Science Facts & Fallacies

Did you hear about the genetically engineered microbe that almost wiped out all life? It got widespread attention in the late 1990s—though it never actually existed. A major US seafood wholesaler has announced it will carry AquaBounty's fast-growing AquAdvantage salmon, signaling that anti-GMO groups may have finally lost of the fight over biotech fish. Recent news reports suggest that pregnant women are exposed to all sorts of harmful chemicals. How much risk do these expecting mothers and their babies face?

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:

* Did you hear the story about the GMO that almost destroyed the world?

In the early 1990s, researchers tried to engineer bacteria that could turn plant waste into ethanol, the idea being to ferment useless material into useful chemicals that could be used, say, as biofuels. The anti-GMO movement reacted to this effort with unmitigated horror and for many years after used the GM microbes as an example of technology that "could have literally killed every terrestrial plant on the planet." While the original research was real, the scandal that followed was entirely fabricated, based on a non-existent study which the author later acknowledged in a public apology.

In retrospect, the situation offers some important lessons about the GMO debate.

* GM fish coming soon: Major US seafood wholesaler will carry AquaBounty’s AquAdvantage salmon

Anti-GMO groups lobbied major grocery chains and food distributors for decades in a bid to prevent the sale of AquaBounty's genetically engineered salmon. The fish, modified to grow year-round, consumes far fewer resources, enabling important sustainability benefits and lowering prices for consumers. Now that the fish is poised to hit the market, will it go on to win widespread public acceptance?

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

SIGN UP

*

For the sake of women's rights and the environment, increasing numbers of men are getting vasectomies. How could this impact our society in the coming years? Glyphosate almost certainly doesn't cause cancer, but siding with science can be difficult when you're talking about cancer patients who claim exposure to the weedkiller forced them into a fight for survival. Will President Biden, who has already taken a tougher stance on agricultural technology than his predecessor, actually ban pesticides experts say are safe?

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:

* Vasectomies are becoming a political statement

Men are getting vasectomies like never before. The trend is primarily driven by couples who just don't want children, though in recent years more ideological considerations have come into play. As concern for environmental sustainability grows, more people are choosing to opt out of parenthood for the good of the planet; concern for gender equality is another recent factor pushing couples of utilize vasectomy as a form of birth control.

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

SIGN UP

The recent uptick in vasectomies is part of a larger decline in fertility rates that began in the middle of the 20th century, and shows no signs of slowing down. Some experts are predicting a "jaw-dropping" scenario by 2100, in which the population of people over the age of 80 will more than double that of children under five. What are the implications of such an outcome?

* Glyphosate on trial: In an ‘unequal contest’ between science and emotion, can evidence overcome pesticide-cancer fears?

As every expert knows, talking about pesticide safety in the public square—where the discourse is often swayed by ideology and emotion—is a trying task. The problem is magnified when lawyers and activists, using sick people as pawns, are all too eager to mislead the public in order to win massive judgments and advance their agendas. In such an unequal contest between science and emotion,

The world has experienced a shockingly mild 2020-2021 flu season, defying the expectations of many infectious disease researchers. How is that possible? Scientists have successfully cloned the first endangered species. Will the technology help us preserve more endangered animals, and maybe even bring back extinct species? Colleges are dedicated to the pursuit of truth and free inquiry, but do those principles extend to campus events that promote dubious science?

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:

* The US is experiencing the mildest flu season in memory. Here’s why

As of this writing, the CDC has reported just 1,561 positive tests for flu this season. By contrast, there were 183,000 positive tests at the same time last year and 39 million - 50 million cases total last season, the agency reported, raising the obvious question: how could a virus that normally takes a severe toll on public health have such an underwhelming impact this time around, especially amid the coronavirus pandemic?

Researchers have proposed several possible explanations, but acknowledge that they were expecting a "twindemic," not the mildest flu season anyone can remember. “Nobody has seen a flu season this low, ever," Vanderbilt University infectious disease expert William Schaffner told WebMD in late February, "and some of us have some gray hair.” So, what's going on? Have social distancing measures and lockdowns blunted the flu's usually deadly effects, or is there some other variable in play?

* Meet black footed ferret Elizabeth Ann, the first cloned endangered species in North America

Scientists have cloned an endangered species for the first time in history, a black footed ferret named Elizabeth Ann. Cloning technology remains controversial, in part because it's still very expensive and has a low success rate, somewhere around 10 percent depending on the animal. That said, Elizabeth Ann provides more evidence that cloning can be done safely (she is alive and well so far), and experts hope that her experience will serve as a model for restoring other endangered, and perhaps extinct, animals.

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

Some fundamentalist Christians allege that COVID vaccines are "the mark of the beast" described in the Biblical book of Revelation. Is this a conspiracy theory worthy of censorship, or religious free speech deserving protection? The gene gun introduced genetically engineered plants into agriculture, fundamentally reshaping food production. How was it invented? Growing plants in space may help scientists breed new crop varieties better suited to survive climate change on earth.

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:

* COVID shots and the mark of the beast? Battling religious vaccine misinformation

The last book of the Bible, Revelation, contains the following cryptic passage:

[The beast] forced all people .... to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name.

Revelation 13:15-17

Most historians maintain that the "beast" is probably a reference to the Roman Emperor Nero (who died in 68 AD). His "mark" was a symbolic sign of loyalty first-century Romans displayed by worshiping the emperor, a longstanding practice in the empire. Christians at the time often refused to participate and were sometimes persecuted as a result.

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

SIGN UP

Post COVID, some evangelical Christians have stripped this Biblical passage of its historical context, arguing on social media that Revelation 13 describes modern events that are leading to the end of the world. The mark of the beast, they claim, is the coronavirus vaccine; receiving it is evidence of loyalty to the devil. Facebook and other tech giants have started censoring this fringe content. But several experts told the Washington Post that social media companies are having a tough time drawing the line between dubious medical claims and religious speech. What, if anything, should be done to stem the spread of these apocalyptic claims?

*

Historically a vocal opponent of genetically engineered crops, the Sierra Club has endorsed the release of a disease-resistant, genetically modified chestnut tree into America's forests. US consumers could be eating GM salmon as soon as April 2021. Farmers have been growing biotech crops for over two decades. The technology has provided many benefits, but they have not come without costs.

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:

* AquaBounty fights anti-biotechnology misinformation as it gears up for April launch of fast-growing, sustainable AquAdvantage salmon

After decades of delays caused by skittish regulators, advocacy groups and politicians, biotech firm AquaBounty is poised to finally commercialize its genetically engineered AquAdvantage salmon in the US. The salmon grows quicker than its wild relatives, consuming fewer resources and therefore cutting the environmental impact of the global fishing industry. Are there any remaining obstacles that could further delay the salmon's release?

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

SIGN UP

* 25 years of GM crops: Biotechnology a blessing to many farmers, but not without costs

Insect- and herbicide-tolerant GM crops fundamentally reshaped the agricultural landscape in the 1990s. They helped many farmers cut their pesticide use, reduce production costs and greenhouse gas emissions. But these benefits came at a price, namely insects and weeds that began rapidly developing resistance to the chemicals designed to kill them. As the pests evolved, so did the crops and weedkillers engineered to control them. The battle is ongoing, with farmers and scientists plotting their next steps in this arms race.

* GMO-skeptical Sierra Club gives cautious endorsement to disease-resistant, biotech chestnut tree 

"[I]t has become possible to directly edit genes and regulatory elements at the molecular level .... which present new risks. Indeed, the annual worldwide threat assessment report of t...

Anti-GMO advocates have for years warned about the dangers of genetically modified, sterile "terminator" seeds. But there's a problem: these seeds never existed. Why are women disproportionately attracted to 'alternative' cancer therapies that have little impact on the disease? Speaking of cancer, could beer made with CRISPR-edited hops one day offer a novel treatment?

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: ‘Terminator seeds’—the anti-GMO bogeyman that never existed

As recently as 2019, anti-GMO groups were warning Africa's farmers that so-called "terminator" seeds would make them dependent on giant agricultural companies like Bayer. That allegation has circulated online for roughly two decades, but it's never been true. No biotech company ever commercialized terminator seeds, more accurately known as genetic use restriction technology (GURT). It's true that researchers at the USDA and a smaller company called Delta Land and Pine patented the technology, but it was shelved amid all the controversy, and the patent expired in 2015 with no fanfare.

* Viewpoint: Female, younger, better-educated and affluent – How ‘alternative medicine’ has taken America by storm and endangered lives

It's well known that alternative cancer treatments offer little benefit to patients who receive them, yet the internet teems with anecdotes from highly educated, successful women promoting "energy healing" and coffee enemas instead of conventional therapies like radiation. Why is there such enthusiastic support for treatments that have been shown repeatedly to be mostly ineffective?

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

SIGN UP

The answer is no doubt complicated, but one explanation appears to run through many of these stories. Women who feel powerless in their fight against cancer embrace experimental or even dangerous alternatives in hopes of regaining some control over their lives. Research shows the problem may be compounded by postmodernism and other popular ideologies that promote radical skepticism and prize personal experience over scientific evidence.

*

Farms are larger today than ever before, but it's not because they're "greedy factory farms." Milk of the future might not come from cows but yeast fermented in laboratories. An experimental, personalized vaccine for melanoma helped treat eight people suffering from the disease. How long until we start to see cancer vaccines hit the market?

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: Farms today are massive—but it’s not because they’re ‘greedy factory farms’

Critics of 'Big Ag' are wont to complain about the ever-increasing size of so-called "factory farms." Is this growth evidence of greedy plutocrats swallowing up their smaller competitors? Not quite, says Canadian farmer Jake Leguee, who points to a less sinister explanation that springs from basic economics.

Following the industrial revolution, the number of farmers dwindled as people moved into cities from the countryside in pursuit of better living standards. Those who remained on the farms, also hoping to live better lives, bought up the abandoned land in order to boost their production and make more money, a trend that will likely continue as long as younger generations are tempted to leave agriculture for other career prospects in urban settings.

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

SIGN UP

This doesn't mean modern agriculture is perfect. Complaints that federal farm subsidies discourage innovation and create moral hazards, for example, have persisted for many decades. Nonetheless, the growth in farm size isn't by itself something to be opposed.

* Milk without cows: Thanks to fermentation, future dairy products might originate in a lab

Thanks to fermentation and genetic engineering, animals are no longer the only source of dairy products. The FDA has already approved the use of lab-grown whey protein, used to produce ice cream, and more products—including milk itself—are expected to hit the market...

The growing opposition to coronavirus vaccines bears striking resemblance to anti-GMO fears that have circulated online for more than 20 years. Pregnant women who catch COVID-19 are likely to pass on long-term immunity to their unborn children, but not the infection itself, a new study suggests. A team of scientists says it's time to allow genetically modified crops in organic farming.

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: Longstanding campaign to smear GM crops now fuels public’s COVID vaccine fears

What's the difference between GMO skeptics and COVID vaccine opponents? Very little, as it turns out. Both groups share a deep distrust of corporations and the regulatory process by which new scientific innovations are introduced. As a rule, keeping a watchful eye on government officials and pharma companies is perfectly reasonable. But when this healthy skepticism morphs into cynicism fueled by fear of the unknown, society runs the risk of forgoing life-saving technologies. So, how did we get here? Did the anti-GMO movement lay the groundwork for vaccine skepticism? Or do both groups happen to attract the same kind of supporters?

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

SIGN UP

* Pregnant COVID survivors appear to pass protective antibodies on to their babies

Expecting parents, breathe a sigh of relief. According to a recent study, pregnant women who catch COVID-19 may pass on long-term SARS-COV-2 immunity to their unborn children—but not the virus itself. This could also mean, the researchers suggest, that vaccine-generated immunity protects developing babies. While additional research is needed to validate the results, the study offers more encouraging news as we struggle to bring the pandemic to its end.

* Viewpoint: Organic farmers should be allowed to grow GM crops

"Organic farming is agriculture that makes healthy food, healthy soils, healthy plants, and healthy environments a priority ...." writes the Orga...

After more than 30 years of development and regulatory review, AquaBounty's fast-growing, GM salmon is poised to hit US grocery stores in 2021. It's an important step forward for sustainable food production, but the occasion also raises some frustrating questions. Why did it take the US, typically viewed as a global biotechnology leader, three decades to approve its first genetically engineered food animal? More importantly, why does the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) so stringently regulate genetically engineered animals while going out of its way to defend the safety and efficacy of GE crops?

"Years of research in the US and around the world show that GMO foods are just as safe to eat as non-GMO foods," the agency said of biotech crops in a recent video. Scientists have for years made the same case in defense of GE animals, arguing that they don't pose a unique risk just because they've been genetically engineered. But the FDA remains unimpressed and regulates animal biotech under the same rules that apply to veterinary drugs, making it prohibitively expensive and time consuming for researchers to breed genetically engineered animals for use as food.

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

SIGN UP

The opportunity cost of this regulatory double standard is enormous. Not only has it forced some scientists to move their research out of the country, it has prevented farmers from using technologies that can improve animal welfare, cut antibiotic use, reduce pollution and ultimately offer consumers less expensive animal products. University of California, Davis animal geneticist Alison Van Eenennaam offered a particularly striking example in a recent five-part series for the GLP:

A GE cow designed to be resistant to Staphylococcus aureus mastitis was reported by public sector researchers with the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) in 2005. Mastitis is a disease of the mammary gland and is estimated to cost the global dairy industry $19.

As a rule, scientific research is relegated to obscure technical journals and goes unnoticed by most people. Every few months, though, an incendiary (and often flawed) study attracts widespread media coverage; the tidal wave of retweets soon follows and the general public can't help but pay attention. The study's critical flaws are sometimes revealed after the fanfare has died down—but it's too late. Consumers, advocacy groups and policy makers are almost never as interested in the refutation of a bad study as they are the bad study itself.

An example of this phenomenon unfolded in textbook fashion two years ago following the publication of a meta-analysis alleging that the weedkiller glyphosate, originally developed by Monsanto (now owned by Bayer) in the 1970s and often paired with GM crops, increases cancer risk. “Common weed killer glyphosate increases cancer risk by 41%, study says,” CNN told its audience in February 2019. "Weedkiller 'raises risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma by 41%,'" the Guardian echoed. Not to be outdone, RT told readers that "Monsanto’s Roundup raises cancer risk 41%, EPA-linked scientists find."

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

SIGN UP

Despite the mountain of research showing that glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer, this paper helped legitimize the assertion that the herbicide was deadly, usually made by tort lawyers—who spent just shy of $100 million in 2019 alone recruiting plaintiffs to sue Bayer. A few experts, notably epidemiologists Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz and Geoffrey Kabat, challenged the meta-analysis, arguing that its results weren't as explosive as the media asserted, assuming they were valid. But the results may not have been valid, as Kabat and two co-authors went on to discuss in a just-published critique of the paper.

So what exactly was wrong with the meta-analysis? More importantly, how is the public's understanding of science affected when questionable research garners widespread media attention? The question is now more important than ever with contradictory studies hitting headlines almost every d...