Science Facts & Fallacies

A just-published study found that consuming two or more sugar-sweetened beverages in a day is linked to a doubling of colon cancer risk in women. The research generated dozens of headlines, all warning readers of the potential danger posed by regular soda intake. But a closer look at the study reveals some key limitations that prevent us from drawing any firm conclusions from the data:

* A small sample size: only 109 people out of more than 40,000 developed the disease, making it difficult to establish a correlation between sugar and colon cancer

* Study participants reported their soda consumption using food frequency questionnaires, which many epidemiologists have argued are notoriously unreliable sources of data.

* Many previous studies have failed to find an association between sugar and colon cancer, and some research has even found that it could have a protective effect against the disease.

For these and several other reasons, the new study is somewhat of an outlier and thus worthy of heightened scrutiny, cancer epidemiologist Geoffrey Kabat wrote in a recent article for GLP. But this didn't stop reporters (with the help of the study authors) from speculating about the significance of the paper:

Human beings are so constructed that when we read such a news story, we immediately take the highlighted finding as if it were true and worry that something we had considered relatively harmless—drinking sweetened beverages— could be adversely affecting our health or the health of people close to us. People who have an interest in publicizing this type of result (scientist authors, journal editors, and journalists) know that stories like this provoke a visceral reaction. The logic behind this kind of reporting could be distilled down to the injunction, “Start worrying—details to follow.”

Follow the latest news and policy debates on agricultural biotech and biomedicine? Subscribe to our newsletter.

SIGN UP

The problem is much greater than a single eye-grabbing paper, Kabat argued. There is an entire sub-discipline within epidemiology, known as risk-factor epidemiology, that tries to correlate particular chemical exposures with complex diseases like cancer. While not inherently flawed, research in this field is prone to exaggeration and risks misleading the public about the risks they face from food, chemicals and other environmental exposures. As Kabat put it:

Over the years, a number of prominent epidemiologists have criticized risk factor epidemiology and “approaches that abstract single elements … from the complexity of the life and times of people and relate these to a single health outcome.

[dropcap]A[/dropcap] just-published study found that consuming two or more sugar-sweetened beverages in a day is linked to a doubling of colon cancer risk in women. The research generated dozens of headlines, all warning readers of the potential danger posed by regular soda intake. But a closer look at the study reveals some key limitations that ... Read more

Where did SARS-COV-2 come from? For most of the last year a natural origin story was the predominant view among experts. But the situation isn't so clear today. Why did some vaccine skeptics end up getting their COVID shots? And could their stories help expand vaccine uptake moving forward? With the benefit of hindsight, what can we say about the now-infamous J&J vaccine "pause" in April?

Join GLP contributor Cameron English and guest host Ally Kennedy on this episode of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down these latest news stories:

* Debating the possible origins of COVID-19: A lab-escaped bioweapon? Animal poop? Random mutations of an existing virus?

Considered a conspiracy theory just a year ago, the possibility that SARS-COV-2 was leaked from a laboratory is now a serious hypothesis, alongside the idea that the virus naturally evolved and jumped from other animals to humans. This status change for the so-called "laboratory spillover" explanation was prompted by a China–WHO joint study released in early 2021. The 313-page investigation dedicated just four pages to the possibility of a lab accident, prompting 16 scientists to call for a more thorough examination of how the virus arose:

We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data. A proper investigation should be transparent, objective, data-driven, inclusive of broad expertise, subject to independent oversight, and responsibly managed to minimize the impact of conflicts of interest. Public health agencies and research laboratories alike need to open their records to the public.

* Making the leap from ‘no’ to ‘yes’: Here’s why some vaccine hesitators decided to get a shot

Why do some vaccine-hesitant Americans ultimately get their COVID shots? For some it's a simple matter of getting to attend baseball games again, while others worry that they won't be able to care for their children if they get infected. Whatever their motivations, their stories could offer insights to public health officials eager to convince even more vaccine skeptics to come around.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on agricultural biotech and biomedicine? Subscribe to our newsletter.

SIGN UP

Coffee is nutritious, according to the latest study. Also, coffee is linked to cancer, new research finds. How do we make sense of all the contradictory data about the health effects of coffee? Public health officials may be exacerbating the public's skepticism of COVID vaccines. Why is childbirth so difficult? Evolution offers some insight.

Join geneticist Kevin Folta and GLP contributor Cameron English on this episode of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down these latest news stories:

* Coffee is good for you. There are dozens of carcinogens in coffee. What are the real facts about whether coffee is healthy or not?

Going back to the early 1980s, research has both linked coffee to a wide variety of health benefits and suggested it could be harmful over the long term. A consensus has emerged in recent years that a couple of cups of coffee a day is harmless, and may even offer some important nutritional qualities. Why did it take so long to get there?

* Viewpoint: Vaccine resistance is a growing concern. So far, the US is bungling its response

A number of explanations have been put forward to explain why vaccine hesitancy persists, especially on the tail end of a pandemic that we're subduing with immunization.  There’s a strong case to be made that vaccine rejection is in large part fueled by distrust of governments. When this factor is considered alongside other common explanations for vaccine skepticism, the problem becomes much easier to explain—and perhaps easier to solve.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on agricultural biotech and biomedicine? Subscribe to our newsletter.

SIGN UP

* Evolutionary tradeoffs: Here’s why birthing a child is so difficult

As every mother knows, giving birth is no easy task. But why did we evolve to experience such painful childbirth? According to a new study, the answer has to do with balancing a woman's ability to give birth while maintaining the integrity of her internal organs:

A study recently published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences proposes that human childbirth is difficult because of evolutionary trade-offs that ultimately help protect organs in the body.

The main trade-off for women centers on the pelvic floor, which is a group of muscles that stretches from the pubic bone to the tailbone. These muscles help stabilize the spine, support the womb, and control bladder and bowel functions. The pelvic floor also stretches during childbirth,

Early in the pandemic, Children's Health Defense—the anti-vaccine group headed by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.—alleged that SARS-COV-2 was being used by "the elite" to facilitate a "global immunization agenda." The campaign had been prepared years in advance, the activists warned last spring. All our political overlords needed was the right infectious disease to instill viral terror in the world's population:

For those who follow the global immunization agenda … the announcement of a new pandemic didn’t come as a surprise. 'Pandemic preparedness' has been well-funded and a buzz word for a long time …. What better than viral terror to influence public opinion and health policies on vaccine battles raging on both sides of the Atlantic?

Now, with effective vaccines beginning to bring down COVID-19 cases and help us return to normalcy, the same activists are warning people to skip their shots based on scientifically dubious claims. How can scientists and educators effectively combat vaccine skepticism at this vital point in the pandemic?

Join geneticist Kevin Folta and GLP contributor Cameron English as they break down the latest COVID-19 vaccine news with Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and an attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Offit is the author of 13 books, including Overkill: When Modern Medicine Goes too Far, and the co-inventor of the rotavirus vaccine RotaTeq. Visit his website and follow him on Twitter @DrPaulOffit

Listen to the GLP's previous interview with Dr. Offit: Podcast: Don’t treat that fever—Dr. Paul Offit on why many of medicine’s most popular practices are ‘overkill’

Subscribe to the Science Facts and Fallacies Podcast on iTunes and Spotify.

Kevin M. Folta is a professor in the Horticultural Sciences Department at the University of Florida. Follow Professor Folta on Twitter

A growing body of research shows that dozens of naturally transgenic plants have existed for millions of years, undermining a key claim of the anti-GMO movement. Mosquitoes edited to produce an anti-malaria protein could help save thousands of lives a year. Syphilis was nearly eradicated in 2000; thanks to the hookup culture facilitated by dating apps, the infection has come roaring back.

Join geneticist Kevin Folta and GLP contributor Cameron English on this episode of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down these latest news stories:

* Worried that GMO seeds are bred in a lab? They’re not as unnatural as you think. 1 in 20 plants are naturally transgenic

The claim that GMOs are "unnatural" endlessly circulates online. But despite its popularity as a talking point among activist groups, growing evidence indicates that naturally transgenic plants have existed for millions of years. No food or chemical is inherently safer or better for you if it's natural. Nonetheless, the new research undermines the anti-GMO movement's organizing principle: that it's trying to protect farming from "untested, unnatural creations."

* 400,000 people – that’s how many die from malaria each year. Here’s how gene editing and gene drives could prevent those deaths

CRISPR gene editing is shaking up food production and medicine in all sorts of important ways. In the coming years, this genetic engineering technique may help us prevent some of the more than 400,000 deaths caused by malaria every year. Researchers from Imperial College London have edited malaria-vectoring mosquitoes to produce a protein that prevents them from infecting people with the parasite that causes the disease.

The engineered mosquitoes also pass this trait on to most of their offspring, gradually reducing the number of insects that can spread malaria. Much more research has to be done to confirm the safety and efficacy of this technology. Nonetheless, the results offer a promising example of how gene editing may help us combat deadly diseases.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on agricultural biotech and biomedicine? Subscribe to our newsletter.

SIGN UP

*

Despite its long history as a reputable science magazine, National Geographic has recently embraced simplistic narratives about the environmental impact of pesticides. How does weed affect your brain? The science is more nuanced than our ongoing culture war over drug use would suggest. We might already have the technology to create some version of the legendary Jurassic Park.

Join geneticist Kevin Folta and GLP contributor Cameron English on this episode of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down these latest news stories:

* Viewpoint: Why is National Geographic embracing simplistic activist narratives on nuanced pesticide controversies?

Everybody agrees that reducing pesticide use is an important target on our way to sustainable farming. But protecting our food from insects, weeds and other pests is still necessary if we want to eat, and for now that means carefully using relatively small quantities of chemical crop protection tools. Sadly, such nuance has been lost on NatGeo. Despite its vaunted reputation, the legendary science magazine has decided to promote exaggerated narratives about the dangers of pesticides.

* 1/3 of American adults can now legally smoke marijuana. Here is how weed affects your brain and body, for good and bad

As weed becomes legal in more jurisdictions and its recreational use increases, new research is expanding our understanding of the drug's impacts, both good and bad, on our health. Smoking marijuana, it turns out, isn't the life-destroying habit those government-funded PSAs from the 1990s suggested, but neither is it the wonder drug some legalization advocates have promoted.

* Jurassic Park in real life? We have the technology to create ‘super exotic novel species,’ Neuralink co-founder claims

“We could probably build jurassic park if we wanted to. wouldn’t be genetically authentic dinosaurs but [shrug],” Neuralink co-founder Max Hodak tweeted recently. “Maybe 15 years of breeding + engineering to get super exotic novel species.” Hodak's comments raise the perennial questions that pops up every time new genetic technologies become the subject of conversation: Does the fact that we can do something mean we should do something?

Follow the latest news and policy debates on agricultural biotech and biomedicine? Subscribe to our newsletter.

SIGN UP

The mainstream press has viciously criticized COVID conspiracy theorists and vaccine rejection. Yet when it comes to other critical science topics, say pesticide safety and animal agriculture, the media uncritically amplifies conspiratorial thinking and bad science. The Supreme Court has ruled that the government can make vaccination mandatory in the interest in public health. Are there any downsides to such a policy? Plastic pollution is a critical environmental problem; GM crops that produce biodegradable plastic might help finally solve the problem.

Join geneticist Kevin Folta and GLP contributor Cameron English on this episode of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down these latest news stories:

* Follow The Science? How The Media's Hypocrisy Undermines Critical Thinking In The Age Of COVID

The same media outlets that tell you to get a COVID vaccine and reject coronavirus conspiracies will also promote organic food as a safer choice, though there is no evidence behind such a recommendation, and spread myths about the dangers of so-called "industrial farming." How do these double standards impact the public's trust in scientists?

* ‘Public health can supersede individual rights’: Government mandated vaccinations are not violations of personal liberty, courts determined a century ago

Does the government have the authority to require Americans to be vaccinated? Yes, says the Supreme Court; protecting public health from an infectious disease supersedes any claim to individual rights. Moreover, many experts say such a policy is necessary to reach herd immunity when too few people refuse to get vaccinated. Is it possible that this heavy-handed approach will backfire, actually decreasing vaccine uptake, or are Americans just hyper-skeptical of their government?

Follow the latest news and policy debates on agricultural biotech and biomedicine? Subscribe to our newsletter.

SIGN UP

* Biodegradable plastic from plants: How GE camelina could advance industrial sustainability

Plastic pollution caused by single-use items like...

Anti-GMO groups have long warned about the dangers of AquaBounty's genetically engineered salmon. But as it turns out, transgenic fish probably evolved naturally long ago, according to a new study. Should scientists cease their efforts to find a biological basis for gender? A CRISPR-based therapy for sickle cell anemia is going into clinical trials, moving the potentially life-saving treatment closer to commercialization.

Join geneticist Kevin Folta and GLP editor Cameron English on this episode of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down these latest news stories:

* Skeptical of AquaBounty’s salmon? Nature makes GM fish, too

With the commercialization of AquaBounty's fast-growing salmon imminent, some anti-GMO groups have doubled down on their warnings that the 'unnatural' fish poses a risk to the environment. But as it turns out, transgenic fish may have evolved naturally. A March 2021 study published in Trends in Genetics argues that rainbow smelt stole the antifreeze gene that helps them survive icy coastal waters from herring roughly 20 million years ago. The research adds to a growing body of evidence that mother nature made 'GMOs' before any scientists ever thought it possible.

* Viewpoint: Why the effort to find a ‘biological basis’ for being transgender is misguided and unhelpful

How should we think about gender? As our knowledge of human biology grows and the political debate over transgender rights evolves, the question has proved difficult to answer. According to a 2015 literature review, "there is increasing evidence of a biological basis for gender identity," and preliminary research has pinpointed gene variants "implicated in the growth of brain cells or the production of sex hormones such as oestrogen and testosterone" that could influence gender identity.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on agricultural biotech and biomedicine? Subscribe to our newsletter.

SIGN UP

While research of this sort could "change physicians' perspective on transgender medicine and improve health care for these patients," other commentators argue that this whole project is a dangerous example of biological essentialism that may undermine ac...

All the approved COVID-19 vaccines were developed with the help of genetic engineering. If we rely this technology to end a pandemic, we should accept that it can be safely used in food production. New York state is investigating the supposed risks associated with 5G technology, but there's no evidence of harm to investigate. Current regulations prohibit scientists from studying human embryos in the lab after 14 days. Researchers want that two-week rule abolished. What are the implications of such a change?

Join geneticist Kevin Folta and GLP editor Cameron English on this episode of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down these latest news stories:

* Viewpoint: COVID-19 vaccine succss should prompt us to rethink our fear of GMO ‘Frankenfoods’

We can say a few things with confidence about the approved COVID-19 vaccines. They're safe and effective in most circumstances, and they were all developed with genetic engineering. But these observations raise an important question. If roughly 70 percent of us are willing to inject ourselves with biotech-based vaccines, how can we possibly be scared of food enhanced with the same technology?

* Viewpoint: Will 5G harm you? Activist groups succeed in stirring conspiracy health risk phobias, as New York State legislature prepares to debate ‘growing evidence’ of harm

A growing body of evidence indicates that 5G technology doesn't pose a risk to public health. In fact, too much sunlight likely poses a greater cancer threat than radiation associated with the new wireless technology. Yet post-COVID, concerns about 5G have proliferated, even catching the attention of legislators who have promised to "investigate" the situation. The ultimate problem seems to be that humans just aren't very good at evaluating the risks we face every day. This deficiency leads us to fear relatively safe technologies while exposing ourselves to potentially much greater harms.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on agricultural biotech and biomedicine? Subscribe to our newsletter.

SIGN UP

"[W]hat needs to be realized," says cancer epidemiologist Geoffrey Kabat, "is that there are degrees of risk, and the goal is to ensure that any risk is below the level of what we normally accept in everyday life. We accept some degree of risk every time we get in a car, drink a glass of wine, or take a painkiller or prescription drug."

*