either way, the video is framed in a highly misleading way, describing fortified calcium as "ground-up rocks." Calcium, an earth metal, can be found naturally in rocks and other components of the earth's surface, especially in limestone. On this subject, Decker told us that most supplemental calcium was ultimately derived from a rock. "That's what's in lime [stone]. You can get calcium that comes from oyster shells, you can get calcium that comes from all different sources." He said the description of fortified calcium as "ground-up rocks" was "very misleading." "The calcium they put in baby food would be no different than what they put in any food." 4. "Synthetic supplements burn! Natural supplements won't!":    "That's just bullshit," Decker told us. "There's just no basis to any of that. Most synthetic supplements are chemically identical to natural supplements." In response to our request for supporting evidence, First Media directed us to another questionable 2015 video, which can be viewed here. That video also showed a tray of supplements  both capsules and tablets  baked in an oven. Those that burned or melted were identified as synthetic, those that did not were identified as natural. When asked by us, First Media refused to identify the supplements shown in their own video, and refused to say where and how they had obtained them. here 5. 'Glue' in meat: true   This section has to do with something called transglutaminase, which the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) describes as "an enzyme approved for use as a binder to form smaller cuts of meat into a larger serving of meat. It is a natural substance derived from fermented bacteria ..." describes Transglutaminase is sometimes colloquially referred to as "meat glue," but First Media's video had the potential to cause unnecessary alarm or misinformation by describing it simply as "glue," raising the specter of synthetic acrylic and epoxy glues being surreptitiously embedded in meat products. We can't verify that what is shown in the video is in fact meat glue, but we do know that transglutaminase is regarded as safe by U.S. federal authorities. According to the USDA, "TG enzyme is a food binder that has been used in meat and poultry products for over 10 years. It was determined to be generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1998 for use to improve texture and cooking yields in various standardized meat and poultry products and as a protein cross-linking agent to fabricate or reform cuts of meat." 6. Washing powder is added to ice cream "for shine and lightness":    As evidence in relation to this section of the video, First Media sent Snopes a link to a 2018 post on a relatively obscure Indian blog which claimed that ice cream is sometimes adulterated with "Detergents or washing powder to improve smoothness and induce frothing thereby adding to the volume." post The warning appears to have originated with speeches and checklists prepared in 2012 and 2013 by Sitaram Dixit, then chairman of a non-profit organization called the Consumer Guidance Society of India. In a 2013 document, Dixit outlined two tests for determining the presence of washing powder in ice cream: 2012 document "1. Put some lemon juice [in the ice cream], bubbles are observed if washing powder is present. 2. Add 1 ml of Hydrochloric acid (HCl) to a little of [sic] Sugar. If you observe effervescence, then washing powder is present." Despite this warning, no evidence exists of a pattern of behavior whereby retailers or manufacturers do, in fact, add washing powder or detergent to ice cream in order to add to its frothiness. We found no specific reports of any such incidents, either from India or elsewhere. In the context of the United States, we checked the FDA database of product-complaint reports from 2004 to 2018, and found not a single report of washing powder or detergent having been added to ice cream, or any other food or beverage product. database First Media's video might well show lemon juice being added to a mixture of ice cream and washing powder. (The company again refused to say where they obtained the ice cream shown in the video and whether they had added anything to it before filming.) However, the underlying premise of this experiment  that manufacturers or retailers do, in fact, add washing powder to ice cream "for shine and lightness"  is false. Most of the remaining 10 claims can be traced back to guidelines published in 2015 by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), a legitimate statutory agency operating under the aegis of India's Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the Indian government. Food adulteration is a serious and widespread problem in India, to an extent that is not replicated in the United States and many other developed countries. Some of the remaining tests in the Blossom video were based on scientifically valid experiments, but they had to do with types of food and drink adulteration that either simply do not occur, or are not prevalent in the United States and many other countries. Although Blossom has an international audience, the brand served its viewers  particularly those living outside India  poorly by failing to mention any of that crucial context. guidelines problem 7. Milk is adulterated with rice water, but will turn blue in the presence of seaweed:    This test can be traced to the FSSAI guidelines, known as "Detect Adulteration with Rapid Test" (DART), which set out the following method: guidelines "Boil 2-3 ml of sample with 5ml of water. Cool and add 2-3 drops of tincture of iodine. Formation of blue colour indicates the presence of starch. (In the case of milk, addition of water and boiling is not required)". As First Media explained to us by email, they used seaweed in their test because it is a good source of iodine. We haven't been able to verify the iodine content of the particular seaweed they used, nor the composition of the milk samples featured in the videos. (The company refused to say where they obtained the milk or whether they added anything to it before filming, and they declined to answer a question about the prevalence of starch adulteration of milk in the United States.) However, the test is at least based on an FSSAI experiment that is scientifically legitimate, as confirmed by Decker. source Nonetheless, it is a test that addresses a type of adulteration (starch in milk) that is not prevalent in the United States and many other developed countries. By failing to provide that crucial context, this section of the video presented a highly misleading impression to tens of millions of viewers. 8. "Old produce is often dyed to make it look fresh" (and rubbing it with oil and water will reveal the deception):    This test also originates in the FSSAI guidelines, which set out the following method: "Take a cotton ball soaked in water or vegetable oil. (conduct the test separately). Rub the outer red surface of the sweet potato. If cotton absorbs colour, then it indicates the usage of rhodamine B for colouring the outer surface of sweet potato." Clearly, food products in India feature color additives such as rhodamine B to an extent or frequency that warrants the intervention of the FSSAI. However, the same is not true in the United States. Since 1983, the FDA has banned the two types of rhodamine B for use in drugs and cosmetics due to their carcinogenic properties. Since rhodamine B is not affirmatively listed as safe for use in food, it is therefore also effectively banned for use in food. For that reason, food manufacturers  subject to FDA inspections and fearful of punishment for violating food safety regulations  don't use rhodamine B. In rare cases when they do, the FDA takes action against them. In light of these facts, it's not clear where or how First Media obtained the sweet potato shown in the video, or whether they added anything to it before filming. banned rare cases 9. "Coffee with additives floats, pure coffee sinks": UNPROVEN   This test can also ultimately be traced back to the FSSAI guidelines, but those guidelines set out methods to test for the presence of two specific substances apparently used in India to adulterate coffee: clay and chicory powder. In testing for clay, the FSSAI advised, "Add  teaspoon of coffee powder in a transparent glass of water. Stir for a minute and keep it aside for 5 minutes. Observe the glass at the bottom. Pure coffee powder will not leave any clay particles at the bottom. If coffee powder is adulterated, clay particles will settle at the bottom." In the illustration used to demonstrate the clay test, the unadulterated coffee floats on the surface of the glass of water, something Blossom claimed was characteristic of adulterated coffee:   In testing for the presence of chicory powder, the FSSAI guidelines advised: "Take a transparent glass of water. Add a teaspoon of coffee powder. Coffee powder floats over the water but chicory begins to sink." Here once again, the illustration shows pure coffee as floating on the surface of the water, while the chicory-adulterated coffee sinks. This is the opposite of what Blossom's video claimed when it stated "pure coffee sinks." For these reasons, among others, this particular test should not be considered reliable. We asked First Media to specify the kinds of additives that were tested in its video, but we did not receive a response to that particular question. 10. Fake salt contains chalk and turns water cloudy:    Again, the practice of adulterating salt with chalk is one primarily seen in India. We could find no evidence of such a practice in the United States. As such, the "chalk in salt" test derives from the FSSAI guidelines, which outline the following advice: "Stir a spoonful of sample of salt in a glass of water. The presence of chalk will make [the] solution white and other insoluble impurities will settle down." 11. "Old split peas are coated in green dye to disguise them":    It's not clear how widespread the practice of adding green coloring to split peas is, but it has featured in unconfirmed news reports emanating from China and India, and it has also been the subject of viral hoaxes in India. It appears to be prevalent enough in India that the FSSAI included it in some guidelines, advising: "Detection of artificial colour on green peas: Take little amount of green peas in a transparent glass. Add water to it and mix well. Let it stand for half an hour. Clear separation of colour in water indicates adulteration." China India hoaxes However, no evidence shows that the practice is prevalent in the United States or other developed countries. Furthermore, it's not clear that Blossom's video actually shows green dye being removed from split peas, as opposed to the process of chlorophyll degradation, which occurs naturally when green split peas are exposed to the heat of boiling water. 12. "Pure spices burn and ignite, impure spices don't": UNPROVEN   This claim too can be traced back to the FSSAI guidelines, but those guidelines specifically related to asafoetida, a gum that is used widely in Indian cuisine. By contrast, the Blossom video referred only to "spices," and showed a spoonful of turmeric. The FSSAI guidelines advised: "Detection of foreign resin in asafoetida: Burn small quantity of asafoetida in a stainless steel spoon. Pure asafoetida will burn like camphor [a flammable wax]. Adulterated asafoetida will not produce bright flame like camphor." While asafoetida adulteration might well be prevalent in India, and lighting a flame under a spoonful of it might indeed be a scientifically valid means of determining whether the asafoetida contains adulterants, it simply cannot be assumed that the same test works for other spices. As Decker observed: "Trying to extend that test to turmeric isn't necessarily accurate, because those two spices have very different compositions." We asked First Media for a list of spices to which the "flame" test applied, but we did not receive a response to that question. 13. Some honey is diluted with water and diluted honey extinguishes a flame in a candle wick: true   This test also originates in the FSSAI guidelines, which state: "Take a cotton wick dipped in a pure honey and light with a match stick. Pure honey will burn. If adulterated, the presence of water will not allow the honey to burn. If it does, it will produce a cracking sound." The FSSAI test appears to be valid, and appears to have been replicated by the makers of the video. However, it's worth noting that in the context of the United States, the primary way in which honey is adulterated is by being mixed with corn syrup or cane sugar, not by being diluted with water. In light of that fact, it's not clear where First Media obtained diluted honey, or whether they themselves added water to pure honey before filming. mixed 14. "Pure tea doesn't stain, impure tea stains instantly":    Black teas get their characteristic dark colors from the tannins they contain. As such, even unadulterated tea might leave a stain, as anyone who has dropped a tea bag on to a garment or piece of paper can attest. tannins However, the FSSAI guidelines do contain a test that is designed to determine not just whether a tea is "impure," as the video ambiguously claims, but specifically whether old tea leaves have been artificially colored with coal-tar dye: "Detection of exhausted tea in tea leaves: Take a filter paper and spread [a] few tea leaves. Sprinkle with water to wet the filter paper. Wash the filter paper under tap water and observe the stains against light. Pure tea leaves will not stain the filter paper. If coal tar is present, it will immediately stain the filter paper." We asked First Media to clarify what they meant by "impure" tea, but we did not receive a response to that question. As such, we cannot evaluate the validity or reliability of the test shown in the video. 15. 'If butter contains oil, added sugar will turn pink': UNPROVEN   First Media cited a source that claimed: "Add a pinch of sugar to a teaspoon of melted ghee in a bottle. Shake well. Check it after 5 minutes, if you see the colour change to red, then it contains vegetable oil." source That purported test can ultimately be traced back to a document published by Dixit, the former chairman of the Consumer Guidance Society of India, whose claims formed the basis of the "washing powder in ice cream" test above. Dixit outlined an experiment for determining the presence of vanaspati, a kind of vegetable shortening, in butter or ghee (clarified butter): "Take one teaspoonful of melted ghee or butter with equal quantity of Conc. Hydrochloric acid in a test tube. Add to it a pinch of cane sugar. Shake well for one minute and let it stand for five minutes. Crimson red colour in lower layer shows the presence of Vanaspati." experiment First Media's video claimed only that the presence of "oil" (presumed to be vegetable oil) would cause sugar to turn pink in butter. However, the source the company cited and the original source both claimed the sugar would turn red, not pink, and the original source said the sugar would turn "crimson red," and only after the inclusion of concentrated hydrochloric acid in the mixture. Without any further details about the precise ingredients and process employed by First Media (which the company failed to provide), and in light of these discrepancies, we can't draw any definitive conclusions about the validity of the test shown in the video. 16. Some fresh produce is coated in wax, and warm water removes the wax:   This is the only clearly accurate claim in the video. We can't say for certain that what is shown in the video is indeed wax being removed from a bell pepper by warm water, but there's no doubt that producers and retailers do sometimes apply wax coatings to fruit and vegetables, as Decker outlined: "That's common. Vegetables are waxed a lot. The main purposes of waxing the vegetable, one of them is to give it that shiny appearance, but the other one is to prevent moisture loss." So the application of a thin coating of wax is a real phenomenon, as the video states, but this doesn't indicate that the food is "fake" -- rather, it's a safe, FDA-approved way to help the produce look shinier and last longer. As Decker observed: "All these waxes are edible, anyway. They're approved food additives." approved In summary, this particular section of the video is actually accurate, but it shouldn't be a cause of too much concern for consumers. Snopes.com.  "Kraft Cheese Won't Melt?"
  30 May 2015. Vice.  "Stop Setting Your Cheese on Fire."
  23 January 2015. LaCapria, Kim.  "Plastic Rice from China."
  Snopes.com.  26 October 2016. Subedar, Anisa.  "Why People Believe the Myth of 'Plastic Rice.'"
  BBC News.  5 July 2017. Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.  "Safety of Transglutaminase Enzyme (TG Enzyme)."
  6 February 2017. Narang, Gaurav.  "CityGreens Consumer Awareness Initiative. Ice Cream vs. Frozen Desserts and How to Check for Adulteration in Them."
  CityGreens.  16 February 2018. Food Safety and Standards Authority of India.  "Detect Adulteration With Rapid Test."
  February 2015. Mandhani, Apoorva.  "Law Commission Recommends Life Imprisonment for Food Adulteration."
  LiveLaw.in.  19 January 2017. China Daily.  "Fake Green Peas Latest Food Scandal."
  31 March 2010. BOOM.  "No, This Video Does Not Show How Artificial Colour is Added to Peas."
  5 July 2018. The Times of India.  "10 Most Adulterated Food Items in Your Kitchen and How to Check Their Purity."
  20 October 2018. Update [10 June 2019]: Updated to reflect the fact that Blossom/First Media's 1 June video had been removed from Facebook.