Even credentialed scientists are susceptible to the pressures of social media virality, sometimes venturing well beyond their expertise to promote popular but misleading health narratives. Last week, Dr. Rhonda Patrick of FoundMyFitness, typically a reliable source of science-backed info on nutrition, urged the public to switch to organic food to cut their pesticide exposure. With over 1.4 million followers, Patrick’s message amplified a widespread fear but ignored critical scientific context.

The simple, oft-overlooked truth is that pesticide residues in both conventional and organic foods occur at trace levels that regulatory science deems safe. Maximum residue limits (MRLs) and allowable daily intakes (ADIs) incorporate large safety factors—often 10- to 1,000-fold—below doses showing no adverse effects in rigorous toxicology testing. Consumers quite literally can’t ingest enough produce to approach these strict thresholds.

Organic production also uses pesticides, including some with higher toxicity profiles than their modern synthetic counterparts—which also help prevent far more dangerous natural contaminants like aflatoxin-producing molds, a major global cause of liver cancer.

Like many influencers before her, Patrick relied on observational studies and high-dose animal experiments to bolster her advice. These papers are frequently cited in anti-pesticide discussions, though they bear little relevance to typical dietary exposures. Likewise, detection of pesticide metabolites in urine reflects normal liver and kidney function, not toxicity.

Even among professional applicators exposed at much higher levels under strict protocols and personal protective equipment, cancer rates are often lower than the public’s very low risk—likely due to healthier lifestyles and greater fruit and vegetable consumption.

The problem with Patrick’s well-meaning but misinformed messaging is that it risks discouraging intake of nutritious produce, an actual public health priority. While organic food serves as a valid personal or local choice for those who prefer it, the evidence does not demonstrate meaningful safety advantages against conventionally grown food.

Modern agricultural tools enable abundant, affordable food supplies that have dramatically improved food security compared to historical organic practices. That’s a critical message more people need to hear.

Join Dr. Liza Lockwood and Cam English on this episode of Facts & Fallacies as they take on a pesticide myth even some scientists fall for:

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 executive vice president at the American Council on Science and Health. Follow him on X @camjenglish

As is often the case with Kennedy’s narrative, the real story is far more complicated. His “transformative” proposal will not only fail to improve medical education, it could prevent future doctors from learning vital information they need to properly care for their patients.

The simple fact is that medical students already receive an intensive scientific education that equips them to evaluate nutrition far more rigorously than most people—including Kennedy. From the first year of medical school, students immerse themselves in biochemistry, molecular biology, physiology, anatomy and much more. These disciplines do not treat nutrition as a vague lifestyle topic; they dissect it at the molecular level.

This foundation allows physicians to perform evidence-based risk-benefit calculations that go beyond vague platitudes about the benefits of “real food.” Far from being nutrition-illiterate, today’s doctors are well prepared to translate complex science into personalized guidance. RFK Jr.’s plan romanticizes a gap that hard science has already closed.

Join Dr. Liza Lockwood and Cam English on this episode of Facts & Fallacies as they scrutinize Kennedy’s proposal to transform medical school.

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 fallacy is clear to anyone paying attention. A claim is true if it corresponds to reality, not because of the person making the claim. As the economist Ludwig von Mises observed many years ago, “Arguments from authority are invalid; the proof of a theory is in its reasoning, not in its sponsorship.”

Isaac Newton had patrons; today’s researchers secure grants from governments, universities, foundations or corporations. All carry potential biases, and singling out private industry reveals inconsistency: taxpayer-funded studies often align with regulatory agendas, while billionaire-funded NGOs bankroll research advancing predetermined conclusions on a wide variety of political issues. Why is industry money uniquely disqualifying but Greenpeace or NIH grants virtuous?

Beyond the hypocrisy, the shill gambit’s real-world consequences can be dire. Dismissing industry experts impoverishes debate. Pharmaceutical breakthroughs—from antibiotics to HIV therapies—emerged from company labs. Tech giants fund AI and computing advances we all benefit from. The solution isn’t blanket disqualification but scrutiny of methods and replication of research.

Bottom line? The shill gambit stifles innovation and empowers charlatans who claim “independence” while peddling dogma—often with opulent support from competing industries or billionaire donors. In our polarized public square, rejecting this fallacy fosters genuine scientific progress by prioritizing facts over personal insults.

Join Dr. Liza Lockwood and Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as they break down the “shill gambit.”

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

Though still widely maligned today, pesticides played a pivotal role in this progression, enabling HYVs to thrive and contributing to yield surges of up to 44% from 1965 to 2010. The benefits were staggering in economic terms. A 2021 study in the Journal of Political Economy quantified that HYVs boosted incomes and curbed population growth via reduced fertility. Cumulatively, the Green Revolution saved the world trillions of dollars over 45 years—equivalent to one year of global GDP.

In risk-benefit terms, the Green Revolution’s gains—saving multitudes from starvation, reducing poverty and sparing 18-27 million hectares from conversion to cropland, primarily in developing countries—far outweighed drawbacks, especially given the annual welfare gains from related technologies by 2020. Yet, Borlaug’s work remains controversial today, with many environmental activists and some scholars alleging that his work was harmful on balance, despite the documented increases in food production.

Join Dr. Liza Lockwood and Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as they examine the Green Revolution and address criticisms of Borlaug’s work.

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 guidelines aren’t perfect; they call out harmless additives and processing that have no bearing on the nutritional content of food, for example. But the media, always eager to publicly chastise RFK, Jr., has exaggerated the changes, portraying the updates as fully endorsing unrestricted meat and dairy consumption. For instance, NPR described them as going “all in on meat and dairy,” suggesting a complete reversal of prior cautions. In reality, the guidelines do not eliminate established limits on saturated fats, a common (though arguably unjustified) concern with red meat and full-fat dairy.

In fact, the guidelines explicitly retain the longstanding recommendation to cap saturated fat intake at less than 10% of daily calories, consistent with previous editions and recognizing the ongoing debate over the risks and benefits of meat and milk consumption.

Bottom line: everyone is wrong about the new dietary guidelines to one degree or another. Reporters rushed in to amplify a scandal when they should have been calling balls and strikes. Kennedy doubled down on his quasi-religious devotion to “whole foods,” and the public was left to discern the new recommendations for themselves.

Join Dr. Liza Lockwood and Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as they take a closer look at the new dietary guidelines:

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 story goes something like this: humans evolved in hunter-gatherer settings, facing acute, intermittent stressors like predator encounters that triggered intense fight-or-flight responses followed by recovery. These environments fostered physiological adaptations suited to natural rhythms, physical activity, and periodic challenges.

In contrast, today’s industrialized, urbanized world—home to over 4.5 billion people, projected to reach 6.5 billion by 2050—imposes a constant stream of low-level stressors, from traffic noise to relentless digital stimulation. Evolutionary anthropologist Colin Shaw of the University of Zurich argues this “mismatch” places a chronic stress load on our bodies, as our nervous systems react to modern pressures “as though all these stressors were lions… you have this very powerful response… but no comedown.”

This mismatch manifests in widespread health declines. Physically, it likely contributes to elevated blood pressure, weakened immune function, rising autoimmune diseases, and plummeting fertility rates, with sperm counts and motility dropping since the 1950s. Mentally, constant stimulation impairs cognitive function and sustains tension.

Shaw and his colleagues speculate that environmental factors like pesticides and microplastics are overlooked drivers of these harms, though they wrongly exaggerate the risks posed by these technologies and, more importantly, the higher living standards they enable—including free time to explore nature.

However, many harmful effects attributed to modern environments are probably amplified by the erosion of traditional social bonds and community structures. The rise of our modern, globalized civilization hasn’t just altered our environment but rapidly weakened intermediate associations—such as family, neighborhood, church, and community groups—that once provided meaning, security, and mutual support.

This complementary thesis suggests that our hardwired need for community remains vital to our well-being, and its increasing absence in contemporary society compounds health declines far beyond environmental factors alone.

Join Dr. Liza Lockwood and Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as they take a closer look at the risks and benefits of industrialized society:

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

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.

Perhaps 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 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.”

Since 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

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.

More 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

Biltekoff parallels 19th-century dietary reformers—detailed in Laura Shapiro’s Perfection Salad—who tried to use nutrition science for social engineering, with Alice Waters’s “Delicious Revolution” in the San Francisco Bay Area, which prioritized sensory pleasure and tradition over standardization. Both movements sought cultural transformation through diet, but with contrasting ideologies. The similarities between these movements and the factions in our current food safety debates are striking.

One of the most important lessons that comes out of Biltekoff’s analysis relates to definitions: the public often views processed food as unnatural and additive-heavy, while industry defines it broadly (e.g., yogurt, pasta, and Cheetos all qualify). Simultaneously, however, consumers demand flavorful, nutritious food that will keep in their refrigerators and pantries until they’re ready to eat it—qualities usually made possible by food processing. In other words, the food industry is correctly responding to their customers’ buying habits, yet those same people have been convinced that the products they willingly purchase are made by unethical companies and causing chronic disease.

This schizophrenic dynamic intensified with the onslaught of anti-food industry documentaries like Super Size Me and Food, Inc., which cleverly framed food safety issues as symptoms of broader cultural problems, like corporate greed. Industry responses to these films were typically fact-focused rebuttals that overlooked the cultural concerns actually driving popular opposition to the modern food system, an approach Biltekoff calls “food scientism.”

Ultimately, Biltekoff advocates combining cultural and scientific expertise to address food challenges, acknowledging complexities in feeding the world sustainably.

Join Dr. Liza Dunn and Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as they discuss the messy politics of food safety and science communication.

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