Science Facts & Fallacies: Recent Episodes
Cameron English
From CRISPR gene-edited embryos to GMO crops, biotechnology is revolutionizing medicine and farming. Scientists are increasingly able to make targeted genetic tweaks to humans, plants and animals to combat our most urgent global challenges—including hunger, disease, aging and climate change. Sadly, scientific misinformation spreads like cancer through social media and partisan blogs. Where can you turn for trustworthy analysis of groundbreaking biotechnology innovations independent of ideological bias? Who can you trust? Join the Genetic Literacy Project and our world-renowned experts as we explore the brave new world of human genetics, biomedicine, farming and food.
Enjoying delicious food is a fundamental part of the human experience. Few of us would deny the enjoyment we get from that first bite of pecan pie after Thanksgiving dinner, or the aroma of a perfectly cooked steak coming off the grill. Eating is undeniably pleasurable, in other words, and we certainly do find some choices more appealing than others. This preference is nature’s way of directing us toward safe, nutritious foods and away from toxins that can harm us. In recent decades, however, some scientists have warped this basic evolutionary fact into a convoluted theory of “food addiction,” the belief that people can become dependent on specific foods the same way they do with deadly drugs like heroin. On the surface, food addiction makes sense. America remains in the throes of an obesity crisis, and heart disease—a condition heavily influenced by poor dietary choices—still kills more Americans than any other cause. Against that backdrop, the addictive nature of our favorite foods seems to explain our ongoing willingness to overindulge despite the often-fatal consequences.
But the food addiction narrative begins to unravel the more experts scrutinize it, raising questions proponents of the hypothesis don’t have good answers for. For example, only a minority of obese people fit the definition for food addiction while a larger share of patients diagnosed with anorexia do. This paradox badly undermines food addiction and goes to a broader point: the diagnostic criteria are not distinct from existing disorders. Indeed, large-scale studies show that food addiction symptoms almost perfectly overlap with binge-eating disorder and normal overeating driven by stress or restriction.
Once those factors are controlled for, an independent “food addiction” syndrome disappears. “Collectively, the present findings support the view that [food addiction] reflects a cluster of preexisting psychological constructs—such as craving, guilt, and disordered eating attitudes—rather than a clearly delineated disorder,” the authors of a July 2025 review concluded.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPPerhaps more importantly, no unique addictive agent has been identified. Decades of searching for a “food drug” (sugar, fat, palatability) have failed. While some mental health experts insist there is an “emerging consensus” about the validity of food addiction, they can’t seem to settle on exactly what quality makes a certain dietary choice addictive. This seriously undercuts any attempt to analogize food addiction to a well-established substance use disorder like alcoholism.
In short, “food addiction” is a metaphor stretched into a diagnosis. It pathologizes common human struggles and distracts from evidence-based drivers of overeating: sleep deprivation, emotional distress, and the modern food environment’s relentless cue exposure. The science has moved on; the label should too.
Join Dr. Liza Lockwood and Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as they take a closer look at “food addiction.”
Dr. Liza Lockwood is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD
Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Follow him on X @camjenglish
The science is settled: biological sex is not a spectrum but a binary, and the evidence is undeniable to anyone willing to fairly consider it. So argues evolutionary biologist Colin Wright in a new peer-reviewed article simply titled Why There Are Exactly Two Sexes. Grounding his argument in Darwinian evolution—a theory universally endorsed by the science community—Wright outlines a few basic facts that no serious person disputed until just a few years ago.
In anisogamous species, including humans, sex is strictly defined by the type of gamete an organism’s reproductive system is designed to produce, small sperm for males and large ova for females. This gametic dimorphism, evolved over a billion years ago from isogamous ancestors through disruptive selection, forms the universal basis for the two sexes. “As with the fact of evolution itself,” Wright notes, “contemporary scientific debates have long moved on from questioning whether the sex binary is a fact to questions about how anisogamy evolved, why it persists, and what its evolutionary consequences are.”
Of course, challenges to this consensus are widespread today; even some major science journals have declared their opposition to the sex binary. “The idea of two sexes is simplistic,” Nature famously asserted in 2015, for example. “Biologists now think there is a wider spectrum than that.” The problem with this and similar counterarguments, Wright adds, is that they’re “seemingly driven by cultural and political debates surrounding the concept of ‘gender identity’ and transgender rights.” They don’t introduce new evidence that improves our understanding of sex, they merely try to redefine it to facilitate certain policy outcomes.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPThis biased methodology introduces an even greater problem beyond its factual mistakes: lawmakers, physicians and individuals begin making decisions that cause real harm. As Wright puts it:
Policy disputes should not be adjudicated by redefining—or defining away—the reproductive realities that make sex a useful scientific concept in the first place. When categories are blurred for nonscientific reasons, we invite downstream harms: muddled clinical protocols, compromised epidemiology, eroding and/or conflicting legal protections, and diminished public trust in scienceJoin Dr. Liza Lockwood and Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as they take a closer look at Wright’s defense of the sex binary.
Dr. Liza Lockwood is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD
Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Follow him on X @camjenglish
US obesity rates are falling from a record high after steadily climbing since the 1960s, dropping to 37 percent this year from a peak of just under 40 percent in 2022. This downturn tightly correlates with a surge in the use of blockbuster weight-loss drugs like Ozempic and Zepbound—which have more than doubled since 2024, resulting in roughly 7.6 million fewer obese adults, according to Gallup. This positive trend underscores obesity’s responsiveness to pharmacological intervention, bolstering arguments that it behaves as a treatable medical condition rather than mere lifestyle failure.Critics aren’t convinced, however. They contend that obesity is a behavioral abnormality and a risk factor for real diseases, not a discrete pathology. Writing in the journal Nature in 2014, Dr. David Katz summed up this perspective. “Our bodies, physiologies and genes are the same as they ever were,” he argued. “What has changed while obesity has gone from rare to pandemic is not within, but all around us.” In short, an abundant food supply and marked decrease in physical labor over recent decades have turned a normal physiological response—storing excess calories for later use—into a public health threat. Humans are wired for an environment characterized by energy scarcity, where intense exertion is required to gather the calories necessary for survival, a dynamic that persisted well into the 20th century.
Proponents of the disease model of obesity, including the American Medical Association (AMA), which classified obesity as a disease in 2013, emphasize its complex etiology: genetic predispositions, hormonal dysregulation (e.g., leptin resistance) and socioeconomic barriers contribute to energy imbalance, akin to hypertension or diabetes. Advocates also say recognizing obesity as a disease destigmatizes patients, enhances insurance reimbursement for treatments and spurs research funding—vital as obesity drives comorbidities like cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes.
So, is obesity a disease or a harmful lifestyle choice? Are those two definitions mutually exclusive? Join Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as he examines the obesity-disease hypothesis.
Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Follow him on X @camjenglish
RFK, Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) coalition has built its platform on the concept of health freedom, a belief that individuals have a right to make their own health care decisions without coercion from the public health establishment. “This growing, nonpartisan health freedom movement is pushing for bold, sweeping changes to a system that many believe is long overdue for reform,” says Josh Axe, a prominent alternative medicine advocate and MAHA supporter. “Whether you realize it or not, if you’ve ever questioned a prescription, worried about food safety, or felt unheard in a medical office, you’re already part of it.”Americans across the political spectrum embrace this rights-based rhetoric, even people who are generally hostile to Kennedy’s agenda; for instance, scientists who advocate for universal health care often frame access to medicine as a human right. Nevertheless, critics of the MAHA campaign argue that health freedom is merely a smokescreen masking an insidious agenda. Kennedy and his compatriots cloak their policy goals in the language of liberty, the argument goes, but they have no problem imposing their preferences on Americans when they can get away with it.
For example, the FDA under Kennedy’s leadership recently changed federal recommendations for COVID-19 vaccines, a move that could limit access to the shots even if people want them and could benefit from the protection they provide. And earlier in his career, RFK, Jr. was caught on camera advocating for the imprisonment of prominent businessmen he deemed proponents of climate change misinformation. The man clearly has an authoritarian streak, in other words.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPThese observations invite some important questions: is health freedom a legitimate concept that has been abused by cynical MAHA activists? Is the very idea of “health freedom” a fiction? Join Dr. Liza Lockwood and Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as they scrutinize “health freedom.”
Dr. Liza Lockwood is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD
Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Follow him on X @camjenglish
Late last month, Daily Caller published a bombshell report claiming that Johnson & Johnson, the former manufacturer of Tylenol (acetaminophen), quietly conceded that its pain reliever might be linked to autism. “SCOOP: Tylenol Maker Privately Admitted Evidence Was Getting ‘Heavy’ For Autism Risk In 2018,” the story’s headline announced. “The pharmaceutical company behind Tylenol privately acknowledged the likelihood of an association between its drug in pregnancy and neurodevelopmental disorders like autism,” reporter Emily Kopp alleged, citing “company documents” she obtained from the law firm Keller Postman LLC, which is suing the maker of Tylenol. The story exploded on social media, garnering millions of views and thousands of retweets—including from federal agencies like Health and Human Services, now led by Robert F Kennedy, Jr.There was a critical problem, however: the internal company documents explicitly refuted a causal association between Tylenol use and autism. Johnson & Johnson’s experts, tasked with evaluating the possible link between acetaminophen and the neurodevelopmental disorder, panned the low-quality evidence cited by critics. “There is no proven link between the two [our emphasis],” a 2012 email from one company scientist plainly stated. A second email in the same chain of messages explained why: “Review of the cases identified confounders or lack of information which preclude a causal assessment.”
Kopp excluded these clear refutations of the Tylenol-autism link from her story, though she implied that the company’s tone had shifted by 2018, quoting one J&J scientist as saying “The weight of the evidence is starting to feel heavy to me.” But an internal evidence review prepared for company executives the same year confirmed that its experts remained skeptical of the association. Evaluating all the evidence available at the time, they noted that studies linking Tylenol to autism were hampered by confounding, meaning another factor beyond acetaminophen exposure was the likely cause of autism. “There are limitations of the individual studies that make it challenging to conduct a meta-analysis,” the presentation concluded.
Meta-analysis is a method of combining and analyzing data from multiple studies on the same topic to reach a more conclusive answer than any one study could provide. The individual studies linking acetaminophen and autism were so limited—so hampered by confounding—they couldn’t be combined for a meta-analysis, J&J scientists found.
The most recent evidence review, published in August 2025, purporting to show a link between Tylenol and autism didn’t include a meta-analysis for the same reason. “[W]e did not conduct [a meta-analysis] due to significant heterogeneity across studies in exposure assessment…” the authors wrote. In sum, the advocates of the acetaminophen-autism association were forced to concede publicly the same point J&J’s scientists made privately.
What do we make of all this? The best evidence to date indicates that the risk of autism is heavily influenced by a variety of genetic factors. For example, multiple studies have shown that pregnant women with neurodevelopmental disorders experience more pain during pregnancy and thus tend to use more Tylenol, explaining the association between the drug and subsequent autism diagnosis in their children. “So let’s be clear,” GLP contributor Dr. Andrea Love observed in a recent story, “autism is overwhelmingly genetic, sometimes influenced by biological and developmental factors like maternal fever, but not acetaminophen.”
Bottom line: The Daily Caller report is fundamentally flawed. It selectively cited private communications and scientific research to support a predetermined conclusion. There is no evidence showing that Tylenol causes autism.
Join Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as he examines Daily Caller’s allegation in more detail.
Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Follow him on X @camjenglish
Buoyed by sensationalist reporters eager to write alarming headlines, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has repeatedly hyped a dramatic “epidemic” of cancer among children and young people, asserting that rates have soared by nearly 50% since the 1970s thanks to growing exposure to environmental “toxins.” He describes this as part of a broader “chronic disease crisis” in youth. The media, despite its near-universal opposition to Kennedy’s agenda, has breathlessly repeated his claims about a youth cancer epidemic.In reality, no such epidemic exists. Childhood cancer (ages 0-14) remains rare, with about 9,550 new U.S. cases projected for 2025—stable at roughly 15 per 100,000 children annually. Incidence rates have slightly declined by 0.8% per year from 2015-2021, driven by drops in brain tumors. For adolescents (15-19), rates rose modestly by 0.7% annually, and for young adults (15-39), by just 0.3% from 2013-2022—far from “soaring.”
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPCancer mortality tells an even clearer success story: Death rates have plummeted 70% in children and 63% in adolescents since 1970 (p 11), thanks to better treatments—now at approximately 1% of all cancer deaths. Survival exceeds 86% for young patients. While specific cancers like colorectal and breast show slight upticks in people under 50 (1-2% annually), these are tiny increases, and they aren’t occurring in an age group anybody typically describes as young.
Scapegoating chemical exposure for these rare cancer cases lacks evidence and obscures the fact that child health has improved dramatically, with overall mortality halved since the 1960s. It’s time for reporters, social media influencers and public health officials to focus on evidence and quit exaggerating risk.
Join Dr. Liza Lockwood and Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as they debunk the media-driven “youth” cancer scare.
Dr. Liza Lockwood is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD
Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Follow him on X @camjenglish
How far are we willing to go to slow climate change? The list of proposed solutions runs the gamut from carbon taxes to eventual bans on fossil fuels. But some activists are now flirting with far more radical ideas. In July, a pair of ethicists from Western Michigan University floated the possibility of deliberately infecting people with a tick-borne condition called Alpha-Gal Syndrome (AGS), making them allergic to red meat and thereby reducing the carbon emissions generated by animal agriculture.The argument goes like this: since AGS triggers harmful symptoms—severe stomach pain, low blood pressure, dizziness, vomiting, diarrhea (and death in very rare cases)—people infected with the condition would switch to more climate-friendly protein sources to avoid harm. The researchers framed this proposal as a form of moral bioenhancement. “It helps [the public] satisfy their obligation not to eat meat, an obligation they would otherwise be disinclined to satisfy,” they wrote in the journal Bioethics. “The allergy presents only after eating meat: no meat, no allergic reaction.”
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPSince no sane person would volunteer to receive a serious, chronic food allergy, the authors proposed spreading Alpha-Gal Syndrome indirectly through “genetically engineer ticks so that they proliferate AGS.” They argue that ticks are the most viable transmission mechanism, while speculating that “it may be feasible for a person to take synthetic AGS to grocery stores and secretly inject it into beef, pork, lamb, etc.”
After their paper was savaged on Twitter, one of the authors claimed the proposal was only a thought experiment, “a hypothetical ethical framework for discussion when asked about the intent,” The College Fix reported. Still, that response raises a troubling question: why even speculate about genetically engineering insects to harm innocent people? As one of us (Cameron) pointed out in response to the “thought experiment” defense, dangerous policies that cause real harm commonly begin as hypotheticals bandied about by well-meaning intellectuals.
Join Dr. Liza Lockwood and Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as they make the case against engineering insects to spread food allergies.
Dr. Liza Lockwood is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD
Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Follow him on X @camjenglish
A few months ago, a law firm emailed one of us (Cameron) asking for help promoting their litigation against baby food manufacturers. The email falsely implied that puree ingredients like rice, root vegetables, and spices harbor dangerous levels of naturally occurring chemicals such as arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury, posing severe risks to infants’ brain development. The email went on to link these exposures to autism and developmental delays, citing brown rice syrup with arsenic levels exceeding 100 parts per billion (ppb) and cinnamon in fruit purees as a lead source, referencing a single 2023 recall of cinnamon-apple pouches.Rather shamefully, the email was carefully tailored to avoid several awkward facts that refuted the firm’s litigation narrative.
First, the recall—and the subsequent litigation—stemmed from North Carolina health officials alerting the FDA to lead in Wanabana products, ultimately triggering the bankruptcy of the U.S. company and the closure of its Ecuadorian cinnamon supplier. By October 2024, the CDC reported 130 asymptomatic cases of elevated blood lead levels, four illnesses, and no deaths: isolated incidents caught by health officials, not a widespread crisis. An extensive 2025 review found that “… the daily inorganic arsenic exposure for most Americans … did not rise to a level that was a concern to pose elevated risks of harmful health outcomes,” a conclusion echoed by another expert who analyzed the data.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPMore broadly, the American Academy of Pediatrics (2021) notes that baby foods contribute minimally to overall metal exposure, while a 2016 study detected negligible lead in U.S. samples. The simple fact is that heavy metals are ubiquitous; zero exposure is impossible, and lead levels have plummeted since the 1970s. Trial lawyers are again peddling fear in pursuit of profit. U.S. baby foods are carefully tested and regulated. In rare cases where companies sell unsafe products, they face financial ruin.
Join Dr. Liza Lockwood and Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as they deconstruct an anti-chemical litigation pitch from a tort law firm.
Dr. Liza Lockwood is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD
Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Follow him on X @camjenglish
Over the last decade, a growing chorus of scientists has declared that biological sex is not binary. Properly assessing human diversity requires us to apply a broader definition of this word, the argument goes. “The term ‘biological sex’ has been used to sort all people into one of two groups,” a May open letter from hundreds of scientists to the UK’s Minister for Women and Equalities asserted. “However, a strict, binary categorization is an over-simplification.”
The letter – signed by more than 350 academics, clinicians, and activists – is carefully argued, meticulously footnoted—and fundamentally mistaken about a basic biological reality. “Such statements … are most astounding as they ignore or even reject the well-established biological concept of sex and, thus, they ultimately deny fundamental principles of biology,” a team of evolutionary biologists wrote in 2023, responding to similar statements published by several academic journals.
Evolution, a scientific concept as well established as gravity, excludes the idea of a sex spectrum by confirming that biological sex is a binary trait in humans and most mammals. Evolution has shaped organisms to maximize reproductive success, resulting in two distinct sexes—male and female—defined by their roles in producing sperm or eggs. Males produce small, mobile gametes (sperm), while females produce larger, resource-heavy gametes (eggs). This binary system, driven by the need for genetic recombination, is a fundamental mechanism of sexual reproduction, observable across species. “With a few exceptions, all sexually reproducing organisms generate exactly two types of gametes that are distinguished by their difference in size,” the 2023 essay added.
Intersex conditions, which are rare (approximately 0.018% of the population) and often involve ambiguous genitalia or chromosomal variations, are medical anomalies, not evidence of new sexes or a spectrum. They do not alter the binary framework, as they typically derive from disruptions in male or female developmental pathways.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPThe notion of a “sex spectrum” conflates sex with gender identity or secondary sexual characteristics, ignoring the objective, gamete-based definition of sex. Evolutionary biology shows no mechanism for a continuum of sexes. Scientists who endorse the sex spectrum often prioritize social or ideological considerations over empirical evidence, denying the binary reality established by evolutionary pressures.
By rejecting these basic facts, sex-spectrum advocates undermine the rigor of biology, misrepresenting a field that relies on testable, reproducible evidence. They also fuel mistrust of science, making it even harder for experts to convince the public that their scientific and medical claims are grounded in solid evidence.
Join Dr. Liza Dunn and Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as they discuss the science of reproduction and raise some critical questions about the sex spectrum.
Dr. Liza Dunn is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD
Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Follow him on X @camjenglish
With a growing number of US states legalizing marijuana use, scientists and policymakers are once again engaged in a pitched battle over the risks and benefits of THC, the primary psychoactive component of marijuana. Proponents argue that legalization offers important benefits, citing evidence that marijuana may help treat a variety of medical conditions ranging from chronic pain to epilepsy and nausea, while generating substantial revenue–as much as $60 billion according to one estimate–for state and local governments. Legalization, advocates add, also protects public health as safer, regulated sources of marijuana come online to replace black-market alternatives.
But the situation appears to be more complicated than many legalization proponents let on. Critics cite research showing that lax marijuana laws tend to significantly increase use, amplifying the drug’s harmful side effects. For example, some studies show that legalization boosts emergency room visits for psychosis and cannabis hyperemesis syndrome (CHS)—an unpleasant condition characterized by simultaneous screaming and vomiting, often called scromiting. “With the widespread use, increased potency and legalization of marijuana in multiple states in the U.S., CHS may be becoming increasingly common,” the Cleveland Clinic warns.
And while the direction of the association is uncertain (does THC cause mental health disorders or do people with those disorders gravitate toward marijuana) it’s clear the drug is linked to conditions like schizophrenia.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPAlthough drug prohibition is usually the purview of social conservatives, former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson has emerged as perhaps the most forceful opponent of legalization in recent years, arguing in his 2020 book “Tell Your Children: The Truth About Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence” that cannabis is far more harmful than the public has been told.
To make sense of these competing claims, Cam and Liza speak with Reason Foundation health care policy analyst Jacob James Rich about his critique of Berenson’s work and the broader effects of drug legalization. Is it time to fully legalize marijuana, or has the public been sold a bill of goods by the drug’s defenders? Let’s take a look.
Jacob James Rich is a policy analyst at Reason Foundation, specializing in prescription and illegal drug regulations. He holds master’s degrees in mathematics and economics and is currently a Ph.D. student at Case Western Reserve School of Medicine. Follow him on X @jacobjamesrich.
Dr. Liza Dunn is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD
Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Visit his website and follow him on X @camjenglish
There’s a growing panic over per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), most recently targeting fluoropolymers used in medical devices. The issue is presented to the public as a grave health threat: “forever chemicals” lurking in medical devices and other seemingly innocuous products that could cause terrible harm. In reality, it’s another campaign by the “activist-tort-lawyer-media complex” that threatens lifesaving technology through fear-driven narratives rather than scientific evidence, says GLP founder Jon Entine. Rather than a danger to public health, fluoropolymers, a subset of PFAS, are critical tools that have saved millions of lives due to their unique properties such as chemical stability and durability.
These materials have proved their safety and efficacy in spades. Yet, activists and tort lawyers, often backed by ideological and gullible media outlets, have demonized all PFAS, leading to calls for blanket bans, as seen in the EU where countries like Germany and Sweden push for restrictions.
Like so many chemical risks, PFAS harms are wildly exaggerated, with recent research showing that low-level exposure primarily comes from water, not consumer products like medical devices. Entine chastises the Environmental Working Group (EWG) for needlessly scaring the public, a tactic echoed by the EPA’s 2019 action plan labeling all PFAS as hazardous despite the fact that this class of chemicals includes over 4,000 compounds varying widely in toxicity. This one-size-fits-all approach ignores toxicology’s bedrock principle of “the dose makes the poison.” In fact, fluoropolymers are not bioavailable due to their high molecular weight, making them perfectly safe when used as intended.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPBottom line: banning fluoropolymers could disrupt medical supply chains and hinder innovation, putting millions of lives in harm’s way. The smarter approach? Perform individual chemical risk assessments to balance safety and utility and reject simplistic activist-driven narratives that disregard sound science.
Podcast:
Join hosts Dr. Liza Dunn Cameron English and Jon Entine on episode 318 of Science Facts and Fallacies as they discuss:
- Viewpoint: PFAS—Fluoropolymer panic shows how the activist-tort lawyer-media complex threatens a lifesaving medical technology
Jon Entine is the founder and executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project. Follow him on X @jonentine.
Dr. Liza Dunn is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD
Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Visit his website and follow him on X @camjenglish
It wasn’t a total train wreck. That’s the best way to summarize the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission’s May 22 report addressing rising rates of chronic childhood diseases in the U.S. Led by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Commission’s 68-page document mixed some good science with a lot of speculation and inference that could mislead the public as much as inform them about how to keep their kids healthy.
The report identified four potential drivers of obesity, diabetes, autism, and mental health disorders: poor diet, chemical exposure, lack of physical activity, and overmedicalization. Over 40 percent of nearly 73 million U.S. children have at least one chronic health condition, the document noted, with obesity rates in children over six exceeding 20 percent—a troubling increase since the 1970s. In what may be its most science-based analysis, the Commission observed that most US children don’t get the recommended amount of physical exercise each week, and more than 50 percent of American teens spend nearly nine hours daily in front of screens outside of school, correlating with reduced physical activity, sleep deprivation, and increased risks of obesity and mental health issues.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPAlthough the report correctly diagnosed some of the critical health issues facing children, its prescriptions were often disappointing. For example, the Commission’s claims about chemical exposures, including pesticides, pharmaceutical drugs and consumer products, were just wrong, falsely asserting that these exposures could cause a “wide range of toxic effects” without robust evidence. In fact, the report’s sources sometimes directly contradicted the Commission’s conclusions, raising suspicions that the authors had predetermined points they were going to make regardless of what the evidence actually showed. This weakens the Commission’s credibility and risks vilifying widely used chemicals that help us protect public health and produce an abundant food supply.
The report called for further research and policy recommendations by August 2025, though it remains to be seen if those conclusions will be based on the “gold standard science” RFK, Jr. so frequently touts to the media.
Podcast:Join hosts Dr. Liza Dunn and GLP contributor Cameron English on episode 317 of Science Facts and Fallacies as they discuss:
- The MAHA Report: Making Our Children Healthy Again
Dr. Liza Dunn is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD
Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Visit his website and follow him on X @camjenglish
Dr. Liza Dunn has an impressive resume. She's cared for malnourished children in developing countries, treated drug overdoses in the emergency department and trained toxicologists at a major medical school. While doing relief work in Haiti following the catastrophic 2010 earthquake, she even delivered a baby in the back of car on the way to the hospital.All these experiences helped Dr. Dunn fine tune her science communication ability. "You had to figure out how to take complex ideas and explain them to a whole variety of people," she notes. "It's one of the beauties of emergency medicine." As the co-host of this podcast and the proprietor of a weekly science-themed space on Twitter, Dunn utilizes the same skill set to educate the public about pesticide safety and clear up confusion about vaccines.Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UPHer time on social media got off to a rough start. "I got a whole bunch of trolls right away. People would accuse me of poisoning the world," she says of her initial exchanges with some anonymous accounts on X. Over time, though, they came to see her as a trusted source of medical information as she answered their questions and took their concerns seriously. "It's kind of refreshing listening to doctor Liza," one of them eventually acknowledged, "she sees some of the stuff we're seeing."Join hosts Dr. Liza Dunn and GLP contributor Cameron English on episode 292 of Science Facts and Fallacies as they discuss the basics of science communication.Podcast:Dr. Liza Dunn is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Visit his website and follow him on X @camjenglish
Health influencers often declare that seed oils are driving an epidemic of non-communicable diseases. The science says otherwise. Can we solve loneliness with artificial intelligence? Idaho recently mandated that parents consent to most health care provided to their children. The law has ignited a debate over medical privacy children's rights. Is the controversy justified?Podcast:Join hosts Dr. Liza Dunn and GLP contributor Cameron English on episode 291 of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down these latest news stories: Vegetable oils are often maligned as “industrial seed oils” that cause inflammation and oxidate damage. What does science say?Seed oils are routinely maligned as uniquely harmful to human health, another "industrial" product foisted on unsuspecting consumers by duplicitous food companies. It's a popular story on social media. It's also mostly false. As a rule, studies cited in attacks on vegetable oils are low-quality experiments involving rodents or isolated cells. Clinical studies tend to show that people who eat these oils in recommended amounts don't experience any serious health effects. As always, the key to a healthy diet is balance. Loneliness epidemic: As we become more and more isolated, tech companies search for solutions With millions of people battling loneliness, tech companies are turning to AI as a potential solution. The idea is to train computer programs to converse with individuals who struggle to form meaningful relationships for one reason or another. Fighting the "loneliness epidemic" with technology brings several important challenges. For instance, training an AI to behave like a conversation partner might just be a stopgap measure when people really need community. But does that mean technology has no role to play in helping lonely people?Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UP Following new Idaho law, doctors delayed the pelvic exam of a pregnant 13-year-old girl because they couldn’t locate her homeless motherA recently passed law in Idaho requires schools and health care providers to get parental consent before administering most forms of medical care to children. The legislation has generated intense criticism from some educators and public health officials who say it violates children's right to privacy and even puts them in harm's way. Supporters say the law is merely meant to keep parents informed and help them guide their kids through serious health care decisions. Let's take a closer look.Dr. Liza Dunn is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Visit his website and follow him on X @camjenglish
A steady stream of studies and news stories has presented psychedelics as a game-changing therapy for depression. This may have been more hype than science, however. A 'suicide pod' was used for the first time recently in Switzerland to end the life of an elderly woman. Some right-to-die advocates hope to see this and other forms of assisted suicide expand in the coming years. Giving students a free ride through medical school was supposed to combat a growing shortage of doctors around the US. Is that strategy succeeding?Podcast:Join hosts Dr. Liza Dunn and GLP contributor Cameron English on episode 290 of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down these latest news stories: Psychedelics are touted as a mental health cure. We should be wary. A growing body of research suggests that psychedelics could be far more effective in treating depression than existing therapies. This would be a welcome development, but there's a major hurdle preventing the expanded use of these drugs: the research behind them isn't very good. While anecdotal reports and some preliminary clinical data indicate that psychedelics could be promising mental health treatments, many of the studies investigating them are small and poorly designed, limiting their ability to provide critical evidence about the long-term risks and benefits of psychedelics. ‘Suicide pod’ used for the first time to assist a woman in dying. An anonymous 64-year-old American woman ended her life in a forest on the Swiss-German last month using a "suicide pod." Named after an ancient sarcophagus, the Sarco is a 3D-printed device that rapidly lowers the oxygen content inside a capsule that seats one person. As the amount of breathable air declines, the individual falls asleep and dies within a few minutes. This recent case of assisted suicide, which was apparently illegal, has reignited a latent debate over the ethics of allowing adults to voluntarily end their lives. Is it acceptable for doctors to help their patients kill themselves, or should a civilized society strive to do better?Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UP Why tuition-free medical schools are failing their lofty commitments — and exacerbating health-care disparitiesWith a looming shortage of primary care physicians on the horizon, several medical schools, with the financial support of a few billionaires, have begun to offer tuition-free education in the hopes of training more doctors. The goal of these programs is to incentivize physicians to practice in rural and urban parts of the US where health care access is limited. So far, though, the beneficiaries of this free education haven't gone on to practice where their services are most needed, and they tend to enter specialties that pay more than primary care. If this approach didn't boost access to health care, what other solutions could we try?Dr. Liza Dunn is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Visit his website and follow him on X @camjenglish
Therapeutic vaccines for some cancers have entered clinical trials. Do they represent the future of cancer treatment? Regulations, fearmongering campaigns and lawsuits—a combined threat one scientist calls the "regulator-activist-legal-complex"—keep useful technologies off the market. What can we do to stop it?Podcast:Join hosts Dr. Liza Dunn and GLP contributor Cameron English on episode 289 of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down these latest news stories: Are vaccines the future of cancer prevention? Vaccines that train the immune system to attack tumors have begun the long journey to earn FDA approval. Unlike immunizations that prevent diseases from developing, these novel shot are administered to people at high risk for certain cancers and could help their immune systems kill tumor cells before they do significant damage. The results of early research are promising, though we're still a long way from treating cancer with vaccination.Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UP How the ‘regulator-activist-legal-complex’ undermines technological innovationRegulation, litigation and activist fearmongering have been used as a vicious combination to keep innovative products off the market entirely or significantly slow their deployment. For instance, nuclear power is safe, affordable and entirely carbon neutral, yet the same regulatory agencies, lawyers and activists who warn about the climate crisis oppose the use of nuclear energy to fuel our modern societies. They have worked for decades to limit the use of nuclear power under the false assumption that another Chernobyl disaster is imminent. But that just isn't true.Dr. Liza Dunn is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Visit his website and follow him on X @camjenglish
Is there a corporate conspiracy to cover up the dangers of processed foods? A recent news report say yes. Let's take a look at the evidence. The World Economic Forum has called for the world to radically transform its food system. How do we begin such a massive undertaking, and can it succeed? Be careful what you search for. AI chat bots just might serve up information sourced from fake news outlets.
Marriage is a major milestone for many people, but how has the institution influenced human evolution? A growing list of Silicon Valley billionaires has endorsed Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (RFK, Jr.) for president. Why does this incendiary figure attract support from so many tech luminaries? A new study shows that milk's positive nutritional impact more than offsets its contribution to climate change. Podcast:
Video:
Join hosts Dr. Liza Dunn and GLP contributor Cameron English on episode 228 of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down these latest news stories:
Pair bonding: How wedding vows have contributed to human evolution
Marriage is an important cultural and legal institution around the world, and every society throughout history has maintained the custom in some form. It's universality prompts an important question: how has marriage impacted human evolution? A large but often overlooked body of research indicates that marriage has helped maintain order in society by encouraging monogamy, promoting stability at home and improving individual well being. What insights can we glean from these observations about marriage and evolution today?
Prominent tech-investors throw support behind vaccine-rejectionist RFK, Jr.’s campaign for Dem nomination
RFK, Jr.'s outsider presidential campaign has generated broad support from people across the political spectrum. But Kennedy has attracted endorsements and donations from one group that seems puzzling to many observers: Silicon Valley billionaires, or 'tech bros' as they're sometimes called. This demographic is wealthy, well educated and intimately familiar with the latest developments in biomedicine, a field which RFK, Jr., has harshly criticized as a leading vaccine critic. Why does this group of science-literate investors have a soft spot for a rebellious character like Kennedy? His anti-establishment rhetoric may lead us to the answer.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.
SIGN UP
Rethinking sustainability: Does nutritional value of dairy offset environmental impacts of milk production?
Animal agriculture is routinely lambasted for its supposedly significant contribution to climate change; many high-profile figures have even declared that we must end our dependence on animals as a food source to slow climate change. However, recent research could throw a wrench in their plans, in particular a new study showing that the dairy industry produces more than enough nutrients to offset its actually modest greenhouse emissions. Ridding the world of dairy would yield insignificant climate benefits while depriving billions of people of an important source of essential vitamins and nutrients, according to the research.
Dr. Liza Dunn is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on Twitter @DrLizaMD
Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Visit his website and follow him on Twitter @camjenglish
Much of the nutrition research that attracts media attention is deeply flawed. A new study explains why. Silicon Valley tech guru Steve Kirsch went from obscure entrepreneur to anti-vaccine celebrity. What led him down that troubling path? Confident people appear more intelligent to those around them. This odd quirk of human evolution has important implications for science communication efforts. Podcast:
Video: Join host Dr. Liza Dunn and GLP contributor Cameron English on episode 226 of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down these latest news stories:
Viewpoint: Misleading guidance — Why so many nutrition studies get the basic science so wrong
Whether it's sugar, fat or protein; meat, candy or soda, many nutrition studies focus on the potential health risks or benefits of eating a single nutrient or food. The results of this research are straight forward, widely covered in the press—and often wrong. Human nutrition is much more complicated than individual nutrients, as it turns out. What can we do as discerning consumers of media (and food) to properly assess the studies that we seen in the headlines?
Scientific 180? One tech multi-millionaire’s journey from evidence-based advocate to COVID misinformation missionary
Steve Kirsch made a fortune as an entrepreneur in Silicon Valley. At the beginning of the pandemic, he was poised to make an important public health contribution by establishing the Covid-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF). The non-profit went to work investigating FDA-approved drugs as potential off-label treatments for COVID-19. Then Kirsch went off the rails.
Although he recruited respected scientists to conduct the foundation's research, he began disputing their results if they weren't to his liking. For example, the anti-depressant fluvoxamine seemed affective against the virus in preliminary studies, but subsequent research has yet to produce conclusive results. Kirsch nevertheless insisted that the drug's usefulness as a COVID treatment was being suppressed. That conclusion eventually led him to the belief that a campaign was underway to minimize the efficacy of existing drugs so pharma companies could sell their vaccines.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.
SIGN UP
Confidence heuristic: Why humans are biologically programmed to follow self-assured, poised people
Research shows that confident people inspire trust in those around them. Part of this appeal stems from the perception that confidence is indicative of intelligence. Such a trait was quite useful throughout human history as people rallied around self-assured leaders who could guide them through dangerous circumstances. Of course, confidence has a downside: ignorant people can be confident, too. There's an important lesson here for scientists who want to communicate with the public.
Dr. Liza Dunn is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on Twitter @DrLizaMD
Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Visit his website and follow him on Twitter @camjenglish
So-called "clean" cosmetics have become a big business in recent years. But as with food fads like "Non-GMO," clean cosmetics may actually be no better for consumers or the planet. England has approved the commercial use of gene-edited crops. Could this development set an important precedent in Europe? CRISPR-edited animals carrying a single mutation could produce a lot more meat, significantly boosting sustainable farming.Podcast:VideoJoin geneticist Kevin Folta and GLP contributor Cameron English on episode 212 of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down these latest news stories: Rethinking the ‘clean cosmetics’ movement: ‘It’s reductive to think that just because it’s biotech it’s inherently more sustainable’Cosmetic manufacturers have followed the food industry's lead and affixed all sorts of eco-friendly labels to their products. The problem is, makeup made from "natural" or "clean" ingredients is often bad for the environment, since it requires the use of endangered plants. The good news is that identical products can be made using ingredients manufactured in the laboratory, eliminating the need to harvest endangered species. Will consumers embrace these products if they're made using modern biotechnology? England becomes first European country to approve gene editing of plants and animalsAfter living under Europe's oppressive genetic engineering restrictions for decades, England has finally approved the use of gene editing to improve food crops, and may soon green light the technology in animal agriculture. Does England's decision indicate that anti-GMO activism is losing its political influence in the UK and European Union?Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.SIGN UP 30% more meat: Switching off just one gene with CRISPR produces animals with larger musclesEditing a gene that controls muscle break down in animals may enable farmers to produce 30 percent more meat from the same number of pigs, fish and cows. This presents a significant sustainability benefit since it could reduce the amount of land, animal feed and other resources that would have been required in past years to produce more food. A handful of countries, notably Japan and Brazil, have already begun to utilize gene editing to enhance commercialized food products. Will other nations follow their lead?Kevin M. Folta is a professor, keynote speaker and podcast host. Follow Professor Folta on Twitter @kevinfoltaCameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Visit his website and follow ACSH on Twitter @ACSHorg
A bottle of perfume used to cost more than $10,000. The price has dropped precipitously thanks to advancements in synthetic biology, making a lot of fragrances available to many more consumers. The recent World Economic Forum (WEF) gathering in Davos proved to be a massive platform for "fashionable fantasies" about organic farming. A headline-grabbing study recently linked sleeping medication to dementia. But the research deserves much more scrutiny than it's received from the press.
The New York Times last week alleged that a high-profile scientist is in cahoots with the meat industry. Is there any truth to the allegation? Genetically engineered insulin was approved 40 years ago. What have we learned about drug regulation since then? Four gene therapies have received FDA approval so far. Will we see more of these novel medicines on the market in the coming years?
Air pollution harms our health in many ways; does it also encourage obesity? Farmers in India have access to two newly approved GM crops. Are regulators in the country finally beginning to embrace biotechnology? Wearable devices that track your blood sugar, sleep habits and macronutrient intake are being marketed as a solution to obesity. Will they live up to the hype?
Reporters continue to exaggerate the results of low-quality nutrition studies. Their desire to attract readers with dramatic headlines may be destroying the public's trust in mainstream news sources.
Science Facts and Fallacies host Cameron English recently appeared on the Dr. Phil show to tackle an incendiary question: Has the Body Positivity Movement Gone Too Far?
Should we be skeptical of GMO safety studies funded by biotech companies? Major food makers including Pepsi and Nestle have invested millions in "regenerative" farming. Is this a worthwhile effort, or just another case of "greenwashing"?
A new gene-editing technique may be safer and more reliable than CRISPR-Cas9, according to a recent study.
Does the weedkiller glyphosate cause convulsions? A study published last week seemed to support that conclusion, but there's much more to the story.
The Non-GMO Project recently endorsed seedless watermelon on Twitter, thereby giving an accidental thumbs up to many other genetically engineered crops. Traces of glyphosate have again been found in breastmilk.
Should agricultural scientists take research funding from corporations? A pair of studies suggests that a 'lab-leak' origin for SARS-CoV-2 looks increasingly unlikely. What did the researchers actually find?
Organic activist groups led Sri Lanka's economy over a cliff by pushing a ban on pesticides and fertilizers. Will they be held accountable for proffering disastrous policy advice?
The Biden Administration just overruled its own scientists at the EPA, mandating regulations that effectively ban the low-risk, effective weedkiller atrazine. Why?
The recent campaign to "cancel" comedian Joe Rogan for promoting COVID misinformation highlights a troubling trend in science communication. High-functioning psychopaths live among us. What do we know about them, and what have we gotten wrong about psychopathy? Critics continue to attack the Green Revolution, but mounting evidence confirms that Norman Borlaug's work saved the world many trillions of dollars.
Join geneticist Kevin Folta and GLP contributor Cameron English on episode 152 of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down these latest news stories:
Viewpoint: Neil Young’s GMO and biotechnology rejection preceding his Joe Rogan-Spotify awakening featured alliance with notorious anti-vaxxers
Rock 'n' Roll legend Neil Young triggered a new wave of COVID vaccine controversy earlier this month, threatening to remove his music from Spotify unless the company pulled Joe Rogan's podcast from its platform. Rogan has come under fire for interviewing two contrarian physicians who have made dubious claims about the shots. "I am doing this because Spotify is spreading false information about vaccines — potentially causing death to those who believe the disinformation being spread by them," Young wrote in a now-deleted post on his website.
But there's more to the story. While Rogan has undoubtedly amplified anti-vaccine claims on his show, Young has a long history of spreading misinformation about crop biotechnology, falsely claiming that GMOs cause "terrible diseases," which is why many countries ban them, he says. The musician is also apparently unaware that the COVID shots are products of genetic engineering.
Spotify recently promised to put a "content advisory" on any future COVID-related episodes of the Joe Rogan Experience and make its platform rules public "in an effort to increase transparency between consumers and creators." The platform has so far refused to remove the podcast, though. Should Spotify cut ties with Rogan, or is there a better way to correct the falsehoods he promotes about vaccines?
Many high-functioning psychopaths live among us
Our culture seems to be fascinated with Psychopaths. It's not uncommon to see them depicted as serial killers or anti-heroes in popular TV shows and films, for example. But despite our widespread interest in their (usually exaggerated) stories, most of us have a poor understanding of the disorder that afflicts them.
Psychopathy, it turns out, is relatively common and the chances are good that you've probably met a psychopath without knowing it. That's because many of these individuals do not engage in violent behavior like their on-screen counterparts, and they're often very successful, productive members of society. What else has science revealed about this enigmatic condition?
Follow the latest news and policy debates on agricultural biotech and biomedicine? Subscribe to our newsletter.
SIGN UP
$83 trillion in savings — Misguided attacks by ‘organic fundamentalists’ distort the revolutionary advancements of the Green Revolution
The Green Revolution helped rescue perhaps as many as a billion people from poverty and starvation. But a recent study assigned these benefits a startling numerical value—$83 trillion. Critics of the man who spearheaded the Green Revolution, plant pathologist Norman Borlaug, maintain that his work led to intense environmental degradation and "divorced" the world from our sources of food. The new research is further confirmation of how wrong they are.
Kevin M. Folta is a professor, keynote speaker and podcast host. Follow Professor Folta on Twitter @kevinfolta
Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health.